I give Sunstein more credit than that. He’s politically quite centrist, supporting Robert’s nomination.
> But that is hardly the only reason to protect falsehoods, intentional or otherwise; there are several others. Even so, these arguments suffer from abstraction and high-mindedness; they do not amount to decisive reasons to protect falsehoods. These propositions are applied to old questions involving defamation and to new questions involving fake news, deepfakes, and doctored videos. It emerges that New York Times v. Sullivan is an anachronism, and that it should be rethought in light of current technologies and new findings in behavioral science.
The issue here is not whether Sunstein's being centrist, but whether he's making sense at all.
Who are the experts who get to decide what counts as a "falsehood"?
For example, how many of us really know the details about how polls operate in each of the 50 states to know whether or not fraud could have occurred on such a level to affect the outcome.
For my part, I don't really care all that much because the bigger problem in this country is not whether Trump or Biden becomes our next president in a few days, but for how much (in terms of corporate campaign donations) this new administration was purchased.
Until we remove corporate donations from the election process, a lot of the candidates' campaign promises, on both sides, is just a bunch of empty rhetoric.
> But that is hardly the only reason to protect falsehoods, intentional or otherwise; there are several others. Even so, these arguments suffer from abstraction and high-mindedness; they do not amount to decisive reasons to protect falsehoods. These propositions are applied to old questions involving defamation and to new questions involving fake news, deepfakes, and doctored videos. It emerges that New York Times v. Sullivan is an anachronism, and that it should be rethought in light of current technologies and new findings in behavioral science.