IP: Book Review: REPUBLIC.COM

[David Farber <dave@farber.net>]

>
>Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 02:12:16 -0500
>To: David Farber <dave@farber.net>
>From: Matthew Gaylor <freematt@coil.com>
>Subject: Book Review: REPUBLIC.COM
>
>Title: REPUBLIC.COM
>Author: Cass Sunstein
>Princeton University Press
>Cloth $19.95  ISBN: 0-691-07025-3
>224 pages. 5 x 7. (2001)
>US Pub. Date: March 19, 2001
>Foreign Pub. Date: April 11, 2001
>
>*** Read the first chapter online for free, click here:
>http://pup.princeton.edu/chapters/s7014.html
>
>Cass Sunstein is the Karl N. Llewellyn Distinguished Service Professor of 
>Jurisprudence at the University of Chicago Law School and Department of 
>Political Science. A former law clerk for Justice Thurgood Marshall, he 
>has worked for the Office of Legal Counsel in the US Department of Justice.
>
>His former works include: "Democracy and the Problem of Free Speech" 
>(1993), which won the Goldsmith Prize from Harvard for the best book on 
>free speech in that year. "After the Rights Revolution" (1990), "The 
>Partial Constitution" (1993), "Free Markets and Social Justice" (1997), 
>and "One Case at a Time: Judicial Minimalism on the Supreme Court" 
>(1999).  His writings have appeared in the New York Times, and the New 
>Republic.  He has also appeared on ABC's Nightline, the NewsHour with Jim 
>Lehrer, NBC and CBS evening news and other programming.
>
>In "Republic.Com" Cass Sunstein makes the point that in cyberspace 
>individuals now have the ability to filter out everything they don't want 
>to read or see and filter in only those whose opinions they agree 
>with.  He calls this the "Daily Me", the ability to filter only the issues 
>that concern you, read only the op-eds that only share your point of 
>view.  In short he fears that the Internet will bring about a lack of 
>diversity and will amplify extremism and hate groups (Whatever that 
>means).  He writes of "cybercascades" that brings groups of people 
>together who share similar viewpoints that in turn causes group 
>polarization and radicalization.
>
>Here's how he says it works: "Thus, for example, a group whose members 
>lean against gun control will, in discussion, provide a wide range of 
>arguments against gun control, and the arguments made for gun control will 
>be both fewer and weaker.  The group's members, to the extent that they 
>shift, will shift toward a more extreme position against gun control.  And 
>the group as a whole, if a group decision is required, will move not to 
>the median position, but to a more extreme point." (Chapter 3, pages 67 68)
>
>He does his argument great damage by using as an example of a hate and 
>extremist group the usual left wing target, The National Rifle Association 
>(NRA) He trots out the usual suspects such as Skinheads and the KKK and 
>fails to mention any of the other hate groups such as American supporters 
>of Peru's shining path, environmental terrorists who spike logging areas, 
>World Trade Organization protestors/rioters or other left wing 
>extremists.  In Chapter three Sunstein speaks of the gun rights movement 
>alongside the KKK, God Hates Fags, and other hate groups in what can only 
>be considered as an attempt of guilt by association.
>
>In Chapter seven, Sunstein writes: "FREE SPEECH IS NOT AN ABSOLUTE" his 
>caps not mine.  In fact he mentions this line several times throughout the 
>book.  He continues: "We can identify some flaws in the emerging view of 
>the First Amendment by investigating the idea that the free speech 
>guarantee is "an absolute", in the specific sense that government may not 
>regulate speech at all.  This view plays a large role in public debate, 
>and in some ways it is a salutary myth." He mentions the usual examples of 
>child pornography, copyright and threats to assassinate the President as 
>examples of the government restricting speech.   He creates what I 
>consider a straw man argument by prefacing these remarks for his "Policies 
>and Proposals" in Chapter eight.
>
>He laments the fact that in the past the Public Broadcasting System (PBS) 
>in a four station universe had a significant voice.  But with the advent 
>of programming with hundreds of choices the justification for PBS is diluted.
>
>As a partial solution he endorses Andrew Shapiro's suggestion from the 
>book "The Control Revolution" that the government should support a public 
>website, Public.Net. Sunstein writes: "Public.Net would provide an icon, 
>visible on your home computer.  You would be under no obligation to click 
>on it; indeed in a free society perhaps you should be permitted to remove 
>the icon if you really do not like it." He envisions Public.Net to include 
>sections on the "environment, civil rights, gun control, foreign affairs, 
>and so forth." (Chapter 8, page 181)
>
>But what I find most troubling is his idea to require websites to maintain 
>hyperlinks to those with differing viewpoints.  His example on page 188:
>" We might easily imagine a situation in which textual references to 
>organizations or institutions are hyperlinks, so that if, for example, a 
>conservative magazine such as the "National Review" refers to the World 
>Wildlife Fund or Environmental Defence, it also allows readers instant 
>access to their sites."
>
>Sunstein continues: "To the extent that sites do not do this, voluntary 
>self regulation through cooperative agreements might do the job.  If these 
>routes do not work, it would be worthwhile considering content-neutral 
>regulation, designed to ensure more in the way of both links and hyperlinks."
>
>Princeton sent me a free review copy of Republic.Com, which I'm glad they 
>did as I would have been highly upset to have paid money for it. I can 
>understand why Professor Sunstein makes the suggestions he does.  In my 
>opinion it has less to do with wanting to expand free and open discourse 
>and more to do with control.  Who gets to decide which links get to be 
>included as "opposing viewpoints"?  I did note that many of Sunstein's 
>examples involved a right wing organization being forced to carry left 
>wing links.
>
>The celebrated civil libertarian, John Stuart Mill, contended that 
>enlightened judgment is possible only if one considers all facts and 
>ideas, from whatever source, and tests one's own conclusions against 
>opposing views. Therefore, all points of view -- even those that are "bad" 
>or socially harmful -- should be represented in the "marketplace of 
>ideas." And the Internet is an incredibly free and eclectic smorgasbord of 
>ideas. And just as we have freedom to choose which sites we visit or what 
>print magazines or books we read, it would be the end of freedom as we 
>know it if the government forced us to read or watch what they want, even 
>if it were only a link. Thanks, but no thanks to Republic.Com.
>
>Regards,   Matthew Gaylor-
>
>Cass Sunstein's Homepage: http://home.uchicago.edu/~csunstei/
>[Which I might add carries no links to opposing viewpoints.]
>
>Name: Cass R. Sunstein
>Work Address: University of Chicago Law School, 1111 East 60th Street, 
>Chicago, Illinois, 60637
>Telephone: 773-702-9498 (business)
>Fax: 773-702-0730 (business)
>email: Cass_Sunstein@law.uchicago.edu
>  E-mail: csunstei@midway.uchicago.edu
>
>
>
>
>**************************************************************************
>Subscribe to Freematt's Alerts: Pro-Individual Rights Issues
>Send a blank message to: freematt@coil.com with the words subscribe FA
>on the subject line. List is private and moderated (7-30 messages per week)
>Matthew Gaylor, 2175 Bayfield Drive, Columbus, OH 43229
>(614) 313-5722  ICQ: 106212065   Archived at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fa/
>**************************************************************************



For archives see: http://www.interesting-people.org/