• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should the government ban conspiracy theorizing?

Should the government ban conspiracy theorizing?

  • Yes

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • No

    Votes: 52 100.0%

  • Maybe

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Don't know

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    52
MildSteel

MildSteel

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 5, 2014
Messages
4,974
Reaction score
1,047
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Here's some background on Cass Sunstein

Cass Robert Sunstein (born September 21, 1954) is an American legal scholar, particularly in the fields of constitutional law, administrative law, environmental law, and law and behavioral economics, who was the Administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in the Obama administration. For 27 years, Sunstein taught at the University of Chicago Law School. Sunstein is currently the Robert Walmsley University Professor and Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law at Harvard Law School.
Click to expand...

In addition, Mr Sunstein has been under consideration by the Obama administration as a possible Supreme Court Justice.

Sunstein co-authored a book that suggested the following

Sunstein co-authored a 2008 paper with Adrian Vermeule, titled "Conspiracy Theories," dealing with the risks and possible government responses to conspiracy theories resulting from "cascades" of faulty information within groups that may ultimately lead to violence. In this article they wrote, "The existence of both domestic and foreign conspiracy theories, we suggest, is no trivial matter, posing real risks to the government’s antiterrorism policies, whatever the latter may be."
...
"We can readily imagine a series of possible responses. (1) Government might ban conspiracy theorizing. (2) Government might impose some kind of tax, financial or otherwise, on those who disseminate such theories.
.....
Click to expand...

Cass Sunstein - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Amazing! Tax people who put forward conspiracy theories!

Any rate, that aside, what do you think? Should the government ban conspiracy theorizing?
 
MildSteel said:
Here's some background on Cass Sunstein
In addition, Mr Sunstein has been under consideration by the Obama administration as a possible Supreme Court Justice.
Sunstein co-authored a book that suggested the following
Cass Sunstein - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Amazing! Tax people who put forward conspiracy theories!
Any rate, that aside, what do you think? Should the government ban conspiracy theorizing?
Click to expand...

How dare someone imagine a hypothetical situation?
da noive!
 
MildSteel said:
Here's some background on Cass Sunstein



In addition, Mr Sunstein has been under consideration by the Obama administration as a possible Supreme Court Justice.

Sunstein co-authored a book that suggested the following



Cass Sunstein - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Amazing! Tax people who put forward conspiracy theories!

Any rate, that aside, what do you think? Should the government ban conspiracy theorizing?
Click to expand...

Even an evil idiot should be allowed to say anything she wants.
 
If we ban Conspiracy Theories who's gonna find out the connection between Bush and 9/11 or Hiliary Clinton to Benghazi?
 
MildSteel said:
Here's some background on Cass Sunstein



In addition, Mr Sunstein has been under consideration by the Obama administration as a possible Supreme Court Justice.

Sunstein co-authored a book that suggested the following



Cass Sunstein - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Amazing! Tax people who put forward conspiracy theories!

Any rate, that aside, what do you think? Should the government ban conspiracy theorizing?
Click to expand...

Conspiracy truths!!! People have long conspired to.........fill in the blanks. Our government prosecutes people for conspiracy regularly. Wouldn't it be nice if we could prosecute the government on this?
 
Here's the actual paper where no such thing as banning/taxing CT dissemination is actually advocated.
Conspiracy Theories by Cass R. Sunstein, Adrian Vermeule :: SSRN


But don't let fact that the guy advises against banning/taxing CT dissemination that stop the CT that the guy will try to ban/tax CT dissemination.


Facts ain't nothing but a thing, baby
Can't let those "things" get in the way of a good CT.
 
joG said:
The question was, whether the government should forbid speaking one's sick mind. ;)
Click to expand...

Yes, I know. Is that "one" always going to be a "she"?
 
Simon W. Moon said:
Here's the actual paper where no such thing as banning/taxing CT dissemination is actually advocated.
Conspiracy Theories by Cass R. Sunstein, Adrian Vermeule :: SSRN


But don't let fact that the guy advises against banning/taxing CT dissemination that stop the CT that the guy will try to ban/tax CT dissemination.


Facts ain't nothing but a thing, baby
Can't let those "things" get in the way of a good CT.
Click to expand...

Where does he actually advise against such? He clearly states that it is a possible government response.
 
Simon W. Moon said:
But don't let fact that the guy advises against banning/taxing CT dissemination that stop the CT that the guy will try to ban/tax CT dissemination.
Click to expand...

The fact that he advises against? There is no where that he says that the government should not do it. He does say that it might be self defeating.
 
MildSteel said:
Where does he actually advise against such? He clearly states that it is a possible government response.
Click to expand...

The most direct response to a dangerous conspiracy theories is censorship. That response is unavailable in an open society, because it is inconsistent with principles of freedom of expression.
Click to expand...

Seems like they think banning them isnt an option
 
MildSteel said:
Where does he actually advise against such? He clearly states that it is a possible government response.
Click to expand...

In the sentences that immediately follow the ones you quoted. You know, the sentences you "conveniently neglected" to quote
(3) Government might itself engage in counterspeech, marshaling arguments to discredit conspiracy theories. (4) Government might formally hire credible private parties to engage in counterspeech. (5) Government might engage in informal communication with such parties, encouraging them to help." However, the authors advocate that each "instrument has a distinctive set of potential effects, or costs and benefits, and each will have a place under imaginable conditions. However, our main policy idea is that government should engage in cognitive infiltration of the groups that produce conspiracy theories, which involves a mix of (3), (4) and (5)."
Click to expand...
 
This thread is a conspiracy theory, so yes.
 
sangha said:
In the sentences that immediately follow the ones you quoted. You know, the sentences you "conveniently neglected" to quote
Click to expand...

These "groups" aren't always "producing" conspiracies, often they're pointing them out.
 
MildSteel said:
The fact that he advises against? There is no where that he says that the government should not do it. He does say that it might be self defeating.
Click to expand...
The author wanted to recommend the strategy.
So he used the phrase self-defeating.
 
Simon W. Moon said:
The author wanted to recommend the strategy.
So he used the phrase self-defeating.
Click to expand...

The fact is that what you posted was simply not true. You said that

But don't let fact that the guy advises against banning/taxing CT dissemination
Click to expand...

That is simply not the case. What he does is list a number of the actions that the government might take, including banning conspiracy theorizing, and discusses what he thinks the results might be. With regards to banning conspiracy theorizing, although he does say it MIGHT be self defeating, he clearly says the he can imagine a scenario where it becomes thinkable.

We could imagine circumstances in which a conspiracy theory became so pervasive, and so dangerous, that censorship would be thinkable.
Click to expand...
 
MildSteel said:
The fact is that what you posted was simply not true. You said that



That is simply not the case. What he does is list a number of the actions that the government might take, including banning conspiracy theorizing, and discusses what he thinks the results might be. With regards to banning conspiracy theorizing, although he does say it MIGHT be self defeating, he clearly says the he can imagine a scenario where it becomes thinkable.
Click to expand...

And he advocates the use of "counter speech" (read=government propaganda) to controlling what they dismiss as theories.
 
sangha said:
In the sentences that immediately follow the ones you quoted. You know, the sentences you "conveniently neglected" to quote
Click to expand...

Oh really? Here's the one that you conveniently neglected to post, or perhaps did not read

We could imagine circumstances in which a conspiracy theory became so pervasive, and so dangerous, that censorship would be thinkable.
Click to expand...
 
Crovax said:
Seems like they think banning them isnt an option
Click to expand...

Not true. He clearly says the following

We could imagine circumstances in which a conspiracy theory became so pervasive, and so dangerous, that censorship would be thinkable.
Click to expand...
 
Montecresto said:
And he advocates the use of "counter speech" (read=government propaganda) to controlling what they dismiss as theories.
Click to expand...

He does indeed. But we cannot discount the FACT that he clearly said that it conspiracy theorizing could become such a threat that banning it altogether becomes thinkable. Of this there is no doubt.
 
Mind control, I don't like it at all.
 
MildSteel said:
He does indeed. But we cannot discount the FACT that he clearly said that it conspiracy theorizing could become such a threat that banning it altogether becomes thinkable. Of this there is no doubt.
Click to expand...

There's no part of domestic government surveillance that I like, except upon open and credible evidence that a person or group is planing to harm an American or Americans.

The president may now order warrantless surveillance, including a new capability to force companies and organizations to turn over information on citizens’ finances, communications and associations. Bush acquired this sweeping power under the Patriot Act in 2001, and in 2011, Obama extended the power, including searches of everything from business documents to library records. The government can use “national security letters” to demand, without probable cause, that organizations turn over information on citizens — and order them not to reveal the disclosure to the affected party. (Saudi Arabia and Pakistan operate under laws that allow the government to engage in widespread discretionary surveillance.)
 
Lovebug said:
Mind control, I don't like it at all.
Click to expand...

Neither do I. And remember, this is from a guy who is a close advisor to the so called "change we can believe in" President. I really think Obama needs to come forward and make some sort of statement on how he feels about this type of thinking. Honestly, until today, I had no idea this is actually the type of thinking that his advisors engage in. Very, very disturbing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom