http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/13/technology/13CYBERLAW.html Carl S. Kaplan in the NYT wrote:
Recently, a critic e-mailed Sunstein, pointing out that the professor's own academic Web site at the University of Chicago did not offer links to other thinkers. Sunstein concedes the point. In the spirit of democracy, he said that within a week or so his Web site will link to the works of Richard Epstein, a libertarian legal scholar at the University of Chicago Law School and Catharine A. MacKinnon, a feminist theorist at the University of Michigan Law School.
CARL S. KAPLAN has an article in the April 13, 2001 New York Time's CYBER LAW JOURNAL: "Law Professor Sees Hazard in Personalized News" which is an overview of Cass Sunstein's theories as contained in his book Republic.com. Sunstein has a theory in his book "Republic.com" that the Internet allows a "Daily Me" phenomenon where users isolate themselves and watch, read, and communicate only with those who they agree with. This in turn will cause a move towards more extreme viewpoints and less tolerance. As a solution to his imagined problem, he first wants web sites to link to "opposing" viewpoints voluntarily. And here is a direct quote from Sunstein: "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." In other words Sunstein wants to force opinion journals like "The National Review" (An example he uses) to carry "opposing viewpoint" links and hyperlinks. Needless to say, I first thought his theory of the problem was flawed, as anyone who has spent anytime online can testify. And I found it idiotic in the extreme that Sunstein thinks the government could be trusted to implement "opposing viewpoint links" fairly. Can you imagine the time wasted trying to satisfy this new bureaucracy that will have to be created to govern which links get chosen? Which also does raise the question of who gets to decide what an opposing viewpoint is? Some issues have multiple opposing viewpoints. Couldn't you imagine the political ramifications of his plan? Perhaps the government would only allow legally established parties to be considered as an "opposing view" on political web sites? Or should a Black oriented civil rights site be legally required to carry KKK or other racist links? In addition, Sunstein hasn't explained why his theory should or shouldn't apply to print books and magazines? Could you imagine the mess that would cause? His theory seems antithetical to private choice and free speech. Naturally, when I first visited Sunstein's Web site at the University of Chicago http://home.uchicago.edu/~csunstei/, I saw no links to opposing viewpoints. Since there isn't anybody much worse in my book than a hypocrite, I wrote the professor and requested he add links to opposing viewpoints. I did this in Princeton Press's online book forum located at: http://pup.princeton.edu/sunstein/ under the forum topic: "Why not practice what you preach". I found it troubling that I had to publicly confront Sunstein to get him to test his theory voluntarily, for a theory he thinks should be enforced by law. But I'm happy that teaching by example is something that Sunstein is apparently willing to try. You can read my Review of Republic.com in the April issue of The Ethical Spectacle http://www.spectacle.org/. Regards, Matt- ************************************************************************** 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/ **************************************************************************