The U.S. Senate aims to ban Internet gambling by Americans, a misguided and ineffective proposal that would damage the Internet and its moral character.

On-line gambling sites are flourishing, from 15 sites in 1997 to around 400 today. They are expected to earn a combined $1 billion this year, according to Christiansen Capital Advisors in New York.

These sites allow Internet users to wager on sporting events and computerized casino games. They are mostly based in the Caribbean and Central America, where it is difficult to enforce current U.S. gambling restrictions.

The Federal Wire Act bars U.S. businesses from accepting sports wagers across interstate phone wires, but it’s unclear whether sites offering casino games are illegal.

The legislation before the Senate, sponsored by Republican Jon Kyl of Arizona, is called the Internet Gambling Prohibition Act. It would prohibit all Internet gambling sites from soliciting and collecting wagers from bettors in the United States. A similar bill is before the House.

Neither proposal recognizes that such a ban would likely be impossible to enforce. Both bills demand that federal authorities identify the illegal sites and tell service providers such as America Online to block access.

But operators of these sites could quickly change their addresses to remain accessible to U.S. gamblers, engaging law enforcement in a continuous game of cat and mouse.

Compounding this problem, Internet users could never be prevented from accessing off-limit sites. Because the act does not criminalize betting, Internet users could still gamble legally.

If their favorite sites were blocked by AOL, for example, they could simply route their browser’s request through a foreign Internet server to reach them.

A written analysis published by the Department of Justice last year calls Kyl’s bill “unnecessary and unwise.” So why are regulators forging ahead?

Advocates of gambling regulations claim they are necessary to safeguard individuals from temptation. Dubbing on-line casinos the “crack cocaine of gambling,” Kyl contends that unregulated Internet gambling could spawn an epidemic of gambling addiction.

He also warns that children could pilfer credit cards and develop gaming habits at an early age.

It is unclear how Kyl’s bill will protect against these threats, but it is clear that his proposal rests on a moral argument. Kyl and his supporters believe their regulations can protect individuals from their own weaknesses.

But this governing philosophy would harm the moral character of a medium that in its current form promotes the virtues of democracy.

Being relatively free of regulation, the Internet caters to diversity. Most Web sites are devoted to mainstream beliefs and preferences, but a vast number of them are showcases for ideas and activities—like gambling—that to many people are risky or morally questionable.

The Internet provides all sites as equally legitimate, a value-free presentation that promotes behavior consistent with the principles of liberalism and democracy.

As they steer through cyberspace, Internet users are their own moral authority. They shape their own on-line experiences, usually avoiding sites that contradict their values while visiting sites that reinforce them.

The presence of alternative sites reminds them that different beliefs are present and important. When faced with the risks these sites present, they will usually manage them effectively.

But mistakes carry consequences in cyberspace, just as in the material world. Irresponsible Internet users will fall victim to their own indiscretion.

This is part of the price of a free society, and one way that the Internet promotes freedom by forcing users to be self-reliant, vigilant and tolerant.

As they become indoctrinated into this world, users will become more comfortable with freedom, both on-line and off. The Internet will push us toward a future that is more open and democratic-unless regulators succeed in becoming the Web’s moral policemen.

Regulations like a prohibition on gambling would stain legitimate Internet activities by presenting them as being reserved for outlaws. In the process, they would establish government as a watchdog, creating a false sense of security while diluting the Web’s tolerant tradition.

Legislators should avoid this course and the dangerous precedent it would set. Individuals, not governments, should be the moral arbiters of cyberspace.

Justin Matlick is a Chicago-based senior fellow in information studies for the Pacific Research Institute in San Francisco. He can be reached via email at jmatlick@pacificresearch.org.