Only a few chapters into Lawrence Lessig’s Code, and I can’t help but hate the points he’s outlined to exhaustion. He talks about changing technology instead of accepting the status quo.

“We assume that the way we find things is the way things have be.”

Why then have we created cyberspace this way? Why do we choose (Lessig doesn’t seem to concede there is a choice involved, but I’ll just promise to make my point later, as that’s perfectly acceptable in the world his book resides) to accept, even embrace, cyberspace in it’s current state? Why, in so many instances, have we shaped cyberspace in a particular manner?

What about people? Is it safe to assume we would resist change? Surely we would reject regulation we didn’t agree with? More importantly, who should decide on this regulation? How can we implement moderate regulation? Isn’t that a slipperly slope? What’s to stop regulation so damaging that the free exchange of ideas, or the right to express dissent is threatened, choked, or altogether destroyed?

This brings me to my final an perhaps most important point, by allowing cyberspace, as it exists today, to continue to remain open and accessible, won’t the best regulation come from individuals making content choices, innovating better uses and employing code to create the world’s they chose for themselves?

Can’t actual crimes be punished without stoping free speech and expression? Shouldn’t we expect a little profanity if we also expect the right to quote poetry?

As for his illegal, unannounced searching worm, can we all agree that’s an argument for another day?