Fix The 1st - Part 4 - The Real Conclusion

BUT WE'RE SCREWED

In imaginary America, where the good of the people is paramount, we would do what one does when there is a bug messing things up.  We'd fix it.  But fixing this little bug changes everything.  I mean everything.  Literally, so we can't do it, they wont let us.  Yes our government would not let us fix the bug because it's too big.  Check this out, Imaginary America:

I mean every tv commercial ever made would be a crime, every campaign ever, would be criminals.  It's preposterous.  There are 535 people in that capitol building, who basically got their criminally, I mean of course it is, they lie to us, because we had a bug in the software and if we were to pretend we did the fix, which we wont, here is what could happen maybe, in pretend America:

Commercials no longer have "puffery", they tell us only true things.  Ok, shit, we have to talk about words.

Words have a definition, you can find them in a dictionary.  They differ book to book slightly, but we get by.  However, aside from definition, words have meaning.  Meaning does not come from a book.  It comes from context.   No words have meaning without context.  The definition of a words(s) have nothing to do with their meaning.

Le's define "Hello" as a pleasant greeting.  Man walks into pizza parlor and smiles and says "hello" to the guy behind the counter.  A pleasant greeting, well, not really, he has a smile, but also a ball bat, someone owes some money.  The meaning of hello is "pay me or I'll break your legs".  The opposite of a pleasant greeting.

Ever seen a show where they teaching an autistic kid what facial expressions mean?  Like when the face has a smile they are probably "Happy".  Imagine if you could not tell facial expressions, context.

There you are 11 and autistic and in the living room painting a painting.  Mom walks in and says "Did you do that?"  smiling ear to ear.  so what?  Smile means nothing.  Is she pissed at the paint all over the couch "Did you do that!" or does she love your masterpiece "Did you do that <3", on the fridge it goes forever.

Man, what if she loves her new pen?  I mean she loves you too, that's gotta be weird, thinking the love she has for you and for her new pen are the same.

Same exact words, an entire sentence, and no way to know what it means without context.  again, no word or words have any meaning without context.  Often people use the definition of the words as a shield to make them convey the opposite meaning.  That is provably false.  We protect that for some reason.  It is called lying, when they do that on purpose.

Example, back in Bush time, there was a headline before we went to war. "Saddam husein has 60,000 aluminum tubes.  Aluminun tubes are used to make fissionable material".

Yep the most likely meaning is, Saddam has aluminum tubes he is he gonna use them to make nukes.

But, by definition "You honor I never said "those" tubes made the stuff", turns out they knew those tubes were for something else like building schools or whatever.  If we protected the provably true before the provably false, this would have been a crime and not have happened and we would not have gone to war, and we could be debt free to boot.  Holy shit.  We protected the false, before the true.  Now, granted the Administrations overt actions were in fact crimes, some of the worst in history.   Because we allow and protect false speech instead of true speech.

Meaning or definition, both of course.  

Ok back on track from before, what would it look like if we applied the 1st Amendment protecting true speech before false speech.

Commercials no longer have "puffury", they tell us only true things.   Like the price is the price.  No one is #1, only things that are the best are presented as the best.  Things like the use of colors by fast food restaurants.  They use red and yellow because their scientists told them, those colors will make people a bit hungrier.  Now they are talking about groups of people, not individuals.  If they point other colors at a hundred thousand people, they will sell like 100,000 burgers.  

But the scientists say, if you use red and yellow as logo colors and point those colors at 100,000 people, you'll sell more, whatever 120,000 burgers.  They know the number, with certainty, they are not guessing.  It doesn't matter which individuals buy the extra burgers, the group is important.  So, instead of buying and eating 100,000 burgers we bought an extra 20,000 more, and ate them.  We bought more than we wanted to, as a group.  That could not happen, if we apply the 1st amendment in order.  They must tell the truth and let every individual make their own choice.  They made them broker and unhealthier.  For money.

Think about this, they knew they were designing a system, to make people buy and use more than they want.  On the street we call that a swindle, it's stealing.  All because the first amendment protects the false before the true.  And now we cant fix it.  Well, maybe McDonald's wants our government to have "we the people" be a little healthier and have a little more money in our pockets?


In imaginary America, there are no white supremacy groups, they are not trying to gain power (and take away our rights by the way).  Now, they can say things like "I don't like that black people are not inferior to white people", this protects the truth, and provably false speech, you can still talk about it, just not as truth, just exactly the same this as the potion/cancer cure laws.  Exactly the same.  Not different.  In any way.  Same thing.  See how simple this is?

Yeah, there is no way we could fix this.  Humans are involved.  Wow.

Climate change: It's America, believe whatever you want like "I hate that climate change is real"  or "We should prove our side because we are right", um already done.  

Anyone still reading this stupid paper, and thinking "No this is America, you can't do that", yup, I get that. And nope that is not relevant.   Yet here we are.  we have to decide weather to protect true speech before false or keep it this way.  It wont matter either way, this is what we got.  But, just for fun, pretending.  It can't hurt to understand how dope the correct way would be.  To see what we are missing.  So, for the rest I will suppose, so it's fiction.  It's a movie script, just watch.

If we correctly apply the order of the first Amendment

Pros

The NRA no longer has control of our gun system 
Goldman Sachs does not control our economy
Exxon-Mobile could not control energy
We could not be at war now
We could not have been in Vietnam
The 2020 "Imminent Threat" thing doesn't happen
Hardly anyone smokes
Less drug use
Healthier people
wealthier people
(bro this is fucked up)
No manipulative advertising (we keep more of our money and feel better)
we have more money
we have more time
Cars cost less
We are probably green by now
The stuff works better
No hate speech
It doesn't end....... 
Less broken contracts
Less law suits
Less crime
No corruption 
better education
progress is made

Wait, all these lawsuits, like an enormous percent can be traced back to some lie.  Like maybe we need like hardly any courts, wow.  Would be a good movie.

On and on, if we only could somehow learn that lying is not a right?  That is tricky.  This is literally why, lol.  No, we should have protected the truth and not even worried about the false.  lol

We'd actually be nicer to each other (hate speech is a crime, well, because, it's a fucking crime. wtf, how was that ever complicated?)   It is provably false, whatever.  This is America and all the people on earth are created equal.  

Ok, look this list would in fact span almost all aspects of everything.  Remember at the beginning I said this tiny bug, barley more than a typo, in the code, was huge.  It messed up everything.  Cost trillions of dollars, millions of lives, created health and emotional issues, divorce, drug use, suicide, violence, death, hunger, hopelessness on and on.  all by applying the 1st Amendment out of order, and now we seem stuck.

What are the cons of protecting true speech before false speech?

Cons

Um, well, we'd have to listen to belief people yell "You can't do that!  This is America! We have a First Amendment!"

I think that's it, it would be a little annoying until their amygdalas shrink, which if we actually did this would probably take not too many generations.  Artificial Selection at work for good for once, lol.  Kind of a shame, they seem to be holding us back.  Let's split at the Mississippi, they can do what they want, we can do what we want.