New York Times Mentions Matthew (Critic) Gaylor

[Matthew Gaylor]

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 at 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/
**************************************************************************