LIMITING THE NET IS A DOPEY IDEA

The thought police are at it again.

There is no explaining the mindlessness of state House members who
unanimously passed a bill to restrict the flow of information about
marijuana on the Internet. Many state representatives are trained
lawyers, so it's hard to understand why they approved a measure that
so blatantly disregards the First Amendment right to free speech. Yet
House Bill 792 somehow gained broad support, sailed through on a vote
of 114-0, and was sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

But thank goodness for second thoughts. The bill sparked so much
opposition by both sides in the marijuana debate that its Senate
sponsor has postponed action on the measure.

The delay will give state senators time to smoke out the implications
of this proposal to ban sending information about marijuana on the
Internet "knowing that the information will be used in furtherance of
illegal activity." Those convicted could go to jail for up to a year.

But the lawmakers went too far. The Internet is a booming, high-tech
medium, and folks from all walks of life want to keep it that way:
free from most government restrictions and taxes.

Not surprisingly, the bill has been attacked by both conservatives and
liberals, who say it is so vaguely worded that someone could be
prosecuted for posting well-documented information about the medical
uses and benefits of marijuana.

Jerry Elsner, executive director of the "very, very conservative"
Illinois State Crime Commission, mocked the bill's goal of preventing
drug dealers from using the World Wide Web, for example, to post
information about where and when they will be selling marijuana. "I
have never known any drug dealers that dumb," Elsner said.

A dealer would have to be dumb indeed to broadcast such information on
the Internet. Unless they've been in a coma these last few years, most
people have read or heard about several municipalities that have
assigned cops to surf the Internet posing as criminals. While other
police officers are on the street fighting crime, their colleagues are
logging on to computer chat rooms, trying to nab pornographers, child
molesters and anyone else dumb enough to discuss plans to break the
law.

So let's assume the bill is not likely to put a dent in marijuana
sales. It certainly would have a chilling effect on the commission and
other organizations that collect and disseminate information about
marijuana and other illegal drugs. Noting the commission's long
history of collecting intelligence on drugs, gangs and crime, Elsner
noted that, as the bill is now worded, the commission's anti-marijuana
postings could be misinterpreted as promoting drug use.

Explaining his group's strong opposition to the bill, Elsner said, "We
detest drug dealing, but we don't think you can have thought police"
restricting what type of information is exchanged.

I agree, and so does Matt Koglin, president of the National
Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws chapter in Downstate
Normal. "This is such a ridiculous piece of legislation," he said.

"What's uncanny about this legislation is the fact that it applies to
no other forms of media than the Internet," Koglin added. "We could
print copies of our Web page and distribute them, but sending them
electronically over a computer network would be illegal if this
legislation makes it through the Senate.

"It sets a horrible precedent allowing the state to mandate Internet
content through legislation," Koglin said.

Lest the Senate decide to press ahead with this bill, here's some
advice. The Internet isn't called the information superhighway for
nothing. And free-speech advocates won't stand by while lawmakers move
to erect roadblocks on it.