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.
conradg writes:
Did you follow the link? It’s right there on the video: Ayers claims he wrote Dreams, and he claimed it once before as well, with no hint of joking either time. Andersen says he had a couple of sources for this and textual analysis proves that Ayers wrote at least SOME of Dreams (like the misquote in Dreams that is identical to a misquote in an earlier Ayers’ book).
Why does conrad think any of this is implausible, given the long and well documented relationship between Ayers and Obama? Add that Ayers was a prolific writer, while Obama had never written anything and was having well documented problems making headway on Dreams, and what could be more natural than for him to get help from his neighbor and long-time benefactor? conrad seems to think that the very idea is somehow outlandish. What is outlandish about it? Because it would imply a close relationship? But that is already established on other grounds. Because it would mean the Obama campaign lied about the relationship? We already know they were willing to lie about the relationship because they denied that Ayers hosted Obama’s first fundraiser. So what reason is there to doubt Ayers and Anderson? One can imagine scenarios in which they are giving us bad information, but it is these alternative scenarios that are unlikely given the evidence.
As far as they wish because someone having the power over you to DICTATE what is ‘hate speech’ and ‘how far’ it can go is a FAR greater danger to everyone. Stalin and Hitler had that very power and 10’s of millions of lives were snuffed out as a result.
Free speech is the foundation of democracy. Free speech is not a right vs left issue.
The debate concerning the extreme dangerous world ending AGW paradigm vs observations and the facts is a prime example of why free speech needs to be a fundamental right, something that cannot be removed by the opposing side in the debate.
Trillions of dollars are being advocated for boondoogles associated with AGW. The conversion of food to biofuel for example, is justified by and is occurring due to the extreme world ending AGW paradigm.
The next step after calling those who criticize the extreme world ending AGW paradigm “deniers” is to ban discussion by closing down internet sites using the premise of protecting copyright or protecting the public from dangerous miss-truths.
Nick says: (January 20, 2012 at 11:43 am)
… All this needs to be brought to a head …
Nick, I (and millions of others) share that feeling, but when it does come to a head, the average government has an awful lot more armament than the average populace. History has a lot of examples of how that one plays out: ultimately, there’s a very final way of shutting people up pour décourager les autres. Be very careful what you wish for.
Rawls, you are just digging a deeper and deeper hole for yourself. Keep digging, is my recommendation, until we can no longer see you underneath all the bs. You find these kinds of videos in the least bit convincing? My God, you have no business posting on a scientific website. What next, birtherism? Can’t wait to see that post.
What happened after WWII? A bunch of evil people felt left over and did their best to get incorporated into any system that would have ’em.
What happened after the wall naturally crumbled? A bunch of evil people left over did their best to get incorporated into what ever new system would have ’em.
Definition of the left over: Evil people who worked as bureaucrats all for the bureaucracy, the system be damned, as if it would’ve ever mattered, as long as there is a system to tell ’em what to do…they do it.
Socialism it the essence of bureaucracy, the idea that an autistic system is supposed to decide for everyone else on everything from color of socks to how many minutes to work every day… welcome to EU and China and pretty soon USA, and g’d’ay suckers.
Brad said: “… a good job of building up Mr. Sunnstein’s political views and wants, but do little to show any evidence of his want to use copyright law to stop anything. Copyright law cannot stop the type of speech you discuss in any case.
“Anthony’s allowance of other posters without review is really dropping the quality here at WUWT.”
I love it! Anthony, please immediately censor all controversial posts. After all, we can’t let Brad’s opinion of WUWT drop any farther..
Hi Temp, apparently my posts are not displaying for you so I will repeat the essence of my message.
“All I am saying is that everyone deserves protection from hate crimes, regardless of their race, creed, religion or whatever”.
No one is special, no-one should be excepted. This is a constant, it is not related to left or right wing politics. It is related to human rights. Apologies if this message still does not come across, but there is little else I can do to clarify things.
@ur momisugly Steve C says:
January 20, 2012 at 2:17 pm
Nick, I (and millions of others) share that feeling, but when it does come to a head, the average government has an awful lot more armament than the average populace. History has a lot of examples of how that one plays out: ultimately, there’s a very final way of shutting people up pour décourager les autres. Be very careful what you wish for.
==========================================================
Armament is not the issue. Surveillance and communications capability (intel) available to all sides are a far more important issue. If you don’t know where the target is, the biggest bomb on the planet is worthless. Haven’t you learned anything from Afganistan and other 3rd world crap holes?
1DandyTroll says:
January 20, 2012 at 3:03 pm
What happened after WWII? A bunch of evil people felt left over and did their best to get incorporated into any system that would have ‘em.
What happened after the wall naturally crumbled? A bunch of evil people left over did their best to get incorporated into what ever new system would have ‘em.
=========================================================
Well, let’s not pretend those scumbags weren’t already here infiltrating our educational system (and unions among other places). This is why we’re having the climate discussion today……. a bunch of ignorant delusional Marxist Malthusian misanthropists (MMMs) who have indoctrinated our children rather than educating them.
My daughter is graduating from a university in May, she will go on and work towards her doctorate. By the time she’s done she will have had zero hours in economics. …….. none. zilch.. nade. (Thank God, I was able to expose her to some basic thoughts and principles before she went out into the world.)
I’m wondering, if this can be true for her, how many ignorant delusional MMMs running around calling themselves scientists, insisting we alter our entire socioeconomic system of this earth, have the same omission from their educational experience? What else have they not learned? Certainly, the basic concepts of individual liberties and freedoms are not taught any longer and any moral instruction is most certainly accompanied by relativism.(Likely a few divinity colleges prove to be an exception…. I hope.) Critical thinking is, obviously, highly discouraged. And, we’re churning these people out at record paces.
Nothing but the argument changes until we root these people out.
Mr. Cass R. Sunstein et al (= President Obama, Science Czar John Holdren, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Secretary of Energy Steven Chu, former Energy/Climate Czar Carol M. Browner, former “Green Jobs Czar” Van Jones, et cetera.), climate is a nonlinear, cyclic, and chaotic system, as well as, climate change is a natural fluctuation. (My remark: “THE MANCHURIAN PRESIDENT, Barack Obama´s Ties to Communists, Socialists and Other Anti-American Extremists,” by Aaron Klein with Brenda J. Elliott, WND Books, 2010, has an in-depth analyse in chapter 10, pp. 152-186, “Obama´s Top Guns Exposed,” of Global Warming Hoax politicians in the President Obama administration, Sunstein, Holdren, Browner, and Jones included.)
SAY NO TO GLOBAL WARMING HOAX
SAY NO TO JUNK SCIENCE
SAY NO TO GLOBAL GOVERNANCE
Inre Hales 12:27 – Ha! 🙂
I don’t think Chris Mattews is able to enjoy the thrill on his leg any more, and Sunstein needs a bigger chill, and the Attorney General has to get is bill, because they know…someone might be out there commenting on puzzling things in life, nature, science, weather, climate change, technology, and recent news!
Steve C. –
Americans are hardly an “average populace” and you assume that the Armed Forces will fall in line with the idea of firing on the populace.
This is why the Bill of Rights ranks you freedoms, with the 1st and 2nd Amendments being the most important.
Steve C says:
January 20, 2012 at 2:17 pm
Nick says: (January 20, 2012 at 11:43 am)
… All this needs to be brought to a head …
“Nick, I (and millions of others) share that feeling, but when it does come to a head, the average government has an awful lot more armament than the average populace.”
______________________
Remington has sold over 5 million Model 700 high- powered rifles. That’s 1 model from 1 firearms maker. The last estimate I saw was that there were 300+ million firearms in private hands in the US. Over 14 million were sold in 2009, alone.
These statistics are the reason that there won’t be any sort of draconian gov’t implementation of totalitarianism here in the US, at least not any time soon.
The unimaginable carnage on day 1 would shut the whole scheme down.
Garethman –
ALL crimes are hate crimes. I never beat the cr^p out of anyone I liked,…
Hate crime legislation sounds great, but you elevate some groups over others thereby destoying the “equal under law” provision (btw – no where does it say we are all equal – it says we are all equal IN THE EYES OF THE LAW, ie, a rich man gets the same day in court a poor man does)… Gay bashing is a hate crime in your eyes, but what of Christian bashing? That seems to be going on in droves, but no outcry. Why? Gays have a right to more protection that Christians? I think not – you accidentally tread too heavily on the law in trying to be “fair”,…
The mathematics of Ponzi schemes
http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/14420/
We are in a ‘post-constitution’ phase of the brief American experiment (US is about 1/2 as old as my mother-in-law’s house!). So far so good. Then it got strangled by the Lawyer-cum-Politicians,
Brad says:
January 20, 2012 at 4:15 am
You do a good job of building up Mr. Sunnstein’s political views and wants, but do little to show any evidence of his want to use copyright law to stop anything. Copyright law cannot stop the type of speech you discuss in any case.
Anthony’s allowance of other posters without review is really dropping the quality here at WUWT.
———————————————————
THIS IS PRECISELY THE PROBLEM WITH ELITISTS..
they all think because your “not educated like Me” or “you dont have the knowledge” are reasons to kill discussion or limit access… i know people who never finished high school who have more brains that many PHD’s… Only a Fool thinks people should be discarded simply because “you” think they shouldn’t have access… keep thinking this way… you’ll make a good slave..
In May of 2010, Obama gave a commencement speech, at Hampton University in VA, in which he said: ~~~
“And with iPods and iPads; and Xboxes and PlayStations — none of which I know how to work — (laughter) — information becomes a distraction, a diversion, a form of entertainment, rather than a tool of empowerment, rather than the means of emancipation. So all of this is not only putting pressure on you; it’s putting new pressure on our country and on our democracy,”
“With so many voices clamoring for attention on blogs, and on cable, on talk radio, it can be difficult, at times, to sift through it all — to know what to believe, to figure out who’s telling the truth and who’s not. Let’s face it, even some of the craziest claims can quickly gain traction. I’ve had some experience in that regard.”
Obama echoed what Sunstein has written since 2000 and maybe earlier.
He has written that unrestrained individual choice is dangerous and must be checked or countered in the interests of citizenship and democracy. In his own words: A system of limitless individual choices, with respect to communications, is not necessarily in the interest of citizenship and self-government. See: http://techliberation.com/2009/01/08/what-impact-will-cass-sunstein-have-on-obamas-internet-policy.
______________________
It scares the begeebers out of me when I hear the most powerful man in the USA give oxygen to such things and it is only a little more time before they get inacted or regulated. The principle here is “due process”, if we let that go then what is next? Throwing out bankruptcy laws? The Constitution? Oh, wait… he did.
Also, don’t people have a right to their image, maybe even to their voice? MLK’s image is protected, so if you sneak into a private party with a video or audio recording device and capture someone talking about people clinging to their guns and religion and then post it for every one to see and hear, maybe Sotomayer will rule that is copyright infringement. This comes in conjunction with the proposal of a unique and identifiable internet ID.
We need him gone.
A very good book about who the 60’s radicals were, what organizations they started, where they went and where they are now (mostly in the admin and govt) is: Radical in Chief by Stanley Kutrtz.
I read most of the posts, scanned some: hope this isn’t a dupe…
Have you seen Contagion? It is a really solid movie about an influenza pandemic. Doesn’t have the usual collection of military idiots who oppose civilian control or dopey scientists whose errors are corrected by young upstarts that REALLY save the world. It’s chilling and fast-paced.
But the new villain was introduced. Not the NSA, who can see us all from satellites and shoot us with space-based lasers. Not the evil defense contractor. Not even the ever-reliable rougue Russian.
It’s Jude Law as… the conspiracist blogger. Yup, at one point an exasperated government official tells him (as I best remember) “if I could put your computer in jail, I would”. So Hollywood is already on the bandwagon.
Isn’t it curious that the group with the largest apparent financial interest at stake in SOPA and PIPA was…. Hollywood? But, best be careful: that’s wild conspiracy theory…..
Luther Wu says:
January 20, 2012 at 4:46 pm
……….
The unimaginable carnage on day 1 would shut the whole scheme down.
========================================================
Oh, it’s even more than that. Recall the 60s and 70s. In spite of Kent state, the fact is, the reservists and National Guard were ineffectual to quell riots because they were reluctant to aggressively act.
Today, our citizen soldiers are the veterans. Any weird, strange scenario involving our govt’s military acting against its citizens can’t happen. An armed experienced person(with the rifles), familiar with the opponents capabilities, equipment and routines?
But, even when the Army’s regular corps were the veterans (for the most part) , they wouldn’t. I was regular Army, my father retired regular Army. There is no group of people more concerned with the welfare of their citizens than a serviceman. Army, Marines, Navy, Air Force….. they took an oath to obey the orders of their superiors. But, they won’t aggressively act against their countrymen. They are the sentinels. They are our sentinels. Duty, Honor, and Country.
No politician likes free speech. It presents two challenging problems: 1) rumours that may be libelous, and 2) the truth.
Ideally, words like “fraud” ought to be avoided in scientific discussions. Yeah, an AGW theorist may very well be wasting one’s tax dollars, but that doesn’t make him or her necessarily a fraud. Potentially they were really only a purveyor of ham-handed crap science, sincere, but performing to their Peter Principle max.
James Sexton says:
January 20, 2012 at 7:10 pm
“”””
_______
James, I couldn’t agree more.
There are far too many true patriots in and out of uniform for the would- be tyrants to ever prevail.
That doesn’t mean that there aren’t plenty of statists out there, many in plain sight, chipping away at the edifice of freedom.
Someone mentioned up- thread that it might even be in the nation’s best interest for the current administration to win in 2012 and take all the rope they need…
Maybe in the long view, as the platitudes and ideas of the left are now choking our culture at every turn and should be uncloaked and exposed for what they truly are.
However, who wants to suffer through another 4 years of this?
James Sexton says:
January 20, 2012 at 7:10 pm
But, even when the Army’s regular corps were the veterans (for the most part) , they wouldn’t. I was regular Army, my father retired regular Army. There is no group of people more concerned with the welfare of their citizens than a serviceman. Army, Marines, Navy, Air Force….. they took an oath to obey the orders of their superiors. But, they won’t aggressively act against their countrymen. They are the sentinels. They are our sentinels. Duty, Honor, and Country.
——————————————————————-
The very first oath I took when signing on with the US Army was to “protect and defend the US Constitution and obey lawful orders” most of the men I served with know what a lawful order is and how the Constitution defines them…
what concerns me are those youngsters today who haven’t been taught our founding document and how to apply it. this is by design… liberalism is a disease.. social justice a lie… its time we got back to basics…
Bill
William says:
January 20, 2012 at 2:15 pm
….
The debate concerning the extreme dangerous world ending AGW paradigm vs observations and the facts is a prime example of why free speech needs to be a fundamental right, something that cannot be removed by the opposing side in the debate.
….
The whole point of the Bill of Rights was to make these rights unimpeachable.
And the point of the 2nd amendment was to ensure the 1st amendment was not abridged.
Sadly, I’m seeing some stuff in the press that the Constitution is outdated. Very scary.