As more government officials choose to publicly answer questions submitted by Internet users, they're encountering a new phenomenon: marijuana activists intent on forcing answers to the would-you-legalize-pot question.
In March, President Obama's first virtual town hall took a detour when questions about legalizing marijuana were voted to the top of the "financial stability," "jobs," "budget," and (of course) "green jobs" polls on WhiteHouse.gov
On Wednesday, it was California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican, who was put on the spot. Digg.com users propelled a legalize-marijuana question to the No. 2 position (behind one asking about what he was thinking when photographed grimacing at President George W. Bush).
Earlier this month, Schwarzenegger said "it's time for debate" about legalizing marijuana. Read on for an excerpt from the CNN interview.
Q: What is your stance on the legalization, cultivation, and regulation of marijuana in the state of California?A: I like the law that we have in place. And I don't believe in legalizing marijuana, but I'm always open for the debate because there are people that feel differently. And I said I'm always interested in debating any of these issues because there's always different ways of looking at it. And I think it would be interesting to see the information that is available, if there's any information available, of how well countries are doing that have legalized marijuana. But I don't think that information is available, and I'd want us to see that.
But I believe in the law, the way the law is right now, and I think it's worked very well for the state of California. And I think it would be a mistake to just go and legalize something that we don't believe in just because it would produce an extra billion dollars in revenues. And I think we just have to learn how to live within our means rather than trying to do things we really don't want to do.
Q: New polls actually show that more than half of Californians support legalizing marijuana. So would that sway your stance on it whatsoever in this open debate that you're calling for? Would it sway your opinion?
A: Well, it could very well go on an initiative one day, where they ask the voters directly, that could very well be. And if the voters make that decision, that's fine. But I think it is very important for us to make certain decisions not just because they would bring in some extra money, and I think this is why people have been talking about that in California, to go in that direction, and to start debating that issue. Because it would produce, as they say, $1.3 billion, $1.4 billion extra revenues.
Thanks to a 1996 ballot measure, medical marijuana is already legal under California law, though local officials have substantial discretion. Although that conflicts with federal law, the Obama administration has chosen not to target California medical marijuana dispensaries.
State legislator Tom Ammiano, a San Francisco Democrat, introduced a bill in February to legalize recreational marijuana. Bill AB 390 would license "commercial cultivators of marijuana" and establish a complicated web of regulations and tax rules they and retailers must follow.
It could raise over $1.2 billion a year in new tax revenues, assuming a $50-an-ounce tax, according to an analysis by California NORML, an organization working to reform the state's marijuana laws.
A Field poll released on April 30 found that 56 percent of the state's registered voters support legalizing marijuana and taxing its sale.
Editors' note: This is a guest post. See Michael Songer's bio below.
Throughout the 1990s and 2000s, we have seen a number of well-known legal disputes: legality of peer-to-peer services such as Napster and Grokster, cybersquatting, laws (trying) to regulate porn, even "veejay" Adam Curry trying to use the MTV domain name.
As we head into 2010 and beyond, here are some legal issues that are likely to careen through cyberspace in the next few years.
1. Lawsuits related to stupid/silly conduct shown on the Internet.
The assimilation of broadband brought with it those "viral videos": Star Wars Kid, Numa Numa Dance, Aleksey "Impossible is Nothing" Vayner, and the like. The latest fad seems to be taking videos of crude behavior and posting it for all to see--think of the two girls bathing in the Kentucky Fried Chicken kitchen, or the Domino's employees creating a "special" meal for a customer.
Someone will be offended, someone will sue. In some cases, the lawsuits make sense (violating health codes for the KFC and Domino's videos); in other cases, they don't (Star Wars Kid sued, and Aleksey Varner threatened a suit, though the legal basis for these is shaky).
Expect to see a rise in these types of lawsuits related to conduct shown on the Internet and calls for Congress to do something. What, exactly, can be done is less clear; it's hard for the legal system to regulate conduct that, while not breaking the law, is merely stupid. But that won't stop people from trying and lawyers from garnering headlines.
2. Lawsuits related to social media.
The last few years have seen a number of lawsuits brought against Facebook and MySpace for conduct occurring on those sites--think of the Megan Meier case (Megan Meier was the teenager who committed suicide after a woman pretended to be her friend, and then turned on her).
The government prosecuted the offender in that case, though the legal basis for the prosecution is less than clear, and an appeal is under way. And there have been calls for regulating what you can and cannot do (no sock puppets!) on these sites.
These are likely to continue for the simple reason that more and more people are using these new technologies. With that increased use comes the increase in libelous statements, crude conduct, even illegal activity (think prostitutes using Craigslist to advertise their services).
I'm sure--if it hasn't already happened--that someone will sue over some "tweet" in the next year. Expect more of these lawsuits.
3. The next battle in the copyright wars.
The $1 billion battle between Google's YouTube and Viacom is churning away, with no end in sight. At issue is the liability of sites like YouTube for hosting content posted by others.
Like the earlier Napster decision, this case has major ramifications for content on the Internet. However, just as Napster begat legal file sharing (iTunes), consumer demand might work out a solution faster than the courts.
YouTube recently announced a deal with Sony to stream movies, with television shows on the horizon. But whatever the final outcome of the YouTube lawsuit, nagging copyright issues associated with liability and fair use of content uploaded into social sites will not go away.
Recently, the Associated Press threatened to sue aggregators and clamp down on the use of their articles, and others are sure to follow this path. Expect more content owners to use copyright lawsuits to shape what we view and read on the Internet.
4. Blogger liability for the comment section.
Currently, bloggers cannot be sued for libelous statements posted in the comment section of their blogs. Something called "section 230" (after the particular legal code) immunizes bloggers from legal harm caused by another's comments (bloggers, however, can be sued for libelous statements that they post).
This immunity was enacted in the mid-'90s and was designed to protect the "publishers" on the Internet at that time: the AOLs, CompuServes, and ISPs that enabled Internet access. The law never contemplated the explosion of bloggers, MySpace authors, and other "social publishers." And the law never contemplated the accompanying (usually anonymous) comments to those posts, as well as the ill will associated with the all-too-common flame wars.
Several courts have expressed dissatisfaction with the blogger immunity--particularly when the blogger knows that the comments are defamatory or wrong. Expect more challenges to this immunity, and perhaps calls for Congress to roll back section 230.
5. The taxman cometh.
Anyone who has read a phone bill has seen a dizzying array of taxes, assessments, and special charges. Your Internet access is free from such taxes until at least 2014, due to Congress and the Internet Tax Freedom Act. The law, passed in 1998 and extended by the Bush administration, prohibits federal, state, and local governments from taxing access to the Internet, and it bans "Internet-only" taxes such as bandwidth or e-mail taxes.
States remain free to tax sales on the Internet.) Of course, that was before the current economic crisis, and the general rise in taxes on everything from mobile phones to cigarettes. A bill has been introduced to make the tax ban permanent, but nothing is "forever" with Congress. Expect to see calls for Congress to tax these areas before 2014.
Of course, given a steady pace of new Internet technologies that allow different ways for humans to interact with one another, more unique, complex, and downright strange events will occur that give rise to legal disputes. (Think "upskirt" cams.)
The legal system is flexible and has dealt with much over the last 10 years, in many instances driving Internet growth in ways both good and bad. The next 10 years promise much of the same.
- prev
- 1
- next
