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!

CASS R. SUNSTEIN
University of Chicago – Law School
ADRIAN VERMEULE
Harvard University – Harvard Law School
This paper can be downloaded free of charge from the
Social Science Research Network at:
http://ssrn.com/abstract=1084585

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!

Robot Recommends :

AFTERBURNER w/ BILL WHITTLE: The Lynching

The Islamification of the US Military

5 Compelling Reasons to Vote for Romney [vide...

Second 2012 Presidential Debate 10-16-12 [fu...