Slashdot Mirror
WTO Again Sides With Antigua Over Online Gambling
TechDirt writes "For some time we've been following the ongoing conflict between the US and the island nation of Antigua surrounding internet gambling. Even before the passage of the most recent anti-gambling law, Antigua had gone to the WTO to complain that the US government's actions against online gambling were de facto protectionist measures, and thus violated international trade law. The WTO ended up siding with Antigua, although, quite predictably, the US did nothing to resolve the issue -- in fact, things have only gotten worse. Now the WTO is speaking out again, slamming the US government for its failure to abide by the decision against it. Once again, it seems likely that the US will ignore the decision, although that would give Antigua the right to retaliate. One possibility that's been thrown out there is that Antigua may turn itself into a haven for free music and software and set up some site like allofmp3.com. Of course, the US put pressure on Russia to crack down on that site, as part of the country's admittance into the WTO, but since Antigua is already part of the organization, the US would have no such leverage. Now, the WTO has spoken out again."
Nuke them from orbit; it's the only way to be sure.
George, what are you doing? I was only joking!
Only three things are certain; death, taxes, and apocryphal quotations - Ben Franklin.
All I can say is the US has become one truly pathetic country.
My karma is not a Chameleon.
How can the US be slammed for protectionism when we don't let anyone in the US to do online gambling?
This also touches on broader "moral issues". If a country doesn't want something to come in because it objects on moral grounds, who is another country to sue about it? It's like Columbia complaining to the WTO that we ban cocaine.
(Some may argue that regular gambling is legal in parts of the US, but I think online gambling falls into a different realm. Because of the ease of access, it could lead to an major increase in gambling.)
Move along, nothing (new) to see here. The US is just doing the usual "everybody but us need to adhere to the rules" routine.
Isn't this the same United States that "champions" the rule of law? There are so many examples of the US refusing to follow the law but expects other nations to do just that. I wonder what the ordinary American has to say about this.
The US ignores international pressure to stop being a dick. And people wonder why the world is turning against America. You can't be the loud-mouth, violent, drunk guy on your block, with engine parts all over your lawn, shooting guns at people who pass by, without expecting those people to not give you the time of day.
I doubt you'll find many Slashdotters hanging out with your average WTO protester. Sure, they both may be pasty, unwashed, and/or unshaved, but the similarity ends there. I'd bet most Slashdotters understand basic economics and understand there's generally nothing wrong with the WTO. Depending on how protectionist or stupid your leaders may be, your mileage may vary.
The crux of the issue here, is that unlike in the EU where local moral and religious laws get some protection from EU decisions, the WTO frowns on morality-based protectionism. As well they should. What business is it of our government to dictate what someone can do with their money? Gambling restrictions in this country are sold as religion-based. A good portion of Christians think that gambling is immoral. The other portion thinks that gambling is a waste of money and disproportionatly affects the poor. I suspect the real reason is because the state likes having a monopoly on gaming (state lotteries) and doesn't want the free market driving their payout percentages.
Then again, I'm not your "average" Slashdotter. Even though I AM an economist, the internet is full of people who read Atlas Shrugged and think they have a degree from Wharton or something. So I may be wrong about your "average Slashdot user."
first off, the usa is not doing anything that every other country in the world does: act like a hypocrite. complain about another country doing xyz, while at the same time doing xyz as well
however, anyone who thinks the usa is special does need a comeuppance: the usa is just as hypocritical as china or russia or india or the majority of every other country in the world. at the same time, that observation is a double edged sword: the usa is no better, and NO WORSE, than these countries. seriously, find a crime the usa does, and tell me the majority of other countries in the world aren't guilty of the same thing
so the anti-americanism needs to be tweaked: the usa is not special and good, so if you thought it was, you need a spanking. at the same time, all the rabid anti-usa types need to check themselves if they think the usa deserves special prosecution for crimes every country is guilty of. all that needs to change is that the rabid patriotic americans need to wake up and admit they are wrong... the rabid anti-americans are STILL wrong, and always have been wrong
the only people with any valid opinion of the usa are those who do not especially love the usa, nor especially hate it. the usa does evil, the usa does good. much like every other country in the world. this balanced attitude is the only valid opinion. any other opinion is partisan propaganda, brain dead and unfair, whether anti-usa, or pro-usa
the usa is not special. not especially good, and not especially evil, either. listen up, braindead partisans
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
The US slapped a tariff on our (Canadian) Softwood lumber exports into your country. Claiming that our Industry is heavily subsided by the government.
These fines have added up to 2 billion dollars. We had gone repeatedly to the WTO about the issue, and they said that we were in the right, and that the US must gives our money back. This has been going over 10 years.
The US knows that it is in the wrong. However they simply won't pay the fine.
So forget about anyone else getting any rulings through the WTO.
I have mod points and I am not afraid to use them.
State lotteries and horse racing which can be bet on via the internet is what destroyed our case. The WTO allows for "morality" based restrictions -- but they must be applied uniformly. Since we already allow for online gambling, restricting foriegn interests from participating is the problem.
now compare it to things china does
or russia
why does the things the usa does stand out as especially egregious? i see the same level of stink and hypocrisy and arrogance and evil in all 3 countries. so why aren't you hating russia or china?
if, however, you have "fallen out of love" with the usa, well ok then. just be balanced when you assess the crimes of the usa against the crimes of other countries. i think you'll find the usa does wrong to the same degree as the majority of other countries. therefore, it is not to be loved. but it is also not to be hated, or, not hated anymore than you would hate any other countries
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
and much to fear from arab tribalism
and much to fear form chinese imperialism
and much to fear from russian colonialism
and much to fear from european patriotism
and much to fear form indian chauvanism
etc.
all of these things. not just the americans. not just the arabs
our only saving grace in this world is you and me, seriously: those who see our problems as human problems, not japanese/ pakistani/ indonesian/ brazilian/ etc. problems
that's the challenge of this 21st century: the defeat of nationalistic hubris/ tribal pride, the emergence of universally accepted standards of HUMAN brotherhood
you and i know are shared humanity is more important than the country on our passports. unfortunately, too many in this world think their national/ racial/ tribal allegience is more important than their simple shared human allegiance
the challenge of the 21st century is the defeat of such people
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
The federal gov't tho, has stated that the internet is a scary scary place and that US citizens don't really know what's good for them when they venture out onto it. They recognize in Congress that States are basically out of their league when dealing with gambling over the internet. It's not enough for a State to decide to do something or nothing about it's citizens gambling on the internet. They have, in the form of the UIGEA and an updated interpretation of the Wire Act (from the 1960's!!!), decided that they have the only say about what people should be spending their money on.
There would be no issue here if the federal gov't had not gotten involved, however it chose the fight, not the other way around. By allowing interstate internet wagering on Fantasy and Horse Racing, it has allowed internet wagering with or without the State's consent. This means that foreign companies (under the WTO agreements) are allowed to compete. If they are not allowed to compete, then it's protectionism. And if you review the debate on just Horse Racing in the US - that's exactly what it is. In fact the Dept. of Justice considers interent horse racing to be illegal, even though a carve-out exists specifically for it in the UIGEA.
This is a FEDERAL anti-gambling law.
While you can argue that the law itself is unconstitutional (which IMO it is), you can't argue 10th amendment here.
IMO this law should never have been passed in the first place. Like you said, it's a state matter. Of course they're lumping this all under the "internet gambling is inter-state commerce" category, but this is bullshit. The commerce is not inter-state, it's inter-national.
According to the constitution, IMO the fed only has the authority to ban internet gambling *between states*. regulating international gabling would require a federal law - which is be definition bound by federal treaties.
"Despite whatever misguided beliefs you may have, America has always been highly respected and loved by people all over the world."
Not true. First of all, the respect and love has changed (going up and down) throughout the history of the USA, and secondly, the respect and love has never been universal 'all over the world'. In fact, I don't think there has ever been a time where the USA wasn't hated or disrespected by at least *some* part of the world.
And even in the best of times, I'm not sure one could say any population of a foreign country really 'loved' americans. Of course, that would depend on your interpretation of 'love'; if you mean by that a general 'goodwill' or 'liking' it would be more correct then something like 'adoring'.
"This was illustrated by the response immediately after 9/11. Remember "We All Today are USA"? Remember people in every city on the planet marching, crying, holding vigils and saying they love America and that the attacks broke their hearts?"
No, I don't remember that. First of all, I doubt it was in 'every city on the planet' - that reeks hyperbole, actually. Secondly, in some cities, they were marching and crying allright, but rather of joy that the USA got hit. This s particular the case in a lot of cities in the Middle East, where the USA has been seen as an imperialistic agressor since the last decade.
There was a lot of sympathy in Europe and other countries, however. But that sympathy shouldn't be construed as 'love for america and amercans', but rather sympathy for the thousands of victims of such a brutal act, regardless of their country of origin.
"For a moment in time, we held the sympathy of a world that looked to us. And then we blew it."
True.
"Some people hate America, including some Americans."
Well, more correct would be to say that *a lot* of people hate americans. And even more *dislike* America, or at least its current government (and by extension sometimes half of its population). You find the former more with middle-east countries, but the latter is currently wide spread, even among traditional allies like the europeans.
"They love Americans and they loved the America that gave them hope. That stood for ideals, cared about peace and freedom and being both an example to and a beacon for other free civilizations world-wide.[snip]"
I think you're being way off here, in an over-optimistic, self-indulgent way. I would rather say that some parts of the world, especially Europe, was considerable more sympathetic towards the USA (the 'love' and 'hope' thing is largely hyperbole, sorry) after WW2. In fact, Europeans had a reasonable amount of sympathy for the USA under the Clinton-administration; I can't remember the same anti-amercanism-feelings back then (at least not to the huge degree it has today), and it's not like it's THAT long ago.
"Just because they criticize the country doesn't mean they hate it."
Well, large parts of middle-east populations do actually hate the country. Western countries are more moderate, but there too (at least nowadays) large parts hate the bush-government, and to an extension, part of the populace too (since half voted for bush, after all). Though I think 'despise' would be a better term than 'hate' where European feelings are concerned.
"try considering that just maybe we lost the sympathy, affection and respect of the entire world on our own watch and of our own accord"
True.
"Let's do a little less flag-waving[]"
Good idea. But note that your own post isn't completely void of such (slightly veiled) flag-waving.
I think, all by all, you did try to give an honest post about your own people/country, without trying to blame everyone else but the USA. In that respect, you are to be applauded, and way more sincere than a lot of other USA-posters around here.
That said, you still have some of that weird, self-flattering, narcistic worldview about the world and the place of the USA in it. I think that's largely due
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
How about on Canadian banking, or at least online payment services. How about arresting the execs of said Canadian company.
I'd say that it's more than just regulation of US banking. Which is beside the point, because even if it was a restriction from say, disallowing any payment to an online ham-merchant from a US bank, it's still an issue of international trade if the government is using it to block German ham merchants.
Umm it is the U.S. who are one of the founders of the WTO to get everyone else in the world to play fair with trade but when it doesn't suit them they cry foul and make it illegal. How come the U.K. and European Union hasn't made a statement against the U.S. yet is beyond me and they seek to benefit the most from the WTO ruling. But it's good to see a country as small as Antigua give the U.S. a run for their money because they can't make a living selling a service to U.S. customers. Total hypocracy the U.S. laws are.