Obama Official: Gag Free Speech on the Internet

When it comes to the First Amendment, Team Obama believes in Global Chilling. Cass Sunstein, a Harvard Law professor who has been appointed to a shadowy post that will grant him powers that are merely mind-boggling, explicitly supports using the courts to impose a “chilling effect” on speech that might hurt someone’s feelings. He thinks that the bloggers have been rampaging out of control and that new laws need to be written to corral them. Advance copies of Sunstein’s new book, “On Rumors: How Falsehoods Spread, Why We Believe Them, What Can Be Done,” have gone out to reviewers ahead of its September publication date, but considering the prominence with which Sunstein is about to be endowed, his worrying views are fair game now. Sunstein is President Obama’s choice to head the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. It’s the bland titles that should scare you the most.

Sunstein also believes that - whether you're a blogger, The New York Times or a Web hosting service - you should be held responsible even for what your commenters say. Currently you're immune under section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. "Reasonable people," he says, "might object that this is not the right rule," though he admits that imposing liability for commenters on service providers would be "a considerable burden."

www.nypost.com...

Well, the attacks on our freedom of speech keep on coming. This time it's Cass Sunstein, Harvard Law Professor and President Obama's choice to head the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs who wants new laws to shut down all those evil bloggers who dare express their opinions on the internet.
I would like to commend the author Kyle Smith for declaring war on all enemies of the First Amendment.

[edit on 13-7-2009 by Bullhorn]

[edit on 13-7-2009 by Bullhorn]

[edit on 13-7-2009 by Bullhorn]

Interesting "new" direction for the two-headed single party trying to remake America in their own self-serving image.

But who cares about a burden when insults are being bandied about? "A 'chilling effect' on those who would spread destructive falsehoods can be an excellent idea," he says.

"As we have seen," Sunstein writes, having shown us no such thing, "falsehoods can undermine democracy itself." What Sunstein means by that sentence is pretty clear: He doesn't like so-called false rumors about his longtime University of Chicago friend and colleague, Barack Obama.

(((Bolding mine)))))


Ironic that this falsehood is being thrust into the conversation as a fact....

Untruths can be defined as 'that which some party doesnot want expressed' in this instance.

My list of their "Untruths":

- the people who were crippled or died as a result of the last swine flu mass-inoculation effort by the US government

- the fact that millions have been spent to avoid answering a simple question regarding the Presidents birth place

- the fact that well over 70% of the US population express the call for the government to fully disclose the nature of the UFO phenomenon

- The truth that international banking profit is supported and protected by the government at the expense of tax-payers

- Pay to play

- Private agendas driving the war machine

- political hypocrisy and a two-headed one party system

- organized crime working hand-in-hand with governments to secure and carry out drug and arms trafficking world-wide

- CIA operating illegally within the US

- Utter usurpation of public interest by FDA, DEA, ATF, DOD, NASA and other agencies by corporate for-profit policy makers

- rampant fraud and cronyism in the Federal and State governments

- International and Transnational policy-making by non-governmental institutions like the CFR, Carlyle Group, the Brookings Institute, and Xe

These are a small sample fo the things we "shouldn't" have the right to opine about - because it might hurt the elitists feelings.....

poor babies.

[edit on 13-7-2009 by Maxmars]