2000 Ron Paul 66:1
Mr. PAUL.
Mr. Speaker, I rise
in opposition to the Internet Gambling Prohibition Act of 2000 for
several reasons. The bill threatens Internet privacy, invites Federal
Government regulation of the Internet and tramples States rights.
2000 Ron Paul 66:2
H.R. 3125 establishes a
precedent for Federal content regulation of the Internet. By opening
this Pandoras box, supporters of the bill ignore the unintended
consequences. The principle will be clearly established that the
Federal Government should intervene in Internet expression. This
principle could be argued in favor of restrictions on freedom of
expression and association. Disapprove of gambling? Let the government
step in and ban it on the Internet! Minority rights are obviously
threatened by majority whims.
2000 Ron Paul 66:3
The bill calls for Federal
law enforcement agencies, such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation,
to expand surveillance in order to enforce the proposed law. In order
to enforce this bill (should it become law), law enforcement would have
to obtain access to an individuals computer to know if one is gambling
online. Perhaps Internet Service Providers can be enlisted as law
enforcement agents in the same way that bank tellers are forced to spy
on their customers under the Bank Secrecy Act? It was this sort of
intrusion that caused such a popular backlash against the Know Your
Customer proposal.
2000 Ron Paul 66:4
Several States have already
addressed the issue, and Congress should recognize States rights. The
definition of gambling in the bill appears narrow but could be
reinterpreted to include online auctions or even day trading (a
different sort of gambling). Those individuals who seek out such
thrills will likely soon find a good substitute which will justify the
next round of federal Internet regulation.
This chapter appeared in Ron Pauls Congressional website at http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2000/cr071900.htm