>From: "Peter McWilliams" >Subject: Internet information burning >Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2000 20:19:42 -0800 >X-Mozilla-Status: 8001 >X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 > >Pubdate: 26 Jan - 1 Feb 2000 >Source: Village Voice (NY) >Copyright: 2000 VV Publishing Corporation >Contact: editor@villagevoice.com >Address: 36 Cooper Square, New York, NY 10003 >Feedback: http://www.villagevoice.com/aboutus/contact.shtml >Website: http://www.villagevoice.com/ >Author: Russ Kick >Note: This article is the result of a MAP press release. >Related: http://www.mapinc.org/alert/0146.html >http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00/n071/a01.html >http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00/n081/a09.html > >WASHINGTON 451 > >This is how the burning begins. Down in Washington, D.C., the censors >gather into a pile the books and Web sites they hate, grab a gallon of gas, >and strike a match. But they call this bonfire a bill, a piece of >legislation, which is legal and tidy. It's happening now with S.R. 486 -- >remember that number -- which has already passed the Senate with unanimous >support. The bill sits in the House, awaiting the same blessing. If it >becomes law, the publishers of a large number of pro-drug Web sites and >books could wind up in jail, or out of business. > >Drug war reformers suspect they are the true targets, and this week they're >stepping up lobbying efforts against S.R. 486. Angry e-mails are on their >way to Washington, and several sites devoted to trashing the bill have been >launched. But the protests may be in vain. > >"We want to make it difficult for people to produce illegal substances," >explains Chris Cannon, the House sponsor of the Senate version introduced >by Dianne Feinstein and Orrin Hatch. "We are hoping to have hearings in >March, and pass the bill this year, sooner rather than later." > >It should not be overly difficult. The Methamphetamine Anti-Proliferation >Act, as it's called, contains several politically attractive clauses that >portend its passage into law. Drug warriors love the additional narcocops >it sends to the front, and the way it stiffens sentences for >methamphetamine distributors and cooks. But while these are standard >measures in the war on drugs, zero tolerance for pro-drug data expands the >battlefield from deeds to words. > >The bill makes it illegal "to teach or demonstrate the manufacture of a >controlled substance, or to distribute by any means information pertaining >to, in whole or in part, the manufacture or use of a controlled substance" >if a prosecutor can prove the info figured in a crime. > >That's a mandate as big and broad as Montana sky. It covers information >about safe dosage levels of illegal drugs, which combinations pose dangers, >and which do not. It covers explanations about how to use marijuana to >fight nausea and glaucoma. It covers tip sheets on how to harvest opium >from poppies, identify psilocybin mushrooms in the wild, or extract codeine >from Tylenol 3. In short, anything that could possibly be "intended" to >encourage drug use. > >Not only that, but under the bill, advertising any information that could >lead to the sale of drug paraphernalia counts as a felony. So if you post >the address of a head shop to a newsgroup, or the e-mail address of someone >who makes bongs as a hobby, it's a crime punishable by three years in jail, >even though head shops themselves remain legal. > >There's a strong possibility that the law will shut down an entire class of >drug advocacy. Already, publishers and activists are preparing to pull in >their wares, or go overseas. Mark Greer, the executive director of Drug >Sense, a nonprofit dedicated to accurate drug policy information, fears his >archive of 30,000 clippings regarding drug policy could be the target of a >federal suit brought by a D.A. on a scalp hunt to prove the new law works. > >"Given the vague and inclusive interpretation of federal conspiracy laws, >almost any information about criminalized drugs and any dissent against >existing drug laws could be construed by federal enforcers as furthering >drug crimes," says Greer. "Any anti drug war Web site would be shut down >directly, or indirectly because Internet service providers, fearing >prosecution, would refuse to host such sites." Greer is preparing for this >eventuality by exploring steps to move his site offshore. > >But even if he relocates to a cyberdomain beyond America's jurisdiction, >anyone linking to his site from within the States could be punished under >the proposed law. "The main thrust of this law is toward the Internet," >explains Marv Johnson, an ACLU attorney specializing in the legislation. >The Internet's free flow of information "has Congress running scared." And >when it comes to drug paraphernalia, Congress is running far ahead of the >First Amendment. Under this bill, even linking to a paraphernalia site is >illegal. > >But in the final analysis, it's less the prosecutions than the censoring >effect this law will have that worries civil libertarians. "It's clearly >going to chill publishing," says Johnson, and he's not exaggerating. > >The American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression believes bookstores >will be forced to withdraw certain drug titles, according to its president, >Chris Finan. > >Over at Ronin Publishing, one of the leading publishers of drug titles, >tension is in the air. "Will the police storm into my house?" asks Beverly >Potter, the company's president. She fears the law will criminalize every >aspect of the book industry that deals with drug literature. "Every >printer, every truck driver delivering these books will be a criminal." > >"If it passes, we would probably pull all of our drug books, since I am >unwilling to spend several hundred thousand dollars that I don't have to >prove that my 'intent' satisfies Big Brother," says Mike Hoy, president of >the radical publishing house Loompanics Unlimited. "This bill is the single >most un-American thing I have ever seen." > >Perhaps. But under the Clinton administration, it's as American as apple >pie. Last August, Clinton set the precedent for the methamphetamine act by >signing a law (also Feinstein's handiwork) making it a felony to >disseminate instructions for making bombs, destructive devices, or weapons >of mass destruction. And while that move came in response to the Oklahoma >City bombing, its effects are still being felt. Paladin Press no longer >publishes any material involving explosives recipes, and Loompanics doesn't >sell books exclusively about explosives. On the Internet, where bomb-making >instructions were once abundant, there is now a void. > >If this drug bill passes, the most immediate and concrete impact will be on >the two dozen or so sites which currently sell drug paraphernalia, from >bongs to paper -- and the countless places that link to them. These sites >will become illegal, even though brick and mortar head shops will still be >able to operate within the letter of the law. > >The deeper question, of course, is whether S.R. 486 violates the First >Amendment. Representative Chris Cannon, the House sponsor, is unconcerned. >"We have worked a lot with the attorneys at the Department of Justice; we >have been pretty thorough there," he says, adding, "We don't even expect a >court challenge." > >That may come as news to the ACLU, but Cannon's confidence is based on >strange but safe legal ground, territory already strewn with the bones of >another Paladin project: Hit Man, a murder how-to book. After a >killer-for-hire allegedly acted on the book's step-by-step instructions, >the victims' families sued Paladin. The courts allowed the lawsuit to go >forward, and Paladin settled for a reported $5 million. The ruling that the >lawsuit could proceed is being cited by the Louisiana Court of Appeals in >the legal action against Oliver Stone over Natural Born Killers, which >allegedly incited two 18-year-olds to go on a violent crime spree. And it >sets a precedent for holding publishers accountable that could make this >bill legit in the eyes of the courts. > > From the ACLU's perspective, Johnson thinks that "in theory" prosecutors >would have a hard time proving "intent." In a case, they would have to >prove that a publisher knew beforehand that some reader would find in a >book the motivation for a crime. Nevertheless, the results of the Hit Man >case are troubling, he says, and the future of this area of law is still >undetermined. > >If the Meth Act becomes law, Johnson says the ACLU's likely course of >action will not be to challenge the bill immediately, but rather to save >its attack until someone is prosecuted, and then defend that person. Any >volunteers? > > >================================================================ > >This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to > the mailing list . >To unsubscribe, E-mail to: