Congress is scheduled to vote this fall on whether to ban gambling sites from cyberspace. Before making this decision, legislators should remember that such a prohibition would be ineffective and damaging to the Internet. Contrary to regulation advocates’ claims, a gambling ban would harm the Internet’s moral character, not help it.

Gambling sites, which invite Internet users to wager on sporting events and virtual casino games, are flourishing. Since 1997, their numbers have skyrocketed from 15 to roughly 400 sites that, according to Christiansen Capital Advisers of New York, will earn a combined $1 billion this year. The majority of these sites are based offshore, in Caribbean and Central American countries where it is difficult to enforce U.S. laws that restrict gambling.

The Federal Wire Act, for instance, prohibits businesses from accepting sports wagers placed across interstate phone wires. While this law applies to web sites, it is unclear whether sites offering casino games are illegal. Legislators are eager to answer this question with regulation.

Leading the charge is Arizona Republican John Kyl, chief sponsor of the Senate’s Internet Gambling Prohibition Act (IGPA). The IGPA would prohibit all gambling sites from soliciting and collecting wagers from betters in the U.S. A similar bill is pending in the House, but neither proposal addresses the reality that such a ban would likely be impossible to enforce.

Both bills demand that law enforcers identify illegal sites. Internet service providers such as America Online would then be required to block access to these sites whenever possible. But the offending sites could quickly and repeatedly change their addresses to remain accessible to the U.S., engaging law enforcers in a continuous cat-and-mouse. Compounding this problem, Internet users could never be prevented from accessing sites deemed off-limits.

Because the IGPA does not criminalize the act of betting, Internet users could still gamble legally. If their favorite sites were blocked out, they could simply route through a foreign server to reach them. These enforcement problems have caused even the Department of Justice to criticize the proposed regulations.

A written analysis published by the DOJ 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 and risk.

Dubbing online casinos the "crack cocaine of gambling," Kyl contends that an unregulated Internet could spawn a new 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 stern moral foundation.

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 pillar virtues of democracy.

Relatively free from regulation, the Internet caters to diversity. Most web sites are devoted to mainstream beliefs and preferences, but a vast number also showcase ideas and activities, such as gambling, that are both risky and morally questionable to many. What separates the Internet from everyday culture is that it does not present these dubious sites as such.

Instead, it presents all sites as equally legitimate. And this value-free presentation promotes behavior that is consistent with the principles of liberalism and democracy.

As they steer through cyberspace, Internet users are their own moral authority. They shape their online experience, 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 that these sites present, they can manage them accordingly.

This navigation process indoctrinates Internet users into a world that demands vigilance, self-reliance, and tolerance. And, as many scholars have noted, this fact promises to lead towards a future that is both more open and free. But, as Senator Kyl points out, the Internet will also have casualties.

Mistakes carry consequences, and cyberspace is not an exception to this rule. This risk is the price that accompanies a free society, and it alone does not justify the prohibition of gambling sites or any other Internet service. Such regulations declare legitimate activities to be reserved for outlaws, a position that contradicts the Web’s tolerant tradition.

Instead of pushing forward with regulations, legislators should let the Internet continue on a course that other economic sectors have been denied. To do otherwise would establish government as the moral arbiter of an environment where the individual has been the highest moral authority. And that could be the most dangerous precedent of all.

*Justin Matlick is a Senior Fellow in Information Studies at the Pacific Research Institute. To learn more about PRI and the Center for Freedom and Technology, see www.pacificresearch.org.