| |
GillianWhiteFirstPaper 6 - 24 Jan 2013 - Main.EbenMoglen
|
|
META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
An internet society: what kind do we have and what can we do to change it? | | Additionally, lawyers tend to specialize: we shirk being even legal generalists, and in particular working with other disciplines. The free software movement is a good example of how lawyers and technologists can work across the aisle on technical solutions to unfreedom. Lawyers will have to do better at this kind of cooperation in the fields of advocacy, policy advice and litigation.
I think many of us can work as champions, advocates and educators of a free internet society if we exploit our strengths and respond to our weaknesses. | |
> > |
This seems to me both responsive to the points I raised last time,
and much stronger for the responses. I agree with you that your
thinking here has evolved, to your advantage in all your further
thinking.
On your concluding point about lawyers' specialization, I would add a
couple of notes. In the first place, you might want to consider the
ways in which the collaboration of lawyers and technical experts that
seems unusual to you in connection with the free software movement is
actually the norm in a variety of settings, from environmental law
organizations like the Environmental Defense Fund to, say, IBM or
Qualcomm. More important even than such collaboration is the
personal development of multiple professional expertises: lawyers who
are also technical experts. In societies where law is an
undergraduate study, lawyers rarely have fully-developed scientific
or technical expertise. But in the US—where law is a graduate
study so that everyone has a prior tertiary education, and where
personal self-reinvention is a cultural given, so that highly
intelligent people may have several sequential or simultaneous
careers in utterly different fields—it is possible for lawyers
to combine other forms of expert domain knowledge with the actual
specialization of lawyers, which is not law but lawyering, the
discipline of making things happen in society using words.
The fullness of perspective is the background of strategic as opposed
to tactical thinking. The tactician's power is focus: creative
determination to achieve the designated objective with the assigned
resources, come what may. Focus is a weakness in the strategist,
whose concern it is to allocate resources among objectives, and who
must have the entire battlefield in view. You might want to ask of
your argument concerning specialization whether it doesn't make the
lawyer a tactician, working for a strategist who is possessed of
another range of available cognitive approaches. If that's right,
some other interesting thoughtways would open.
| | \ No newline at end of file |
|
|
|
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform. All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors. All material marked as authored by Eben Moglen is available under the license terms CC-BY-SA version 4.
|
|
| |