Vol. 11 No. 6 (June 2001) pp. 266-268.

REPUBLIC.COM by Cass Sunstein. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001. 224pp. Cloth $19.95. ISBN: 0-691-07025-3.

Reviewed by Alan Gaitenby, Center for Information Technology and Dispute Resolution, Legal Studies Department, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

In REPUBLIC.COM Cass Sunstein convincingly argues that deliberative democracy is challenged by the rapid expansion and diversification of information and communication choices, particularly those facilitated by the Internet and cyberspace. Sunstein also cautions that the tendency for individuals to exhibit consumer sovereignty and practice perfect filtering by consuming only that information which they choose undermines the preconditions for a well functioning system of free speech necessary for deliberative democracy. Deliberative democracy depends on free speech, not just speech that is free of censorship, but also speech as a right of access to venue and audience (e.g. "public forum"). Free speech therefore includes the opportunity to be exposed to multiple viewpoints expressed in common venues as well as in the unplanned and often unwanted situations of daily life.

The Internet provides an opportunity for Sunstein to re-examine the relationship between free speech, communication markets, and the republicanism sustained through deliberative democracy. Sunstein suggests that consumer sovereignty is an ascendant notion in speech and communication markets and policy. As consumers, citizens are free to choose the information and media they view. Thus, providers ought to be free of regulation that either constrains consumer choice or distribution of information by the provider. However, Sunstein believes that consumer sovereignty has dangerous implications for deliberative democracy. Individual utility maximization will not necessarily lead to social well being in the aggregate. On the contrary, Sunstein argues that political sovereignty ought to be our guiding principle. Political sovereignty depends on citizens who are provided the opportunity to become knowledgeable and capable of meaningful participation in political deliberation.

To provide such opportunities, Sunstein suggests that communication markets be regulated to ensure not only access to a variety of information sources and viewpoints, but also so that individuals cannot completely tailor their exposure to communications. Sunstein strongly criticizes claims that communication markets should be absolutely free of regulatory efforts. Instead he posits that regulation and the presence of the state is necessary to protect the interests expressing contentious claims.

Next, Sunstein identifies the production of the "daily me" through perfect information filtering and the ideology of consumer sovereignty as problems which ought cause "concern about the consequences for democracy and citizenship" (p. 25). There are two solutions for Sunstein: a reinvigoration of public forums and regulation of communication

Page 267 begins here

and information markets to enhance free speech and deliberative democracy. Sunstein points out that, since public forums such as street corners and parks provide for unwanted and unplanned information encounters and help expand and refine an individual's knowledge base, perhaps it is time to have public forums in cyberspace. Also, Sunstein treats general interest intermediaries such as edited newspapers, magazines, and television news as an unusual, yet very important, public forum. General interest intermediaries provide common information experiences for a wide range of individuals, shared experiences enhance empathy and our abilities to understand each other, both desired qualities for deliberative democratic citizens.

With the ideal of deliberative democracy and American republicanism as a backdrop, Sunstein suggests three primary problems in a world of perfect filtering: fragmentation, distinctiveness of information, and the proper understanding of freedom and the relationship between consumers and citizens. Perfect filtering causes fragmentation and provides fertile ground for polarization and cascades of unedited and unverified information. Consumers can choose what to read, listen to, view, or even interact with via communication markets. They may filter out viewpoints or ideas that are unpleasant or disagreeable to them, and they may be in the dark about information not included in their choices. When we insulate ourselves into likeminded groups whose polarization often results, rather than enhancing our interactions with diverse individuals and viewpoints our information horizons are stunted, we cling to what we are confident of and comfortable with. Groups having strong notions of identity (e.g. anti gun control, pro choice, tax resistance) tend to be even more polarized with perfect filtering, since groupthink often moves group members further toward the position that distinguishes the group. Individuals seek respect and status by moving discourse in directions that will be powerfully identified with and attract others who want to be constituted as strong group members. Add to this the anonymity of Internet communications, and the tendency toward viewpoint consensus through message monopoly, and the forces of polarization are enhanced. Thus, fact and rumor may be easily confused, and unsubstantiated information can travel like wildfire, cascades of false or misleading information flow nearly uninhibited.

Perfect filtering also brings to light the importance of shared information and experiences--the social glue of American deliberative democracy, says Sunstein. General interest intermediaries have increasingly lost market share to a variety of information providers. We need shared experiences, whether that be language acquisition and cultural imprinting in children or political issue awareness by a cross section of the population, communities must be bound together by common understandings. We must be in possession of empathy, the ability to intellectually situate oneself in another's shoes, to enable a very basic form of social bonding (i.e. "... there by the grace of God"). Shared experiences promote, or make easier, social interaction. We can talk to each other because we have some sense of how each other's world is constituted, and that we somehow belong in it. Consumer sovereignty does not support widespread, shared information experiences, there is too much diversity in the consuming public, and with the Internet these tendencies are only heightened.

Perfect filtering and the technology and practices that sustain it needs to be evaluated for its impact on individuals as citizens, not just consumers. The individual as sovereign consumer does not accurately describe us. Sunstein believes that individuals realize that individual choices might need to be constrained (e.g. regulated) in order for social well-being. Sunstein makes two suggestions for undermining the notion of consumer sovereignty with respect to communication markets. First, he suggests that we realize that personal preferences with respect to information choices are constrained and constructed by the context in which choices are made. Second, he suggests that, because "citizens are often aware that their private choices under a system of limitless options, may lead to unfortunate directions" (p. 107), individuals recognize their role as citizens requires a different decision calculus than that of consumers. Given such awareness, Sunstein argues that citizens in a deliberative democracy "may legitimately seek a communication market that departs from consumer choices in favor of a system that promotes goals associated with both freedom and democracy" (p. 107).

Page 268 begins here

Sunstein offers several reform proposals to help address the problems of perfect filtering and unchecked consumer sovereignty in communication markets, specifically those implicating cyberspace. Internet deliberative domains are suggested as, "Spaces where people with different views can meet and exchange reasons, and have a chance to understand . . .the point of view of those who disagree with them" (p. 170). Disclosure rules for providers would act as "disinfectant" says Sunstein, so that individuals could make more informed decisions about their choices. Sunstein touts the virtues of voluntary self-regulation, in which information providers may cooperatively adopt practices construed as socially beneficial. The use of economic subsidies is another option. Also, regulatory agencies could underwrite programming and websites to guarantee a multiplicity of viewpoints and robust information content. Finally, revival of "must carry" rules for cyberspace is called for, such that popular websites would have link requirements imposed on them to ensure diversity of information, and "highly partisan" websites would be linked to sites with opposing views.

REPUBLIC.COM presents a cogent and thorough argument for policies that would enhance deliberative democracy in the Internet world that is increasingly viewed through the lens of consumer sovereignty and perfect filtering. If anything, perhaps Professor Sunstein overstates the Internet's role in public discourse, it would seem to be yet another tool in our stock of them for communicating and managing information. This ought not undercut Sunstein's insight and analysis however, his description of the social and political condition seems spot on, and his assessment of the problem is not challenged by positing that the Internet is yet another tool in a long line of human communication tools and practices. I recommend REPUBLIC.COM highly, it is especially well suited for graduate and undergraduate courses on law and the Internet, or law and media more generally.