Notes from Republic.com, (Princeton, Princeton University Press, 2001)
Sunstein writes: “For countless people, the Internet is producing a substantial decrease in unanticipated, unchosen interactions with others.” (p. 23) He does not source this or prove this observation. I would tend not to believe this assertion.
“…the most general constitutional ideal of all: that of deliberative democracy. … a decline in common experiences and a system of individualized filtering might compromise that ideal. As a a corrective, we might build on the understandings that lie behind the notion that a free society creates a set of public forums, providing speakers' access to a diverse people, and ensuring in the process that each of us hears a wide range of speakers, spanning many topics and opinions.” (p. 26) Hence the the value of a mass media.
Sunstein may not have realized it but he provides a reason governments ought to subsidize or assist in the development of Internet infrastructure to insure that all citizens have it. He says speakers must have the right of access if they are to exercise free speech.
“There is no question that taxpayers are required to support the expressive activity that … must be permitted on the streets and the parks. Indeed, the costs that taxpayers devote to maintaining open streets and parks, from cleaning to maintenance, can be quite high. Thus the public forum represents one area of law in which the right to free speech demands a public subsidy to speakers.” (p. 28)
“If we care only about consumer sovereignty, the only question is whether consumers are getting what they want. The distinction matters for policy… If the government takes steps to increase the level of substantive debate on television or in public culture, it might well be undermining consumer sovereignty at the same time that it is promoting democratic self-government.” (p. 46)
Sunstein quotes U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis:
“… the greatest menace to freedom is an inert people; that public discussion is a political duty …” (p. 47)
“Freedom consists not simply in preference satisfaction but also in the chance to have preferences and beleives formed under decent conditions — in the ability to have preferences formed after exposure to a sufficient amount of information, and also to an appropriately wide and diverse range of options. There can be no assurance of freedom in a system committed to the “Daily Me”. ” (p 50)
“These shared experiences provide a kind of social glue, facilitating efforts to solve shared problems, encouraging people to view one another as fellow citizens, and sometimes helping to ensure responsiveness to genuine problems and needs, even helping to identify them as such.” (p 103)
“Unrestricted consumer choices are important, sometimes very important. But they do not exhaust the idea of freedom, and they should not be equated with it.” ( p 106)
“…freedom imposes certain preconditions, ensuring not just respect for choices and the satisfaction of preferences, whatever they happen to be, but also the free formation of desires and beliefs . … We are entitled to say that the deprivation of opportunities is a deprivation of freedom — even if people have adapted to it and do not want anything more.” (p. 108)