Politicians' Latest Grandstanding: Force ISPs To Hide Rogue Internet Pharmacies

from the haven't-we-been-through-this-before dept

Fri, May 18th 2007 1:22am — Mike Masnick

The problem with legislators is that all they know how to do is legislate. Even if there are perfectly acceptable laws in place, you don't get re-elected for saying, "you know what, we didn't need any new laws this time around." No, you have to propose and support legislation that makes it sound like you're solving a big problem -- even if the problem isn't that big and your proposed solution will likely make it worse. The latest such situation concerns unauthorized internet pharmacies. Sure, there may be some problems with people getting access to prescription medicine they shouldn't be able to order, but even the DEA says that they don't need any new laws, as existing laws are perfectly well suited for shutting these pharmacies down. Of course, that won't stop the politicians from pushing forward. However, not only are they proposing more restrictions and penalties for such pharmacies, but also demanding that ISPs and search engines proactively block these sites -- and also block advertisements for these sites. Yes, despite the fact that courts throw out every attempt by politicians to force ISPs to block sites they don't like, the politicians insist that this time it won't violate the Constitution. Yes, despite the fact that those who really want to access these sites will get around the blocks, politicians insist they're useful. Even better, they got a law professor to claim that "It is no burden to (the ISPs). They know how to do it; they can do it in a minute." Trying telling that to the ISPs who would now be responsible for blocking content. Once again, the ISPs are simply running connectivity. They should have no responsibility for what's done over that connectivity. If the sites, themselves, are illegal, go after the sites. If the sites are offshore, then block the shipments through customs. But, requiring ISPs to waste time, effort, money and resources on putting up ineffective blocks that aren't needed won't help the situation. It'll just waste time, effort, money and resources so that some politicians can claim they were tough on illegal internet pharmacies during the next election.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

11 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 18 May 2007 @ 1:49am

Yes, despite the fact that courts throw out every attempt by politicians to force ISPs to block sites they don't like, the politicians insist that this time it won't violate the Constitution.
That's because there was no punishment the last time they did it. The worse that can happen, from the politician's point of view, is that the law will be declared invalid. So they continue to pass laws they know to be unconstitutional.

Imagine how many bank robbers there would be if the worst that could happen for trying is that they would have to give the money back if they got caught. It wouldn't be much of a deterrent to trying, would it? It is a similar situation with politicians who are sworn to uphold the constitution and then waste no time finding ways to try to subvert it. Now if voting for unconstitutional laws was treated as an act of treason and punished as such then I think politicians might be deterred from doing it as often. As it is they don't give a whit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Charles Griswold, 18 May 2007 @ 2:28am
  
  Re:
  That's because there was no punishment the last time they did it. The worse that can happen, from the politician's point of view, is that the law will be declared invalid. So they continue to pass laws they know to be unconstitutional.
  IMHO, politicians that knowingly vote for unconstitutional legislation should be dishonorably discharged from office, with all of the penalties that the phrase "dishonorably discharged" implies.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Scott Harrison, 19 May 2007 @ 11:40am
    
    Re: Re:
    I agree, but who bells the cat? Other politicians?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 19 May 2007 @ 9:09pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I agree, but who bells the cat? Other politicians?
      The same court system that judges the constitutionality of the laws.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
The infamous Joe, 18 May 2007 @ 3:50am

but even the DEA says that they don't any new laws, as existing laws are perfectly well suited for shutting these pharmacies down.

You forgot the word "need" or maybe "want" between the bold words. I hate to be "that guy", but whatev. :P
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Count Porkula, 18 May 2007 @ 4:51am

Uh....what constitution? Ours has been dead for quite some time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 May 2007 @ 5:31am

but even the DEA says that they don't any new laws

This clause no verb.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
LesterRay, 18 May 2007 @ 5:53am

Please forgive me for saying this as I am a Christian who certainly believes in the biggness of GOD, but, Quit policing the Internet. Legislature may be big but not as big as the WEB, and believe it or not the WEB is bigger than GOD in the sense that no one will ever be able to stop it or pull the plug on it. It is a monster that only the user can control.
If you are not a WEB whisperer then you are going to have problems that no amount of legislation will ever cure...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- TheDock22, 18 May 2007 @ 7:06am
  
  Re:
  Legislature may be big but not as big as the WEB, and believe it or not the WEB is bigger than GOD in the sense that no one will ever be able to stop it or pull the plug on it. It is a monster that only the user can control.
  
  Huh? Isn't saying the Internet is bigger than God against the rules in the bible or something?
  
  Anyway, it should not be up to the ISP to block content to "save me". If I am dumb enough to get illegal prescriptions, then so be it. I'm tired of the government treating me like a criminal because I *might* get a hold of illegal prescriptions. These sites have been around for years, but I choose to go to my doctor if I need medications.
  
  Maybe the better way would be for drug users, sexual offenders, and criminals to be denied access to the Internet. Then everyone wins!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tarky7, 18 May 2007 @ 7:32am

Help !
"Save the Children !"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rob S., 20 May 2007 @ 8:39am

"Sure, there may be some problems with people getting access to prescription medicine they shouldn't be able to order..."

Ain't it great that we as 'free' people aren't allowed to put a drug in our own body that the FDA doesn't sanction?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]