Wes Vernon, NewsMax.com
Friday, June 7, 2002

Many establishment politicians view this "people’s medium” with emotions ranging from wariness to resentment. This upstart outlet reaches the public without the "gatekeeper” filters in the approved, notoriously left-wing media.

Now leftist politicians have found a way to rein in this newcomer and at the same time reward their big campaign donors among the trial lawyers.

'Great Harm'

The Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation (chairman: Sen. Ernest "Fritz" Hollings, D-S.C.) just before the Memorial Day congressional recess approved S. 2201, which a leading industry executive says "will cause great harm to the Internet and electronic commerce.” Sponsors would like to slip it quietly through the Senate, preferably while you’re not paying attention.

Ed Black, president of Computer and Communications Industry Association, says the measure would subject Internet companies and service providers to sweeping new liability for class-action lawsuits for failing to adhere to the strict requirements of the legislation.

Example: Currently, if you order a book from a Web site and leave your name and address so that the merchandise can be forwarded to you, the site can make note of where you live so that it can gear regional advertising to you. The site must inform you it is doing this, and if you choose not to allow it, you can opt out.

Under S. 2201, such information could not be collected or shared unless you give your express permission, or "opt in.”

Because most people don’t care that much one way or the other, few will opt out or opt in. The result is that without people expressly opting in, advertising on the Web would take a nosedive. If that happens, many sites would lose a huge source of their revenue. The result: More and more Web sites would have to charge you subscriptions before you could log on.

Or they might have to go out of business. And that is believed to have a certain amount of attraction to politicians seeking to keep public criticism to a minimum.

Remember, they passed a campaign finance "reform” bill that forbids you or independent groups you support to run ads criticizing them within 30 days of a primary or within 60 days of a general election.

An Attack on Revenue, Not Spam

Jason Mahler, vice president and general counsel of the computer association, says this is aimed at "the 1-inch strip at the top of most Web pages that flashed ads of different kinds.”

It does not deal with "spamming” the customer with unwanted e-mail. That, he says, is a separate issue. The information is not used for any illegitimate purpose, Mahler emphasizes.

For example: "I live in Washington, D.C. They might like to know that I live there, not because they want to send me a piece of mail or want to come to my house. But a restaurant in D.C. might want to advertise to me. But they don’t want to advertise to everyone on the Internet. They wouldn’t want to pay for that. But they would want to pay to show it only to people who live in D.C.”

Ever More Bureaucracy

S. 2201 would mandate an expansive new role for the Federal Trade Commission to create an entirely new regulatory regime for the Internet.

Black says the industry is particularly concerned that, when one considers the fragile economy, "this bill could doom many Internet-based firms. While these companies struggle to generate revenue, the burden of responding to massive new litigation exposure, coupled with the need to conform to complex regulations mandating access requirements and onerous sign-on schemes, would have a debilitating effect.”

And who loses in the long run? The consumer, who would find the free flow of services and information generated by the Internet greatly curtailed.

The Thought Police

History suggests that is no small matter. The Federal Communications Commission, formed to prevent radio station signals from interfering with each other, ultimately got the court-ordered go-ahead to extend that foot in the door to police much of the programming on the ground that the public owns the airwaves.

But the "public interest” was interpreted by federal authorities in D.C. with little or no real input from the public.

Only in recent years, when Congress refused to reinstate the commission’s onerous "Fairness Doctrine,” has there been a proliferation of conservative talk show hosts who provide an alternative to the liberal establishment’s mainstream media.

The expression of all points of view found on the Internet makes some Washington politicians uneasy. They are tempted to impose the heavy hand of regulation, just as happened in the early days of broadcasting.

Quite aside from the negative effect S. 2201 would have on the economy, the computer industry is making the case that your right to the free flow of information should not depend on the good graces of government officials.

A product that might interest you:
Have an Opinion About This? Send an URGENT PriorityGram Today
Read more on this subject in related Hot Topics:
Media Bias