http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amen ... nstitutionhttp://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=155661 It was President Obama's pick for the Supreme Court, Elena Kagan, who hired radical regulatory czar Cass Sunstein as a Harvard law professor.
Kagan called Sunstein "the preeminent legal scholar of our time."
WND previously reported Sunstein drew up a "First Amendment New Deal" – a new "Fairness Doctrine" that would include the establishment of a panel of "nonpartisan experts" to ensure "diversity of view" on the airwaves.
Pay Attention:
WND also reported that in a recently released book, "On Rumors," Sunstein argued websites should be obliged to remove "false rumors" while libel laws should be altered to make it easier to sue for spreading such "rumors."
In the 2009 book, Sunstein cited as a primary example of "*absurd" and "*hateful" remarks, reports by "right-wing websites" alleging an association between President Obama and former Weather Underground terrorist William Ayers. [*Absurd=True ; *Hateful=Inconvenient]
Meanwhile, in a lengthy academic paper, Sunstein, argued the U.S. government should ban "conspiracy theorizing," WND reported.
Among the examples of speech that should be banned, Sustein offered, is advocating that the theory of global warming is a deliberate fraud. [This man is much offended by inconvenient truths]
Sunstein also recommended the government send agents to infiltrate "extremists who supply conspiracy theories" and disrupt the efforts of the "extremists" to propagate their theories.
Just yesterday, a video at Breitbart.com showed Sunstein proposing that Congress hold hearings about mandates to [Pay Attnetion] ensure websites post links to a diversity of views on issues.
Meanwhile, when it comes to other First Amendment issues, Kagan shows strong beliefs for court intervention in speech, going so far as to assert free speech should be weighed against "societal costs."
in a 1996 paper, "Private Speech, Public Purpose: The Role of Governmental Motive in First Amendment Doctrine," Kagan argued it may be proper to suppress speech because it is offensive to society or to the government.
The paper asserted First Amendment doctrine is comprised of "motives and … actions infested with them," and she goes so far as to claim, "First Amendment law is best understood and most readily explained as a kind of motive-hunting."
Kagan's name was also on a brief, United States v. Stevens, dug up by the Washington Examiner, stating: "Whether a given category of speech enjoys First Amendment protection depends upon a categorical balancing of the value of the speech against its societal costs."
STICK YOUR HEADS IN THE SAND ON THIS ONE AND IT MAY SOON BE ALL OVER BUT THE CRYING.
