Litman interestingly points out an "information ethos" in the United States rooted in the fundamental perspective that "facts and ideas cannot be owned, suppressed, censored or regulated; they are meant to be found, studied, passed along and freely traded." (11) This certainly rings true to my ears. The prospect of being limited by law in what one can read, say or write meets a vivid reaction, images of a Stalin era KGB razing a press and the Argentinian Desaparacido's empty seats at the dinner table. The free flow of information seems a central tenet of democracy, and more than that of American democracy. And it is. Our nations constitution architects enshrined it in our Bill of Rights, and sitting Senators Dodd and Schumer continue to forward protective legislation like the "Free Flow of Information Act"
However, the complexity and depth with which the use of information is regulated in the U.S. is becoming increasingly evident over the course of my studies here. Broadcasters are limited in what they can send over the air, schools in what they can teach, and individuals in how they can use information. Littman argues that despite these regulations, more often than not out "information ethos" finds it's fulfillment in our "information policy" – a concept new to me that covers all the ways in which policy regulates and leaves free the use, consumption and sharing of information. Americans have been able to read, view and explorer ideas and information "privately and anonymously, and have come to view the ability to do so as a natural right."
Given how salient the democratic ethos of a freedom of information, the question immediately strikes me of why there remains such a strong impulse and public support of informations regulation. The answer, my initial reaction is, probably lies with the corresponding strength of our market ethos. As important as the individual reaping the benefits owns own labor, including creative work, is to the market, their is just as strong a sense that such a state of affairs also benefits the public via Smith's "invisible hand". Freedom of information is desirable, but so is the market incentive to insure a continued robustness and vigor in information's creation, states the narrative of the market ethos. And so we get the discussed protections afforded information by intellectual property law.
So here we have the balance in the marketplace of ideas both proprietary and public. The concern I see the beginnings of in Litmans' work, and in my own immature understanding, is that the balance is being tipped toward the proprietary to the deficit of the public as we maneuver IP law's reaction to the increasing role of digitized information in American society. Is a realignment a potentially unpleasant necessity given the nature of digital information, or bluntly an attempt by private interests to gain greater control of and private benefit from information? Further, we must ask how political realities can be best navigated to create the most desirabe information policy pertaining to the digital.
