Internet gambling law update

Search

Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2004
Messages
3,850
Tokens
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
US appeals court upholds Internet gambling ban<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
Eds: UPDATES with details of ruling, comments from association chairman. Moving on general news, financial and sports services.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
By MARYCLAIRE DALE<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
Associated Press Writer<o:p></o:p>
PHILADELPHIA (AP) — A U.S. appeals court upheld an Internet gambling ban Tuesday, rejecting a challenge from an association of off-shore bookies that the federal prohibition was too vague and violated privacy rights.<o:p></o:p>
The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia rejected arguments from Interactive Media Entertainment & Gaming Association in New Jersey, which had filed the lawsuit hoping to legalize online betting in that state.<o:p></o:p>
Congress passed the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act in 2006 to ban online gambling that would be illegal in the state where the individual or gambling business conducts the transaction. The law does not target the bet itself but criminalizes bank or credit card transactions linked to the bet.<o:p></o:p>
The group, comprised of mostly offshore betting operators, had attacked the law as unconstitutionally vague. Their lawyers questioned how the location of an online bet would be determined if the gambler is in Delaware, for instance, and the operation is in Costa Rica.<o:p></o:p>
At least one of the three judges who heard arguments last month seemed to question that logic.<o:p></o:p>
“No matter how metaphysical you want to get, I’m not in Costa Rica, I’m in Delaware,” 3rd Circuit Judge Kent Jordan said.<o:p></o:p>
The court also rejected arguments that the law invades a gambler’s right to privacy in the home.<o:p></o:p>
The Justice Department, which successfully defended the law, had no immediate comment, a spokesman said.<o:p></o:p>
While the association is considering an appeal, Chairman Joe Brennan Jr. said he saw a potential victory in the ruling because most states have not expressly addressed the legality of online betting.<o:p></o:p>
“(The Justice Department) has been insisting there is a blanket ban on Internet gambling in the U.S., but the panel said state law is the determinant,” Brennan said. “If you go by that reasoning, if it’s not illegal in that state, then it would not be a violation of federal law to process a transaction from a player there.”<o:p></o:p>
The group also is involved in a lawsuit in New Jersey that challenges the constitutionality of a 1992 federal ban on most sports betting. The association says sports betting could bring $100 million or more in tax revenues to state coffers on an existing — if underground — market estimated at $10 billion annually in the state.<o:p></o:p>
Brennan noted that New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine wants to intervene in the case in support of sports betting, and the chairman said other states are showing interest.<o:p></o:p>
“There’s a lot of interest in it just because of the times and the straits the states find themselves in,” Brennan said.<o:p></o:p>
Delaware officials tried to legalize sports betting in their state, arguing that they enjoy grandfather rights under the 1992 law.<o:p></o:p>
But the appeals court last month struck down the attempt, limiting the state to the parlay bets on professional football games that were allowed at the time.
 

Pop-culture, entertainment, sports and contest Mod
Joined
Dec 20, 2002
Messages
33,977
Tokens
ugh, that doesnt sound good...
 

Pop-culture, entertainment, sports and contest Mod
Joined
Dec 20, 2002
Messages
33,977
Tokens
this sentence does give a little hope though....



Brennan noted that New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine wants to intervene in the case in support of sports betting, and the chairman said other states are showing interest.
 

Honey Badger Don't Give A Shit
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
46,540
Tokens
whoop-dee-doo

In the time it took you to read Post #1 in this here thread, there were likely up to a half million or more Americans who placed some kind of online gambling wager.(cards and sports)

And in the time it takes you to read THIS post and consider what I just stated, there were another half million or more online wagers placed by Americans who really don't give a crap what anyone in Washington DC has to say about using the Internet to place wagers.
 

Honey Badger Don't Give A Shit
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
46,540
Tokens
I'm far more perturbed at knowing there are people in Washington DC who honestly believe there's a damn thing that anyone in the USDOJ can do to impede 99.9999% of gambling online than I am perturbed that there are actually laws passed which make such activities an alleged federal crime.
 

I'll be in the Bar..With my head on the Bar
Joined
Oct 3, 2004
Messages
9,980
Tokens
For probably 60+years people have been safely banking in Switzerland....Your hero is putting and end to it and will probably bankrupt/jail some very high rollers.....

If they decide to go after Internet gambling they will put a HUGE dent in it. What they've done so far i agree is next to nothing...but only compared to what they could do...
 

Honey Badger Don't Give A Shit
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
46,540
Tokens
If they decide to go after Internet gambling they will put a HUGE dent in it. What they've done so far i agree is next to nothing...but only compared to what they could do...

Nonsense. The U.S. government is powerless to create significant impediment to any activity on the internet that is in demand by tens of millions of users, especially when virtually all the activity is being hosted by businesses located outside the USA.
 
Last edited:

I'll be in the Bar..With my head on the Bar
Joined
Oct 3, 2004
Messages
9,980
Tokens
CNET News has obtained a copy of the 55-page draft of S.773 (excerpt), which still appears to permit the president to seize temporary control of private-sector networks during a so-called cybersecurity emergency.


The new version would allow the president to "declare a cybersecurity emergency" relating to "non-governmental" computer networks and do what's necessary to respond to the threat. Other sections of the proposal include a federal certification program for "cybersecurity professionals," and a requirement that certain computer systems and networks in the private sector be managed by people who have been awarded that license.

Probably the most controversial language begins in Section 201, which permits the president to "direct the national response to the cyber threat" if necessary for "the national defense and security." The White House is supposed to engage in "periodic mapping" of private networks deemed to be critical, and those companies "shall share" requested information with the federal government. ("Cyber" is defined as anything having to do with the Internet, telecommunications, computers, or computer networks.)

This reply is not for Barman. My Dad told me 1 thing usefull in my entire life....dont argue with a stop sign.
 

Honey Badger Don't Give A Shit
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
46,540
Tokens
PPP, if you believe that the President of the USA is going to attempt a futile takeover of the worldwide web in order to forestall gambling on the internet, you better stop right now and disconnect your computer from the internet.
 

Honey Badger Don't Give A Shit
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
46,540
Tokens
I would think you've got far bigger worries what with the impending arrival of "400K military troops" in the Baton Rouge area.
 

Honey Badger Don't Give A Shit
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
46,540
Tokens
If this Thread is destined to be just another dumping spot for more "Obama is Da BoogeyMan" comments, it's probably best moved down to the PPub.
 

I'll be in the Bar..With my head on the Bar
Joined
Oct 3, 2004
Messages
9,980
Tokens
LOL...as usual. Boy i sure hope Fla has a better defense than you or its going to be long season...
 

Active member
Joined
Jun 20, 2000
Messages
71,780
Tokens
WHAT DID ANYONE EXPECT OUR CORRUPT pos GOVERMENT TO DO??

they will always oppress the rights of others
 

I'm from the government and I'm here to help
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
33,542
Tokens
barfool the quicker you realize that Obama is twice the fascist that Bushie was the easier this transition to reality will be for you. until then, god bless you and your sheeple

btw, still love how you foolishly reply to your own replies repeatedly like a 4 year old jonesing for their ritalin
 

Honey Badger Don't Give A Shit
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
46,540
Tokens
LOL...as usual. Boy i sure hope Fla has a better defense than you or its going to be long season...

hey brother, you're the one insisting the President can block you from gambling on the web. I don't need a "defense" if you honestly buy that notion.
 

Honey Badger Don't Give A Shit
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
46,540
Tokens
barfool the quicker you realize that Obama is twice the fascist that Bushie was the easier this transition to reality will be for you. until then, god bless you and your sheeple

So you're now part of the contingent who is worried about President obama taking away your internet?

I'd hate to just presume that, since you normally seem like a fairly bright fellow.
 

Honey Badger Don't Give A Shit
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
46,540
Tokens
Four year olds take Ritalin?

:drink:
 

Honey Badger Don't Give A Shit
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
46,540
Tokens
With regard to gambling on the internet, yes.

Now that's all I can post tonight in this thread because I have to admit - the four year old on bennies smak really cut deep.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
1,119,810
Messages
13,573,516
Members
100,875
Latest member
edukatex
The RX is the sports betting industry's leading information portal for bonuses, picks, and sportsbook reviews. Find the best deals offered by a sportsbook in your state and browse our free picks section.FacebookTwitterInstagramContact Usforum@therx.com