Guest Post by Alec Rawls
As Congress considers vastly expanding the power of copyright holders to shut down fair use of their intellectual property, this is a good time to remember the other activities that Obama’s “regulatory czar” Cass Sunstein wants to shut down using the tools of copyright protection. For a couple of years now, Sunstein has been advocating that the “notice and take down” model from copyright law should be used against rumors and conspiracy theories, “to achieve the optimal chilling effect.”
What kinds of conspiracy theories does Sunstein want to suppress by law? Here’s one:
… that the theory of global warming is a deliberate fraud. [From page 4 of Sunstein’s 2008 “Conspiracy Theories” paper.]
Freedom of speech requires scope for error
At present, limits on speech are governed by libel law. For statements about public figures, libel requires not just that an accusation must be false, but that it must have been:
… made with ‘actual malice’—that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard to whether it was false or not. [New York Times v. Sullivan, 1964]
The purpose of the “actual malice” standard is to leave wide latitude for errant statements, which free public debate obviously requires. Sunstein thinks that room-for error stuff is given too much weight. He’d like it to see errant statements expunged. From Sunstein’s 2009 book On Rumors (page 78):
On the Internet in particular, people might have a right to ‘notice and take down.’ [T]hose who run websites would be obliged to take down falsehoods upon notice.
Further, “propagators” would face a “liability to establish what is actually true” (ibid).
Suppose you are a simple public-spirited blogger, trying to expose how Michael Mann, Phil Jones, Tom Wigley, and other Team members conspire to suppress the research and destroy the careers of those who challenge their consensus views. If Sunstein gets his way, Team members will only have to issue you a takedown notice, and if you want your post to stay up, you’ll have to go to court and win a judgment that your version of events is correct.
Today that should be doable, at great expense. But before the first and second batches of climategate emails were released there were only tales of retaliation, with one person’s word against another’s. Thus at the most critical juncture, when documentary proofs of The Team’s vendettas were not yet public, even a person who was willing to run Sunstein’s legal gauntlet might well have been held by a judge to be in error.
Escalation
The path from Sunstein’s 2008 “Conspiracy Theories” article to his 2009 On Rumors book is straightforward. According to Sunstein’s 2008 definition, a conspiracy theory is very close to a potentially libelous rumor:
… a conspiracy theory can generally be counted as such if it is an effort to explain some event or practice by reference to the machinations of powerful people, who have also managed to conceal their role. [Abstract]
At this time, Sunstein’s “main policy idea” was that:
government should engage in cognitive infiltration of the groups that produce conspiracy theories….
… government agents or their allies (acting either virtually or in real space, and either openly or anonymously) will undermine the crippled epistemology of those who subscribe to such theories. [“Conspiracy Theories,” pages 14-15]
Government funding of trolls? Sounds like a bad joke, but Sunstein quickly upped the ante. In On Rumors he followed the conspiracy theory as slanderous rumor angle as a way to justify adopting the “notice and take down” artillery from copyright law. So Sunstein already has a history of escalation in his legal crusade against ideas he does not like. If SOPA and PIPA are enacted and the machinery of copyright protection becomes vastly more censorious, its pretty much a certainty that Sunstein will want to use these more powerful tools against rumors and conspiracy theories as well.
Sunstein’s target has always been the very core of the First Amendment: the most protected political speech
In On Rumors, the rumor that Sunstein seems most intent on suppressing is the accusation, leveled during the 2008 election campaign, that Barack Obama “pals around with terrorists.” (“Look Inside” page 3.) Sunstein fails to note that the “palling around with terrorists” language was introduced by the opposing vice presidential candidate, Governor Sarah Palin (who was implicating Obama’s relationship with domestic terrorist Bill Ayers). Instead Sunstein focuses his ire on “right wing websites” that make “hateful remarks about the alleged relationship between Barack Obama and the former radical Bill Ayers,” singling out Sean Hannity for making hay out of Obama’s “alleged associations” (pages 13-14).
What could possibly be more important than whether a candidate for president does indeed “pal around with terrorists”? Of all the subjects to declare off limits, this one is right up there with whether the anti-CO2 alarmists who are trying to unplug the modern world are telling the truth. And Sunstein’s own bias on the matter could hardly be more blatant. Bill Ayers is a “former” radical? Bill “I don’t regret setting bombs” Ayers? Bill “we didn’t do enough” Ayers?
For the facts of the Obama-Ayers relationship, Sunstein apparently accepts Obama’s campaign dismissal of Ayers as just “a guy who lives in my neighborhood.” In fact their relationship was long and deep. Obama’s political career was launched via a fundraiser in Bill Ayers’ living room; Obama was appointed the first chairman of the Ayers-founded Annenberg Challenge, almost certainly at Ayers’ request; Ayers and Obama served together on the board of the Woods Foundation, distributing money to radical left-wing causes; and it has now been reported by full-access White House biographer Christopher Andersen (and confirmed by Bill Ayers) that Ayers actually ghost wrote Obama’s first book Dreams of My Father.
Whenever free speech is attacked, the real purpose is to cover up the truth. Not that Sunstein himself knows the truth about anything. He just knows what he wants to suppress, which is exactly why government must never have this power.
Soulmates (cue music)
You, on the other hand, are the enemy
In climate science, there is no avoiding “reference to the machinations of powerful people, who have also managed to conceal their role.” The Team has always been sloppy about concealing its machinations, but that doesn’t stop Sunstein from using climate skepticism as an exemplar of pernicious conspiracy theorizing, and his goal is perfectly explicit: he wants the state to take aggressive action to make it easier for our powerful government funded scientists to conceal their machinations.
Cass Sunstein may be the most illiberal man ever to present himself as a liberal. He also holds the most powerful regulatory position in existence, overseeing every federal regulation. For a sample of his handiwork, realize that he oversaw the EPA’s recently issued transport and MACT rules, which will shut down 8% of current U.S. electricity generation.
Maybe you don’t think it’s a good idea to unplug critical energy infrastructure just to achieve marginal further reductions in micro-particulates that have already fallen to well below half of their 1980 levels:
Sorry but there is no place in Sunstein’s EPA for such doubts and, as far as he is concerned, no place for them in the realm of public debate either. The environmental bureaucracy has everyone’s best interest at heart. To question that is the very definition of conspiracy mongering.
Next people will be claiming that Obama actually intends for energy prices to “necessarily skyrocket.” Such vile rumors need to be silenced, and this can easily be done. Once the SOPA/PIPA machinery is in place, it will only take one line in some future omnibus bill to extend it from copyright to criticism.
Can’t say I’ve tried it, be interested to know if anyone has
http://freenetproject.org/whatis.html
Thank you to the writer Alec Rawls for this important research.
In my reading, the SOPA bill is designed in plain language to give the Attorney General “immunity” in shutting down offending sites in areas of “public health” and “US property.” The definition for public health was concerning pharmaceuticals, but remember that co2 was recently ruled by the EPA to be a danger to public health. And remember that the Obamacare bill was openly advertised as built for add-ons later.
The definitions for “US property” were defined in the bill by other laws already on the books. And it does not say “propery of US citizens.” If they were so interested in the property of US citizens, there would not be any rampant use of expired patent numbers to kill small businesses ($500 fine per physical item bearing old patent number, not per design).
So SOPA is simply a bill to exponentially expand the role of the Attorney General to King of the Internet, Emporer of Expression, Keiser of Secret Threats, Lord Attorney General of All.
—–Alan the Brit says:
January 20, 2012 at 7:29 am
Didn’t a Mr A. Hitler once say somwhere, that you first control the language, then you control the debate, when you control the debate, you control the information, when you control the information, you control the people? Simples!
HAGWE everyone! 🙂
————————
Yes, and where’d he get that from? The Wilson administration, now currently the third most destructive administration this country has seen, after Obama and FDR. Thankfully I think Americans as a whole are smarter than to give our resident FDR-wannabe another 4 minutes, nevermind another 4 years.
Odd Canada’s relationship with the United States, is it not?
In the 70’s we took your draft dodgers.
In the 2010’s, looks like we’ll be taking your copywrite dodgers.
Maybe the intention is to stop stuff like this
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10780142
I thought that even the FBI was enjoined from “infiltrating” suspected potential criminal activity groups; even groups which the government itself listed as “terrorist” groups.
Now I am not sure that it is a good idea to have the FBI be hamstrung, in their efforts to protect the people and the country from such threats, but I don’t see how that expands to
“infiltrating” free exchange of ideas, in open public forums.
The end aim is clearly not to ensure accuracy of free speech ideas; but to ensure government control of the means of conveying open discussion. The government has already infiltrated to the point of control, the standard print, and TV media (the MSM); and it irks them that the internet, and talk radio, still give free people access to the truth. The government of communist red China has already demonstrated the effectiveness of controlling access to the truth, in enslaving the people of China.
President Eisenhower’s Farewell Address, 17 Jan 1961, is more famous for the “military industrial complex”, perhaps because anti-military filtered thru the culture; but the neglected portion is the most relevent and on point for our time and this site. This could qualify as a warning of the ‘scientific industrial complex’:
“Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers. The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present — and is gravely to be regarded.
Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.”
As for the article itself, this tactic has been done before. If you aren’t familiar with the Alien and Sedition Acts, specifically Sedition Act, you have something to look up. Persons were imprisoned and fined. Fortunately Jefferson was able to correct the misdeeds of the Adams Administration and Congress. The states, and the people, were willing to fight against the dominance. It was a fragile time for the infant Republic. I know when the time comes, if it does, who will win. Let’s just say that liberty will live on, no matter who else enters the MBA.
As a tidbit, the American left-wing puppetmasters, a vast majority have gone thru Law School, with Economics coming in second. Take from that what you will, but its a self-reinforcing circle. They are not all the same, and they will conflict from time to time. No one label does the left justice. Just hold on to your convictions, and build your resolve. Truth will win out.
Steven Hales says: 11:03 am
I think Sunstein’s sense of what is “wrong” with facts in an informational cascade dovetails into the discussion of information, facts, knowledge and wisdom in the book “Too Big to Know”. Weinberger laments that what is known or can be known is being torn down by the internet or networked knowledge and the way out of the conundrum is some form “expert” vetting.
And it dovetails with Hillary Clinton’s views on internet freedom as well:
“Information freedom supports the peace and security that provides a foundation for global progress. Historically, asymmetrical access to information is one of the leading causes of interstate conflict. When we face serious disputes or dangerous incidents, it’s critical that people on both sides of the problem have access to the same set of facts and opinions.” ~Secretary of State, Hillary Rodham Clinton
In summary she doesn’t think any asymmetrical information is good for you, or for world peace.
“Are you saying Christopher Anderson is incorrectly understood by Rawls?”
I’m saying that since Rawls puts forward the absurd claim that Ayers admits to having written Obama’s autobio, I don’t trust what he has to say about Anderson or anything else. It’s obvious that he’s either knowingly lying, or a total dupe. He might be right about Anderson, but I wouldn’t trust his point of view, which clearly will distort the facts to achieve the ends he desires. I would want independent corroboration for every single fact he puts forward, because to me he’s not a trustworthy source.
And let’s be clear, science, truth, God, whatever you believe is “good”, takes no sides, especially not in politics. I am not on any “side”. That’s the whole problem with the climate debate, isn’t it? Even most of the public who is skeptical out there is only that way because their “side” is. Same with the enviros and the left. Damn little critical thinking going on, especially once your thinking becomes a function of which “side” you are on.l
More from the Sec. of State on internet freedom: “We are also supporting the development of new tools that enable citizens to exercise their rights of free expression by circumventing politically motivated censorship. We are providing funds to groups around the world to make sure that those tools get to the people who need them in local languages, and with the training they need to access the internet safely.
The United States has been assisting in these efforts for some time, with a focus on implementing these programs as efficiently and effectively as possible. Both the American people and nations that censor the internet should understand that our government is committed to helping promote internet freedom.
We want to put these tools in the hands of people who will use them to advance democracy and human rights, to fight climate change and epidemics, to build global support for President Obama’s goal of a world without nuclear weapons, to encourage sustainable economic development that lifts the people at the bottom up.
~Sec of State Hillary Rodham Clinton
“”””” Frank K. says:
January 20, 2012 at 5:21 am
All will change in November. Remember, a vote for Barack Obama and the liberal Democrats at any level of government is a vote for dangerous people like Cass Sunstein.
In a related story – from “The Hill”:
Dems propose ‘Reasonable Profits Board’ to regulate oil company profits
By Pete Kasperowicz – 01/19/12 10:20 AM ET
Six House Democrats, led by Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), want to set up a “Reasonable Profits Board” to control gas profits. “””””
I must say that I fully support the idea of controlling the Oil Business profits reaped by the US Federal Government, from oil company activities; which I believe dwarf the profits enjoyed by those oil companies shareholder owners.
Nothing like restricting profits, either by royal decree, or punitive taxation, to encourage getting less of that activity or commodity
Thanks Anthony, much appreciated.
The only way we are going to get our society back is for these people to stay in power another term and really wreck the place. The population wont do it again for another couple of generations.
I’ll be hoping for a return of our Green/Labour government here in Oz.
This will get them all out of the word work, so we can what and who we’re up against.
All this needs to be brought to a head, and we’re not going to do that without a unique strategy.
Arguing, and asking, nicely, for people “to think again”is not working.
I say give ém more rope and they’ll hang émselves with it.
They’ll wreck the place, and it will expose them completely. Then we can see what we’re dealing with.
Lynn,
That’s the problem with crackpot thinkers. They imagine the evidence is always overwhelming that their idiotic ideas are true. That’s the problem with being a fanatical partisan. It completely distorts the cognitive process which normally helps us self-edit our own crazy thinking. The other guy is always some form of Hitler or the Manchurian Candidate, and some vast conspiracy is trying to hide this. I think it’s great that we have the free speech to be able to examine this pathology in all its illogical manifestations. I would never want to stop such people from putting forth these ideas. As Napoleon said, “Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.”
Thanks for your response Temp, I’m not really sure what you are getting at, ( I suspect you misread my post, your quote starts at the wrong word which alters the meaning) All I am saying is that everyone deserves protection from hate crimes, regardless of their race, creed, religion or whatever. Sometimes freedom of speech has to take that into account, especially when such could result in harm to someone just for belonging to one of the targeted groups. This is why racist, anti-semitic and similar literature designed to stir up hatred is illegal in the UK and most of Europe. Something I agree with, even though it is a limit to free speech. I’m unsure why that is acting as a Troll, or even trying so badly, (seems to be a very overused term of late) but there we are, it would not be much of a debate if you agreed! By the way, the play “The Crucible” is a great depiction of how McCarthyism took off in the States, also where the term “witch hunt” originates. Well worth seeing or reading.
However, this does not enjoin them from enlisting the aid of informants ..
.
@conradg
Read “Deconstructing Obama” by Jack Cashill. He lays out the extensive evidence that Bill Ayers did indeed write “Dreams from my Father”. Read it.
And how many “conspiracy theories” have turned out to be true?
How about the Gulf of Tonkin incident which left 2-3 million Vietnamese and close to 60,000 Americans dead. Proven by FOIA and released documents to be a phony pretext for war. They lied.
How about the attack on the USS Liberty by Israel? Wrong identification? Ya right.
So now we will have the “Ministry of Truth” deciding which web sites can be shut down. Don’t think you can get away with having the server in another country. They are improving their ability to block the flow of information all the time. Currently we could get around it but in 5-10 years with serious effort and unlimited dollars for their project? Doubtful.
The day after they get this type of power I fear our beloved Mr Watts will get a visit so lets stop it before it happens!
I don’t remember who stated the thing about McCarthy, but I have always found it amazing that people are always attributing to Sen McCarthy the activities of the US House of Representatives Un-American Activities Committee. The Senator had nothing to do with those infamous hearings that had all the Hollywood types before the cameras – that was the house. The senator was interested in those who had infiltrated the US Federal Government as Agent Provocateurs of the Union of Soviet Socialists Republic. After the wall fell, there was a brief period of openness in the eastern block intelligence services and in their records was the proof that the number of paid communist agents of the eastern block was actually higher than the senator had predicted.
The cultural and academia stuff was all in the US House of Representatives under Representative Hart.
Zeke, Are you chilled yet? Progress would be if Chris Matthews got a chill up his spine this time.
To Garethman
No i understand you post prefectly you believe some people are special and deserve protection and some aren’t. You try to pretend that it should apply equally but in your mind it should only apply equally to who you believe it should apply equally too. You are much like every leftists who believe their collect is as they define it is the only thing that should exist and be protected.
Mike M says:
January 20, 2012 at 7:33 am
What do you call a thousand Marxists at the bottom of the ocean….
A good Start!
I think the important point for folks to focus on, is that any law that requires “good intent” by the enforcement authority to avoid being a bad law is inherently a bad law.
A good law is structured so that even when those with malicious intent cannot easily misuse it. If they try to subvert the intent of the law it must built in checks and balances that make that perversion apparent and preventable by the public at large by some mechanism (for example the FOI requests).
We have seen that even those checks (FOI) can be perverted and bypassed, but that action itself leaves a trail pointing back at the folks trying to game the system.
The more an advocate of a law shouts “but we would never do that!” the more concerned I am that for certain there is some person or group that would, could and will if given the opportunity.
Larry
Not that I’m a conspiracy theorist or anything, but I wanted to post something I’ve just watched on democracy.org – and the site is down, “the site has been temporarily disabled due to a problem If you are the owner of the site please click here to correct the problem”
And then I saw I’d typoed, it should have been democracynow.org… 🙂
Here’s Jimmy Wales vs. Copyright Alliance’s Sandra Aistars
He was good, CLAY SHIRKY was even better. Sandra Aistars at one point began lauding that Europe had already put some of this into place, Shirky reminded of the difference between the US Constitution and what Europe has, [Napoleonic law] where you’re guilty until proved innocent and where nothing is permitted except with permission granted. She was visibly shocked, recovered well and said she wouldn’t support something that meant that, but I don’t she she knows what’s actually being said because she doesn’t know the differences, wouldn’t know what to look out for, but I hope she now goes on to find them.
http://www.democracynow.org/2012/1/19/sopa_anti_piracy_or_censorship_wikipedias
Perhaps there should be a penalty of some kind for anyone even thinking to introduce a law which attacks the fundamental rights under the American Constitution… ?
Just musing. In looking for something on the judge who said the Consitution was anything he said it was, I thought this was a good reminder of what you still have:
http://familyrightsassociation.com/bin/white_papers-articles/gov_not_protecting_rights.html
And here comes the judge: – http://bibowen.hubpages.com/hub/Hughes-Hubris
Interesting that the ‘new science’, post modern, paradigm is being applied to the Constitution by some:
Good luck folks, we all need you to win.
What I think ‘they’ really want to stop are online discussions and blog sites. Why? Because we often get information from them that we wouldn’t normally get from the DNC promotional and marketing teams (ABS, CBS, NBC, CNN, etc…).