Cass Sunstein: Unfairly Maligned?

I rise in defense of Cass Sunstein, President Obama's regulatory Czar, to the latest attack on him related to his 2008 paper "Conspiracy Theories." He has been unfairly accused of arguing that argued that "the U.S. government should ban 'conspiracy theorizing.'"

Granted, Cass Sunstein is a real whack-job on animal rights. My favorite quote from his paper, "The Rights of Animals: A Very Short Primer" is,

"If rats are able to suffer—and no one really doubts that they are—then their interests are relevant to the question how, and perhaps even whether, they can be expelled from houses." [Footnote omitted which offers an exception if the rats are diseased.]

Everyone who believe rats invading your home have a right remain alive, hold up your hand.

At least, the conspiracy paper proves he is not a truther.

Mr. Sunstein's paper on conspiracy theories is professorial and highly theoretical. Nowhere does the paper propose that the government ban conspiracy theorizing. He offers that "government response" as one of the solutions the theoretician would need to consider (among a myriad of other possibilities) before coming to a conclusion. He suggests that government agents could overtly or covertly infiltrate conspiracy discussions to provide accurate information, which he calls "cognitive infiltration." He cites the use of State Department Muslims participating in chat room discussion as a successful example of the former. As to covert infiltration, I assume we do that now with groups perceived to present a danger of violence. At least, I hope so.

This theoretical paper was NOT about what could or should be done under the law and was not limited to the United States with its system of laws. The paper is pure ivory tower and basically harmless. This paper reasonably read and understood does not contribute to otherwise justified perceptions of Cass Sunstein's whackiness.