d that Internet users would not be taxed out of the primary public forum of our day. But there's one problem: the law is scheduled to expire November 1. As a result, debate has re-ignited over whether the ban on Internet taxThe right to free speech is one of the most convoluted issues of our day. On one hand, liberals insist that every obscenity and pornographic display needs to be protected under the sacred mantle of free speech. Yet, on the other hand, they want to turn criticism of same sex marriage into a crime and public prayer into a cause for condemnation.

Oh, yeah—and some public officials also believe that free speech shouldn't really be free if you're using the Internet to communicate your ideas.

Here's the situation: In 1998, a law was enacted stating that local governments, by and large, cannot tax Internet access. This would include cable modems, DSL or digital subscriber lines, or Blackberry-type wireless transmission. While ordinarily I'm understandably leery of legislation coming out of Washington, this law made perfect sense, complemented our free enterprise system, and ensured that Internet users would not be taxed out of the primary public forum of our day. But there's one problem: the law is scheduled to expire November 1. As a result, debate has re-ignited over whether the ban on Internet taxa

ther hand, they want to turn criticism of same sex marriage into a crime and public prayer into a cause for condemnation.

Oh, yeah—and some public officials also believe that free speech shouldn't really be free if you're using the Internet to communicate your ideas.

Here's the situation: In 1998, a law was enacted stating that local governments, by and large, cannot tax Internet access. This would include cable modems, DSL or digital subscriber lines, or Blackberry-type wireless transmission. While ordinarily I'm understandably leery of legislation coming out of Washington, this law made perfect sense, complemented our free enterprise system, and ensured that Internet users would not be taxed out of the primary public forum of our day. But there's one problem: the law is scheduled to expire November 1. As a result, debate has re-ignited over whether the ban on Internet tax

re using the Internet to communicate your ideas.

Here's the situation: In 1998, a law was enacted stating that local governments, by and large, cannot tax Internet access. This would include cable modems, DSL or digital subscriber lines, or Blackberry-type wireless transmission. While ordinarily I'm understandably leery of legislation coming out of Washington, this law made perfect sense, complemented our free enterprise system, and ensured that Internet users would not be taxed out of the primary public forum of our day. But there's one problem: the law is scheduled to expire November 1. As a result, debate has re-ignited over whether the ban on Internet tax

l subscriber lines, or Blackberry-type wireless transmission. While ordinarily I'm understandably leery of legislation coming out of Washington, this law made perfect sense, complemented our free enterprise system, and ensured that Internet users would not be taxed out of the primary public forum of our day. But there's one problem: the law is scheduled to expire November 1. As a result, debate has re-ignited over whether the ban on Internet taxd that Internet users would not be taxed out of the primary public forum of our day. But there's one problem: the law is scheduled to expire November 1. As a result, debate has re-ignited over whether the ban on Internet taxation should be made permanent. Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA), put it this way in a CNET news report: "If we could liken the Internet to a mall, a place where you can go in and purchase goods and services, and also liken it to a library, a place where you can go and pull a book, pull a resource, and obtain some information, why would we tax a person upon entering a mall or why would we tax a person upon entering the library?"

But state and local government lobbying groups are balking. They say that a permanent ban "deprives" them of revenue sources—in other words, they're being deprived of the hard-earned money of taxpayers. As Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) was quoted as saying, "Taxes always impact everything else in our economy. I would assume they've had a major impact in this area as well." Jordan is one of 66 House members with old-fashioned common sense who've co-sponsored the proposa