Czar seeks “chilling effect.”
This is all about Cass Sunstein, the new “regulatory czar,” his latest book, and his desire to impose a “chilling effect” on Internet websites. This is an example of the folks who surround our president. How’s that warm and fuzzy feeling treating you today? This is from Lee Cary of the American Thinker:
The meta-message of Cass Sunstein's new book delivers a warning to those who would spread Internet "rumors" about Barack Obama.
The Regulatory Czar's latest book is entitled Rumors. It purports to be about how rumors spread…
The subtitle of the book is "How Falsehoods Spread, Why We Believe Them, What Can Be Done." … For Sunstein, "part of the answer lies in recognizing that a ‘chilling effect' on those who would spread destructive falsehood can be an excellent idea."…
Most of Sunstein's examples of rumor sources are directed against the Right. "If the National Rifle Association spreads a rumor that a political candidate wants to ‘confiscate guns,' or if an environmental organization spreads a rumor that someone believes that climate change is a ‘hoax,' many people will be affected, because they tend to believe the National Rifle Association or the environmental organization." …
… Like "When members of the Republican Party spread rumors about an appointee of a Democratic president, they hope to injure not only the reputation and the standing of the appointee but also that of the president and the Democratic Party as a whole, thus promoting the interests of Republicans."…
Do you think Sunstein was personally motivated on that “rumors” stuff when he himself was attacked for some of his thinking (some of which is actually confirmed by this scary book he has written.) So what happens when someone says something is a rumor, when it is actually a truth? Shouldn’t they be liable as well…if you’re going to attack the “rumor mongers” shouldn’t you also reserve a special place in this hell for the liars?
Another category of rumor propagators are the generally self-interested. Like when "Some right-wing websites liked to make absurd and hateful remarks about the alleged relationship between Barack Obama and the former radical Bill Ayers." (p. 13) ("Former" radical?) Snip –
Just as an aside here, more and more people believe that Ayers did actually write Obama’s book “Dreams from my Father.” Oops… is that a rumor or an opinion? See where this goes?
So, according to Sunstein, What Can Be Done about false rumors? Well, here's the ramp-up to his solution:
"These points should not be taken as a plea for any kind of censorship...Sometimes a chilling effect can be an excellent safeguard...We need, in short, to find ways to discourage the harmful effects of false rumors." (pp. 10-11)
Of course, creating a "chilling effect" isn't censorship. (Snark) Snip –
"Any marketplace requires standards and ground rules; no market can operate as a free-for-all. It is not obvious that the current regulatory system for free speech -- the current setting of chill -- is the one that we would or should choose for the Internet era." (p. 78)
And what might those "standards and ground rules" for the Internet era include?
1. “[A] general right to demand retraction after a clear demonstration that a statement is both false and damaging. If a newspaper (or) broadcaster or blogger refuses to provide a prominent retraction after a reasonable period of time, it might be liable for at least modest damages.”
2. "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."
3. "Damage caps and schedules could do a great deal to promote free speech values while also ensuring a measure of deterrence...A cap on damages, alongside liability to establish what is actually true, could work to leverage the propagator's concern for his reputation to good effect." (pp. 78-79) Snip –
"Some kind of chilling effect on damaging rumors is exceedingly important -- not only to protect people against negligence, cruelty, and unjustified damage to their reputations, but also to ensure the proper functioning of democracy itself." (p. 88) Snip –
If Czar Sunstein is able to enact the "chilling effect" that he proposes in Rumors by the next general election, websites like the American Thinker could become regular targets of retraction demands from the Left, and face the threat of fines for spreading what the Regulatory Czar defines as "rumors."
Perhaps a skit on Saturday Night Live that jokes about the Obama administration doing “nothing” – which is then (amazingly enough) fact-checked by CNN -- won’t be allowed on a comedy show. You see how this works? “Chilling effect” is just pre-emptive censorship. It’s a threat that hangs over one’s head – kind of like calling someone a racist keeps people from criticizing a black person (political correctness, in other words). These are all ploys of the left to shut up and shut down the right. This kind of thinking leads to the actual doing. Fight it regardless of whether it comes from the left or the right. Now, is that a rumor or an opinion? Or is it fact? Don’t write anything that might be critical because you don’t want to be sued do you? Just what is free speech? Let’s fight about this out loud, on paper, on television, on radio, on the Internet, then let the individual decide. That’s free speech. http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/10/czar_seeks_chilling_effect_on.html
Withering free speech.
Mark Steyn on the dismantling of free speech. This is from a blog post at The Corner on National Review Online.
…the superficial fluffily benign language of multiculturalism that comes so naturally to our rulers provides a lot of cover for the shriveling of free speech: See, for instance, what the Administration and its chums in Cairo (that bastion of liberty) have recently been up to at the disgusting UN Human Rights Council. The indefatigable Anne Bayefsky is one of the few journalists even following this story.
But I was struck by something Dennis Miller said to me on the radio the other day:
As Canadians have discovered, liberty is lost very quietly and quickly. And trying to get it back is slow and painful - particularly at a time when artists, universities, publishers and others who congratulate themselves incessantly on their truth-telling courage find increasingly pre-emptiveself-censorship the better part of valor.
Note Steyn’s terminology: “pre-emptive self-censorship.” Wording similar to my own in the above blog post. Multiculturalism and political correctness are exactly that: pre-emptive self-censorship. And please remember where political correctness and multiculturalism came from as Bill Whittle reminds us (it’s Marxism married to the culture rather than to the economy) here: http://www.pjtv.com/?cmd=video&video-id=2343
The Europe of 2020 will have considerably less freedom of expression than today. American exceptionalism is going to have to be exceptionally exceptional to hold out against that trend.
Could Supremes overturn McCain-Feingold?
Will they put the FEC on a leash that was loosened in 1990 and removed in 2003? This might be an interesting case to watch. Freedom of speech is being attacked from all quarters. This is from an unsigned editorial in the Wall Street Journal.
…the Supreme Court heard a historic reargument in the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission , and the Justices have a chance to revisit two of their greatest offenses against the Constitution.
The case involves a political documentary made during last year's Presidential primaries about then-Senator Clinton called "Hillary: The Movie." It wasn't what you'd call a glowing portrayal. Funded by a group called Citizens United, the film was intended to be shown on cable TV during the primary season, a profile that got it caught in the net of campaign finance reform laws that control political advertising.
At stake are two major precedents in the campaign-finance canon, Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990) and a portion of McConnell v. FEC (2003). In Austin , the Court ruled the government may ban corporations from engaging in what's known as "express advocacy" directly from corporate treasury funds, requiring the funds to be channeled through a separate political action committee. In McConnell , the Court built on that decision to uphold most of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, a.k.a. the 2002 McCain-Feingold law, including a section that banned "electioneering communications."
The question now before the Court is whether corporations and unions may be singled out for speech restrictions. In March, the government suggested that under current law it could theoretically also ban other media like books. "That's pretty incredible," Justice Samuel Alito said at the time. Under the standard applied to the Hillary film, the Institute for Justice noted recently, books like Michael Moore's "Dude, Where's my Country" could also be in jeopardy.
In oral argument (September 8), Solicitor General Elena Kagan tried to backpedal the possibility of such a ban, but Justice Roberts wasn't buying. Relying on the discretion of the regulators wasn't a good option, he said. "We don't put our First Amendment rights in the hands of FEC bureaucrats." Snip –
The First Amendment was designed specifically to protect speech in just the kind of scenario "Hillary: The Movie" presents—the right to engage in the political process and to challenge and comment on candidates. Citizens United is the ideal opportunity to overturn a major swath of bad law.
We don’t put our First Amendment rights in the hands of a “Regulation Czar” either. So, whatever Czar Sunstein commands could and should be brought before the Supreme Court as well. Let’s hope Obama doesn’t have a chance to pack that before Sunstein does his dirty work. Let’s hope the Supremes smack down McCain-Feingold once and for all. Read it all here:
Free political speech.
Mona Charen also has an article about freeing political speech, not just from laws, but from FEC regulations that have tied the free-speech hands of everyday Americans. This is from National Review Online.
…As Brad Smith, former chairman of the Federal Election Commission, recently explained, campaign-finance laws continue to regulate over “70 different types of speakers — corporations, candidates, party officials, unions; and 30 different forms of speech, each with its own rules.” There are more than 200 pages of statutory language, over 500 pages of regulations, over 1,700 pages of explanation and justification of these regulations, and over 2,000 advisory opinions by the Federal Election Commission interpreting all of this.
Many Americans are unaware of how much their free-speech rights have been infringed. But as John Stossel reported, Becky Cornwall got a painful education. She opposed a ballot initiative that would have folded her town into the larger neighboring jurisdiction. Because she owned a printing shop, she made up signs saying “No Annexation.” Some of her neighbors joined her cause and knocked on doors sporting “No Annexation” t-shirts and seeking signatures for a petition. Before you could say “grassroots political activity,” she and her friends were slapped with a lawsuit for failing to register as an “issue committee” and list all of their expenses.
Or take the case of Ada Fisher, a retired North Carolina doctor who twice ran for Congress. “She ran on a shoestring budget, campaigning out of her own car, making her own signs and buttons. For staff, she relied exclusively on volunteers.” Unable to successfully navigate the 500 pages of FEC regulations, she and her (unpaid) campaign treasurer were fined $10,000 for late filings.
These FEC regulations are nothing more than an incumbent protection racket. Those grassroots activists trying to run their own candidates would do themselves a lot of good to get educated on these usurper-of-the-Constitution regulations. Make sure your friends and relatives know what is at stake as the government infringes on Americans’ rights while we’re looking elsewhere. Read it all here:
Here’s Newsbusted’s latest video.
http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/checker.aspx?v=GdSUnzuzkU
