In the courtroom only facts are important.

In the courtroom only facts are important.

Social media has great power, as we have seen. In cases like a confession of AREA-51, social media had a vital role in the uncovering the secret, what might be bigger than we ever imagined. This case has been shown that the power of social media has a very large role to force the rulers to tell the truth for the people, and also Brexit has shown the force of this way to share opinions and thoughts.

But the thing is that social media has brought one problem in the mind of people. If we think that so-called traditional media would give one-side information of something, we must realize that the great mass of false information has more effect than the small mass of right information, if people are believing that kind of data. The confession is the key in this kind of way to act. If shared data confess people, it's the same, what people shares.

One way to make people silent is to claim that some people have taken to court because of their opinions. In the court is one rule what people must realize. Prosecuted are innocent until they are proven guilty. And proving the prosecuted guilty must happen by using facts, not appealing feelings. This is the thing, what is normally forgotten.

And that is a really interesting thing in social media. When we want to confess to people that our way to think is the only one and right, we must have only persons, who have authority to the system. Then we can use titles, what is not true, and get those "three persons" who can prove the thing, what has been discussed true. The thing is that those things seem very confessing, but then we can see something, what we don't want to see in this hypothetical case.

First thing is that the faculty or area, where professor works is not mentioned. Second, the source, what is used is somehow unique, it has been some lecture or something, and it has happened before digital recordings or recordings of the lecture have somehow destroyed. The third is that there are great feelings about this kind of cases. That thing is seen in the cases when some war criminal has been arrested.

In those cases, the media was full of brutal details what has been done to the victims, but a couple of things have been forgotten. One is the place where those things have been done, and second is the ranks and units, where those criminals served. Those things are really important for the justice system, which must give the judgment. And even if the cases where the crime is well known, the identities of the criminals must be proven, or those prosecuted persons are free to go. Sometimes I have thought that is the handling of war crimes by using brutal details mission to deny people to see those images?

 Well, that thing is a mystery, but the feelings are an extremely good weapon to keep people silent. "I was there myself" is a good argument in media, and "I want to forget". Those things are a good way to close the mouths of the people. We must forget to think about mafia and war criminals some kind of super demons. We must start to think about them as regular criminals, who had great support for their work. When we are handling cases like homicide detectives, we ever ask them to have they ever been battered? This is a really interesting thing to think when we are thinking about investigations and research.

The next there is a small example of about misunderstandings what are connected to Indians. What is the archeologist's relationship with the Mayan culture? Of course, European sociopaths destroyed that nice and famous Indian culture, which ruled the Andes of South America. By the way, Mayan Indians lived in Central America, and their culture was crumbling in when Europeans came. The Indians, who lived in the Andes were Incas and the reason why Pizarro could destroy those people was that Incas were conquered their area, and slaved the other Indians.

That allowed Pizarro to recruit those people in his army. The same thing happened in Central America, where Aztecs slaved other Indians, and then Cortez allowed to use force against Aztecs. But the thing is that the hate was a similar tool in the hands of Conquistadors what it was in the hands of Nazi-Germany and after that Allied forces benefit the hate in their actions. The thing is that crushing other opinions would happen by simply trolling them out from social media.

The second way is to appeal to feelings. If people see something happening that thing has a greater effect than if we would read some reports. If in the court would arrive, some 90 years old woman or man, would the counselor or prosecutors dare to interrogate them with full skills and force. But there is one thing, we can't believe that those old people were young sometimes. We always want to believe that somebody who we might know as the beloved man or woman was monster.

The thing is that the law says that every prosecuted must have the best possible defense. And the thing why defense must be used is that the also prosecuted person must be heard. But the motives have been changed in that kind of cases.

Murder is still murder and serious crime. If the merchandise of the person or the initial capital for business has been earned by using criminal methods, that capital would be returned to the families of victims, and the lawyers would get good profits for those cases. So the lawyer always wins. But the law says that murder can be prosecuted rest of a person's lifetime. This is the thing in law. In the courtroom, the moral has no mean, only facts are things what means something, and the rest of things are meanless. This is the rule in court.

Freedom and things, what could happen if...

Freedom and things, what could happen if...

Freedom is the thing, which sometimes causes very interesting thoughts, and at the beginning, we must realize that there are always people who misuse freedom. Those people believe, that they have the right to do everything, what they want, and that means that we must suppress the freedoms in every nation because freedom doesn't mean that people have right to harm other people or their property. Laws are made for protecting people against brutality, and that's why people must realize, that we must follow the rules because they are meant to consider every single person in that country.

They are made for giving common rules, how people should live, and that means if somebody takes too many freedoms in the nation, that person would get the punishment, and in that case, punishment is not made to please that inmate. This is the thing in the nation and state. State and its force are established to protect its citizens against despotism. This is the reason, why we have government and it's police force. If we don't follow the speed limits, we must realize that we should get punishment, because everybody else gets the punishment. 

And that punishment is ordered by the state and justice system. The principle of the use of the law on punishments that they must be relevant to the crime. That means that the person is justified because that inmate did something, not what could happen. That means only what really happened is justifying because if we would think every possible thing, what could happen if the person drives too fast.

There is, of course possible, that the car hits to the limousine of The President Of The United States, who has opened the nuclear briefcase, what drops on the floor of the limousine. And then the coffee cup is dropping on the red button, and all missiles could fly to Russia. But this thing just didn't happen, or maybe the president hides that information from the public media. Or maybe his wife or child fell the Coca Cola  in the morning on that briefcase, what has malfunctioned, and the missiles didn't go for that reason. 

This kind of things are very good topics for the thoughts, and sometimes some person has told the story that the Russian spies can destroy entire nuclear submarine or command center simply by falling lemonade on the command consoles. But those things are not things, what are handled in the court. 

Freedom is sometimes misunderstood for the right to make what the inmate wants. And this is the dangerous way to think. Many times we are seeing people, who are telling, that they have the right to say and do what they want. But when they should listen to other people, they would not even want to hear opposing opinions. In those cases, people have the right to say everything, what supports the leader's personal opinion. In fact, when we are looking in the mirror, we might face the truth, that we are sometimes quelling other people freedom to say their opinions in many places.

We are not willing to even ask children or incompetent person, what that inmate wants to do because we don't have to follow that opinion. But the law says, that even those people have the right to speak in the meetings and other places. So why we are always so hurried, that we don't have time to hear the opinions of those people? If we are above those people and make decisions, we might still ask, what those people like to do, and maybe after that make the decision, what might be similar, or different what those people want. 

Freedom of speech is freedom of think, and that is the thing, what we always repeating. We have religion and other types of freedoms, but when we are thinking what that freedom means very careful, we must remember, that people who say, that they have the right to believe things and that's it. But when some other person has some other kinds of opinions, they would order to keep their mouth shut. The situation is similar to the Soviet Union. People had the right to be atheistic, but if they had another kind of opinions, they were arrested.