AGAINST “AGAINST CYBERANARCHY”
suaded—an unrepentant Exceptionalist. I think it does matter that Digital- books.com is “in cyberspace,” I think that the questions raised by its con- duct are indeed different, and more difficult, than the analogous questions raised by its realspace counterpart, and I do not believe that we can resolve the jurisdictional dilemmas posed by Digitalbooks’ transactions by apply- ing the “traditional legal tools” developed for similar problems in real- space.
The problem of “jurisdiction,” as generations of law students can testify, can glaze over even the most attentive eyes. At its core, though, it reaches fundamental questions of order and legitimacy; lest we forget, we fought a revolution over the jurisdiction to prescribe.104 Cyberspace should give us pause, and I am not quite ready to throw in the towel just yet. Settled law, and received principles, are worthy of respect; but at times they need to be reconsidered. This is one of those times.
2000 Semester) available at http://www.law.miami.edu/~froomkin/inet00/syllabus2.htm; Darren Charters, Arts at the University of Waterloo, School of Accountancy, Course Schedule, Cyber Law: Legal Issues in a Digital Business Age (Fall 2001 Semester) avail- able at http://www.arts.uwaterloo.ca/ACCT/courses/acc415.
104 Among the “[f]acts . . . submitted to a candid world” to substantiate “repeated injuries and usurpations” to which the King of England had subjected the American colonists, was that the King had “combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pre- tended Legislation . . . .” THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE para. 15 (U.S. 1776).