Witha flip of a switch and the flex of a wrist, we can launch ourselves into a world where information flows freely without cards or passwords or even humans to hinder our progress.
That world is the Internet, a world were there is a relatively free exchange of information that has allowed for the rapid expansion of communication in the academic and corporate worlds alike.
It should come as no surprise that government wants to regulate it.
A new Senate bill plans the regulation of the Internet through continuation of the Federal Communications Commission's powers to decide what forms of telecommunication powers are in the "public interest."
In other words, the Senate wants to fine people huge sums of money for selling pornography on the Internet, despite the fact that the FCC has been more than lax in its previous attempts to enforce purity -- prostitutes have used phone and radio to solicit clients for years.
I believe this bill is less an attempt to save the impressionable youth of America than an attempt to get a federal handle on what is becoming one of the most vital sources of communication and commerce.
Thankfully, Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, much to the chagrin of some Senate Republicans, objected to the bill on the grounds of free speech. He has suggested that there must be an alternative to intrusive government regulation, for example, legal protections for policing measures of Internet access providers.
This dilemma presents the real challenge -- how can we protect Internet access providers (Compuserve or America Online) without jeopardizing the freedom and speed that the new technology has afforded its users?
In the past, government has dealt with technology by regulation because regulation has the immediate effect of slowing technology and providing a federal role in its progress.
Strict conservatives might argue that preventing the sale of pornography is a valid cause for regulation.
Others may see the decision to regulate the Internet strictly in terms of self-interest: a growing Internet without need of regulation suggests the need for smaller government and by extension less federal bureaucracy.
Nothing like the threat of weakening the federal bureaucracy and returning power to the citizenry to get at least a few federal bureaucrats really fired up.
However, in the case of Internet regulation, the costs could be devastating.
First, it would slow the flow of information. Retarding the efforts of universities, companies and individuals to communicate freely and quickly would only serve to sap their time and creative energy. Both are precious commodities in a shrinking world.
Second, and more importantly, government regulation of the Internet would transfer control of information from citizens to government. As a democracy, we have continuously strived for the ideals of freedom of speech and press.
Regulating the Internet would be analogous to placing an armed guard before one of the floors of the Baker Stacks with orders to prevent us from obtaining whatever information might be stored there.
I do not argue that everything found on the Internet is meant for children's eyes. Yet, despite this apparent concentration of smut (as the Senate would have us believe) thousands continue to subscribe to Internet access providers every day.
Many of these providers offer services that will limit the access of the buyer so a family could place a lock on certain areas. But these areas make up a small part of the Internet.
If either political party jumps the gun and rushes to champion the regulation the Internet, it may generate great headlines, but in the long run it will only chip away at that great creative freedom that has been channeled so effectively in the ever-growing web of the Internet.
That would truly be tragic.
