Consider this the second chapter in the domain-name hijacking saga.

The site in question includes political commentary covering many different issues, but Bush is likely most upset about its coverage of his alleged past cocaine use.

Bush has reportedly been trying to strong-arm the site's creator (Zach Exley, a Boston-area computer consultant working in concert with the corporate culture-jamming, anti-trademark RTMARK) into shutting the parody site down. Lawyers for the soon-to-be candidate sent a cease-and-desist letter to Exley last month, then threatened to sue for copyright infringement, and later offered to buy the domain name. Exley refused.

There are serious questions now that the case has gone to the feds. The FEC complaint argues that a politically inclined Web site valued at more than $1,000 must register with the FEC before publishing material that could positively or negatively affect the outcome of an election. Apparently Bush's lawyers insist the site is worth more than $1,000 simply because Exley wouldn't sell it to them for 350 times that amount.

How scary is that?

One wonders why Bush doesn't demand the same of newspapers, which frequently publish material that is beneficial or harmful to candidates during an election cycle. After all, much more convincing argument could be made that the New York Times is worth more than $1,000.

Clearly, there is a First Amendment issue here. The FEC is reportedly considering the Bush proposal even as it explores possible ways to "regulate" political domains.

Current law and the policy established by the new domain cops, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), protects certain copyrighted words and phrases from being registered by anyone other than the copyright holder. In other words, you couldn't register www.palmolive.com if it were available, because Colgate-Palmolive owns it. But there are gray areas here. Certain copyrighted phrases or words become part of the public's lexicon, or have alternative meanings. That's why Colgate-Palmolive lost its campaign to force ajax.org to surrender its domain.

Perhaps copyright law doesn't hold the solution on this matter. Even if the FEC decides to implement some regulation of spoof domains, it would instantly be challenged in court by the media (all of which have a strong interest in how this case plays out). I suspect Bush will lose on the basis of libel law.

Libel law states that you can publish almost anything about a public figure involved in something newsworthy (say, an election) as long as you know or are reasonably sure of its accuracy. Sure, some journalists and tabloid hacks abuse the privilege, but for the most part the law offers the leeway to ensure that our elected officials and other people in power don't get away with screwing the public.

Cyberphilosophers like John Perry Barlow often preach that "old media" law should not be applied to the new media, because the paradigms are so radically different. But this is a case where the usual suspects switch sides. This is about freedom, and old media law has a long, time-honored tradition of protecting its own freedom. That is why Bush would think to sue the Web site that criticized him, but would never dream of suing a newspaper columnist who opposed him. In these early years of the Web, the law has yet to catch up. And if people like Bush continue to target the Web on the free-speech front, the Web-based media could end up far more restricted and regulated than its print and TV counterparts.

The Internet is going to be a key political issue in the next presidential election. At the moment, Steve Forbes looks like the sharpest knife in the drawer. Poor Al Gore with his misinterpreted claim of having invented the Internet is bound to be the butt of every low blow on the issue of the Net. So much for being the "technology V.P." He'll get no credit for that this year.

But if Bush decides to push this, it could end up backfiring. With the campaign amplifying every move the candidates make, they'll have to choose their battles wisely. Pursuing this not only increases that parody site's profile but also alienates the growing Libertarian sector of the GOP and many conservative Democrats. If Bush has any sense, he'll let it go.