New Media should be obligated to link to alternative political views? Steve Boriss at Future of News write about such a proposal:
U of Chicago law professor and former DC bigwig Cass Sunstein has penned yet another book telling us that the people cannot be trusted with this information. His first book on the subject, Republic.com (2001), is now laughable to the extent one can laugh at those who would be tyrants. Believe it or not, he suggested that the government should consider forcing web site operators to include links or pop-up windows to advertise sites with alternative political views. Apparently feeling he had not done enough in his assault on the free speech clause of the First Amendment, he now has a sequel, Republic.com 2.0, that batters freedom of association. He insists that something must be done to prevent people from giving too much attention and weight to views they already hold, rather than to opposing views.
I suppose Sunstein would argue Hamilton and Franklin and Jefferson should have been forced to include inserts or references to opposing views as well.
And what does Opinio Juris think about this? Or Mr. TDAXP?
Manipulating what is said in a debate is a clever, if difficult, way of determining outcomes. Sunstein, whatever his disdain for the 1st amendment, nonetheless correctly sees a way of winning.