Theodore's World: CZAR Cass Sunstein Wants To Censor the TRUTH About Obama

« William Shatner on Gun Control ~ LOL | Main | Todd Beamers Father, David Beamer Criticizes New York 9/11 Tria »

November 24, 2009

CZAR Cass Sunstein Wants To Censor the TRUTH About Obama

Cass Sunstein: Censor Hannity, right-wing rumors

Cites websites for 'absurd' reports of Obama's ties to Ayers


By Aaron Klein

Websites should be obliged to remove "false rumors" while libel laws should be altered to make it easier to sue for spreading such "rumors," argued Cass Sunstein, Obama's regulatory czar.

In his recently released book, "On Rumors," Sunstein specifically cited as a primary example of "absurd" and "hateful" remarks, reports by "right-wing websites" alleging an association between President Obama and Weatherman terrorist Bill Ayers.
He also singled out radio talker Sean Hannity for "attacking" Obama regarding the president's "alleged associations."

Ayers became a name in last year's presidential campaign when it was disclosed the radical worked closely with Obama for years. Obama also was said to have launched his political career at a 1995 fundraiser in Ayers' apartment.

As WND reported, Obama and Ayers sat together on the board of a Chicago nonprofit, the Woods Fund. Ayers also was a founder of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, where Obama was appointed as its first chairman in 1995.

Ayers reportedly was involved in hiring Obama for the CAC – a job the future president later touted as qualifying him to run for public office.

WND columnist Jack Cashill has produced a series of persuasive arguments that it was Ayers who ghostwrote Obama's award-winning autobiography "Dreams from My Father."

However, such reports were characterized by Sunstein as "absurd" charges for which corrective measures can be taken.

Sunstein's book – reviewed by WND – was released in September, after he was already installed as the administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.

"In the era of the Internet, it has become easy to spread false or misleading rumors about almost anyone," Sunstein writes.
"Some right-wing websites liked to make absurd and hateful remarks about the alleged relationship between Barack Obama and the former radical Bill Ayers; one of the websites' goals was undoubtedly to attract more viewers," he writes.
Sunstein continues: "On the Internet as well as on talk radio, altruistic propagators are easy to find; they play an especially large role in the political domain. When Sean Hannity, the television talk show host, attacked Barack Obama because of his alleged associations, one of his goals might have been to promote values and causes that he cherishes."
Sunstein presents multiple new measures he argues can be used to stop the spread of "rumors."
He contends "freedom usually works, but in some contexts, it is an incomplete corrective."
Sunstein proposes the imposition of a "chilling effect" on "damaging rumors" – or the use of strong "corrective" measures to deter future rumormongers.

For websites, Sunstein suggests a "right to notice and take down" in which "those who run websites would be obliged to take down falsehoods upon notice."

Sunstein also argues for the "right to demand a retraction after a clear demonstration that a statement is both false and damaging." But he does not explain which agency would determine whether any statement is false and damaging.
Sunstein further pushes for "deterrence" through making libel lawsuits easier to bring.

Sunstein drafted 'New Deal Fairness Doctrine'

Sunstein's proposals outlined in his book "On Rumors" were not the first of his writings to recommend regulating talk radio or the news media.

WND 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 of the U.S. 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.

Sunstein compares the need for the government to regulate broadcasting to the moral obligation of the government stepping in to end segregation.

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.

April 14, 2009

The Obama Administration Is Criminalizing Dissent? Intimidating Its Ideological Opponents? You Must Be Joking

The Corner

by Andrew C. McCarthy

I’m still digging out of my various pre-election hate mail piles — you know, “How could say Obama is a socialist who will redistribute wealth just because he used to be a member of a socialist party and criticized the Warren Court for failing to order the redistribution of wealth?”; “How could you say Obama is a Left-wing radical rather than a centrist moderate just because he made common cause with Bill Ayers, Bernadine Dohrn, Mike Klonsky, Jeremiah Wright, Frank Marshall Davis, et al?”; “How could you say Obama would be an extremist on abortion and other life issues just because he supported infanticide as a Chicago legislator?”; “How could you say Obama would be anti-Israel in his governance and appointments just because he pals around with Rashid Khalidi?”; “How could you say an Obama administration would turn TARP into a Big Government slush fund just because he managed the Chicago Annenberg Challenge as a Big Lefty slush fund?”; “How could you say Obama will be soft on Iran just because Obama is soft on Iran?”; etc. But I note that I got plenty for this one, too:

Obama’s Assault on the First Amendment

I’ll be blunt: Sen. Obama and his supporters despise free expression, the bedrock of American self-determinism and hence American democracy. What’s more, like garden-variety despots, they see law not as a means of ensuring liberty but as a tool to intimidate and quell dissent...........
In St. Louis, local law-enforcement authorities, dominated by Democrat-party activists, [are] threatening libel prosecutions against Obama’s political opposition. County Circuit Attorney Bob McCulloch and City Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce, abetted by a local sheriff and encouraged by the Obama campaign, warned that members of the public who dared speak out against Obama during the campaign’s crucial final weeks would face criminal libel charges — if, in the judgment of these conflicted officials, such criticism of their champion was “false.”
The chill wind was bracing. The Taliban could not better rig matters. The Prophet of Change is only to be admired, not questioned. In the stretch run of an American election, there is to be no examination of a candidate for the world’s most powerful office — whether about his radical record, the fringe Leftism that lies beneath his thin, centrist veneer, his enabling of infanticide, his history of race-conscious politics, his proposals for unprecedented confiscation and distribution of private property (including a massive transfer of American wealth to third-world dictators through international bureaucrats), his ruinous economic policies that have helped leave Illinois a financial wreck, his place at the vortex of the credit market implosion that has put the U.S. economy on the brink of meltdown, his aggressive push for American withdrawal and defeat in Iraq, his easy gravitation to America-hating activists, be they preachers like Jeremiah Wright, terrorists like Bill Ayers, or Communists like Frank Marshall Davis. Comment on any of this and risk indictment or, at the very least, government harassment and exorbitant legal fees.


Wild Thing's comment........

Obama and this guy are pure evil. They revel in such destruction of decent people and freedom.

I can’t belive I am alive to see this’s like one of those terrible sci-fi thriller that is set in the very disant future...only it’s not.

Hey piece of work Cass, “False rumors?” You mean like global warming?

I believe this guy knows exactly what he’s doing. It’s called dictatorship. Absolute and total control over the masses.

I’m not going to let the Obama Administration tell me what I can post on the internet. They have no right to declare a statement a “rumor”, and ban it.

....Thank you Mark for sending this to me.

3rd Mar.Div. 1st Battalion 9th Marine Regiment
1/9 Marines aka The Walking Dead
VN 66-67

Posted by Wild Thing at November 24, 2009 04:47 AM


Remember the 60's sitcom "Mr. Ed" - a horse is a horse of course of course? Well, Cass is an a - -, an a - - an a - - ......

Posted by: jan at November 24, 2009 07:25 AM

Yeah Sunstein sorta looks a little like 'Willllllburrrr.'

Posted by: Mark at November 24, 2009 11:51 AM

Sunstein's primary goal seems to be to abolish the First Amendment I am sure he also hates the other amendments. He is just another communist that is an accosiate of obama.

Posted by: TomR at November 24, 2009 01:05 PM

"Absurd" rumors being ones that mention ANY ties, of course.

Posted by: Anoymous at November 24, 2009 07:33 PM

Jan, LOL hahahaha

Good one!!!

Posted by: Wild Thing at November 24, 2009 07:36 PM

Thank you everyone so much.

Posted by: Wild Thing at November 24, 2009 07:39 PM