I'm tired of the argument that new tools that enable users to produce content are transformative but most people are too lazy to take advantage. Hopefully, Kevin Kelly debunked this myth for good in last month's Wired. example: one study found that only 40 percent of the Web is commercial. The rest runs on duty or passion.
The vision of the couch potato is an artifact of expensive and scarce speech outlets that forced most people into listeners. In that world, priority placed on the listener-focused purposes for protecting speech-- fostering democratic discourse, community building, equality-- should have been paramount, because most people were listeners. In today's speech environment, people are not forced to be just listeners, but are free to be speakers as well. This should affect the first amendment analysis, and the autonomy rationale should become the primary driver.
This is another reason Republic.com is wrong. Sunstein completely focuses on the effects of 5000 channels on listeners, not on speakers. If you calculate the impact on democracy of an entire electorate empowered to voice their views, on whatever they want whenever they want, I believe it will greatly overwhelm any downside effect on listeners. Of course, there’s no historical reference as no civilization has ever empowered its population with such tools. So we wait and see.