The Looming Battle Over Online Gambling

Kadin2048 writes "According to an recent Ars Technica article, the US is headed on a 'collision course' with the WTO over off-shore Internet gambling, if a bill currently in the House of Representatives passes. The 'Internet Gambling Prohibition Act,' (PDF) which updates the 'Wire Act' to prohibit Internet gambling regardless of whether the servers are located in the US or outside of it, is in direct contravention of a WTO ruling. Proponents of the bill claim that it was narrowly defeated in previous incarnations due to the influence of disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff. However it seems as though some of Abramoff's biggest clients -- brick and mortar casinos -- are really the big winners from passage of this bill, since it does not prohibit gambling in person, only online."

Comments

Gimme a break!

[gasmonso]

This is sponsored by US casinos that are losing business to online ones. Instead of pushing through bs legislation, they should have to compete by making their own casinos online. Yet another example of "bought" legislation that serves only the good of corporations.

http://religiousfreaks.com/

Re:Gimme a break!

[mrchaotica]

Instead of pushing through bs legislation, they should have to compete by making their own casinos online.

Apparently, though, they can't because they're located in the US and it's already illegal for them to do it (that's what that "Wire Act" thing is). This new bill is about making it illegal to gamble at online casinos located outside the US, which only levels the playing field.

I think the best solution, though, is just to repeal the laws against gambling here, along with all the other laws that try to protect people against themselves. If they want to do something stupid, I say we let them!

Re:Gimme a break!

[zulux]

If they want to do something stupid, I say we let them!

I agree! But unfortunatly, the same people that would gamble their future away are the same types of people that won't accept responsibility for their own actions.

I'd be all for legalizing gambeling, drugs and protitution --- if the people who engaged in such behaviour diden't keep asking for goverment handouts.

30 MILLION dollars to fight gambling?

[acaben]

That's the real kicker in this proposed bill. They want to spend $30 Million over the next 3 years to fight gambling. Great, add that to the DOJ's war on porn, and perhaps sometime in the next 20 or 30 years we can go back to looking for Osama Bin Laden. Once all that porn and gambling is stopped. Priorities, people, prioties.

And, even though I'm disgusted by the money they want to spend on this, I'm more disgusted that the "personal responsibility" party (repubs) and "keep your government out of my bedroom" party (dems) both think that gambling is something they have the right to regulate. Do some (dumb) people become addicted to gambling and spend their life savings? Yes, and they deserve to lose that money. Just because there are a few people unable to think logically about their actions doesn't mean we should prevent the tens of millions of people who enjoy the thrill of a weekend in Vegas or Party Poker from doing so responsibly.

Re:RE

[TubeSteak]

Okay Mr. Cynical, what you don't seem to comprehend is that while yes, the United States can blow off the WTO, there will eventually be consequences.

The WTO will probably pick out an important U.S. export industry and apply some trade sanctions to it.

It works.

The United States has backed down to the WTo before and they'll do it again. So, while "the wto-is-only-good-when-its-convenient", they also have means to enforce their will.

Re:What?

[jfruhlinger]

Yeah, except that our elected govt. signed the treaty and now has to play by the rules we agreed to. We could always pull out ... the WTO can't make us play by their rules, but they can kick us out of the club if we don't.

Which would be bad, since we benefit from being in the WTO in about a kajillion ways, mostly involving telling other countries how to run their economies. Or does your idea of "national sovreignty" only apply to the US?

jf

Over-protection

[RyoShin]

Protect me from murder.

Protect me from rape, from robbery, from bodily assault.

Protect me from corporations swindling me.

Protect me from bodily damage from others.

But, please, stop protecting me from myself. I can protect me from myself just fine without the government jumping in with a few choice words.

If you're so concerned about those too incompetent to protect themselves from themselves, find a way to either educate them or allow them to continue down their self-destructive path without taking out others along the way.

It's good that you care for those types. (Someone has to.) However, restricting me because a small minority can't restrict themselves is not right.

And if you're doing this because of some moral high ground, go jump off a bridge.