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."
Move along, nothing (new) to see here. The US is just doing the usual "everybody but us need to adhere to the rules" routine.
Too true. We're more than happy to go whining to the UN or impose unilateral sanctions when some other country isn't doing what we want, but when the rest of the world tries to tell us that we're being the assholes, well, we can just ignore that.
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
By "protecting" you mean "redirecting them to gamble on lotteries or horseraces"?
Which is an alternative way of saying "redirecting them to give their money towards the US government".
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
And, one will note, if all gambling were 100% illegal in the US, we'd be in the clear with the WTO, too. This has nothing to do with "protecting" people (not that protecting people from themselves is a good thing anyways).
That said, the role of government in a representative republic shouldn't be to protect people from themselves, either.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
There's nothing pathetic about protecting your citizens from gambling away their mortgage/rent/food money with the ease of a click of a mouse button.
Someone that stupid deserves to be on the streets.
Wait, if we follow your argument, perhaps a government appointed agent should visit you during sex and make sure you use a condom. After all, there's nothing pathetic about protecting your citizens from contracting a deadly disease from a 5 minute sexual encounter.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
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.
That would be really nice, if that was what was happening. However, if you live in CT, NV, or a few other states, you can quite happily log into an in-state's casino website & gamble away your life savings. Or you could just go to the OTB website & do so across state lines. Or you can go to your states lottery website & do it.
Nope, look at the reasons the US govt is giving, 'the money supports drug lords', 'the money supports terrorists', 'Online gambling is being blocked because of moral reasons'. The first 2 are bunk because Antigua monitors their gaming establishments very carefully, they are about 30% of the countries GNP. If the last one was true, and it is the reason they formally advanced to WIPO, then they would be obligated to block it within the US as well. WIPO told them that, and they responded by doing nothing internally & passing more international restrictions.
This is not about a moral issue, this is about blocking money moving out of the country. That's protectionism, and it's blocked by all the treaties we've signed - we've screamed in the past on exactly the same points, so it's perfectly alright to call the US govt a bunch of hypocrites, because they provably are. That's not anti-US, it's fact. I know it's hard to believe, but even in this day & age, sometimes we still get to say the Emperor has no clothes without a trip to Gitmo.
Alcohol is controlled and regulated by the government. There are rules in place to reduce the harm do
Ha ha ha ha ha! Looks like you bought the story. The controls are simply to make sure that every single bottle of booze is TAXED. They don't give a shit about you. If they did, it would be treated just like a controlled medication (eg opioids) - some authority has to sign so you can get it, you only get small doses at a time, and special measures are in place to make sure you don't go "shopping" to "stock up". Even in this case the controls are to prevent someone becoming a supplier of opioids rather than abusing them.
You can walk into any liquor store and buy all the booze you want - enough to kill yourself many times over. So long as it's taxed. Same deal with tobacco. And gambling must be done in specific places, so the government can keep its eye on the books to make sure the tax is paid.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Republicans were in power.
You know - the "family first, anti-drugs, small government" republicans? That same party where both the president and VP have DWIs? Where every single candidate in the 2008 race has been divorced at least once? The party that over the past 6 years has increased the size of the government and budget to the largest ever?
Disclaimer: I was a Republican. The above facts are just some of the many reasons I no longer am. The hypocrisy of that party boggles the mind.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
on the USA either, UN, WTO, all other "organizations" are powerless and pointless.
tom Oh, okay, so the USA isn't any worse than NK, Iraq, or Iran? That's a stunning endorsement.
It's like the Bush fans who justify his behavior by saying "oh, but Clinton did this stuff too!" Well, when you spend years whining and bitching about how bad the other guy was, you kinda lose the right to use "they did it first" as a defense.
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
Which is one reason the US isn't a democracy. What the majority of people think is not necessarily the best course of action -- the will of the people can be a very dangerous thing.
Too true, which is why the framers of your constitution put in a section entitled Limits on Congress that says, amongst other things, "The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."
This provides a nice empirical test of the claim "the US isn't a democracy." So long as Congress does not pass a law like the Military Commissions Act of 2006, which suspends Habeas Corpus for non-citizens the US could plausibly be claimed to not be a democracy. Now that the law has been passed, it is much more difficult to make that claim. Note that the language of the Constitution is clear and unambiguous and says nothing about the citizenship of the people for whom Habeas Corpus may be suspended.
The fact that Congress passed the Military Commissions Act of 2006 suggests that they know the voters will reward them despite the unconstitutional nature of the law. That sounds like a democracy to me.
As time passes, the US looks less and less like a democratic republic and more and more like a democratic oligarchy, in which a small clique of the ultra-wealthy ruling class both court and manipulate the unrestrained will of the populace, usually in the name of security of some kind. The Republicans focus on security against drugs and porn and terrorism; the Democrats focus on security against poverty and unemployment and porn (remember Tipper Gore?). This is a far cry from the republic your founders envisioned and to an extent achieved, in which the constitution put limits on the will of the people in the name of liberty.
Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.