Skip to comments.Kagan and Sunstein Aim to Censor Free Speech: Web, Books, Radio
Posted on 05/18/2010 2:30:45 PM PDT by Halfmanhalfamazing
SUNSTEIN: Sites of one point of view agree to provide links to other sites so that if you're reading a conservative magazine, they would provide a link to a liberal site, and vice-versa, just to make it easy for people to get access to competing views.
RUSH: Stop the tape, recue that.
Which ISP is paying Elena Kagan, and by how much?
Which ISP is paying Cass Sunstein, and by how much?
Which ISP is paying Rush Limbaugh, and by how much?
Even on 501c3 non-partisan, non-advocacy sites which are PROHIBITED from taking sides, this is not the case today.
Look at the Viacommie tied MTV "Rock the Vote" links:
The poor left. They can’t get folks to go to their sites, so they have to resort to requiring the Right to link to them.
net neutrality is just plain governmental control of what you read, hear and speak, There will be no such thing as a view and and opposing view being presented. Look at Obozo, Fox News and and his view of Fox News. Obozo and Rush Limbaugh and golfing together never will happen. Obozo is an the epitome of the south end of of a northbound donkey
Hey Cass, here's your "easy access link to a competing view."
The hostility towards liberty from people in power these days is just plain scary.
Lets start building those fake, pretend liberal websites we can link to. heh.
And I suppose the web sites, particularly conservative ones, that will be offered under this program of net neutrality will obviously come from a prepared list.
...or an “approved” list.
What if the knock never comes? (Even allowing for 'vote' - should we have one - it will be too late.)
From David Horowitz's
PROFILE: ELENA KAGAN
When it was announced in 2008 that Cass Sunstein would be joining the Harvard Law School faculty, Kagan said:
"Cass Sunstein is the preeminent legal scholar of our time -- the most wide-ranging, the most prolific, the most cited, and the most influential. His work in any one of the fields he pursues -- administrative law and policy, constitutional law and theory, behavioral economics and law, environmental law, to name a non-exhaustive few -- would put him in the very front ranks of legal scholars; the combination is singular and breathtaking."
From David Horowitz's
PROFILE: CASS SUNSTEIN
[Cass Sunstein on Socialism and "wealth redistribution"]:
Sunstein has argued in favor of bringing socialism (in the form of expanded wefare benefits and wealth redistribution) to the United States, but contends that the country's "white majority" opposes such a development because of deep-seated racism:
"The absence of a European-style social welfare state is certainly connected with the widespread perception among the white majority that the relevant programs would disproportionately benefit African Americans (and more recently Hispanics)."
Sunstein depicts socialist nations as being more committed than their capitalist counterparts to the welfare of their own citizens:
"During the Cold War, the debate about [social welfare] guarantees took the form of pervasive disagreement between the United States and its communist adversaries. Americans emphasized the importance of civil and political liberties, above all free speech and freedom of religion, while communist nations stressed the right to a job, health care, and a social minimum."In 2007 Sunstein co-authored (with fellow attorney Eric A. Posner) a 39-page University of Chicago Law School paper titled "Climate Change Justice," which held that it was "desirable" for America to pay "justice" to poorer nations by entering into a compensation agreement that would result in a financial loss for the United States. The paper refers several times to "distributive justice."
[Cass Sunstein on "Climate Change" and "distributive justice"]:
Sunstein and Posner further speculate about the possibility of achieving this redistribution by means other than direct payments:
[Cass Sunstein on the "Fairness Doctrine" (restricting opposing political views)]:
Also in The Partial Constitution, Sunstein promotes the notion of a "First Amendment New Deal" in the form of a new "Fairness Doctrine" that would authorize a panel of "nonpartisan experts" to ensure that a "diversity of view[s]" is presented on the airwaves.
[Cass Sunstein on federally-funded abortions]:
With regard to citizens who object to having their tax dollars finance abortions, Sunstein writes:
"There would be no tension with the establishment clause if people with religious or other objections were forced to pay for that procedure (abortion). Indeed, taxpayers are often forced to pay for things - national defense, welfare, certain forms of art, and others - to which they have powerful moral and even religious objections."
Lots more on Cass Sunstein here:
From David Horowitz's
PROFILE: ELENA KAGAN
As an undergraduate at Princeton, Kagan wrote a senior thesis titled
"To the Final Conflict: Socialism in New York City, 1900-1933."
In the "Acknowledgments" section of her work, she specifically thanked her brother Marc, whose involvement in radical causes led me to explore the history of American radicalism in the hope of clarifying my own political ideas. In the body of the thesis, Kagan wrote:
"In our own times, a coherent socialist movement is nowhere to be found in the United States. Americans are more likely to speak of a golden past than of a golden future, of capitalisms glories than of socialisms greatness. Conformity overrides dissent; the desire to conserve has overwhelmed the urge to alter. Such a state of affairs cries out for explanation. Why, in a society by no means perfect, has a radical party never attained the status of a major political force? Why, in particular, did the socialist movement never become an alternative to the nations established parties?...
"Through its own internal feuding, then, the SP [Socialist Party] exhausted itself forever and further reduced labor radicalism in New York to the position of marginality and insignificance from which it has never recovered. The story is a sad but also a chastening one for those who, more than half a century after socialisms decline, still wish to change America. Radicals have often succumbed to the devastating bane of sectarianism; it is easier, after all, to fight ones fellows than it is to battle an entrenched and powerful foe. Yet if the history of Local New York shows anything, it is that American radicals cannot afford to become their own worst enemies. In unity lies their only hope."
Lots more on Kagan here:
Link to Kagan's complete thesis here (pdf file):
Sunstein needs to spend some time in a rubber room.
Nothing like being force fed.
And what would the leftist rags link to?
Absolutely nothing but other leftist rags.
They’d be forced to link to the MSM. That way folks could get opposing opinions. LOL
Just think if Thomas Paine had to attach a “Defense of Monarchy” to each of his pamphlets!
Who decides what is the appropriate “opposing site”?
And who decides what is the appropriate “opposing view”?
This assumes that there is such a thing as an opposing view, and not a nearly infinite spectrum of ideas.
Good one. Of course that’s a pretty complicated example, for lefties to grasp. Of they probably think we really screwed up by using force to gain our freedom too.
Good one. Of course that's a pretty complicated example, for lefties to grasp. Of they probably think we really screwed up by using force to gain our freedom too.
I wonder if the issue of Kagan's admiration for this one-world government socialist will come up at the hearings. Probably not.
Kagan will be sitting on the court lickety split.
We are one vote away from the confiscation of every privately owned gun.
We are one vote away from the complete Stalinist eradication of every Christian symbol from public life.
We are one vote away from the insane notion that the Constitution guarantees full and complete health care, a home and a job to everyone who wants one.
We are one vote away from the forced governmental dismantling of the First Amendment, through every medium including the internet and the radio.
We are one vote away from New Haven Fire Fighters becoming the law of the land, when your childs grades, years of study, and hard work are thrown down the sewer of political correctness if the racial outcome does not meet the pyscho-lefts definition of racial equality.
We are one vote away from the eradication of property rights.
We are one vote away from the takeover of private industry by the government.
We are one vote away from mandated sterilizations and the decree that humans and their breath are a form of pollution.
We are one vote away from Big Brother - just one, and they will not relent because these appointments are of a very extremist nature with a leftist political agenda. They mean to change America through the will of leftist judges - and not through the ballot box because their ideology is rejected.
Our sacred Bill of Rights will be gone. The power of the State will not be stopped.
“RINO endorsements are flying, & you live at 2012 Denial Blvd.) “
I know where that is.
It’s down at the end of lonely street by
And the Repubs don’t think this appointment merits a filibuster. Net neutrality makes me sick. They could force you to look at the linked opposing opinion site with a pop up or some other script. Can you friggin’ imagine how that would work on Free Republic? Please someone find out something about this Kagan POS that would eliminate her from consideration SINCE THE REPUBLICANS ARE TOO LAZY OR CO-OPTED TO STOP HER. This is really really bad news and it is only the beginning of the censorship from these creeps.
I can’t say what I would like to say.
Everyone, do we just chat about the possible outcome, or do we do what our Forefathers and patriots of yore did?
I’d rather fight than chat...get your spine and balls in gear, your courage intact, prayers in order and STOP THE ENEMY. PERIOD. Who will be our General U.S. Grant, our General Dwight Eisenhower, our????
We know what we’re up against. Let’s get to work.
And those who vote are one vote away from (censored).
Bring it you wussies! Keep waking up the soul of the country!
The Tree of Liberty must be refreshed!
This is how an astroturf movement works. You pay the organizations to convince others of your view, hiding your involvement. Plus it is likely that Limbaugh is against the left's "internet fairness doctrine" under the name net neutrality, and not net neutrality itself. He is a content provider, and would be one of those who would have to pay the ISPs if they got their way.
If net neutrality were the law, fairness doctrine would be illegal.
-——————This is how an astroturf movement works.-——————
This isn’t the only way astroturf movements work. Astroturf organizations like ABC or CNN or NYT or WaPo are quite different.
-—————Plus it is likely that Limbaugh is against the left’s “internet fairness doctrine” under the name net neutrality, and not net neutrality itself.-——————
At this point, that’s the only net neutrality that’s left standing.
That’s the net neutrality I oppose.
That’s the net neutrality they want.
And it’s the net neutrality you should oppose too.
I don't see how you can say that.
The left is practically in your face telling you straight up that they want to silence you and you've got your fingers in your ears.
Why won't you listen to them? It's not like they're even trying to beat around the bush here. They're being quite open about it. What's so seductive about ignoring all of this?
Oh, were you that guy with the gray slicker on? LOL
I’ll tell you what’s seductive about it - They like their BitTorrent downloads (for whatever reasons) and don’t want to see ISP have the right to throttle these back simply because they’re literally killing their networks.
THAT is the core concern of 98% of Net ‘Neutrality’ proponents. I know, because I work with about two dozen ‘advocates’, and this is their sole reason.
Quite a small price they’re willing to trade for your liberty, isn’t it?
(from the link, before it disappears)
=========Cass Sunstein was hired by Elena Kagan for the Harvard Law faculty, and in 2008 she said of Cass Sunstein, “Cass Sunstein is the preeminent legal scholar of your time,” and you just heard the Cass Sunstein audio sound bite about net neutrality and he’s a big pusher of this negative versus positive rights version of the Constitution.==========
========”While it isn’t always fair to ascribe personally to solicitors general the positions they argue in court on the government’s behalf, it is fair if the arguments they use in court echo ones they made in private practice. Ms. Kagan’s record suggests her personal views match her solicitor arguments. In a 1996 University of Chicago Law Review article, she argued that speech restrictions are allowable if the government’s ‘motive’ is acceptably nonideological. In dense academic prose, Ms. Kagan openly mused about the merits of ‘redistribution of expression.’==========