LIMITING WEB SPEECH

U.S. Sen. Russ Feingold does not make many missteps in Washington. But he
tripped up when he signed on as a backer of the constitutionally
troublesome Methamphetamine Anti-Proliferation Act of 1999.

The bill, as passed by the Senate, empowers law enforcement agencies to
close sites on the World Wide Web that are viewed by those authorities as
teaching or demonstrating the manufacture of controlled substances. Some
critics say the bill might even be read by ambitious authorities to allow
them to prevent legitimate drug-policy reform groups from establishing
Internet links to controversial Web sites.

The bill would create "a situation that is ripe for abuse'' by police
agencies, according to Deborah Pierce of the Electronic Frontier
Foundation, a group that seeks to maintain free speech on the Internet.
Because the bill does not include a requirement that authorities get a
judge's permission to order a Web site shut down, Marv Johnson, legislative
counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union, says it raises serious due
process concerns.

Since Feingold is one of the Senate's most diligent defenders of free
speech, it is confusing that he would support such a proposal. It is even
more confusing that the Middleton Democrat would release a press statement
identifying himself as "a proud co-sponsor'' of the bill.

In fact, Feingold rightly recognized that the bill was flawed when it was
presented to the Senate Judiciary Committee, on which he sits. The
Wisconsinite worked hard to redraw the legislation in order to protect
free-speech rights on the Internet, successfully inserting language to
require that evidence of intent by the operator of a Web site to promote
the manufacture of controlled substances be found before a site can be
censored.

There's no question that Feingold recognized the threat to free-speech
rights posed by this piece of the drug-war proposal. And his actions did
reduce those dangers.

But not enough.

The language of the Methamphetamine Anti-Proliferation Act of 1999 is
riddled with loopholes that overzealous police agencies could use to
silence or restrict legitimate speech on the Internet. In addition, it
could be used by federal authorities to prevent sites from teaching about
growing marijuana for medical uses -- even in states where voters have
approved the production and use of the drug as a legitimate and beneficial
treatment for glaucoma and other ailments.

Because of these very serious flaws in the legislation, members of the
House, including U.S. Rep. Tammy Baldwin, D-Madison, should oppose this
legislation.

As for Feingold, we respect his legitimate desire to balance a fight
against drug abuse with a commitment to protecting free speech. He has cast
more courageous votes in favor of free speech protections than anyone in
the Congress.

But, on this bill, the senator's honest desire to forge a workable
compromise has lead him to support a piece of bad legislation.