"Common sense revolts at the idea..."

Though at first we may be blind to it's impact, the vast medium of the internet has completely opened our eyes to new ideas and information in a way that is transforming our culture.  With websites such as youtube, reddit, and countless others, we are exposed to unlimited creativity.  Organizations, including one even as powerful as the current U.S. government, are frightened by the amount and content of information being freely posted on the internet.  Feeling threatened, these massively influential parties then attempt to intervene with the elusivity of cyberspace.  In Lawrence Lessig's book "Free Culture," he attempts to point out a "war" that is raging on between "piracy" and "property" (Lessig 13).  The two sides consist of those trying to maintain control over their work or property, be it physical or intellectual, and those who threaten that control.  He argues that this battle, to which most of society remains blissfully ignorant, will ultimately corrupt and horribly change the fundamental laws American culture rests on (13).

Lessig admits that although the technical changes made possible by the invention of the internet are outstanding, the impact it has made on our current culture should be given much more attention.  He disscusses two forms of culture: "commercial," being the part of culture that exists to be produced and sold, and "noncommercial," that being all remaining aspects of culture (7-8).  For example, a woman publishing poetry would be contibuting to commercial culture while an old man telling stories to kids would create noncommercial culture.  Lessig goes on to describe the change this noncommercial culture has overgone, "At the beginning... the law was never directly concerned with the creation or spread of this form of culture, and it left this culture 'free'... left alone by the law... the focus was on commercial creativity" (8).  The laws to protect artists left all the other forms of noncommercial culture (telling stories, making tapes, etc.) unregulated.  Yet now with the introduction of the internet, the "divide between the free and the controlled has now been erased" (8).

This erasure has shaped us into what Lessig coins a "permission culture" (8).  He means that in order to contribute to and/or critique the culture around us, we must first ask permission to do so.  This so-called  "permission" is usually granted to most of society, yet "it is not granted to the critical or the independent" (10). Organizations have now placed laws in order to stifle the critical, independent thinkers that threaten them, in turn, creating a form of nobility that is completely foreign to our fundamental culture.  Justified as a way to protect commercial creativity, it is not a protectionism employed to defend artists but rather certain forms of business (8-9).  Lessig's greatest worry is that if the battle between organizations, particularily the governemnt, and "free" thinkers  goes unchecked, there will be major damage to our society's rich tradition and culture (11).

Lessig is strongly against the actions of internet "pirates", yet feels that laws against them rid society of an integral component: the protection of creators from state control as listed by the 1st Amendment.  When the government feels threatened, it attempts to silence the independent parties who challenge them.  Currently, this struggle for control is perfectly displayed by the existence of the controversial site "Wikileaks".  The anonymous contributors behind it hacked into top-secret government documents/ reports and exposed them to the public.  A recent New York Times article (aptly named Wikileaks) describes the site's purpose and controversiality.  Fareed Khan begins,

"The once-fringe Web site, which aims to bring to light secret information about governments and corporations, was founded in 2006 by Julian Assange, an Australian activist and journalist... Wikileaks made its initial reputation by publishing material as diverse as documents about toxic dumping in Africa, protocols from Guantánamo Bay, e-mail messages from Sarah Palin's personal account and 9/11 pager messages" (Khan 1).

By publishing it's own material on dozens of servers around the globe, Wikileaks has grown more and more elusive and controversial.  It has remained untouchable from any government control due to the legal loop-holes the creators have discovered and thrived on.  The increase in information being posted on the site has threatened the order of the U.S. government by eluding it's dominion and defacing it's public image through the posting of disturbing, clandestine information.  Currently, the British government is involved in a legal battle with Wikileaks founder Julian Assange due to criminal allegations unaffiliated with the site (2).   Khan writes, "With Mr. Assange's arrest, the authorities he has reveled in provoking will have a new degree of control over his movements, though not necessarily over WikiLeaks" (2).  Although the government may now have influence over one of the site's key players, Wikileaks still remains.

This case of Wikileaks is an example of Lessig's ongoing battle of  property v.s. piracy.  Lessig describes the mentality of the government that Wikileaks is attacking when he declares that, "From the beginning, government and government agencies have been subject to capture.  They are more likely captured when a powerful interest is threatened by either a legal or technical change.  That powerful interest too often exerts its influence within the government to get the government to protect it" (Lessig 6). The "powerful interest" here is the government's control of secret information which the legal/technical change of Wikileaks has made public.  In a way, Wikileaks supports the idea that we have not yet fallen into Lessig's nightmare; that there is still some divide between freedom of speech and government interference in cyberspace.  The site has provided a change in how society can view startling information.   To maintain our culture's freedom, we must not allow those most threatened by these changes to use their power to change the law or the fundamental values of society.  If we let the government use their power to silence sites such as Wikileaks, we are damaging our culture and effectively adding fuel to the fire of ignorance.

Should we as society sit passively while laws inhibit our freedom and sweep information under the government's rug? In the words of Justice Douglas, "common sense revolts at the idea" (3).