After listening to Glenn Beck this morning, I decided to find the paper he referenced on this Cass Sunstein guy.

Here is a quote from:

Conspiracy Theories

What are YOU lookin' at? SHUT UP!

University of Chicago – Law School
Harvard University – Harvard Law School
This paper can be downloaded free of charge from the
Social Science Research Network at:

II. Governmental Responses
What can government do about conspiracy theories? Among the things it can do, what should it do? 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. (3) Government might itself engage in counterspeech, marshaling arguments to discredit conspiracy theories. (4) Government might formally hire credible private parties to engage in counterspeech. (5) Government might engage in informal communication with such parties, encouraging them to help. Each instrument has a distinctive set of potential effects, or costs and benefits, and each will have a place under imaginable conditions. However, our main policy idea is that government should engage in cognitive infiltration of the groups that produce conspiracy theories, which involves a mix of (3), (4) and (5).

This guy is scaaaaary.  I figure, if  Stacy McCain and Smitty say there are 5 a’s in raaaaacist, then there must be 5 a’s in scaaaaary with regard to this mad hatter. And when I say scaaaaary, I mean insaaaaane. How do these nutcases actually make it through law school? (That’s a rhetorical question.)

The preceding quote was taken directly from the paper here Page 14.

Here is some more lovely info from Wackopedia which quotes his book:

In his book Democracy and the Problem of Free Speech Sunstein says there is a need to reformulate First Amendment law. He thinks that the current formulation, based on Justice Holmes’ conception of free speech as a marketplace “disserves the aspirations of those who wrote America’s founding document.”[14] The purpose of this reformulation would be to “reinvigorate processes of democratic deliberation, by ensuring greater attention to public issues and greater diversity of views.”[15] He is concerned by the present “situation in which like-minded people speak or listen mostly to one another,”[16] and thinks that in “light of astonishing economic and technological changes, we must doubt whether, as interpreted, the constitutional guarantee of free speech is adequately serving democratic goals.”[17] He proposes a “New Deal for speech [that] would draw on Justice Brandeis’ insistence on the role of free speech in promoting political deliberation and citizenship.”[15]

Yea, that old festering sore, the First Amendment. It needs to be fixed, FIXED I tell you. Can’t have a bunch of people running around, associating with like minded folks just because they want to or they might agree on a position! We must FORCE diversity and differing views into the minds of the ignorant unwashed masses.

If only the Founders knew what we know. Those foolish, idiotic old men. They were drunk, or high, or both to conceive of Natural Law in the first place, why, we now know that there is no god but government. Right?

Please excuse the ranting sarcasm. It happens sometimes.

These are the types of people Barack Hussein Obama has hand picked to be his advisers and czars.

We’ve got a fight on our hands people. These are treacherous, traitorous, treasonous individuals who must be stopped.

God help us all.

UPDATE: The Classic Liberal has more on this, plus a Tin Foil Cat!

  • Teresa May 10, 2010 at 6:23 pm

    I wish our Founders could come back to haunt these liberal nuts and teach them a thing or two. Yes, we have a fight on our hands. We must continue to fight the good fight.

  • They Say / We Say May 10, 2010 at 8:05 pm

    Is this your theory on conspiracies; or is this your conspiracy on their theories?
    I’m doomed. Every thing I talk about is so out there, it has to be one of their categorized “theories”. Even though it is from some of their, very own books.

  • Red May 11, 2010 at 12:19 pm

    “Wackopedia”. Ha! I’m so stealing that. Sca5ry guys like this have low-life friends in high places.

  • Red May 11, 2010 at 12:20 pm

    Crap. I was trying to superscript the 5 with html but it wouldn’t generate. So much for trying to be web savvy.

  • mnrobot May 11, 2010 at 12:33 pm

    Talk about coincidence. Your comment passed my comment in the hallway of the blogosphere! lol

  • Chris Wysocki May 11, 2010 at 6:58 pm

    Barry’s acolytes have a habit of trampling on the Constitution. Elena Kagan believes free speech ought to be weighed against “societal costs”. Speech which offends or is critical of the government should be suppressed.

    And when you factor in that the FCC is poised to regulate the internet, well let’s just say that we need to watch our backs. The blog we save may be our own.

    • mnrobot May 11, 2010 at 7:22 pm

      Acolytes? Why don’t I have any acolytes? I used to have groupies. Does that count?

  • NH May 17, 2010 at 1:54 pm

    You can read the whole book here, it’s quite disturbing, but then again you gotta know where these people are coming from. They think they are right dammit, and thus you must be forced to believe.

    • NH May 17, 2010 at 2:42 pm

      Actually the damning passage is on page xi, and it’s been withheld on any site I have found the book… Hmm.

  • […] noted in an earlier post that Information Czzzzzar Cass Sunstein’s views are diametrically opposed to the First […]

  • […] Cass Sunstein, Elena Kagan, The DCCC, El Presidente Obamalama ding-dong and former President Clinton are worried about your informational intake, your knowledge consumption. […]

  • Say it. Don't Spray it!

    Threaded commenting powered by interconnect/it code.


Subscribe via email
December 2022