A Quote by Lawrence Lessig

Why should it be that just when technology is
most encouraging of creativity, the law should be most restrictive? — © Lawrence Lessig
Why should it be that just when technology is most encouraging of creativity, the law should be most restrictive?
In addition to encouraging failure, I would also encourage companies to broadly create a culture of innovation. That should mean more than just technology and invention; it should mean something millennials know well: Ingenuity.
I think arts should be liberal, people should be allowed to express themselves. It happens in most democratic countries in the world, and I don't see why it should be different in India.
I think the most dangerous word in the English language is 'should.' 'I should have done this.' Or 'I should do that.' 'Should' implies responsibility. It connotes demand. Which is just not the case. Life ebbs and flows.
But spirituality, it seems to me, when answering the question, "Why should I be good? Why should I care for others?" says, "Because that is the best, most fulfilling way to live" Whether or not you receive an award or a payment is incidental. You are good and kind and loving because it is right, even though it is difficult sometimes. It fulfills the highest law, to treat others as we wish to be treated.
With exposure also comes more judgement and opinion so I think now is the time for me to just really solidify a safe space and be around people who are encouraging, supportive, and challenging in a healthy way. With what happened during the 2016 election, now is the time that we should feel our most brave and most fearless.
When push comes to shove, we all should know most Americans want the same things, but just disagree on how to get there, which is why it should be okay to not panic if the other party wins.
Communists should be the most farsighted, the most self-sacrificing, the most resolute, and the least prejudiced in sizing up situations, and should rely on the majority of the masses and win their support.
Nobody is above the law. Imagine if there allegations against Modi and he is the Prime Minister. Should the case not be pursued just because he has become the PM. It should not be so that it should be stopped. I am not above the law.
Here I encounter the most popular fallacy of our times. It is not considered sufficient that the law should guarantee to every citizen the free and inoffensive use of his faculties for physical, intellectual and moral self-improvement. Instead, it is demanded that the law should directly extend welfare, education, and morality throughout the nation. This is the seductive lure of socialism. And I repeat: these two uses of the law are in direct contradiction to each other.
The question taxpayers keep asking is 'why should we pay for services for those who have broken the law to get here?' They should not, nor should they be forced to be the Health Maintenance Organization (HMO) and School District of the world. This is evidenced in every poll I have seen indicating that every ethnic group is opposed to illegal immigration and supports enforcement of the law.
Any good teacher should become acquainted with relevant technologies. But the technologies should not dictate an education goal. Rather, the teacher (or parent or student or policy maker) should ask: can technology help to achieve this goal, and which technologies are most likely to be helpful?
The most important thing about intellectual property vs. creative expression is that copyright law was created not to stifle creativity but to encourage creativity.
Most Americans believe in fairness; we believe that people should work hard but there should be a safety net. We believe in saving the quality of our air and water for our children. Most Americans want action on climate change. You can just go through the list. Most Americans believe in progressive taxation.
In sixth grade, we all had to write this opinion paper. Most wrote about things like why we should be able to chew gum in class - I wrote about why women should receive equal pay.
Although people who had achieved a great deal in science and technology talked of the inscrutability of creativity, I was not convinced and disbelieved them immediately and without argument. Why should everything but creativity be open to scrutiny? What kind of process can this be which unlike all others is not subject to control?…What can be more alluring than the discovery of the nature of talented thought and converting this thinking from occasional and fleeting flashes into a powerful and controllable fire of knowledge.
We should be all be treated equally under the law. Why should members of Congress be in Obamacare and not the president?
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!