You see no irony that, last year, thinking the NSA had implemented a comprehensive surveillance state would be an irrational belief that should be suppressed by active management of public discussion?
Sunnstein is no lover of government suppression of speech. He has written at length about the importance of vigorous debate to democracy. I think he fails to appreciate the ways in which many of his proposals could backfire, but that's hardly a failing unique to him (how many people on this very chatblog opposed Citizens United, and think its a good idea to let the government prosecute companies for airing unauthorized political movies critical of a front running Presidential candidate?).
a) Anti-GMO
b) Anti-nuclear
c) Chupacabra believers
d) Anti-surveillance
e) Pro-bitcoin
It's all fun and academic games until a vampire kills your goats.
Are you suggesting that because some conspiracies have occurred, all conspiracy theories are worth consideration?
And much, if not most, of the National Security State was built with the ideas of academics.
Sunstein and his ilk should be kept far, far away from the levers of power.
Conspiracy theorists have suddenly gained vast new powers.
The Guardian: "He has also proposed reformulating the first amendment, arguing that in some instances it goes too far in protecting damaging forms of speech." http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/22/nsa-surveillanc...
I don't think Sunnstein's views on speech are in general inconsistent with what you typically find on say HN: http://mtprof.msun.edu/fall1994/TrRev.html ("Sunstein's focus is on the relationship between the media--newspapers, television, radio--and political culture. For him, the media, increasingly owned and controlled by a dwindling number of privately owned conglomerates, are in the propaganda and bread-and-circuses business. They make sure that the American public is not exposed to radically new viewpoints and that it is distracted from serious issues by an endless array of tabloid topics, from Nancy Kerrigan's knee to John Bobbitt's penis.") See: http://mtprof.msun.edu/fall1994/TrRev.html.
He favors restrictions on e.g. hate speech and political speech by corporations, which is not inconsistent with what many (most?) liberals believe. But he's also made it clear he thinks such restrictions should generally be based on harm, not ideas. http://www.gvpt.umd.edu/lpbr/subpages/reviews/sunstei2.htm ("A subject matter restriction on unprotected speech should probably be upheld if the legislature can plausibly argue that it is counteracting harms rather than ideas."). I don't agree with him on any of these points, but his views are not outside the mainstream, and are consistent with those of say European countries that have outright bans on hate speech.