Friday, December 03, 2010

Free Speech Has No Future

Cass Sunstein: The Future of free Speech, serialized in Little Mag, should serve as a warning of things to come if Obamination remains in power or is succeeded by another Socialist.  

    Sunstein discusses the concept of public forums, finding them crucial to our form of government. He hints at considering the means of communication as a public good.  Its a long way from Hyde Park to the internet, but Sunstein wants to conflate them. Examine his central concern.

"In a system with public forums and general interest intermediaries, people will frequently come across materials that they would not have chosen in advance – and for diverse citizens, this provides something like a common framework for social experience."

    In a small village, a single newspaper may serve as the local news source. One church, one fraternity, one school, one theatre  and one coffee shop may give the villagers shared experiences. But the USA is a great nation, not a small village.  There are many different institutions and services.  There are numerous newspapers, radio and television broadcasters, with divergent points of view and market niches.

    Consumers can and do choose, and "birds of a feather flock together", that is the way nature works.  Once the nation stared at Chronkite or Brinkley, and soaked up the same lies together.  Now we soak up lies from many different sources.

"All too many people are now exposed to louder echoes of their own voices, resulting, on occasion, in social fragmentation, misunderstanding, and sometimes even enmity. Perhaps it is better for people to hear fewer controversial views than for them to hear a single such view, stated over and over again. I now turn to this issue."

    Does Sunstein want to force Liberals to listen to Rush Limbaugh and watch Fox News?  Yeah, right.  I have sampled Randy Rhodes, John Hightower, Larry King and others. They raise my blood pressure too much. Keith Olbermann would make my bladder burst. I'll continue to listen to Rush, Sean & Mark; if Cass disapproves, he can go to Hell.

"If greater communications choices produce greater extremism, society may, in many cases, be better off as a result. But when group discussion tends to lead people to more strongly held versions of the same view with which they began, and if social influences and limited argument pools are responsible, there is legitimate reason for concern."

    "Extremism in the defense of liberty..." What is the value in arbitrarily decreasing the intensity or changing the direction of our views? This is all about cementing Scialists in power.

"Consider discussions among hate groups on the Internet and elsewhere. If the underlying views are unreasonable, it makes sense to fear that these discussions may fuel increasing hatred and a socially corrosive form of extremism."

    Who is to judge what 'views' are 'unreasonable'?  Here come the thought police!

"This does not mean that the discussions can or should be regulated in a system dedicated to freedom of speech. But it does raise questions about the idea that “more speech” is necessarily an adequate remedy – especially if people are increasingly able to wall themselves off from competing views."

    What is the remedy?

"The basic issue here is whether something like a “public sphere,” with a wide range of voices, might not have significant advantages over a system in which isolated consumer choices produce a highly fragmented speech market."

    Should we be like a doctatorship with state run media feeding us a steady diet of propaganda? 

"The most reasonable conclusion is that it is extremely important to ensure that people are exposed to views other than those with which they currently agree, in order to protect against the harmful effects of group polarisation on individual thinking and on social cohesion."

    Yeah, that's the solution: remote controlled idiot boxes blasting opinions inimical to our own, holding us as a captive audience!

"For those who believe that the free speech principle has democratic foundations, and is not about consumer sovereignty, government regulation of television, radio, and the Internet need not be objectionable, at least so long as it is reasonably taken as an effort to promote democratic goals."

    The free speech principle is crucial to our form of government. Voters must be allowed to communicate relevant facts and opinion and debate them openly in order to make wise decisions on candidates and related issues. 

    In deprecating 'consumer sovereignty', Sunstein deprecates popular sovereignty as well.  The people are sovereign, we give limited power to the government for limited  amd well defined purposes.  The popular sovereignty and consumer sovereignty are inseverable; if either is lost, both are lost. We can not be free if artificially & arbitrarily deprived of choices.

    Sunstein advocaztes mandates & disclosure reports for broadcasters including: educational programming, closed captioning, free airtime for office seakers, coverage of local issues and allowing opposition views to be heard.

    He does not stop there. he advocates requiring web sites to provide links to web sites with opposing views and "allow competing voices to be heard".

    Adding insult to injury, Sunstein advocates 'voluntary self-regulation'.  The variety of competing viewpoints might be reduced by "a ‘code’ of appropriate conduct".   The code would include, allowing opposing views, avoiding 'unnecessary' sensationalism and offering arguments rather than quick 'sound-bytes'. 

    The 'code ' would be "encouraged but not imposed by government".  If the 'code' is not 'voluntarily' implemented, the government "might impose “must carry” rules on highly partisan Websites".  So much for 'voluntary self-regulation'.  When you urinate on my shoes and tell me "its raining", you insult my intelligence.

    The Unfairness Doctrine is rising from the dead, in a disguised and expanded form.  It is all about squelching dissent under color of improving social intercourse.  They might as well limit us to one political party for the purpose of promoting 'common experience'm unity & social cohesion.

    LibTards kvetch about 'balkanization' while practicing the politics of division: pandering to Mexicans, Queers, abortion fanatics & Islam and engaging in class warfare.  There is something rotten in Washington: Obamination. Wise up, rise up, speak out and turn them out in the next election cycle!


1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Yahood Hasba-Rats ! You are waisting your time . The dog barks and the caravane passes on !