Policy Positions

Explanation:  Sex and sexual content is generally recognized to be harmful for children below a certain age.  This status changes as a child develops, eventually into adulthood.  Parental guidance is required to decide when a child is ready to be introduced to sexual content, and to determine what content is appropriate.  Information providers therefore cannot make this determination, as it is subjective and must be tied to the individual child through their parental guardian.  Therefore, controls must be provided to allow for parental guidance, and these controls must be defaulted to be engaged in a manner consistent with the assumption that no parental guidance exists unless or until asserted.

Explanation:  Educational instruction and materials can (and will) be framed for the purposes of advocacy.  Any such advocacy can be said to be intended to work against discrimination while still engaging in alternative forms of discrimination.  To eliminate discrimination, the battleground which exists within public education must be eliminated.  Public education must be neutral with respect to categories of discrimination for which legal protections exist by not participating in the discussion.  None of this prohibits these discussions in private settings, including private schools, as the choice to opt in and to provide funding springs from the free will of the participants.

Explanation:  Although various laws exist which prohibit public nudity or indecency, these laws are not always enforced.  This lack of enforcement can be political in nature, as well as out of fear of liability on the part of law enforcement.  This is taken to be why a person can sometimes walk nude down a public street during a pride parade and not be arrested.  This is also taken to be why a drag show may take place in a public park, as opposed to a private venue, where individuals may engage in performances of a sexual nature and may not be stopped by law enforcement.

Explanation:  Sections in a library are often organized by the topic of the materials they contain.  Topics may include math, science, history, fiction, etc.  This kind of naming does not say that a section is for mathematicians, for scientists, for historians, for fiction lovers, etc.  When you say that something is “for” something, it becomes a form of advocacy where what is contained within could contain anything which is intended for a target audience.  When you say that something is “For Children'', you are not simply saying that it is simple to read, or contains larger words, or lots of pictures.  Rather, you are saying that you are targeting an audience which is children.  When you do this, you are doing something which is similar to a digital algorithm, through which you can promote what a specific audience sees.  Doing this with something that is publicly owned, funded, controlled or coordinated, creates moral hazard.  Doing this directed towards children is especially hazardous.

Explanation:  The outcome of a jury trial can be manipulated through who is allowed to be a juror.  When jury selection is taking place, there is an attempt to filter out jurors who cannot be unbiased in the case.  For example, this filtration could be used justly to exclude potential jurors who are tied to the case in some way.  However, this same filtration process can also be used unjustly to discriminate against individuals who have firmly established moral convictions.  Individuals who have firmly established moral convictions cannot receive a fair trial if jurors who are of the same cohort are specifically excluded.

Example 1:

Question:

"Do you have any strong beliefs or opinions about [issue relevant to the case- example: “drag shows”] that might make it difficult for you to remain unbiased and objective during the trial?"

Problem:

Many trials are cases which involve moral issues, such as public drag show performances.  This question would attempt to exclude anyone from the jury who has a strong belief or opinion about this topic.  This includes individuals on both sides of the issue.  A question phased this way should be expected to intentionally bias the resulting jury towards morally flexible individuals, or individuals who have less experience with the topic.  It should also be expected to discriminate against cohorts who have firmly held beliefs on both sides of the issue.  It should also be expected to favor the side of the case representing the minority position, because without this filter the views of the community would be represented proportionally, and with it represented with an imposed artificial balance.  This discriminates against all community majority viewpoints in favor of community minority viewpoints.  And it should be expected to be less likely to result in a hung jury, when arguably the jury should be hung.

Example 2:

Question:

"Can you think of any reason, personal or otherwise, why you might have difficulty rendering a fair and impartial verdict based solely on the evidence presented and the law as instructed by the court?"

Problem:

How a prospective juror interprets the word impartial is subjective.  Suppose the trial is about public nudity at a pride parade.  Some prospective jurors should be expected to already have strong opinions on both sides of this issue.  They may have community positions on either side of the issue.  A question phased this way should be expected to intentionally bias the resulting jury towards morally flexible individuals, or individuals who have less experience with the topic.  It should also be expected to discriminate against cohorts who have firmly held beliefs on both sides of the issue.  It should also be expected to favor the side of the case representing the minority position, because without this filter the views of the community would be represented proportionally, and with it represented with an imposed artificial balance.  This discriminates against all community majority viewpoints in favor of community minority viewpoints.  And it should be expected to be less likely to result in a hung jury, when arguably the jury should be hung.

Explanation:  It is easy to recognize discrimination in law enforcement when categories of individuals are treated unlawfully.  It is more difficult to recognize discrimination in law enforcement, and yet similarly occurs, when categories of individuals are required to follow laws that others are not.  For example, if a heterosexual man were to flash a woman in the park they may be arrested, and yet a pride parade marcher may march naked down a public street and not be arrested.  Had no law against public nudity existed, we would have said that the heterosexual male flasher was discriminated against because it is not against the law and the pride parade marcher was allowed to do the equivalent.  When it is reversed, and a law which prohibits public nudity does exist, allowing someone to march nude in a public parade discriminates against all other groups.  Every individual should receive equal treatment under the law.