Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
typodupeerror delete not in
  • Preferences

Book Reviews

Recent reviews from Slashdot readers:

Submitting a review for consideration is easy; please first read Slashdot's book review guidelines. Updated: 2008114 by samzenpus

Comments: 137 +-   Lessig For Congress? on Friday February 15 2008, @10:24AM

Posted by kdawson on Friday February 15 2008, @10:24AM
from the played-by-jimmy-stewart dept.
government
usa
news
politics
luge writes "With the unfortunate passing of Congressman Tom Lantos, parts of Silicon Valley and San Francisco will be holding a special election in June to send a replacement to Congress. Given the area, it would be great to have someone who is both tech- and policy-aware fill the seat — and it looks like that just might happen. Lawrence Lessig has apparently bought 'change-congress.com.' A 'Draft Lessig' group is forming on Facebook, featuring some of Lessig's old co-workers at Harvard and Jimmy Wales, among others. No word from Lessig himself yet, but he's been increasingly vocal about politics of late. If it happens, it would be a huge step forward for the representation of technology in Washington."
story

Related Stories

Submission: Lessig for Congress(?!) by luge (4808)
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Lessig For Congress? 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • Or maybe Perens? Nah, he's not wingnutty enough for politics.

    • Re:ESR For Congress! (Score:4, Insightful)

      by CSMatt (1175471) on Friday February 15 2008, @10:58AM (#22434988)
      Have you seen some of ESR's antics? Kudos to him for co-founding the OSI, but he's not the kind of person I'd like to see representing my district (assuming I lived in Silicon Valley of course).

  • Copyright or corruption as his platform? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by DoofusOfDeath (636671) on Friday February 15 2008, @10:30AM (#22434682)
    IIRC, Lessig recently made anti-corruption be his struggle, rather than restoring copyright to something reasonable. On which goal(s) would he focus? I think legislators are often forced to sacrifice one ideal for another during the legislative process.

    • Re:Copyright or corruption as his platform? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Comatose51 (687974) on Friday February 15 2008, @10:48AM (#22434890) Homepage
      Unreasonable copyright and denial of intellectual freedom for the sake of corporate profit is a form of corruption in my book.
    • A large part of the problem with corruption is the red tape that the corrupt can hide behind. What we need is a sort of "root" user for one or two agencies that can essentially violate any law or policy inside the government, short of the constitution itself, to root out corruption. I'd suggest greatly expanding the size and scope of the Offices of the Inspector General, such that when an IG agent steps foot inside of a federal agency, they are more terrifying that Tomas De Torquemada to those with somethin

      • Re:Does he realize what he'd have to do on corrupt (Score:4, Insightful)

        by oojimaflib (1077261) on Friday February 15 2008, @12:52PM (#22436606)

        A large part of the problem with corruption is the red tape that the corrupt can hide behind. What we need is a sort of "root" user for one or two agencies that can essentially violate any law or policy inside the government, short of the constitution itself, to root out corruption.
        Yes. That's what's needed. The Spanish Inquisition. Capital idea.
      • Congratulations. You've invented a new power broker! How long do you think it would take for the position to get politicized? Think about it. You would could ask anyone anything and they have to answer. You could gain access to political plans. Leak info at inconvenient times. Get phone records for calls to non-spouses. Make it look like someone isn't being completely honest and you've effectively kicked them out of federal government and politics. Not that any of this is bad because no-one should
      • Nobody expects the OFFICES OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL! Our chief weapon is root access. Root access and non-possibility of non-cooperation... Our TWO chief weapons are root access, non-possibility of non-cooperation, and 12-year terms THREE! Our three main weapons are root access, non-possibility of non-cooperation, 12-year terms, and no accountability... Our four... Among our chief weaponry are such diverse elements as root access, non-possibility of non-cooperation, 12-year terms, no accountability to

  • Founder of Creative Commons (Score:5, Informative)

    by cs02rm0 (654673) on Friday February 15 2008, @10:30AM (#22434686)
    and board member at EFF apparently.

    I'd never heard of him. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Lessig [wikipedia.org]
    • I received a copy of "Free Culture" when I subscribed to the FSF. Very interesting read. This man seems to have some very good ideas, and knows quite a bit about copyright and derivatives. I'd vote for him if I could :)

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by CSMatt (1175471)
        Quite unusual, considering that the FSF is at odds with Creative Commons, specifically their NonCommercial and NoDerivatives licenses.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by qortra (591818)
      I was tempted to say, "you must be new here". But that certainly isn't the case, given your ID - you've been a member at least a few years. Then, I was tempted to say, "you must not come here often". But 141 comments (mediocre though it may be) is a counter indicator to that as well. Thus, I have settled on one of two possibilities; either you have YRO posts at -5, or you don't RTFAs. Lessig comes up all the time here - or at least, he did until he switched "causes" away from copyrights. Anyway, not

      • Re:Founder of Creative Commons (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Bob9113 (14996) on Friday February 15 2008, @11:21AM (#22435302) Homepage
        Lessig comes up all the time here - or at least, he did until he switched "causes" away from copyrights.

        Not so. He was pretty clear about the fact that he feels copyright is a symptom, and the corruption disease must be tackled in order to advance rational copyright law which balances the needs of creators and consumers. He has not turned his back on copyright reform, but taken what he sees as the only viable path to the goal.

    • Lessig is (was?) a featured writer in Wired Magazine. He is a brilliant supporter of free culture, and has a lot of foresight towards the future in a very-RMS way.

      Anybody unfamiliar with his ideas would do good to read more [lessig.org]

  • Obama + Lessig = Win (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ClamIAm (926466) on Friday February 15 2008, @10:39AM (#22434780)
    I'm leaning toward Obama a bit for President. This is mostly because when he drafted his tech policy, instead of talking to some exec at AT&T, he talked to Lessig[1]. I find this admirable.

    In the potential future where Lessig runs and wins, and Obama wins, we'd have two more Slashdot Moral Values-friendly politicians in office. Of course, there's already people like Dick Boucher of Virginia.

    [1] Of course, who knows how committed Obama is to his tech platform, and/or how much he'd have to compromise to appease the Congresscritters who've been bought by the telecom and copyright cartels.

    • Re:Obama + Lessig = Win (Score:5, Interesting)

      by CSMatt (1175471) on Friday February 15 2008, @10:48AM (#22434880)
      At least he has a tech platform. Every other candidate I've come across who's still in the race doesn't seem to have anything planned for the digital realm, other than the standard "no wiretapping without a warrant" promise of some candidates.

  • Obama Supporter (Score:4, Informative)

    by ShedPlant (1041034) on Friday February 15 2008, @10:43AM (#22434828) Homepage
    FEC.gov shows he donated the maximum allowance to Barack Obama's campaign. Just FYI :) .

  • Intellectuals in politics (Score:4, Interesting)

    by routerl (976394) on Friday February 15 2008, @10:43AM (#22434838)
    Let me preface this comment by saying I am not an American, but an observer of American politics and culture. It is a sad testament to the strength of anti-intellectualist tendencies in American culture that American politicians tend to have little academic expertise on the issues pertaining to the policies they espouse (e.g. Ted Stevens' "internet = series of tubes"). The benefit provided by academic expertise is not simply the number of degrees one acquires, but dialogical engagement with other experts who dedicate themselves to finding fault in arguments (via journals, conferences, etc). Thus, the arguments presented by an academic to the general public may well be bastardized (because simplified) versions of the arguments they would present within academia, but we (the public) can assure ourselves that those arguments could be elucidated in ways that stand up to some level of harsh criticism. To put one's faith in the honesty of a politician whose views and arguments arose in an academic setting, then, is a better bet than putting one's faith in the honesty of a politician who may only be concerned with rhetorically covering up his/her true influences (e.g. pressure by lobbyists or campaign contributions). Lessig for congress is, in my eyes, a good move regardless of how much/little I may agree with him politically. This is simply because the development of his views and arguments is well documented in his books and articles, and with reference to an academic context which is accessible to anyone interested in putting the time into investigating it. As I see it, this would be a move towards transparency in government, which is a prerequisite for true democracy.

    • Re:Intellectuals in politics (Score:5, Insightful)

      by inKubus (199753) on Friday February 15 2008, @11:01AM (#22435026) Homepage Journal
      Well, behind all the used-car salesmen and small-town accident attorneys is a fairly capable and educated bureaucracy. The fact is that if the people doing the driving are incompetent enough to only do what's most popular, you are getting the will of the people. The problem is that the PEOPLE are stupid. So, in times when the political institution is particularly weak, the bureaucracy takes over (such as after 9/11), and they have all sorts of plans to control the media, and vicariously the politicians (since they only do what's most popular).

      Proof of this is readily available when you look at documentation of the CIA's activities in the early 60's. That is what happens when you give a bureaucracy carte blanc and no oversight. They invaded a country. Of course, 9/11 had some of the same effects as nuclear cold war--it instilled fear in the public, which means they are apt to press their politicians to give up power in favor of the bureaucracy. Thus we have wiretapping, prison camps, torture, etc, all existing outside of the normal decision-making process. The worst part is that the bureaucracy is run by the president. He's the chief executive and the president of all the departments and sub-departments of the bureaucracy. Congress can only make the laws that govern this body, and the judicial can only rule when a suit is brought. Thus, they have unlimited power until they get caught.

      Heady stuff, no wonder people want to be president so badly.

      I agree, however, that having some intelligence in the Congress would provide some leadership to the people who need it most. The problem is, all the stupid people wouldn't like him and he'd be voted out. People seem to prefer people who think at their own level, apparently.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by 91degrees (207121)
      (e.g. Ted Stevens' "internet = series of tubes")

      Why does everyone pick on him for this bit of his comment? It's the only bit that actually makes sense. A series of tubes is a perfectly good analogy for the internet. It is essentially a series of interconnected conduits, and if one of them gets clogged up it will slow down the whole system.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by taskiss (94652)
      It doesn't take knowledge of technology to represent your constituency so I have NO idea why you feel "academic expertise" is relevant. There are technical advisers for that sort of thing, and it's the people skills to select a knowledgeable and honest adviser that are the skills needed to hold political office.

      Honesty isn't We have enough folks that engage in "dialogical engagement with other experts" and the greatest contribution that provides is hot carbon dioxide - and this is something you feel we need
    • The benefit provided by academic expertise is not simply the number of degrees one acquires, but dialogical engagement with other experts who dedicate themselves to finding fault in arguments (via journals, conferences, etc).

      Of course, the disadvantage provided by academic expertise is that the politicians would use words like "dialogical."

      All things considered, I'll take the non-academic, thanks.
    • While I don't necessarily disagree with you, your post does smack of a "rule by the intelligentsia" philosophy. I think it overvalues the argumentative abilities of academics outside their realm of expertise and does not consider the unexpected wisdom found among the masses. (If you know many cattle farmers, they are generally a great example of this.)
  • Is there any way to elect him and then have him avoid the mandatory lobotomy that is forced on all our politicians? :)

  • Fantastic! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Phoenix666 (184391) on Friday February 15 2008, @11:04AM (#22435050)
    He would make an excellent Congressman and technology advocate. Personally, I think Lawrence Lessig would make for the right template to choose Congressmen. That is, they both have general competence and area-specific knowledge. Rather than the old method of electing political cronies or party insiders or business schmucks or mercenary, power-hungry lawyers, we could elect men and women who are strong contributors to our civic life and also experts in their particular field.

    For instance, I would feel much better about food safety legislation designed by a Congresswoman who was an actual FDA scientist. Then I could be reasonably sure that facts played a large role in her decisions.

     

  • Lessig vs. Putnam (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Gallenod (84385) on Friday February 15 2008, @11:07AM (#22435086)
    Lessig, assuming he runs and is elected as a Democrat, would provide a massive counterweight to the Republican's Adam Putnam (R-FL) on technology issues, not to mention any other current Reps living off the largesse of the intellectual propery community (RIAA, MPAA, Business Software Alliance, etc.).

    I hope he runs. We need more legislators with practical life experiences who are not only experts in particular disciplines, but know enough about legal or scientific methods to form intelligent opinion based on facts on other subjects instead of voting the way the polls or campaign contributors tell them to.

  • I'll vote for him! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Subm (79417) on Friday February 15 2008, @11:25AM (#22435368)
    I don't live in his district, but I sent a check to Diebold and they said they registered my vote.

  • Lessig for SCOTUS (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Reverend528 (585549) * on Friday February 15 2008, @11:31AM (#22435454) Homepage
    Lets face it. He'd fit in a lot better in the Judicial Branch...

  • Lessig lives in the wrong district? (Score:4, Informative)

    by molo (94384) on Friday February 15 2008, @11:49AM (#22435712) Journal
    Palo Alto (and Stanford) are in California's 14th District [wikipedia.org], and Lantos is from the 12th District [wikipedia.org], representing the area from San Mateo, and Redwood City north to South San Francisco, Daly City, and the southwestern portion of San Francisco. I don't think he's eligible to represent the 12th district without moving. So this would be no small matter for him to undertake.

    That said, I would fully support Lessig for congress. Hopefully he can bring some knowledge and sanity to important committees.

    -molo

  • Don't Waste Out In Congress! (Score:4, Interesting)

    by AceJohnny (253840) <jlargentaye@@@gmail...com> on Friday February 15 2008, @12:15PM (#22436100) Journal
    I think L Lessig can have more impact from outside Congress, and concentrate on issues he cares about (copyright before, corruption now), rather than waste his time politicking about in Congress on issues he doesn't care about.

    Sure, maybe he could have a little more impact working from the inside, but I'm cynically afraid that he'd soon be disgusted and burnt out against the rot in there.

  • No chance (Score:4, Insightful)

    by HaeMaker (221642) on Friday February 15 2008, @12:55PM (#22436648) Homepage
    Lessig has no chance in Lantos' district. He would not be the Democratic nominee, that would most likely be Jackie Speier, and she is a lock to win the seat. She will win by at least 60%.

    Lessig will have a better chance if he tries for Anna Eshoo's seat when she retires, but he would have a lot of work to do to win a Democratic nomination out of the blue. In this area, there is a very active and strong Democratic party infrastructure and the path to that seat is usually via the state assembly/senate or San Mateo County Board of Supervisors.

    If Lessig really wants in to congress, he should run for local office first.

    • Re:I'd vote against him (Score:4, Insightful)

      by CSMatt (1175471) on Friday February 15 2008, @10:38AM (#22434776)
      That was over 10 years ago. What makes you think that he didn't learn form that?

    • Re:I'd vote against him (Score:5, Insightful)

      by eln (21727) on Friday February 15 2008, @10:51AM (#22434904) Homepage
      I'd rather vote for a guy that stood up for what I believe in and failed rather than someone who stood up for something I'm against and succeeded.

    • Re:I'd vote against him (Score:5, Insightful)

      by robot_love (1089921) on Friday February 15 2008, @11:23AM (#22435334)
      That's some good thinking there, tiger. Let's not vote for the guy who tried to change US copyright law on a shoe-string budget against the wishes of the biggest and richest corporations in America. Is it at least possible that the things he learned going through that could help him to be succesful next time? Or do you win all your SCOTUS cases first time? What's that? You've never fought a case against corruption at the level of the supreme court? You've never even fought any court cases against corruption?

      I don't mean to sound like a fanboy, but Lessig has proven that he's willing to fight for the things I (and likely you, this being Slashdot and all) actually care about, and you slag him because he didn't win his supreme court case! Unbelievable.

    • Re:Real chance? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Bob9113 (14996) on Friday February 15 2008, @10:40AM (#22434794) Homepage
      I doubt he'd be electable in a state which contains a large percentage (if not the largest) of content providers.

      Perhaps not in the Senate, but this is the House, and he's a Bay Area resident. We have a few little companies here that are full of employees who feel pretty strongly about rational technology law; you know, Google, Apple, Yahoo, and about seventy-three thousand startups. House elections are local.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by CSMatt (1175471)
        Google and Yahoo, perhaps, but methinks that Steve Jobs' position at Disney could be a real influence on Apple.
        • Google and Yahoo, perhaps, but methinks that Steve Jobs' position at Disney could be a real influence on Apple.

          Haha - well noted. I actually originally composed my post to say "companies that feel strongly about rational technology law." Then realized the mistake and changed it to employees. :)

    • Re:Real chance? (Score:5, Informative)

      by eln (21727) on Friday February 15 2008, @10:47AM (#22434878) Homepage
      He doesn't need to be elected by the whole state, just his district. That particular district covers a big chunk of Silicon Valley, which may be the one place a candidate like that actually could get elected.

      • Re:Real chance? (Score:4, Informative)

        by CSMatt (1175471) on Friday February 15 2008, @10:55AM (#22434946)
        So then what happens when the rest of the state, or the nation for that matter, votes against what he votes for? It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that Congress has a significant amount of bad apples.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by eln (21727)
          I didn't say he would be effective in Congress, just that he could get elected to Congress. One person championing Creative Commons in a room of 434 other people in the pocket of the industry lobbyists probably won't have much effect at all unless he can build up enough seniority to get on (and chair) the right committees.
      • And I'm not even being pedantic here. The 12th district is on the northern part of the peninsula.

        Congressman Mike Honda [house.gov] is the representative for most of "Silicon Valley" which includes San Jose, Santa Clara, and Cupertino -- the 15th District.

        Now, if you want to cover Google and Stanford, then that's the 14th District -- which includes Saratoga, Sunnyvale, Mountain View, Palo Alto, and Redwood City -- and Congresswoman Anna Eshoo [house.gov] is very much alive. :)

        Silicon Valley is well represented already.

    • Re:Real chance? (Score:5, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 15 2008, @11:10AM (#22435122)
      I'd say elect Bill Gates.
      Just coming up with bribes large enough to get his attention would bankrupt
      the RIAA, MPAA, and similar mob enterprises.
      • You're kidding, right?

        They have a *lot* of leverage to use for bribes. "Say, you want all the top-40 crap exclusively on MS-Windows Live? That's easy. Just make sure all equipment must have DRM built-in."

        It's already happening. That's why Microsoft is so willing to add end-to-end DRM to MS-Windows.

        I know you are just making a joke, but the joke's on us. Gates already has more influence via Microsoft than all the government regulation in the computer industry combined.

    • Re:Real chance? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by kenthorvath (225950) on Friday February 15 2008, @12:04PM (#22435958)

      I doubt he'd be electable in a state which contains a large percentage (if not the largest) of content providers.

      I disagree. He is strongly anti-piracy, and has the support of major content providers with his Creative Commons initiative. The copyright reforms he seeks to implement are geared mainly towards removing the legal barrier towards creating fair-use derivative works of content and facilitating amateur content creation. This may not be a savory notion for the big studios, but it is not a life-or-death burden on their business models, either.

      • Exactly. Lessig is no friend of file-sharers. He wants to preserve copyright on the books, even though the pandora's box of the digital era is already open. I would have more respect for him if he were arguing for total abolition of copyright, considering that it is a fairly recent notion, and much of the world's great art and literature was produced when content makers made no demands on being able to get paid for copies of their works.
Search
My vaseline is RUNNING...

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.