We’d Have Had An Insurrection…

…if Bush’s administration had suggested this – federal control over content on the Internet. White House advisor Cass Sunstein is talking about the White House – the Feds, anyway – taking a huge role in censoring the Internet.
And the insurgents – whatever their party?  They’d have been right:

Perhaps most disturbing is Mr. Sunstein’s vision for the future of web content, as he argues for a so-called “notice and take down” law. Under this provision, those who operate websites – – The Washington Post, radio stations, private bloggers, and perhaps even you, yourself -we would all be required “take down falsehoods upon notice” from the U.S. government.

And not only would the original content of websites be scrutinized by the government for “falsehoods,” website operators would also be held responsible for the content of “posts” created by the website’s visitors and readers. At first blush it may seem that, for a web operator to be held accountable for content generated by “posters,” is completely untenable. But that may very well be Mr. Sunstein’s goal – – to create an “untenable situation” for website operators – given his assertion that “a ‘chilling effect’ on those who would spread destructive falsehoods can be an excellent idea..”

Well, we all want “the truth” to prevail, don’t we?

But who shall determine what, exactly, is “true” and “false?” Mr. Sunstein laments the supposed “lie” that emerged during last year’s presidential race, that “Barack Obama pals around with terrorists.” Despite that fact that a friendship between Obama and known domestic terrorist William Ayers was something that both men acknowledged, Sunstein alludes to the notion that this was one of those “destructive falsehoods” of the sort that needs to be policed.

As I was recently talking about this matter on-air at Arizona’s NewsTalk 92-3 KTAR radio, a caller to the show observed that “there’s no way this could be legal, or constitutional..” Thoughtful Americans of all sorts will immediately view this situation through the lenses of constitutionally guaranteed rights.

But issues of “legality” don’t seem to matter, at times, with the Obama Administration. In March of this year, there was nothing illegal about executives of the AIG Corporation being paid bonuses that they earned from their employer, but they were harassed and publicly belittled, nonetheless. President Obama himself demonized them, while dozens of Obama supporters “demonstrated” in front of the private residences of the executives, alleging that it was “unfair” for those executives to be making “so much money.”

Remember when the lefties told us we were paranoid for thinking Obama would re-institute the Fairness Doctrine?

They may have had a point.  This makes the Fairness Doctrine look like a piker.

In a similar way, it appears that the Obama Administration may be ushering-in an era of harassment for website operators. Regardless of what U.S. courts may or may not say about this in the future, a “notice and take down” letter from the White House could have quite a “chilling effect” for today.

‘ For my part?  Consider this post a “Notice And Take Down” letter for this entire wretched administration.

I used to joke, before the election, that Obama would be the worst President of my lifetime by sometime on inauguration day.  I was joking.  At the time, anyway.

20 thoughts on “We’d Have Had An Insurrection…

  1. Oh, boohoo! Imagine being unable to defame people on the Internet! Just as you can’t in print, on radio, on television or in a conversation with your next-door neighbor. Where oh where would you right-wing Internet fear-mongers be if you actually had to be “fair and accurate”?

  2. Imagine being unable to defame people on the Internet!

    They’re not talking about legal defamation, and I think you know it.

  3. Imagine being unable to defame people on the Internet!
    Like calling anyone you disagree with a “wingnut”? That kind of defamation?

  4. They’re not talking about speech protected by the First Amendment, and I think you know that.

  5. I think Obama will simply have to appoint a “Free Speech Czar” to determine what is and is not protected by the First Amendment.
    Yeah, that’s the solution!

  6. Anyone who is stupid enough to believe that Sunstein does not think that Sunstein endorses government management of media content for politicl purposes — especially the internet — should read his essay

    The Daily We:Is the Internet really a blessing for democracy?

    In America, it is traditional that the people have the right to decide if the government is behaving as it should. Sunstein believes that it is the government’s job to decide if the people are behaving as they should. Funny what they teach you at Harvard.

  7. As soon as someone actually announces this as a government action, as opposed to in a book written by a private citizen, I’ll join you in denouncing it.

  8. As soon as someone actually announces this as a government action, as opposed to in a book written by a private citizen, I’ll join you in denouncing it.

    Uh, isn’t it a little late then, Disco Stoo? Why not denounce it now and convince the government it’s a bad idea? I assume you think it is a bad idea if you’re willing to denounce it if it’s adopted, right? So why wait?

  9. as someone actually announces this as a government action, s opposed to in a book written by a private citizen, I’ll join you in denouncing it.
    Many years ago Discordian Hans said the same thing about Mein Kampf.

    DJ belongs in the book, alongside Flash and AC, as a foolish lamb who can not tell the shepherd from wolf even when it feels teeth around its throat.

  10. Because no one in the Obama admin would dare to apply theoretical concepts to governance. That’s just crazy talk!

  11. I’m not waiting for implementation, but for someone to propose it as an official policy. The story says this guy wrote a book that included this idea. He is now in government. Has the Obama administration since said they want to implement this?

    They shouldn’t.

  12. Kermit, the plan is both bold and far reaching, and its success is guaranteed.
    Assuming that world GDP grows at its average pace since the beginning of the industrial revolution (abut 3%/year), GDP is set to quadruple to 50 trillion $ by 2060.
    If, during that time, we take care to reduce our population from the current 300 million or so to a much ‘greener’ population of a million people, this comes out to about 50 million dollars per person.
    With that kind of income, no one will have to work and we will still be able to pay off the 2 trillion dollar obamadebt by taxing everyone just 4% of their $50,000,000 in income.
    You see? Far from saddling our posterity with an unmanageable debt load, under the Obama plan, the grandchildren and great-grandchildren we will be allowed to have will live lives of unimaginable ease and luxury!
    It all makes sense. You just have to do the math.

  13. That and select the right people to actually continue breathing. Obamanomics and Eugenics are quite complimentary.

  14. I’m not waiting for implementation, but for someone to propose it as an official policy.

    Just like Orson Welles. You will debate no issue before its time. As you wish. I’m getting my shots in now.

  15. DiscordianStooj gets tough:

    “They shouldn’t.”

    Yeah, you should really take the “wait and see” approach. The current administration wouldn’t just announce a policy and then act like it was a freakin’ emergency to get it implemented as soon as bureaucratically possible, right? That’s never happened before. Except for “stimulus”. And “health care”. In the first six months.

    Wait and see? Unwise.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.