Call it an exercise of good intentions, yielding a bad result.

A little-known bill, LD 1183, was enacted earlier this year to protect kids from predatory marketing, particularly through the Internet, definitely regarding health. There’s justifiable concern that children are easy pickings for companies purveying miracle cures, or prescription drugs.

And there is equal concern that kids are easily swayed into releasing detailed personal information, which could then be gathered, sold or, even worse, stolen. At first, LD 1183 was intended to prevent this from occurring, unless the child received parents’ permission.

It seems sensible. Within the legislative process, however, sense can take a vacation. When the bill hit the floor, it had been juiced to prevent the gathering or use of any identifying information about a minor, arguably in any medium, good or bad, without the parents’ consent.

(This was enough for one group, NetChoice, a national e-commerce trade group, to call Maine’s law the worst in the country.)

In the zeal to protect, perspective was lost. Just because some would take advantage of minors, doesn’t mean all contact should be prohibited. Colleges, for example, became concerned that they couldn’t reach out to minors about pursuing higher education, although this information was beneficial.

Newspapers, like this one, are concerned because we publish information all the time that identify minor children — in our sports stories, honor rolls, graduation ceremonies, etc. Most often, a minor’s name is in the newspaper to celebrate an achievement, toast a victory, or symbolize success.

Conversely, there are imaginable instances where, say, a minor is accused of a heinous crime. Would parental permission be needed before they are identified? If so, this requirement grates against the public’s right-to-know about the events in their community, and perhaps threats to their safety.

That’s a specific concern. The overarching concern, however, is this bill doesn’t separate between harmful and helpful. While there’s no harm in protecting kids, there’s great harm in treading on First Amendment-protected speech and erecting unessential barriers to beneficial, or desirable materials.

An injunction has been filed to delay this law’s enactment, which was set for next week, and legislative leadership have asked for it to be reviewed by the Judiciary Committee, given questions about its sweeping restrictions. Both are wise — this law is not an emergency, and it does need fine-tuning.

(Disclosure: The Sun Journal is a member of the Maine Press Association, one of the groups who filed for the injunction.)

Most of all, this law needs to return to its roots: protecting children from dangerous materials. In reviewing LD 1183, legislators should remember why this bill was a good idea in the first place.

And stick to that.

[email protected]