Slashdot Mirror
Today's Numbers: 17 42 69 ^H ^H ^H
Gannoc writes "An
article at MSNBC tells of the internet gambling ban heading to the house floor. The interesting part of this article explains that American ISPs will be required to block access to all Internet gambling sites, from lists provided to them by American law enforcement agencies. Does this set a dangerous precident for free speech on the internet?" Well, as I read it the bill, only the ISP hosting the site would be required to take it down, no ISP would have a general duty to block access. It's still very similar to Australian censorship laws passed last year, especially in its DMCA-like requirement that the censorship must occur immediately when the notice is received, before any court hearing, which is unconstitutional prior restraint of speech. My question is simple: what's the difference between illegal gambling and state-sanctioned lotteries?
You know I never really thought about it that way, but our laws toward gambling are extremly elitist. Seriously ok your rich and you want to gamble. You fly to Vegas or Mexico, or some expensive place. Where you can gamble to fair odds (well fair is relative, but the odds in casinos are decently fair) of winning. If your not so rich you spend you money on state lottery, where your odds are despicable, and the state keeps more than half of all winnings. Or you enter the Publishers Clearing House. Either way HEEEHEHE
Why do our elected officials feel it is necessary to pass laws which protect us from ourself? If someone wants to gamble away their money, that is their choice, and the only one they are potentially hurting is themself. Everybody knows that the advantage is towards the casino, and yet they make the decision to spend their money on gambling anyways, they enjoy the experience of gambling. I enjoy the experience of going to the movies, and I always leave the movie theatre with less money than I went in with. Should the government ban movies because they are clearly taking money from the public? No, the government should let the public make their own decisions on what form of entertainment they will spend their money on. Traditionally if I wanted to gamble, I would have to take a bus of a plane or drive to Vegas (or Atlantic City, or an indian reservation), the internet makes it more convenient. Gambling on the internet doesn't make it possible for me to do something I would otherwise be unable to do, it makes it more convenient for me to do it, which is a good thing.
Seriously, what's the big deal, why do authorities fear it so much? I can see regulating sports gambeling to prevent fixing games and what not, but beyond why restrict it? It's just another way for people to trade cash for entertainment. Asides from the stakes what's the moral difference between the state lottery and black jack,a church bingo match, or day trading? In all four your trading a small amount of cash for the chance to win a larger amount of cash (or some valuable prize). In all cases it comes down to luck and timing. And sometimes you win, and sometimes you loose.
;-> )
;-> But seriously does anyone know of a good legitiment reason to ban gambeling in the US? Or is congress just smoking crack again?
I know two of the biggest reasons people demonize gambeling are because of
1) Mafia involvment
2) so called gambeling "addicts"
As far as #1 goes, would the mafia be involved if it was legal, NO. Now that booze is legal again is the mafia seriously involved, NO. They only provide services alot of people want that are for some bizzare reason illegal (hmm will the mob soon be distributing MP3's - mp3.mafia.com
And for the second, does anyone actually believe that gambeling is addictive in the clinical sense of the word? I thought to be truely addicted to something you had to have a chemical dependency of some kind. Wouldn't it be more accurate to call them gambeling obsessive? Anyway people that have these kinds of personalities will always find something to latch on to that will take over their lives. Hell I have one friend who has basically ruined his life because of Evercrack, he's broke, dropped (will been kicked out of) college and was fired from his tech job because of Evercrack. Does this mean we should outlaw massivley multiplayer games? No, just because a few people take an entertaining thing way too far (ever been to a bingo hall and seen the regulars, scary) doesn't mean we have to take it away from everyone else. People who have no self control or sense of proportion deserve what they get, if they ruin their lives in the process it's their own damn fault.
I must admit that my experiance with gambeling of any kind has been limited to one trip to a bingo hall (there's two hours of my life i'll never get back) and a trip to a casino in the bahama's a couple months ago. I lost $100 playing blackjack inside of an hour. That was my gaming budget for the trip and I never went back. Quite frankly I don't see what the big deal is.
Anyway, the whole concept of a few self rightous hypocrits resticting the freedom of the rest of the country just pisses me off. I esp love that comment by Gore "...allows gambeling to invade the home" that statement makes it sound that if the US Government doesn't step in to protect us the online casino's are going to brainwash us with AOL spam and force our childern into a life of sin and indentured servitude, just like the pornographers. Why the hell does congress care how I spend my money, be it on computer parts, drugs, sex, 20 minutes of saying "hit me" "hold", or pulling the lever of a slot machine, or placing an internet bet that "lucky lady susie the swift" will place third in the first race tommorow ect... Hell it's not like they havn't already stolen their cut out of my pay before I even see it, shit they are more of a danger to my hard earned dollars than any casino, at least there I can choose what useless services to spend my money on, the Fed doesn't even give me that right.
Ok I'm done ranting now, must remember to breath.
"Listen: We are here on Earth to fart around. Don't let anybody tell you any different!" - Kurt Vonnegut
Heh well whats the difference between state sanctioned lotto and gambling? Well the exact same difference between maffia "protection rackets" and taxation.
ie...its "State Sanctioned".
The government just hates it when private citizens try to "muscle in" on their "turf" you know.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
> There will be complaints from many of you that
> this bill is ill-conceived and impractical. I
> think that it's far more important that
> something be done about the sin and
> family-destroying habit of gambling.
Even if "something" is at best an empty and ineffective gesture?
If history has shown one thing, it is this...if a large group of people want something, then it is impossible to stop them from getting it.
Look at alcohol prohibition of the 1920s. Some people felt it important to "Do something about the sin and fammily-destroying habit of..." drinking alcohol.
The problem: The masses want to drink alcohol.
The result: Criminal elements provide alcohol. Unregulated black markets spring up, bringing violent turf wars and all the associated ills of the black market with them.
Access to alcohol becomes easier for children, who previously couldn't get it...so much so that entire schools had to be closed down due to mass student drunkeness!
Is this an isolated subject? The SAME scenario is happening this very day under the name "The War on Drugs". Should we expect gambling to be any different?
Face it...the unwashed masses (or at least a large enough percentage of them) WANT to gamble. ALL you can do is try to reduce the harm associated with gambling by letting them do it legally, and try to educate them about gambling and its dangers. Anything else simply makes the situation worst.
Of course...this is a lesson that our society has yet to actually learn. Maybe someday it will sink in that you can't just hand down rules from on high and have society suddenly change fundamentally to respect these new rules.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
Why not ban all advertising on cruise ships that have gabling?
There is a simpler solution that is already being implemented. Don't require payment of gambling debts on credit cards. There has been a couple of court cases where the charges for these on-line gambling sites been reversed. If they can't get paid for people who lose money on their sites, they will have an incentive to control themselfs.
Fight Spammers!
I wish they'd bothered to realize that online gambling will never pose any real threat to their existance.
Online gambling *is* a threat to their existence. Bear in mind Nevada has very little natural resources. It is freaking dessert! To spur the economy Nevada, the goverment made gambling legal. At that time, gambling is illegal in almost everywhere in America. By having an exclusive rights to gambling (relative to other American states), Nevada makes huge profits. If other states are allowed to gamble as much as Nevada, I am willing to bet (pun intended) that Las Vegas will not be as popular as it is today.
Another example, a few years back, Windsor's casinos are causing Detroit residents to step into Canada to gamble away their money. The Detroit mayor at that time wanted to allow detroit-based casino so Detroit residents can gamble it away in their own city.
Hasdi
Naw, think of it as a math tax. If you can't do math, you should be paying the math tax to help kids learn math.
If only the money went to that...
What about blocking commercials on cruise ships? How about outlawing any movie with gambling?
There is a simpler solution that is already being implemented. Don't require payment of gambling debts on credit cards. There has been a couple of court cases where the credit card charges for these on-line gambling sites been reversed. If they can't get paid for people who lose money on their sites, they will have an incentive to ontrol themselves.
I have a real problem when the government or corporation dictates what I can or cannot read.
Fight Spammers!
I wish they'd bothered to realize that online gambling will never pose any real threat to their existance.
Call on God, but row AWAY from the rocks!
between state sanctioned lotteries and congressional elections?
Not much, occasionally there is a winner, but you have a much greater chance of losing.
speaking of tax, lottery is more like a voluntary tax for specific purposes like education for those who are more inclined to ignore mathematical probability in pursue of a dream (I don't like to think lottery as a tax for the mathematically disinclined, as one joke goes, because my own grandparents enjoyed purchasing lottery tickets and they kind of do it just for fun)
I guess more than anything, gambling is usually illegal because of two things: Cheating and scams that swindles people out of a lot of money, and taxable gambling income. How many people actually honestly report gambling income? The government would want a piece of that action, I'm sure. With Internet-based gambling, the cheating and swindling would be on a larger scale, more easily perpetrated, and harder to trace (in some cases). Where would the taxes be collected?
If the government can figure out a way to easily account for and tax gambling nicome and losses, then the government will legalize it all, IMHO.
1) When the state does it, it's called lotto; when the mob runs the exact same game, it's called the numbers racket (yes, it's the same game. I knew a former courier who told of them using the police band to show the game was fair--they used the numbers of squad cars being called out as their numbers . . .)
2) the mob would be embarassed to only return 50%
FWIW, I'm not an American, I reside north of the border. But, I've said it before, and I'll say it again. What is it with the american psyche that demands everything be banned? Why go after the ISP? They didn't do anything. It's the guy that's actually doing the gaming that's breaking the laws, so go after him! It's laws like this that are dangerous because they don't go after the criminal, they attempt to change everyone's behaviour to _prevent_ something that you shouldn't be doing. "Speeding is illegal, so let's ban freeways!" "Armed robbery is illegal, so let's take everyone's guns!" (Big fight here in Canada about this now.. under new policy, the government will be allowed into any residence to check that a registered weapon is safely stored, by law, ack!)
It seems the answer to everything these days is to ban/censor/deem unfit whatever is unpaletable to a select minority in the congress. So, let's ban everything, give the police absolute arbitrary power (well, they almost have it now) and everything will be A-Ok!
In the day of state-sancioned casino gaming and lotteries, this seems ridiculous! What's next? Banning vacations to countries who make lots of money on gaming? Let's revoke those passports now! What's the difference between going to the carribean and blowing your dollars there, and blowing them via an online route? (Obviously, you're under the laws of the US in the latter case, but from a moral standpoint, is it any different?)
Yeeeesh
..don't panic
Lotteries are:
-less fun (no flashing lights, ringing bells or buxom babes)
-more trouble (often you can't find out if you've won until later that day or WEEK)
-more fraudulent (casino's advertise the fun of playing, lotteries advertise the winning--which happens more often)
-more hypocritical (using taxes on people with poor math skills to pay for education?)
I could go on...
--
Linux MAPI Server!
http://www.openone.com/software/MailOne/
(Exchange Migration HOWTO coming soon)
Well, while I don't want to get into an argument here, I have two comments:
(1) Your assertion is essentially correct.
(2) I don't know whether you think this is a good thing (state lotteries as a means of "voluntary" taxation) or not. I personally think the concept is hideous. Why? Because study after study has shown that the concept of gambling revenues as a replacement for direct taxation does little more than shift the tax burden off onto people who can't afford it (i.e. the poor and lower middle classes), and away from the people who *can* afford it. There's a good reason you don't see a lot of millionaires buying lottery tickets, using VLTs, or hanging out in bingo parlours -- it's a waste of their hard earned money, and they know it.
Anyway -- off my soapbox now. The difference between state sanctioned (and that's not necessarily the same as state *sponsered* but you didn't touch that issue) and illegal gambling is that one's against the law.
To quote from the article
Goodlatte's bill would make it a federal crime -- punishable by up to four years in prison and fines of $20,000 or more -- to operate a Web site that accepts wagers from Americans.
So Havenco's american backers could all find themselves outlaws if they start to host online gambling that doesn't discriminate against sucker^H^H^H^H^Hpatrons in the US.
The article makes it clear, the bill has been written in a determinedly confusing way to allow for selective enforcement, and selective non-enforcement in the case of large campaign contributors. Politics as usual.
the AC
Hemos is like...sci-fi fans;he thinks technology is cool, but he hasn't bothered to understand the science it's based on
My question is, does the law say "Internet" or just "computer network"? A lot of casinos have computer networks that they use to hook up the slot machines... maybe those are illegal? Either that, or can we just change the name of the Internet and avoid all this $#@$ restriction?