The result was a compromise of sorts. Hensarling’s bill (and the alternative) would be shelved because the FEC would release new rules for the Internet. On the plus side, all other online political activity goes unregulated. Unfortunately, online political advertising now falls under the McCain-Feingold regulations, meaning that the government has its foot in the door when it comes to online regulation.
All of this regulatory nonsense—including the McCain-Feingold and Allen’s proposal—approaches the First Amendment from the neo-liberal perspective. This theory holds that speech should be evaluated in light of the public interest, and government is the ultimate arbiter in messy situations. Conceivably, this means limiting content that some (read: the judicial and perhaps legislative branch) deem inappropriate, or putting prohibitions on certain speakers in an effort to artificially create equality. The libertarian theory seeks the opposite—to maximize the freedom of the speaker and liberate him from government intrusion.
In the long-term, passage of any neo-liberal bills pertaining to the Internet would increase regulation and would essentially destroy the free flow of information currently on the Internet. So, is the Internet too good to be free? The cries of bloggers have been steadily rising, and rightly so. Regulation of online political ads has begun, and bills have been proposed—thankfully they haven’t been passed, yet—that would subject higher-rolling political sites to regulation. If neo-liberals have their way, indeed the Internet will not be free. Undoubtedly, their intentions are good, but these regulations should ultimately be judged not based on whether or not they are well-meaning, but in light of the Constitution.