>Sender: >To: >X-Original-Message-ID: <023601bf0bbf$4bbd4ee0$9acf69cf@pacbell.net> >From: "Peter McWilliams" >Subject: The Feinstein-Hatch-Stalin Bill >Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1999 20:44:42 -0700 >X-Mozilla-Status: 8001 >X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 > > >W I R E D N E W S >- - - - - - - - - - > >Reefer Madness Hits Congress > by Declan McCullagh > >Hide that hookah. Chuck that chillum. Congress is in session, and weed Web >sites are no longer safe. > >A proposed bill that bans Internet discussions of the use of unapproved >drugs and links to such sites has not just normally mellow potheads but also >journalist groups in a huff. > >"This is just legislators spinning their wheels," says Andrew, a San >Francisco Web system administrator who says he enjoys a good bong hit three >times a week. > >"It offends me that legislators have nothing better to do than grandstand >since our society has real problems that have real solutions," says Andrew, >who asked that his last name not be used. > >About a dozen senators have signed on to support the Methamphetamine >Anti-Proliferation Act, but its primary leaders are Dianne Feinstein, a >California Democrat and longtime Internet regulatory enthusiast, and Orrin >Hatch, the arch-conservative Utah Republican who chairs the Senate Judiciary >committee. > >If the measure becomes law, it will create a new federal felony -- >punishable by a fine and three years in prison -- that covers Web pages that >link to sites with information about where to buy "drug paraphernalia" such >as roach clips, bowls, and bongs. > >Even editors of news organizations that publish articles about drug culture >and link to related sites will be subject to arrest and prosecution. > >"It is going to be a tough thing for news organizations, but more >importantly it strikes at the news consumer who wishes to test information >provided by the media against their own experience," says Paul McMasters, >First Amendment ombudsman at the Freedom Forum, a foundation devoted to >freedom of the press. "Why would anyone want to keep people from finding the >truth out for themselves or linking to facts?" > >"You would be liable," says Eugene Volokh, a law professor at UCLA. "It's a >very serious problem for people who want to link for legitimate news >purposes." > >Groups fighting for drug legalization are also upset about a second portion >of the Hatch-Feinstein bill. It creates another felony, punishable by up to >10 years in the federal pen, banning distribution "by any means" of >information about "the manufacture or use of a controlled substance" if the >recipient might use it to get high. > >"It is yet another illustration of politicians trying to escalate a war they >can't win," says David Boaz, vice president of the libertarian Cato >Institute. "The dirty little secret that maybe nobody has told Dianne >Feinstein is that it's not very hard to grow marijuana." > >"If you had links on your Web site to sites like High Times magazine, you >could be threatened with a count of indirect advertising," said R. Keith >Stroup, head of NORML. > >Banning linking is close to banning sales of all marijuana paraphernalia, >says Dana Larsen, editor of the Vancouver-based Cannabis Culture magazine. >"Preventing linking to sites selling drug paraphernalia cuts down on sales >[of] these items. I think that the federal government is definitely afraid >of the power of the Web to spread uncensored information that they can't >control." > >But Larsen believes that even if Hatch and Feinstein get their way, their >plan will disappear into smoke. > >"Ultimately, this law will be selectively enforced.... It is totally >impossible to ban all linking to drug-related sites. The Web is too large," >Larsen says. > >The Church of Scientology -- normally an ardent opponent of all illicit >drugs -- is, for once, not eager to embrace a measure designed to limit >their use. > >"When you attempt to cut a communication line, you get big problems," says >the group's San Francisco director, Jeff Quiros. "You can't block >communication without getting upset and in a turmoil. Not talking about >drugs, limiting the education to drugs, is to go in the opposite direction >of understanding. People need understanding in order to gain judgment." > >The Feinstein-Hatch collaboration is not unique. The two combined to push >forth the "Dirty Pixels" law of 1996 that made it a felony to possess >computer-generated images of naked children. > >Feinstein has tried with similar anti-drug online measures in the past. Last >year she introduced a bill -- that ultimately didn't go anywhere -- designed >to limit online drug paraphernalia sales. > >The Clinton administration said it has not taken a position on the plan. >"We'll have to study it. We would have to look to see if it has already been >passed," said Bob Weiner, acting public affairs director of the White House >drug policy office. > >The Hatch-Feinstein bill amends an existing law that already criminalizes >the sale of certain types of pipes, water pipes, carbs, cocaine spoons, >chillums, bongs, and wired cigarette papers. Their proposal covers "the use >of any communication facility to post, publicize, transmit, publish, link >to, broadcast, or otherwise advertise" drug paraphernalia-related >information in any way. > > >================================================================ > >This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to > the mailing list . >To unsubscribe, E-mail to: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------