The considerations presented on this page have been compiled in good faith to provide a broader understanding of the concept of the Public Tribunal, but we still recommend that all statements and explanations be independently verified before further use.

The Public Tribunal Concept

The Administrative State and The Limits of Justice

Classical liberal theory understood the task of government as minimal, allowing people to be free to pursue their happiness and wealth. James Madison held that the legitimate function of a just government was “to protect property of every sort; as well that which lies in the various rights of individuals, as that which the term particularly expresses. This being the end of government, that alone is a just government, which impartially secures to every man, whatever is his own.”[1] The economy F.A. Hayek labeled the American system, based on classical liberalism, as “the constitution of liberty”.[2]

Since the 1960s, the size and scope of the American administrative and welfare state have steadily increased. Indeed, this trend can be observed in democracies worldwide.[3] Economist James A. Dorn, in his book The Scope of Government in a Free Society, warns that the state's growth erodes individual responsibility and property rights, as resources are transferred to non-producers. Power is further concentrated in the hands of government officials and bureaucrats, reducing personal freedom and fostering dependence. Dorn warns that the unchecked expansion of government is a direct assault on economic liberty, threatening both individual autonomy and societal wealth.[4]

Despite these threats to economic freedom, individuals often face challenges when seeking justice against the state in economic disputes within traditional legal systems. Israeli academic Daphne Barak Erez (and eventual Supreme Court justice), describes how courts, particularly in liberal democracies, often defer to state’s economic policies and administrative actions, undermining individual claims for justice in areas like taxation, welfare, or regulatory enforcement.

In many legal traditions, courts adhere to the doctrine of deference, according to which judges presume that the state acts in the public interest. As such, courts avoid scrutinizing austerity measures or resource allocation, viewing these policy choices beyond judicial competence. There is also an inherent power imbalance between the state and individuals, making it difficult for individuals to mount practical challenges. Barak-Erez contends that this judicial posture reflects a structural bias: traditional legal institutions are designed to maintain stability and state authority, not to rectify economic injustices against individuals.[5]

The US Legal System and Economic Justice

The US legal system robustly protects individual economic rights through constitutional safeguards, judicial precedents, and a culture valuing liberty. This distinguishes it from many liberal democracies where courts defer to state economic policies, as noted by Daphne Barak-Erez. This framework positions the U.S. as a critical venue for justice in cases like the NoMoreSilence (NMS) project’s focus on systemic injustices, such as illegal fund confiscation.

The U.S. Constitution anchors economic rights in the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause, which ensures private property isn’t seized without just compensation, and the Due Process Clause, which guarantees fair procedures. The Fourteenth Amendment extends these protections against state actions. These provisions echo James Madison’s view in The Federalist Papers that a just government secures “property of every sort,” including wealth and economic autonomy.[6] Unlike deferential EU courts, US courts actively scrutinize government overreach, safeguarding economic freedoms.

Judicial precedents reinforce this commitment. Lochner v. New York (1905) invalidated a law limiting bakers’ hours, upholding the right to contract as a core economic liberty.[7] Modern cases like Kelo v. City of New London (2005) sparked reforms curbing eminent domain abuses[8], while Citizens United v. FEC (2010) protected corporate economic expression.[9] These rulings show courts checking state power, offering recourse for economic grievances.

A vibrant civil society and free press amplify these protections. US media and advocacy groups pressure courts and policymakers, as seen in challenges to IRS asset forfeitures. This public sphere supports individuals confronting economic injustices, aligning with the NMS project’s tribunal vision. The adversarial legal system further empowers individuals through class-action lawsuits and contingency fees, while federalist checks and balances prevent any branch from dominating economic policy.

Despite these strengths, the formal legal system has systemic limitations, often requiring individuals to seek informal, grassroots methods of justice. The US’s commitment to individual and property rights, expressed in its legal system and society, makes it the ideal base for the NMS Public Opinion Tribunal, a unique instrument tailored to address the specific injustices of this case.

Public Opinion Tribunal

Jeremy Bentham, the 18^th-century English philosopher and social reformer, was an early advocate of the  Public Opinion Tribunal (POT) as a powerful social institution meant to hold rulers accountable in a representative democracy. For Bentham, the POT was not a formal body but an imagined public collective continuously judging government actions. According to Bentham, the POT is an “official judicatory”; its weight stems from moral rather than legal authority.  Its role is to prevent “misrule” by countering “the sinister interest” of self-interested rulers.  Bentham saw it as the “only check” on pernicious government power and an “indispensable supplement” to beneficial governance.[10] Bentham believed that free speech and a free press enable the public to scrutinize rulers, forming a collective judgment that pressures officials to align with the "greatest happiness of the greatest number," his utilitarian principle. He contrasts this tribunal with official legal bodies, noting its independence from state control and its reliance on moral persuasion rather than coercion.

Bentham included the POT in his Constitutional Code, where it was a key figure of his proposed democratic system. The POT served four functions: gathering information and evidence about government actions, rendering judgements of approval or disapproval, punishing or rewarding officials through reputation and electoral consequences and by proposing improvements. Press editors play a judicial role, managing public debates like trials by presenting evidence and opinions.[11]

The NMS Public Opinion Tribunal: A Targeted Instrument

The NMS Public Opinion Tribunal is not a standing institution, a replicable model, or a theoretical template. It is a one-time, targeted instrument explicitly designed to address the systemic injustices faced by the NoMoreSilence project, particularly illegal fund confiscation. Its legitimacy and necessity arise from the factual and moral collapse of institutional remedies in this case, where traditional legal systems have failed to provide justice due to deference to state authority and structural biases. The Tribunal’s design and scope are inseparable from the NMS narrative arc, aiming to empower affected individuals by amplifying their grievances and seeking public-driven accountability. Directed primarily to the U.S. public—as consumers, donors, voters, and jurors—the Tribunal relies on their moral stance, which carries direct material and reputational consequences for those responsible for the injustices.

The POT and AI

Jeremy Bentham’s Public Opinion Tribunal (POT), envisioned as a combined effort to hold rulers accountable through public scrutiny, can be significantly enhanced by integrating AI. Social media’s real-time engagement capabilities and AI’s analytical power empower the POT as a dynamic, transparent mechanism for addressing systemic injustices, such as illegal fund confiscation.
Clay Shirky argues that social media amplifies public participation by enabling rapid, collective action, akin to Bentham’s vision of the POT as a public judicatory.[12] Platforms like X allow citizens to share evidence, debate government actions, and form judgments in real time, fulfilling Bentham’s reliance on free speech and press to counter “sinister interests.” Zeynep Tufekci further emphasizes social media’s role in mobilizing citizens and shaping discourse, noting its capacity to organize networked protests.[13]  A digital POT could allow these platforms to host tribunals where users post grievances, comment on policies, or vote on issues. This creates a participatory, comprehensive judgment process that mirrors Bentham’s moral authority but operates at unprecedented scale and speed.
AI enhances the POT’s evidence-gathering and judgment-rendering functions, as Andrew D. Selbst and Solon Barocas described.[14] They highlight AI’s ability to analyze vast datasets, such as public comments, legal documents, or financial records, to detect patterns of systemic injustice, like recurring IRS asset forfeitures. This capability allows the POT to move beyond anecdotal complaints, providing data-driven insights into government overreach. Tal Zarsky underscores AI’s potential to increase transparency in administrative processes by generating explainable predictions.[15] In a digital POT, AI could process thousands of citizen-submitted reports or public records, accurately identifying corruption or bias, thus supporting Bentham’s goal of proposing improvements based on evidence.
Combining social media and AI makes the POT an accessible and transparent platform. Social media gathers public input, while AI analyzes it to produce actionable findings, ensuring the tribunal’s judgments are both participatory and empirically grounded. This combination empowers the POT to address global economic injustices, surpassing the limitations of deferential courts and fostering a new era of public-driven justice.

Some Practical Considerations

Cass R. Sunstein’s #Republic: Divided Democracy in the Age of Social Media provides a valuable framework for strengthening the POT concept, particularly in addressing economic injustices through public scrutiny and digital platforms, while mitigating the harms associated with unregulated social media communication.[16] Sunstein argues that social media platforms can amplify public participation by facilitating rapid, decentralized communication, mirroring Bentham’s reliance on free speech and press to counter “sinister interests”. AI can thereby be used to support the POT’s evidence-gathering functions, allowing citizens to share grievances in real time. A digital POT could host virtual tribunals where users post evidence, comment on policies, or vote on issues, fulfilling Bentham’s goal of rendering collective judgments. Sunstein’s concept of “cybercascades”—viral information spreads—further enhances the POT’s reach, enabling global participation in addressing economic injustices, surpassing the limitations of deferential courts noted by Daphne Barak-Erez. Cybercascades refer to the rapid, viral spread of information, ideas, or behaviors through online platforms, particularly social media. They occur when individuals share or endorse content, prompting others in their network to do the same, creating a self-reinforcing wave of dissemination.

At the same time, social media risks creating “echo chambers,” which reinforce preexisting biases and group polarization. Social media's anonymity and ease facilitate aggressive and uncivil behavior, while algorithms tend to provide information that confirms previously held opinions. To moderate this tendency, a digital POT could incorporate AI-driven moderation tools, such as natural language processing to summarize diverse citizen inputs or algorithms prioritizing factual information. These mechanisms would ensure the Tribunal’s judgements remain participatory yet empirically grounded.

Sunstein’s call for “serendipity”, ie. exposing users to opposing views, can further inform the POT’s design, promoting reasoned deliberation through structured debates. Sunstein’s insights also highlight practical design considerations for the POT. As proposed, a digital platform with secure digital IDs could ensure broad access while preventing fraud, echoing Sunstein’s emphasis on inclusive deliberation. Media partnerships, another document suggestion, could amplify findings, leveraging Sunstein’s view of the press as a force for democratic amplification. However, safeguards like transparent AI protocols and diverse representation are crucial to avoid polarization and maintain credibility.

Bridging Theory and Practice in the NMS Tribunal

Bentham, Sunstein, and Tufekci's theoretical resources come to life in the NMS Public Opinion Tribunal, which tests these ideas in practice. By leveraging social media’s participatory potential and AI’s analytical rigor, the Tribunal concretely addresses the NMS case’s systemic injustices, surpassing the limitations of deferential courts. Its design as a one-time, U.S.-focused instrument ensures it remains grounded in the specific narrative and moral imperatives of the NoMoreSilence project, delivering justice through public scrutiny and accountability.