Obama’s Views on Freedom of Speech,

376.) President Obama’s unconstitutional Regulatory Czar Cass Sunstein has a vary interesting view about freedom of speech. You see Cass Sunstein has publically said that the government needs to step in and ban certian types of speech. He believes that the government should make anything it deems to be a conspiracy theory illegal. He says that the government can…
          I.) Levy a Tax on anyone who spreads conspiracy theories,
          II.) The government must engage in counterspeech to discredit the conspiracy theorist, (rather than disprove)
          III.) The government needs to hire crediable individuals to engage in counter-speech.
in the article in which these suggestions come from the conclusion of the article suggest that the government should get involved in breaking up some conspeiracy theories, doing so by enlisiting private parties to supply rubuttals, and by infiltrating their groups.
this sounds a lot more like Soviet Russia then it does the United States of America, this guy is in a position of basically unlimited power as his position is not outlined by the consitutition and he is not bound to the approval of congress.  Judge me by the company I keep, President Obama said, well it is clear that President Obama does not believe in the freedom of speech.

377.) President Obama has taken the fight against “confusing” information, his nominee for the United States Supreme Court has given and will only give one interview. This interview was not even given to a new network, instead the White House used its own new in house media to conduct the interview. Ms. Kagan was not interviewed by a trained reporter or a political analyst instead it was conducted by a White House Staffer. The video is available on  the White House website. I watch this video and was disgusted at the soft open ended questions that were given. There was no confrontations or attempts to force Kagan to be honest, she was allowed to say whatever she wanted and not called on any of it.  This form of giving an interview actually matches up 100% with Kagan’s views on the first Ammendment. In 1996 Elena Kagan wrote a paper in which she said “If there is an over-abundance of an idea in the absence of direct governmental action, which there might well be when compared with some ideal state of public debate, then action disfavoring that idea might unskew rather than skew public discourse”  The government is required to step in and make sure there is not too much Rushlimbaugh, Glenn Beck, or right wing blogger nuts spreading the truth… I mean lies. Lies such as, the healthcare bill will raise the deficit, the health care bill will not make premiums go down, you know simple things.

378.) Elena Kagan thinks that Cass Sunstein is and I qoute, “Cass Sunstein is the preeminent legal scholar of our time — the most wide-ranging, the most prolific, the most cited, and the most influential”  A soon to be supreme court justice supporting a man who believes that the government should regulate freedom of speech… I believe Ms. Kagan’s views are becoming far too clear, and the clearer they become the more terrifying they become.

Advertisements
45 comments
  1. No thanks is required, I do not deserve it, I saw what I thought to be a problem and this is the only way I know of that I can try to help fight it. The best way you can help me is to spread the word. Spread the list so come election time a comprehensive list of President Obama’s failings.

  2. @obamawatch – You deserve the thanks376)  It’s about silencing the opposition.  Heaven forbid we find out what he’s really up to…377)  So much for transparency, eh?  I sitll think there needs to be at least one common, non law-student, no political person on the SCOTUS.  Someone who can just sit there and take the constitution and the laws as they are written!378)  Now now, that’s just a conspiracy!  You must now list the opposing view!

  3. This is all very worrisome.  I never thought I’d ever hear government people especially Democrats threaten freedom of speech.

  4. @prophet_21 – you said it@LoBornlytesThoughtPalace –  I never thought I would either. I know I am guilty of always thinking that America would be the land of the free and the home of the brave. If we trust the government, we will lose our freedomes.

  5. Olebob said:

    I am starting to get what most conservatives are saying about Obama. The more you guys post the more I look things I look up and find validity. I still think we need some health care reform like many people, but the way it was done is against the grain. 

  6. @agnophilo –  We’ve all heard this stuff in context with our own ears from the people who actually said it.  So your rationalizations are just more of your hallucinations, obfuscations and lies.

  7. @LoBornlytesThoughtPalace – And you’re well known for calling people liars and accusing them of “hallucinating” at the drop of a hat whenever they disagree with you.

  8. Olebob said:

    @agnophilo –  – Using the F not very positive it takes away from your point and makes people only see that word. Besides its childish.

  9. @agnophilo – Uh… what in the world are you even talking about?  (btw, love the typical, “I have no relevent argument, so I resort to swearing” tactic)I wonder if you bothered to read the paper Sunstein wrote.  You even ignored the very words you quoted.  “…each will have a place under imaginable conditions.”  In other words, yes, he wants to tax conspiracy theories.  But why should the gov’t be involved at all?  Yes, if they are untrue, then the government has the responsibility to disprove them.  But throughout the entire paper Sunstein wrote, he never goes into that.  It’s all basically “infilatrate and discredit them.”  There have been many conspiracy theories proven to be true.  And the public has the right to know about them, especially when it does harm to the public such as Project MKULTRA, where LSD was administered to unsuspecting people in a mind control experiement.  So basically, yes, Obamawatch was correct in his summation, and you are not. 

  10. @agnophilo – Your rather lengthy comment is not “the drop of a hat”.  You craft propaganda that flies in the face of what we’ve seen and heard with our own eyes and ears.

  11. @Olebob – So making up despicable lies (bearing false witness) is fine, but using a word with four letters is horribly immoral?  I think you need to re-sort your ethical priorities.@grim_truth – There’s no arguing with someone who can’t even read what the text says.@LoBornlytesThoughtPalace – That is incoherent.  Goodbye.

  12. @agnophilo – Like how you can’t read where it says “…each will have a place under imainable conditions?”  So… are you going to admit you’re the one who’s lying or not?  Sunstein clearly wrote that he felt taxing conspiracy theories is fine (wether they are true or not, he did not clarify).  Yes, you say he didn’t.   Hmm… that kind of make YOU the liar…

  13. @grim_truth – I think the operative word is “imaginable”.  Are you christian by any chance?

  14. @agnophilo – It is irrelevent what my religion, if any, is.  What are imainable conditions?  In my interpretation, I take that to mean any imaginable condition.  The bottom line is, he said they all have their place.  Which, yes, means he wants to use each of them, taxing included.Conspiracy theories are actually relevent to society.  If only 1 out of 100 were proven true, it would be worth allowing them.  Folks have the right, nay duty,  to quesiton their government.  From 9/11, to the true reasons behind the Iraq war, to Obama’s citizenship.Sunstein also bascially said in his paper, that judges couldn’t be relied upon to decide what would be a conspiracy theory.  Therefore it would be left up to the administration to decide.  Gee… do you really think they’d take an objective approach?  That’s ANY administration, not just the current one.  Tyranny starts when you are no longer allowed to question your government…

  15. @grim_truth – The actions advocated in the article are simply arguing against conspiracy theories, not censoring conspiracy theorists.  And when the author says “each will have a place under imaginable conditions” it is not clear whether they mean each should be employed in america at some point (which is not explicitly stated anywhere), or that there could be some situation extreme enough to warrant them, or that each will occur in some society somewhere.Either way you’re reading between the lines and ignoring what the author actually says.  Oh, and of course the “czar” thing is bullshit, you know that right?And also, are you christian?  I have an actual reason for asking.

  16. @agnophilo – No, i’m not reading between the lines.  And no, the actions advocated are not simply arguing against.  They include infiltration to place argumentative data to disrupt the spreading of the theory (which again, has many times proven to end up being true).  The key word is “will” have a place.  Imaginable conditions, to me, seems to imply any and all conditions you can possibly think of.  If not, he would have used the word “certain” or something more concrete.  The fact that he didn’t use a concrete word and did use the word “will” instead of “may” or “could” lead me to believe it’s what he actually wants.  Obama himself has used the word “czar” to describe some of these positions.  I am a person of my own beliefs. 

  17. @agnophilo – I am deleting this untill you can respond with out the fowl language. When you mature a bit come back.  This blog is for mature discussion of the political issues that our President brings up. If you can’t make your point with facts and logic, rather than cursing and playing the name game then don’t post here. you have brought up an interesting point, but untill you can present it cleanly, it will not be posted here.

  18. @agnophilo – you won’t respond because you have no argument.  You’ve used that excuse too many times.  It’s a lame typical liberal response.

  19. @obamawatch – I’m sure the fact that I called you out on outright lying had nothing to do with my comment getting deleted.

  20. Okay.  My original (deleted) comment modified:Yeah um you’re lying.  I just googled this and read the bit of the article you’re distorting, the author lists several things the government could do to counter conspiracy theories, then says the government shouldn’t do the ones you listed above.@presently_clandestine – @grim_truth – @prophet_21 – @LoBornlytesThoughtPalace – @Olebob – From the article:”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 kindof tax, financial or otherwise, on those who disseminate such theories. (3) Governmentmight itself engage in counterspeech, marshaling arguments to discredit conspiracytheories. (4) Government might formally hire credible private parties to engage incounterspeech. (5) Government might engage in informal communication with suchparties, encouraging them to help. “Each  instrument has a distinctive set of potentialeffects, 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 infiltrationof the groups that produce conspiracy theories, which involves a mix of (3), (4) and (5).“If one believes that conspiracy theories are in some sense inconsequential, thebest answer will be for government to ignore them.“The author is making things up, just like they did when another of obama’s advisers wrote a book about population control and listed the various hypothetical ways governments can control population growth if the situation got so extreme as to threaten to bring down civilization as a whole, glenn beck and various other lying ***holes took snippets out of context and said that he wanted to do that now, in the US, which isn’t what the book said.I’m all for criticism, but fictionalizing people and then criticizing the caricature you just invented out of thin air is bull no matter who does it.

  21. first off thank you for cleaning up your post.2nd.) after re-reading not only the article but also my original post I notice an error and I fixed it. 3rd.) The conclusion of the article states…They do not merely undermine democratic debate; in extreme cases, they create or fuel violence. If government can dispel such theories, it should do so. One problem is that its efforts might be counterproductive, because efforts to rebut conspiracy theories also legitimate them. We have suggested, however, that government can minimize this effect by rebutting more rather than fewer theories, by enlisting independent groups to supply rebuttals, and by cognitive infiltration designed to break up the crippled epistemology of conspiracy-minded groups and informationally isolated social networks. here you can clearly see the recommendation that the government should hire private parties  to supply rebuttals (counter speech), and by infiltrating these groups. Both are recommendations in the list above. I would be more willing to dismiss this as a conspiracy theory excpet for the fact that many leftist are now starting to infliltrate the Tea Party movements doing things such as making racisit or violent signs. All of these people are denounced and mocked untill they leave. I also cannot just dismiss this article or its findings,  because of Sunsteins record on the first ammendment. He has continually demonstrated that he lacks an understanding of the Consitution and that he supports the government regulating our God Given Rights.  This statment from the article in question proves that Mr. Sunstein does not understand the Consitution and believes that the government has the power to grant and control rights. “the government must surrender some degree of control over the institutions of speech” the government does not have control over insitutions of speech, no such power was granted to them in the consitution and as the 10th ammendment says “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people” They cannot assume power over the insitutions of speech. It is statments like this the prove that Cass Sunstein does not support freedom of speech in the United States. here he is supporting the fairness doctrine. Which is government regulation of free speech.Consider the “fairness doctrine,” now largely abandoned but once requiring radio and television broadcasters, 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. It is past time for a large-scale reassessment of the appropriate role of the First Amendment in the democratic process.–Cass R. Sunstein, Democracy and the Problem of Free Speech, The Free Press,1995, p. xiA legislative effort to regulate broadcasting in the interest of democratic principles should not be seen as an abridgment of the free speech guarantee.–Cass R. Sunstein, Democracy and the Problem of Free Speech, The Free Press,1995, p. 92the above statment is shocking he is trying to sway people to believe that goverment regulation doesn’t mean that your rights are under attack. here is my favorite as it mirrors the statments of President Obama at a recent commencment ceremony. A system of limitless individual choices, with respect to communications, is not necessarily in the interest of citizenship and self-government.–Cass Sunstein, arguing for a Fairness Doctrine for the Internet in his book,Republic.com 2.0 (Princeton University Press, 2007), p.137

  22. “after re-reading not only the article but also my original post I notice an error and I fixed it.”Your article is still riddled with lies about what he said in the article.  You need to do more fixing.”here you can clearly see the recommendation that the government should hire private parties  to supply rebuttals (counter speech), and by infiltrating these groups. Both are recommendations in the list above.”No, he said cognitive infiltration by means of mounting credible counter-arguments and asking organizations to help dispel myths, not literal physical infiltration.”I would be more willing to dismiss this as a conspiracy theory excpet for the fact that many leftist are now starting to infliltrate the Tea Party movements doing things such as making racisit or violent signs. All of these people are denounced and mocked untill they leave.”I know this kind of thing does happen in politics but I also know that not every racist sign or comment or insane remark at a tea party event is staged.  Either way if you have evidence that the US government is sending people to do that, then that’s a serious matter.  But if you did you’d lead with that.I don’t know much about the fairness doctrine but I think the government should take some steps to protect free speech, such as breaking up these media giants so that all of our news media doesn’t come from a handful of companies, and stopping one company from owning 3 out of 4 of your town’s newspapers and the local news channels too.  Because when corporations can dictate the news (which they already can), then that’s free speech for them and pretty much no one else.  It means they get a megaphone and everyone else gets to try to whisper over them.So far as “the government must surrender some degree of control over the institutions of speech”, did you even read the context?  He’s talking about letting someone from Hezbollah give an address including extreme anti-semitic remarks on a mid-east radio network the US government established.  His comment there has zero to do with free speech in the US.Stop repeating rush limbaugh and glenn beck, they make this stuff up as they go along.  I mean beck took a speech from the president advocating the peace corps and compared him to hitler and compared the peace corps to the Waffen SS.  This is the kind of mindless, distorted drivel they come up with constantly, it’s distorted reality.  I’m all for criticizing the president, but making stuff up isn’t criticism, it’s dishonesty.  And going back to the same crappy sources for information again and again is just being dishonest with yourself.

  23. @agnophilo – when i said article i was refering to the actuall peice writen by Sunstien. Have you ever been to a tea party? They are not the racist bigots that htey are made out to be.I do not just repeat rush limbaugh or glenn beck, most of my postings come from me reading various news stories from different orginization and I make up my mind based on what I see.  Glenn Beck is a man who calls them as he see’s them.  What speech did Glenn Beck say those comments about? Did you watch/ listen to the whole episode.I was not making anything up, Sunstein has said those things, he believes in limiting the rights of Americans, that is his record. Oh yea, send your complaints to Glenn Beck, if he gets the message he’ll correct the story.

  24. @obamawatch – You just disregarded basically everything I said about your arguments.You’re really pathetic.

  25. @agnophilo – You just assume i write what ever Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh tell me to,you’re really Pathtetic.

  26. The fairness doctrine was put into place in the late 40’s to ensure that those given broadcast liscences would present controversial views in a way that the government deemed to be fair. Basically the government could control what was put out based on the changing of political winds.  Enforcement varried over the years. Personally I would rather have coorperations control the news then the government. But that is the beautifull thing about the era in which we live, we have access to the enternet which makes it easier to share and compare ideas. I never said that the government was sending people to the tea parties. I said the liberal left, a group that might include members of our government. I never said the government is sending people into the tea parties, you take my words out of context and have tried to spin them, is that not what you are accusing me of?It is a slippery slope to censorship.

  27. @obamawatch – No, it’s not an assumption if that’s what you’re actually blogging about.As for the rest I don’t even care to bother with it.

  28.  Just curious, Who created the Federal Government, and what is the role of the consitution?

  29. Olebob said:

    We have the right to oppose what our leaders do. By putting down opposition, the agenda easier to get through. A Czar can be used by the President to do his dirty work without getting his hands dirty.(OBAMA)

  30. @agnophilo – In the age of the internet, what does it matter if the new channels, the newspapers, or the radio stations are only owned by a handful of people.  I get most of my news off the internet.

  31. @wearywalden – I would like to point out that news networks being owned by a handful of people is allowed under the consitution, the fairness doctrine clearly is not. Anyone who can read can see that. The first ammendment is very streight forward and easy to understand.

  32. @obamawatch – I would love to engage you in that debate if it weren’t just a big red herring to distract from my criticisms of your blog which you blatantly ignored.@wearywalden – Google “net neutrality”.

  33. @obamawatch – Modern media didn’t exist when the constitution was written.  And their idea of universal healthcare was blood lettings and exorcisms for everyone.

  34. @agnophilo –  That has to be the worst logic I have ever heard.  Just because modern media didn’t exist does not mean that it is not covered.  The first ammendment does not say  Freedom of news papers, of printed matrials, are protected. It said freedom of speech and freedom of the press be protected. This is a quote from the FCC on the fairness doctrine, “The intrusion by government into the content of programming occasioned by the enforcement of [the Fairness Doctrine] restricts the journalistic freedom of broadcasters … [and] actually inhibits the presentation of controversial issues of public importance to the detriment of the public and the degradation of the editorial prerogative of broadcast journalists”I know that will not be enough for you, so how about the statments from a United States Supreme Court Justice, I believe Justice Clarence Tomas should sufice.”The text of the First Amendment makes no distinctions among print, broadcast, and cable media, but we have done so,” Thomas noted. “It is certainly true that broadcast frequencies are scarce but it is unclear why that fact justifies content regulation of broadcasting in a way that would be intolerable if applied to the editorial process of the print media.”So your narrow minded view of the first ammendment is wrong. Quite just spewing out what you hear on MSNBC and from people like Cass Sunstein and Barack Obama.

  35. @obamawatch – So should advertisers be able to use subliminal advertising, send out ads with hidden suggestions only our subconscious sees?Should people be able to shout “fire” in a crowded theater?Should people be able to incite violence through media?  Should someone be able to go on tv, tell their audience “Someone should kill this man” and then give his name and home address?The bill of rights doesn’t mention any of that shit either.  Which means we have to USE OUR BRAINS and deal with these issues as they arise, not pretend like thomas jefferson was some sort of sainted messiah sent from on high to bring blessed commandments from god.

  36. @agnophilo – What is your point? Are you advocating for net neutrality or are you saying it already exists? 

  37. @wearywalden – You were saying that it doesn’t matter if the news media is controlled by corporations because the internet is free.  I was pointing out that the same corporations can (and have) censored the internet too by limiting bandwidth to sites they don’t like or that are critical of them, and now the internet service providers want to charge website owners hefty fees to allow the people who use their service to access their site.

Let the discussion begin

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: