longer.blue

We need to stop TikTok thinking from controlling both our courtrooms and our elections. By “TikTok thinking,” I don’t mean everyone who uses TikTok. I mean a way of processing serious issues: Watch a short clip. Feel an immediate emotion. Choose the hero and the villain. Join the pile-on. Treat confidence as evidence. Then refuse to reconsider when new information appears. That mentality is irresponsible online. In a courtroom or voting booth, it can become dangerous. But voting and jury service are legally different, and the solutions must reflect that. You cannot require citizens to pass an IQ, educational, constitutional-knowledge, or morality test before voting. The Voting Rights Act prohibits voting requirements based on educational achievement, knowledge of a subject, or “good moral character.” There is a reason for that. During Jim Crow, supposedly neutral literacy tests and qualification standards were administered selectively. Officials used them to prevent Black Americans from voting while allowing white Americans to pass. Giving the government the authority to decide who is intelligent, knowledgeable, or moral enough to vote creates an enormous opportunity for discrimination and political abuse. The answer is not to restrict voting. The answer is to build a better-informed electorate through serious civic education, media literacy, accessible nonpartisan voter information, transparent debates, and a culture that rewards people for examining evidence instead of blindly following viral narratives. Juries are different. Jurors are selected to perform a specific legal duty in a specific case. Courts may screen them for bias, prejudgment, inability to understand instructions, exposure to outside information, and unwillingness to evaluate only the evidence presented in court. We need more serious case-specific jury screening. Potential jurors should disclose what coverage they have watched, whether they follow creators discussing the case, whether they have posted about it, and whether they have already reached a conclusion. Judges should explain reasonable doubt, admissible evidence, and the presumption of innocence—and then confirm that jurors actually understand those concepts. Jurors should receive clear written instructions, timelines, notebooks, and organized evidence. They should receive repeated warnings against researching the case, consuming online commentary, or discussing the trial on social media. Anyone who knowingly violates those rules should be removed. We cannot exclude voters or jurors because of their age, education, social class, or preferred platform. But we can build institutions that resist manipulation, emotional pile-ons, misinformation, and algorithmic thinking. For juries, that means education plus rigorous, case-specific screening for competence and impartiality. Do not ban TikTok users from participating in democracy. Build a democracy strong enough to resist TikTok thinking. Nobody should lose an election—or lose their freedom—because one emotionally satisfying narrative became more viral than the truth.