What does it mean when the vast majority of people subject to a law don't agree with it?  "[O]ne of the philosopher kings of Internet law" (an epithet bestowed by the Times in an article today), said this more gracefully on Thursday night:

 "What does it say about our democracy when ordinary behavior is deemed criminal?" Lessig asked.

Same question for internet gambling.  The US has largely prevailed in a trade dispute with Antigua, in which Antigua claimed that US interpretation of its laws to bar internet gambling amounted to an illegal restraint on trade. The US claims that these laws are "necessary to protect public morals."

But the US makes online gambling work.  Half the money bet online ($7.4 billion in 2004, according to the Times today) comes from US bettors.  This is an enormous amount of criminal behavior going on in US homes.

If it's so wrong, why do so many people do it?  And if it's not wrong, why do we prohibit it?  I'm sure there are complicated reasons for this -- something about powerful lobbies for horseracing and offline gambling casinos ensuring that the online versions of these things are illegal. 

But such dissonance can't be good for democracy.