Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Soul Crusher on January 14, 2010, 06:19:06 AM
-
Top Obama czar: Infiltrate all 'conspiracy theorists'
Presidential adviser wrote about crackdown on expressing opinions
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: January 14, 2010
12:30 am Eastern
By Aaron Klein
© 2010 WorldNetDaily
________________________ ________________________ __--
Cass Sunstein
In a lengthy academic paper, President Obama's regulatory czar, Cass Sunstein, argued the U.S. government should ban "conspiracy theorizing."
Among the beliefs Sunstein would ban is advocating that the theory of global warming is a deliberate fraud.
Sunstein also recommended the government send agents to infiltrate "extremists who supply conspiracy theories" to disrupt the efforts of the "extremists" to propagate their theories.
In a 2008 Harvard law paper, "Conspiracy Theories," Sunstein and co-author Adrian Vermeule, a Harvard law professor, ask, "What can government do about conspiracy theories?"
"We can readily imagine a series of possible responses. (1) Government might ban conspiracy theorizing. (2) Government might impose some kind of tax, financial or otherwise, on those who disseminate such theories."
In the 30-page paper – obtained and reviewed by WND – Sunstein argues the best government response to "conspiracy theories" is "cognitive infiltration of extremist groups."
(Story continues below)
Continued Sunstein: "We suggest a distinctive tactic for breaking up the hard core of extremists who supply conspiracy theories: cognitive infiltration of extremist groups, whereby government agents or their allies (acting either virtually or in real space, and either openly or anonymously) will undermine the crippled epistemology of believers by planting doubts about the theories and stylized facts that circulate within such groups, thereby introducing beneficial cognitive diversity."
Read more about Cass Sunstein's agenda in "Shut Up, America!: The End of Free Speech"
Sunstein said government agents "might enter chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups and attempt to undermine percolating conspiracy theories by raising doubts about their factual premises, causal logic or implications for political action."
Sunstein defined a conspiracy theory as "an effort to explain some event or practice by reference to the machinations of powerful people, who have also managed to conceal their role."
Some "conspiracy theories" recommended for ban by Sunstein include:
"The theory of global warming is a deliberate fraud."
"The view that the Central Intelligence Agency was responsible for the assassination of President John F. Kennedy."
"The 1996 crash of TWA flight 800 was caused by a U.S. military missile."
"The Trilateral Commission is responsible for important movements of the international economy."
"That Martin Luther King Jr. was killed by federal agents."
"The moon landing was staged and never actually occurred."
Sunstein allowed that "some conspiracy theories, under our definition, have turned out to be true."
He continued: "The Watergate hotel room used by Democratic National Committee was, in fact, bugged by Republican officials, operating at the behest of the White House. In the 1950s, the CIA did, in fact, administer LSD and related drugs under Project MKULTRA, in an effort to investigate the possibility of 'mind control.'”
Sunstein's paper advocating against the belief that global warming is a deliberate fraud was written before November's climate scandal in which e-mails hacked from the Climatic Research Unit at East Anglia University in the U.K. indicate top climate researchers conspired to rig data and keep researchers with dissenting views from publishing in leading scientific journals.
Sunstein: Ban 'right wing' rumors
Sunstein's paper is not the first time he has advocated banning the free flow of information.
WND reported that in a recently released book, "On Rumors," Sunstein argued websites should be obliged to remove "false rumors" while libel laws should be altered to make it easier to sue for spreading such "rumors."
In the 2009 book, Sunstein cited as a primary example of "absurd" and "hateful" remarks, reports by "right-wing websites" alleging an association between President Obama and Weatherman terrorist William Ayers.
He also singled out radio talker Sean Hannity for "attacking" Obama regarding the president's "alleged associations."
Ayers became a name in the 2008 presidential campaign when it was disclosed he worked closely with Obama for years. Obama also was said to have launched his political career at a 1995 fundraiser in Ayers' apartment.
'New Deal Fairness Doctrine'
WND also previously reported Sunstein drew up a "First Amendment New Deal" – a new "Fairness Doctrine" that would include the establishment of a panel of "nonpartisan experts" to ensure "diversity of view" on the airwaves.
Sunstein compared the need for the government to regulate broadcasting to the moral obligation the U.S. had to impose new rules that outlawed segregation.
Sunstein's radical proposal, set forth in his 1993 book "The Partial Constitution," received no news media attention and scant scrutiny until the WND report.
In the book, Sunstein outwardly favors and promotes the "Fairness Doctrine," the abolished FCC policy that required holders of broadcast licenses to present controversial issues of public importance in a manner the government deemed "equitable and balanced."
Sunstein introduces what he terms his "First Amendment New Deal" to regulate broadcasting in the U.S.
His proposal, which focuses largely on television, includes a government requirement that "purely commercial stations provide financial subsidies to public television or to commercial stations that agree to provide less profitable but high-quality programming."
Sunstein wrote it is "worthwhile to consider more dramatic approaches as well."
He proposes "compulsory public-affairs programming, right of reply, content review by nonpartisan experts or guidelines to encourage attention to public issues and diversity of view."
The Obama czar argues his regulation proposals for broadcasting are actually presented within the spirit of the Constitution.
"It seems quite possible that a law that contained regulatory remedies would promote rather than undermine the 'freedom of speech,'" he writes.
Writes Sunstein: "The idea that government should be neutral among all forms of speech seems right in the abstract, but as frequently applied it is no more plausible than the idea that it should be neutral between the associational interests of blacks and those of whites under conditions of segregation."
Sunstein contends the landmark case that brought about the Fairness Doctrine, Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. Federal Communications Commission, "stresses not the autonomy of broadcasters (made possible only by current ownership rights), but instead the need to promote democratic self-government by ensuring that people are presented with a broad range of views about public issues."
He continues: "In a market system, this goal may be compromised. It is hardly clear that 'the freedom of speech' is promoted by a regime in which people are permitted to speak only if other people are willing to pay enough to allow them to be heard."
In his book, Sunstein slams the U.S. courts' unwillingness to "require something like a Fairness Doctrine" to be a result of "the judiciary's lack of democratic pedigree, lack of fact-finding powers and limited remedial authority."
He clarifies he is not arguing the government should be free to regulate broadcasting however it chooses.
"Regulation designed to eliminate a particular viewpoint would of course be out of bounds. All viewpoint discrimination would be banned," Sunstein writes.
But, he says, "at the very least, regulative 'fairness doctrines' would raise no real doubts" constitutionally.
________________________ ________________________ _______________________
Hugo, 240, Quadzilla, and Samson are going to love this one.
F.U.B.O.!
-
So the "fairness doctrine" rears it ugly head yet again. Guess us yokels are just to fucking stupid to change the station.
-
What was the context in which the paper was written? How much of it is Sunstein's and has he instituted anything like this whilst being in charge?
The trap we can all fall into by reading too much into this without context and other information is we pass judgment on his right to free speech. Essentially telling any and all who wish to be in public office some day that they mustn't write anything that doesn't toe popular or party lines. That writing any sort of theory is as good as instituting it and that anything that is outside the norm should be censored, much in the same way this paper outlines how to censor CT's.
I would ask that you all (esp the so called libertarians) let Sunstein have his right to free speech. Until he institutes anything like his paper says this has no relevance whatsoever other than to drive yet another stake into the heart of free speech.
-
What was the context in which the paper was written? How much of it is Sunstein's and has he instituted anything like this whilst being in charge?
The trap we can all fall into by reading too much into this without context and other information is we pass judgment on his right to free speech. Essentially telling any and all who wish to be in public office some day that they mustn't write anything that doesn't toe popular or party lines. That writing any sort of theory is as good as instituting it and that anything that is outside the norm should be censored, much in the same way this paper outlines how to censor CT's.
I would ask that you all (esp the so called libertarians) let Sunstein have his right to free speech. Until he institutes anything like his paper says this has no relevance whatsoever other than to drive yet another stake into the heart of free speech.
If only Sunstein held the 1st Amendment in the same regard KC. This admn really sucks. Its the nanny state, police state , NWO state, tax state, and corruptocrat state all rolled into one.
-
If only Sunstein held the 1st Amendment in the same regard KC. This admn really sucks. Its the nanny state, police state , NWO state, tax state, and corruptocrat state all rolled into one.
Where has he not? Has he censored anyone? Have the tea baggers and birthers been arrested? You're just making stuff up. Nanny state how? Because of health care? Police state how? Because of health care? What exactly has been done to make it a nanny state or police state? Has there been a crack down on dissent? Have protests been broken up? Have People been jailed for speaking freely? This admin has tolerated all protesters has it not? People were carrying on the streets during protests were they arrested? No. You're making stuff up 333 and failing badly at the simple thing called logic and reason.
-
Where has he not? Has he censored anyone? Have the tea baggers and birthers been arrested? You're just making stuff up. Nanny state how? Because of health care? Police state how? Because of health care? What exactly has been done to make it a nanny state or police state? Has there been a crack down on dissent? Have protests been broken up? Have People been jailed for speaking freely? This admin has tolerated all protesters has it not? People were carrying on the streets during protests were they arrested? No. You're making stuff up 333 and failing badly at the simple thing called logic and reason.
Ha ha. You have got to be kidding.
-
Ha ha. You have got to be kidding.
Nope, just posting reason and fact 333 not speculation. Keep on scare mongering and attacking free speech in the name of free speech (good one!)
-
Nope, just posting reason and fact 333 not speculation. Keep on scare mongering and attacking free speech in the name of free speech (good one!)
Incredible. You try to turn this on me now? This is the Regulation CZAR advocating taxing speech. You are ok with that?
-
Incredible. You try to turn this on me now? This is the Regulation CZAR advocating taxing speech. You are ok with that?
Where has he advocated it? It's an academic paper 333 not a submission to congress. These things are theories mostly used to show just how smart you are not to enact into public policy. You're advocating that we condemn his right to free speech based on him writing something in a purely academic and theoretical situation. Do you not see the precedent you are setting here? That anyone who wishes to theorize or write about anything must do so on only topics that are not controversial. You are censoring free speech and thought, two things that make this country and the universities here the best in the world.
-
Where has he advocated it? It's an academic paper 333 not a submission to congress. These things are theories mostly used to show just how smart you are not to enact into public policy. You're advocating that we condemn his right to free speech based on him writing something in a purely academic and theoretical situation. Do you not see the precedent you are setting here? That anyone who wishes to theorize or write about anything must do so on only topics that are not controversial. You are censoring free speech and thought, two things that make this country and the universities here the best in the world.
I'm advocating attacking his idiotic theories and nonsense as being NWO rubbish and communist bs like we get daily from this admn.
-
I'm advocating attacking his idiotic theories and nonsense as being NWO rubbish and communist bs like we get daily from this admn.
So your saying anyone in higher office must only think in a way you agree with? Must never write about any academic theories (regardless of the context they are in) unless you agree with it and basically must be a robot patsy to YOUR way of thinking.
-
So your saying anyone in higher office must only think in a way you agree with? Must never write about any academic theories (regardless of the context they are in) unless you agree with it and basically must be a robot patsy to YOUR way of thinking.
If they advocate silencing and taxing people for their views, yes.
-
If they advocate silencing and taxing people for their views, yes.
You obviously don't understand what academic theory is 333 and wish to censor this. Libertarian my arse ::)
-
You obviously don't understand what academic theory is 333 and wish to censor this. Libertarian my arse ::)
No of course not KC. Only the left understands anything.
-
No of course not KC. Only the left understands anything.
Never said that 333 but you seem to not understand free speech and academic theory as it relates to papers written. Nor do you seem to understand context. Poor misguided soul i would turn you back to the article i posted a month or so ago about being blinded by your political prejudice but you'd only prove the author of the work correct, yet again.
-
Never said that 333 but you seem to not understand free speech and academic theory as it relates to papers written. Nor do you seem to understand context. Poor misguided soul i would turn you back to the article i posted a month or so ago about being blinded by your political prejudice but you'd only prove the author of the work correct, yet again.
Keep kneepadding bro. Anyone who even entertains the idea of taxing thoughts is a POFS in my mind.
-
he took an extreme adversarial position for a college paper? oh brother.
Don't call me when you're in my town, wait til you're on my block (mercury morris?)
hahahahahahhaha when a bill is introduced, let me know. (never)
-
Apparently you dont read idiot.
In a 2008 Harvard law paper, "Conspiracy Theories," Sunstein and co-author Adrian Vermeule, a Harvard law professor, ask, "What can government do about conspiracy theories?"
"We can readily imagine a series of possible responses. (1) Government might ban conspiracy theorizing. (2) Government might impose some kind of tax, financial or otherwise, on those who disseminate such theories."
In the 30-page paper – obtained and reviewed by WND – Sunstein argues the best government response to "conspiracy theories" is "cognitive infiltration of extremist groups."
________________________ ________________________ ____________--
Was this the same esteemeed Harvard Law Review that Obama was editor of? So once you use it as a qualification for president and now you dismiss it?
Whatever Kneepadder.
-
i'm saying people take all sorts of adversarial positions on college papers. You claim to have a law degree... did you write a ton of vanilla papers in college? or did you take some positions on devils advocate? I was pre-law/poli sci major for almost 2 years in college... I wrote papers that were against the grain and that was just undergrad.
CTers have been crying for years about this. Bush admitted the pentagon had guys hitting forums 'dispelling myths'. it's an info war baby, you know that. And it seems like you're a fan of every CT except the one that affected you emotionally...
-
i'm saying people take all sorts of adversarial positions on college papers. You claim to have a law degree... did you write a ton of vanilla papers in college? or did you take some positions on devils advocate? I was pre-law/poli sci major for almost 2 years in college... I wrote papers that were against the grain and that was just undergrad.
CTers have been crying for years about this. Bush admitted the pentagon had guys hitting forums 'dispelling myths'. it's an info war baby, you know that. And it seems like you're a fan of every CT except the one that affected you emotionally...
Ha Ha!!!! This is what Obama and Sunstein believe you dope. 240 - you seriously need to wake the hell up. Imagine if Condi or Wolfowitz wrote something like this in 2000? Your head would have exploded.
I myself wrote two articles- one about SS being a ponzi scheme and the other about the vile nature of environmental law suits shutting down traditional activities and infriniging on rights such as Trap Shooting, Hunting, Etc.
-
right. and if you were hired in the palin admin, you would be painted as someone planted to end social security or destory the climate.
if the bill was being introduced, i'd be the loudest critic. a college paper is just that, something you have to write for a degree.
-
right. and if you were hired in the palin admin, you would be painted as someone planted to end social security or destory the climate.
if the bill was being introduced, i'd be the loudest critic. a college paper is just that, something you have to write for a degree.
Mein Kamph was just a book too right 240? :o :o :o
-
*when an arguement isn't going anywhere, tossing in a hitler reference is sure to get emotions going. great.
-
*when an arguement isn't going anywhere, tossing in a hitler reference is sure to get emotions going. great.
Ok, the "Communist Manifesto" - do you feel better 240?
Serious Bro - your shill job for Obama is getting back to February/March 2009 levels.
How can you defend this?
-
for the 90th time, i'm not defending obama here.
I'm saying college papers are just that. if this becomes legislation, I'll get all riled up too.
-
for the 90th time, i'm not defending obama here.
I'm saying college papers are just that. if this becomes legislation, I'll get all riled up too.
40,000!
-
lol oh how the time flies!
-
*when an arguement isn't going anywhere, tossing in a hitler reference is sure to get emotions going. great.
So true 240. 333 is being shown up here for what he is. Someone who only believes in free speech when it suits him and doesn't believe universities should foster anything outside of the 'status quo' view of things.
-
So true 240. 333 is being shown up here for what he is. Someone who only believes in free speech when it suits him and doesn't believe universities should foster anything outside of the 'status quo' view of things.
So, Sunstein should have the right to say we should have free speech, yet, I shouldnt have the right to attack him in pooistion of his views?
-
So, Sunstein should have the right to say we should have free speech, yet, I shouldnt have the right to attack him in pooistion of his views?
I've never had an issue with you attacking his views. I have an issue with you trying to portray his academic paper as law as if this is something he has brought before congress to vote on.
-
I've never had an issue with you attacking his views. I have an issue with you trying to portray his academic paper as law as if this is something he has brought before congress to vote on.
How about the clip I posted? He is on record saying we have no right to guns under the 2nd amendment. You are ok with that?
He is the regulatory CZAR for fucks sake and you can expect him to try to implement regulations along the lines of his views.
-
How about the clip I posted? He is on record saying we have no right to guns under the 2nd amendment. You are ok with that?
He is the regulatory CZAR for fucks sake and you can expect him to try to implement regulations along the lines of his views.
That's his view and interpretation. If we only had 'yes' men we'd have a pretty poor country. Not everyone is going to be for everything, that's the way life is. If he tabled a law to repeal the 2nd amendment that would be different, until then his personal views are his and his alone.
-
That's his view and interpretation. If we only had 'yes' men we'd have a pretty poor country. Not everyone is going to be for everything, that's the way life is. If he tabled a law to repeal the 2nd amendment that would be different, until then his personal views are his and his alone.
Thats all Obama has is yes men like Sunstein, Lloyd, Jones, Dunn, Geithner, Holdren, Jennings, etc.
-
Thats all Obama has is yes men like Sunstein, Lloyd, Jones, Dunn, Geithner, Holdren, Jennings, etc.
And all Bush supposedly had was war hawks that the left hated. You sound like a butthurt liberal right now 333.
-
And all Bush supposedly had was war hawks that the left hated. You sound like a butthurt liberal right now 333.
And look how that worked out for Jorge Boosh? Not too well KC.
The same way this admn is crumbling, flopping, folding, and imploding by the day.
Its become a sad joke at best.
-
he took an extreme adversarial position for a college paper? oh brother.
Don't call me when you're in my town, wait til you're on my block (mercury morris?)
hahahahahahhaha when a bill is introduced, let me know. (never)
I purposefully take the adversarial or least likely position on most of my papers as the professors usually eat that shit up. Makes it look like you're actually interested and researching the work.
That said, basing an argument around what someone did in their 20s when they're now in their late 40s is idiotic.
-
I purposefully take the adversarial or least likely position on most of my papers as the professors usually eat that shit up. Makes it look like you're actually interested and researching the work.
That said, basing an argument around what someone did in their 20s when they're now in their late 40s is idiotic.
This guy wrote this last year and was with his statements in the clip that americans dont have a 2nd amendment right to private ownership of weapons.
-
"I purposefully take the adversarial or least likely position on most of my papers as the professors usually eat that shit up."
True that. i always scored higher on papers that were 'outside the box'. they seem to give you extra points when you think creatively and not just regurgitate the textbook. While morally bankrupt, the theme of the paper is relevant and useful for course welcoming constitutional debate vs. national unity, whatever. professors like that lame stuff.
-
"I purposefully take the adversarial or least likely position on most of my papers as the professors usually eat that shit up."
True that. i always scored higher on papers that were 'outside the box'. they seem to give you extra points when you think creatively and not just regurgitate the textbook. While morally bankrupt, the theme of the paper is relevant and useful for course welcoming constitutional debate vs. national unity, whatever. professors like that lame stuff.
I have always been hardcore 240 - shit - how many people in a ulta lib law school headed by RFK, JR are going to go to write their law review article n protecting the 2nd amendement from enviro freaks when the whole law school is based on enviro law?
-
Cass Sunstein
In a lengthy academic paper, President Obama's regulatory czar, Cass Sunstein, argued the U.S. government should ban "conspiracy theorizing."
Among the beliefs Sunstein would ban is advocating that the theory of global warming is a deliberate fraud.
Some "conspiracy theories" recommended for ban by Sunstein include:
"The theory of global warming is a deliberate fraud."
"The view that the Central Intelligence Agency was responsible for the assassination of President John F. Kennedy."
"The 1996 crash of TWA flight 800 was caused by a U.S. military missile."
"The Trilateral Commission is responsible for important movements of the international economy."
"That Martin Luther King Jr. was killed by federal agents."
"The moon landing was staged and never actually occurred."
Nice pull 33333!
But really, so what? I don't really care that this guy thinks that. I care if he puts it into law which from what i understand he doesn't have the power to do. I hope we never live in a world where CT's are taxed or banned. We might as well call it Russia or Hitler's Germany of that happens. I wonder if he had written that in 2003.
-
Nice pull 33333!
But really, so what? I don't really care that this guy thinks that. I care if he puts it into law which from what i understand he doesn't have the power to do. I hope we never live in a world where CT's are taxed or banned. We might as well call it Russia or Hitler's Germany of that happens. I wonder if he had written that in 2003.
This was written in 2008 in the Harvard Law Review from what I can tell.
-
This was written in 2008 in the Harvard Law Review from what I can tell.
Sorry,
I meant to say: I wonder if he would have written that in 2003.