NY Post article: Gag the Internet!

[nmap]

The article discusses an official who believes that substantial reduction of free speech is approriate. I regard it as disturbing in its potential to prevent free speech.

LINK



Excerpt:

Cass Sunstein, a Harvard Law professor who has been appointed to a shadowy post that will grant him powers that are merely mind-boggling, explicitly supports using the courts to impose a "chilling effect" on speech that might hurt someone's feelings. He thinks that the bloggers have been rampaging out of control and that new laws need to be written to corral them.

.....

But who cares about a burden when insults are being bandied about? "A 'chilling effect' on those who would spread destructive falsehoods can be an excellent idea," he says.

"As we have seen," Sunstein writes, having shown us no such thing, "falsehoods can undermine democracy itself." What Sunstein means by that sentence is pretty clear: He doesn't like so-called false rumors about his longtime University of Chicago friend and colleague, Barack Obama.

He alludes on page 3 (and on page 13, and 14, and 45, and 54 - the book is only 87 pages) to the supposedly insidious lie that "Barack Obama pals around with terrorists." Since Sunstein intends to impose his Big Chill on such talk, I'd better get this in while I can. The "rumor," i.e., "fact," about the palsy-walsiness of Obama and unrepentant terrorist Bill Ayers (Ayers referred to Obama as a "family friend" in a memoir) did not "undermine democracy," i.e., prevent Obama's election. The facts got out, voters weighed them and ruled that they weren't disqualifying.

Sunstein calls for a "notice and take down" law that would require bloggers and service providers to "take down falsehoods upon notice," even those made by commenters - but without apparent penalty.

Consider how well this nudge would work. You blog about Obama-Ayers. You get a letter claiming that your facts are wrong so you should remove your post. You refuse. If, after a court proceeding proves simply that you are wrong (but not that you committed libel, which when a public figure is the target is almost impossible), you lose, the penalty is . . . you must take down your post.

How long would it take for a court to sort out the truth? Sasha and Malia will be running for president by then. Nobody will care anymore. But it will give politicians the ability to tie up their online critics in court.

[SF0]

I believe the current administration is "rampaging out of control" and had thought there were already laws written to corral them and those like them.

I agree, it is very disturbing.

[Team Sergeant]

Originally Posted by nmap

The article discusses an official who believes that substantial reduction of free speech is approriate. I regard it as disturbing in its potential to prevent free speech.

LINK



Excerpt:

Cass Sunstein, a Harvard Law professor who has been appointed to a shadowy post that will grant him powers that are merely mind-boggling, explicitly supports using the courts to impose a "chilling effect" on speech that might hurt someone's feelings. He thinks that the bloggers have been rampaging out of control and that new laws need to be written to corral them.

.....

But who cares about a burden when insults are being bandied about? "A 'chilling effect' on those who would spread destructive falsehoods can be an excellent idea," he says.

"As we have seen," Sunstein writes, having shown us no such thing, "falsehoods can undermine democracy itself." What Sunstein means by that sentence is pretty clear: He doesn't like so-called false rumors about his longtime University of Chicago friend and colleague, Barack Obama.

He alludes on page 3 (and on page 13, and 14, and 45, and 54 - the book is only 87 pages) to the supposedly insidious lie that "Barack Obama pals around with terrorists." Since Sunstein intends to impose his Big Chill on such talk, I'd better get this in while I can. The "rumor," i.e., "fact," about the palsy-walsiness of Obama and unrepentant terrorist Bill Ayers (Ayers referred to Obama as a "family friend" in a memoir) did not "undermine democracy," i.e., prevent Obama's election. The facts got out, voters weighed them and ruled that they weren't disqualifying.

Sunstein calls for a "notice and take down" law that would require bloggers and service providers to "take down falsehoods upon notice," even those made by commenters - but without apparent penalty.

Consider how well this nudge would work. You blog about Obama-Ayers. You get a letter claiming that your facts are wrong so you should remove your post. You refuse. If, after a court proceeding proves simply that you are wrong (but not that you committed libel, which when a public figure is the target is almost impossible), you lose, the penalty is . . . you must take down your post.

How long would it take for a court to sort out the truth? Sasha and Malia will be running for president by then. Nobody will care anymore. But it will give politicians the ability to tie up their online critics in court.

Sunstein calls for a "notice and take down" law

This is funny because I was thinking the same thing, but concerning politicians, a " no notice take down".

Got Freedom?

Team Sergeant

[Richard]

As much as I get tired of the e-trash being tossed about on the WWW like an open bag of clippings flying out the back of a landscaper's pickup on the Interstate - this concept is - IMO - not only ludicrous, but impossible - and as if the court system doesn't have enough to do as it is.

Richard's $.02

[nmap]

Yes, there is a great deal of useless drivel on the internet. It certainly is not used to its potential.

And yet...the YouTube video of "smashed guitar" LINK is an example of the kind of power individuals can have. In essence, it makes anyone so inclined a broadcaster of a sort. That represents a considerable - though largely latent - power.

[Pete]

Originally Posted by Richard

.. - this concept is - IMO - not only ludicrous, but impossible - ......

Not with enough new government jobs.

If you wish to expand power just keep expanding welfare benifits and government jobs.

Sounds like good employment for a few thousand left wing techies right out of college.

[Richard]

Not with enough new government jobs.

If you wish to expand power just keep expanding welfare benifits and government jobs.

Sounds like good employment for a few thousand left wing techies right out of college.

Personally - I'd be careful upsetting the dedicated techie crowd too much - from my experiences with them and my friends who are genuine IT gurus from places like Harvey Mudd, CalPoly, and CalTech - if you give them a 'cause' - such as a government conspiracy to close down the WWW - I think they'd get stirred up like an angry nest of hornets and go after the invader with a vengance - in this instance, the government's IT systems - not a smart idea IMO.

Richard's $.02

[Pete]

Originally Posted by Richard

Personally - I'd be careful upsetting the dedicated techie crowd too much -........

The techies I was talking about is the typical college grad these days - good liberal education, no job prospects but can tool around facebook and the internet like nobody's business.

What a dream job - getting paid to sit on the internet all day and look for people/ideas you don't like.