U.S. House Clears Anti-Internet Gambling Bill

matr0x_x writes "The U.S. has just moved one step closer to banning all Internet gambling sites when the US House of Representatives cleared an anti-Internet gambling bill yesterday. The bill is against a World Trade Organization ruling last August that stated the US must not block online gambling sites based overseas." From the article: " The bill, cleared by voice vote in the House Financial Services Committee, would prohibit a gambling business from accepting credit cards, checks, wire transfers and electronic funds transfers in illegal gambling transactions. Unlawful gambling, under the legislation, would include placing bets on online poker sites, for example, and any other online wager made or received in a place where such a bet is illegal under federal or state law."

Comments

How it's written is what matters

[JehCt]

There's a big difference between blocking sites, and making it illegal for those sites to use the US financial system to collect illegal wagers from within US jurisdiction. So long as the bill is written correctly, there should be no problem with WTO, and no problem with enforcement.

Re:How it's written is what matters

[cayenne8]

Geez....why write the thing at ALL???

When oh when will we be able to get people in govt. that will understand that if you're 18/21, you are a freaking ADULT, and can decide for yourself matters like these?

I am so fscking tired of the government trying to legislate morality and behavior.....

The way I see it

[matr0x_x]

When the US doesn't directly profit from the gambling (national lottery, Las Vegas economy, etc.) they try to get rid of it stating it is "immoral".

There's nothing in it for them--

[Tominva1045]

If the government could find a way to track it and then TAX it this would not be an issue.

This is already done with alcohol, tobacco, and tangible items.

Because they cannot capture the technology genie in a bottle they can't effectively tax it.

And there are plenty of lobbyists working for taxable gambling interests who have issue with the wild-west of internet gambling as well.

The funny bits

[Billosaur]

Major professional sports organizations supported the legislation, including the National Football League and Major League Baseball, saying in a joint statement that sports betting "threatens the integrity of our respective sports."

Buhwahahaha!! Can you say steroids?!? Can you say overblown contracts?!? There can't be a threat to something they don't have.

A group called the Poker Players Alliance opposed the legislation as well.

The Poker Players Alliance - a stalwart group of poker-playing heroes, determined to defend truth, justice, and the right to draw to an inside straight!

From the summary...

[dtsazza]

The U.S. has just moved one step closer to banning all Internet gambling sites (my emphasis)

Really? This is another example of jurisdiction over the internet being called into question. My first though on reading the article was whether restrictions would apply to the casino, the gamblers or both. I'd imagine they'd almost certainly apply to the casinos - make it illegal for casinos based on servers in the US to accept electronic payment - but would it also be illegal for US citizens to place bets?

FTFA:

By making it illegal to accept payments from people who live where federal or state law prohibits wagering, the legislation would impact offshore gambling Web sites used by many Americans to place bets.

I don't see how this works. If a casino is outside the U.S's jurisdiction, they shouldn't be able to be held to any U.S. laws. Sure, you can outlaw this behaviour by making it illegal for a citizen to place a bet, or more likely by forbidding U.S. financial services (e.g. banks) from processing the request, but surely you can't affect those to whom U.S. laws don't apply?

Or perhaps I'm wrong, and you can - in which case, I'm worried about the precedent that would set. Is there a limit to the extent a country can create laws that affect those who are 'unaffected' by that country's laws? To a certain extent it's reasonable, but since this case involves two jurisdictions, with the casino outside the U.S.' jurisdiction and the gambler essentially going to the virtual casino to do business, it seems unreasonable. It's like the U.S. making it illegal for Mexican casinos to allow Americans to gamble there...