![\"\"](\"http:\/\/www.wnd.com\/images\/090916casssunstein.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
by Aaron Klein
\nWND.com<\/p>\n
In a lengthy academic paper, President Obama\u2019s regulatory czar, Cass Sunstein, argued the U.S. government should ban \u201cconspiracy theorizing.\u201d<\/p>\n
Among the beliefs Sunstein would ban is advocating that the theory of global warming is a deliberate fraud.<\/p>\n
Sunstein also recommended the government send agents to infiltrate \u201cextremists who supply conspiracy theories\u201d to disrupt the efforts of the \u201cextremists\u201d to propagate their theories.<\/p>\n
In a 2008 Harvard law paper, \u201cConspiracy Theories,\u201d Sunstein and co-author Adrian Vermeule, a Harvard law professor, ask, \u201cWhat can government do about conspiracy theories?\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cWe 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.\u201d<\/p>\n
In the 30-page paper \u2013 obtained and reviewed by WND \u2013 Sunstein argues the best government response to \u201cconspiracy theories\u201d is \u201ccognitive infiltration of extremist groups.\u201d<\/p>\n
Continued Sunstein: \u201cWe 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.\u201d<\/p>\n
Read more about Cass Sunstein\u2019s agenda in \u201cShut Up, America!: The End of Free Speech\u201d<\/p>\n
Sunstein said government agents \u201cmight 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.\u201d<\/p>\n
Sunstein defined a conspiracy theory as \u201can effort to explain some event or practice by reference to the machinations of powerful people, who have also managed to conceal their role.\u201d<\/p>\n
Some \u201cconspiracy theories\u201d recommended for ban by Sunstein include:<\/p>\n
\u201cThe theory of global warming is a deliberate fraud.\u201d
\n\u201cThe view that the Central Intelligence Agency was responsible for the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.\u201d
\n\u201cThe 1996 crash of TWA flight 800 was caused by a U.S. military missile.\u201d
\n\u201cThe Trilateral Commission is responsible for important movements of the international economy.\u201d
\n\u201cThat Martin Luther King Jr. was killed by federal agents.\u201d
\n\u201cThe moon landing was staged and never actually occurred.\u201d
\nSunstein allowed that \u201csome conspiracy theories, under our definition, have turned out to be true.\u201d<\/p>\n
He continued: \u201cThe 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,
\nthe CIA did, in fact, administer LSD and related drugs under Project MKULTRA, in an effort to investigate the possibility of \u2018mind control.\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n
Sunstein\u2019s paper advocating against the belief that global warming is a deliberate fraud was written before November\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n
Sunstein: Ban \u2018right wing\u2019 rumors<\/p>\n
Sunstein\u2019s paper is not the first time he has advocated banning the free flow of information.<\/p>\n
WND reported that in a recently released book, \u201cOn Rumors,\u201d Sunstein argued websites should be obliged to remove \u201cfalse rumors\u201d while libel laws should be altered to make it easier to sue for spreading such \u201crumors.\u201d<\/p>\n
In the 2009 book, Sunstein cited as a primary example of \u201cabsurd\u201d and \u201chateful\u201d remarks, reports by \u201cright-wing websites\u201d alleging an association between President Obama and Weatherman terrorist William Ayers.<\/p>\n
He also singled out radio talker Sean Hannity for \u201cattacking\u201d Obama regarding the president\u2019s \u201calleged associations.\u201d<\/p>\n
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\u2019 apartment.<\/p>\n
\u2018New Deal Fairness Doctrine\u2019<\/p>\n
WND also previously reported Sunstein drew up a \u201cFirst Amendment New Deal\u201d \u2013 a new \u201cFairness Doctrine\u201d that would include the establishment of a panel of \u201cnonpartisan experts\u201d to ensure \u201cdiversity of view\u201d on the airwaves.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
Sunstein\u2019s radical proposal, set forth in his 1993 book \u201cThe Partial Constitution,\u201d received no news media attention and scant scrutiny until the WND report.<\/p>\n
In the book, Sunstein outwardly favors and promotes the \u201cFairness Doctrine,\u201d the abolished FCC policy that required holders of broadcast licenses to present controversial issues of public importance in a manner the government deemed \u201cequitable and balanced.\u201d<\/p>\n
Sunstein introduces what he terms his \u201cFirst Amendment New Deal\u201d to regulate broadcasting in the U.S.<\/p>\n
His proposal, which focuses largely on television, includes a government requirement that \u201cpurely commercial stations provide financial subsidies to public television or to commercial stations that agree to provide less profitable but high-quality programming.\u201d<\/p>\n
Sunstein wrote it is \u201cworthwhile to consider more dramatic approaches as well.\u201d<\/p>\n
He proposes \u201ccompulsory public-affairs programming, right of reply, content review by nonpartisan experts or guidelines to encourage attention to public issues and diversity of view.\u201d<\/p>\n
The Obama czar argues his regulation proposals for broadcasting are actually presented within the spirit of the Constitution.<\/p>\n
\u201cIt seems quite possible that a law that contained regulatory remedies would promote rather than undermine the \u2018freedom of speech,\u2019\u201d he writes.<\/p>\n
Writes Sunstein: \u201cThe 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.\u201d<\/p>\n
Sunstein contends the landmark case that brought about the Fairness Doctrine, Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. Federal Communications Commission, \u201cstresses 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.\u201d<\/p>\n
He continues: \u201cIn a market system, this goal may be compromised. It is hardly clear that \u2018the freedom of speech\u2019 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.\u201d<\/p>\n
In his book, Sunstein slams the U.S. courts\u2019 unwillingness to \u201crequire something like a Fairness Doctrine\u201d to be a result of \u201cthe judiciary\u2019s lack of democratic pedigree, lack of fact-finding powers and limited remedial authority.\u201d<\/p>\n
He clarifies he is not arguing the government should be free to regulate broadcasting however it chooses.<\/p>\n
\u201cRegulation designed to eliminate a particular viewpoint would of course be out of bounds. All viewpoint discrimination would be banned,\u201d Sunstein writes.<\/p>\n
But, he says, \u201cat the very least, regulative \u2018fairness doctrines\u2019 would raise no real doubts\u201d constitutionally.
\nRead more at http:\/\/www.wnd.com\/2010\/01\/121884\/#WfMaHHo9Rr4hckZZ.99<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
TOP OBAMA CZAR: INFILTRATE ALL ‘CONSPIRACY THEORISTS’<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-24332","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/stateofthenation2012.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/24332","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/stateofthenation2012.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/stateofthenation2012.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/stateofthenation2012.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/stateofthenation2012.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=24332"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/stateofthenation2012.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/24332\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/stateofthenation2012.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=24332"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/stateofthenation2012.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=24332"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/stateofthenation2012.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=24332"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}