Slashdot Mirror
MA Proposes Two Year Jail Term for Online Gambling
tessaiga writes "The Boston Globe reports that Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick is trying to sneak a provision to criminalize online gambling. The bill, if passed, would make online gambling punishable by up to 2 years in prison and $25k in fines. Ironically, the provision is buried deep within a bill to allow the construction of three new casinos in Massachusetts to bring more gambling revenue into the state. 'If you were cynical about it, you'd think that they're trying to set up a monopoly for the casinos,' said David G. Schwartz, director of the Center for Gaming Research at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. Democratic House representative Barney Frank, who earlier this year introduced federal legislation to legalize regulated online gambling, also criticized the move as 'giving opponents an argument against him.' Indeed, groups such as the Poker Player's Alliance, who were previously supportive of Patrick's plans to open the new casinos, have already announced opposition to the bill because of the online gambling clause."
Although I disagree with the idea that gambling is somehow immoral, it wouldn't be so bad if that was the position that was being taken. But no, it seems that gambling itself is fine, it's just that Internet gambling somehow is not. Perhaps the supposed rationale[1] is that it's not regulated the same way that in-state gambling is. But then by that token, online shopping should be banned, too.
I'd be intrigued to see the wording of the bill. After all, spread betting on the financial markets is gambling. Indeed, the entire futures market is gambling. Hell, even taking out an insurance policy is gambling. Which of those will be made an offence punishable by incarceration, and which won't? Who determines which activity falls on which side of the line, and why?
Disclaimer: I make my living through online gambling.
[1] Yes, I know the public rationale is in all likelihood utterly unrelated to the real reason, but I have to at least go along with the pretense.
"The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike." -- Delos B. McKown
It's all about the tax revenue. It's always been all about the tax revenue.
My blog
I'm not from Massachusetts but has anyone investigated Governor Deval Patrick's ties to the casino industry? From a distance, this kinda reeks.
Follow the money; money is the truth drug.
--Richard
2 years and $25k! FFS! Is it me or is that totally over the top. I'm glad I live in the UK where I can enjoy online poker without risking the sort of punishment meeted out for serious crime.
init 11 - for when you need that edge.
Pretending for a moment that I have no other problems with something like this being passed into law (and that's FAR from the case!), I'm wondering what other unintended ramifications this could have?
For example, I'm a member of a local group on www.meetup.com, a social networking type web site. This group occasionally holds poker playing get-togethers at one member's apartment on the weekends. (Nothing "high stakes", but some money does change hands.) Could this get caught up in "online gambling", simply because it was organized over the Internet?
The bill, if passed, would make online gambling punishable by up to 2 years in prison and $25k in fines.
Because without this measure, gambling fathers will put their families in incredible debt.
Step into a huge movement. Don't Tread In Me.
And so-called "victimless crimes" like gambling, marijuana, non-martial sex, etc. seem to be a losing enforcement battle too. At some point the governement may focus on real problems like terrorism, crumbling infrastructure, economic inequality and so on.
since online gambling isn't regulated, all "bets" are off. a consumer has no recourse if she is cheated, and you can't possibly trust online gambling sites where there's no regulation oversight since there's absolutely nothing stopping them from cheating. i'm all for online gambling, but it has to be regulated to protect the consumers. what this legislation should be pursuing is online regulation, not online banning.
to ensure that gambling in Mass. will be full of corruption than to have politicians involved in it. I'm sure the penalties are just, as is the promise of a ride to the beach with a Kennedy.
I'm all for smaller government sooner rather than later. Apparently, at least in Mass., it's okay to propose legislation that makes you look so corrupt that half the world is reading about you. The throngs of people (Honorable J Carter even) that want to decriminalize things that have been prohibited for a while is getting bigger and bigger, approaching critical mass, yet the US believes it can ban all online gambling? WTF? Prohibition and censorship do NOT work. I wish the US had a government that understood that. Oh, let me add abstinence to that list also. If only god had been so forward thinking as to add an 11th commandment: Thou shalt not legislate morality. Even if Moses had had an epiphany on the way down the mountain... two really good opportunities missed!! Just one little commandment, 5 words, even in stone tablet writing costs, that is cheap.
How much death and mayhem could have been avoided in the world?
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
I recall reading an article recently where the US is in danger of being fined billions by other nations due to the banning of online gambling. If MA does, in fact, pass this, there may be many world-wide ramifications for the state and additional ones for the country. Doesn't seem a very wise idea when we've already pissed most nations off. And please- 2 years for online gambling? I will never understand it. You can gamble at casinos, play the lotto, or play bingo for your local NPO, but have a poker game at home or play online and you're screwed. State and federal governments need to stop overreaching their bounds on these issues.
Most "political activism" groups are happy with 5%-10% participation after an intense effort to "get out the mail" over several attempts and several weeks.
The NRA, famous for "flooding" Washington with letters, averages around 3% response to it's "Legislative alerts". Admittedly, a larger scale, since they have way more members, and a National issue rather than One Single State, but still...10% does not suck.
Legality: Dubious at best. Intrastate online gaming they can control but not interstate or international (see Wickard v. Filburn). Also could the law be read to include the winning of anything fungible? If so WoW will soon be illegal.
Enforcement: If it becomes a criminal act does this mean the cops will be kicking in doors to arrest? How about using no-knock warrants? The magic eight ball says: "All signs point to yes". Welcome to the People's Republic of Massachusetts.
Gov. Patrick is on the way to becoming an every worse Governor than Romney (who set the bar pretty low).
This is exactly how the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA) was introduced and signed. It was buried deep within the Safe Port Act, located at the very end of hundreds of pages of jibberish about how to make America safer.
If they wish to make a stance on online gambling, they first have to decide what is gambling and what's not. Is chess gambling? Is poker gambling? Online snooker? Backgammon? Once they've established this, then we should have a discussion on whether it should be allowed or not.
Personally, I think it's kind of hypocritical to allow land-based casinos, alcohol and cigarettes and not online gambling. Most of the opposition tells us that it's dangerous to allow people to play online because some people tend to play irresponsibly. I'd draw the same line with alcohol - it's fair only to the idiots who cannot control it but unfair to the other part, which is the larger chunk. And if so, why allow land-based casinos at all? Anyone who claims that these will help you from becoming an addict should know that fairly tales like that remain at a theoretical level.
Full Tilt
I would like to add a data point. At one time I was asked to get involved in a venture by a Scandinavian company that was said to include a past head of the NYSE on its board. The venture was meant to be a game, not strictly gambling, though it seemed you could in fact win money. It was walking a thin line in a grey area.
People got cold feet and it evaporated as U.S. legislators gave hints that it would become illegal, but it seems to me that there remains a very grey area inhabited by the stock exchange, online gambling, virtual worlds like second life and massive multiplayer games with their own currencies and conversion rates. Games of chance and skill abound in already addictive and immersive worlds.
At the time even experienced people thought the line was drawn in one place but now it is perhaps in another. I would like to note that the venture I mention was not a casino. It was supposed to teach you about the stock market.
I think the definition of gambling these days has little to do with people's welfare. The definition is made by legislators and government executives, and involves a cynical calculation and the creation of a protected and coveted revenue source for a municipality.
He's bluffing. Go all in!
It will indeed be interesting. I'm not sure how the US will handle this. Unlike many other countries, when the US fed. government signs a treaty, it really does NOT become the law of the land, superseding other laws. This is especially true if parts of the treaty could be translated as violating the Constitution. Nothing, no treaty can supersede that. Here is an interesting link that I saw before on Slashdot about all this. Read the part in Domestic vs International law.
"The United States takes a different view concerning the relationship between international and domestic law from many other nations, particularly European ones. Unlike nations that view international agreements as always superseding domestic law, the American view is that international agreements become part of the body of U.S. federal law. As a result, Congress can modify or repeal treaties by subsequent legislative action, even if this amounts to a violation of the treaty under international law. The most recent changes will be enforced by U.S. courts entirely independent of whether the international community still considers the old treaty obligations binding upon the U.S. Additionally, an international agreement that is inconsistent with the U.S. Constitution is void under domestic U.S. law, the same as any other federal law in conflict with the Constitution, and the Supreme Court could rule a treaty provision to be unconstitutional and void under domestic law although it has never done so. The constitutional constraints are stronger in the case of CEA and executive agreements, which cannot override the laws of state governments."
So...it is going to be an interesting test of this indeed...with respect to how the US works within true international bodies and treaties such at the WTO. Our government isn't really set up to sign a treaty and have it set in stone and binding...at least, that's how I read it.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
I think this Wiki article is dubious at best, which might be one of the reasons for the lack of citations. If I had time to do the research, I would correct it with the proper case law, but a quick look at the Constitution shows that an actual treaty (not all international agreements are treaties) generally trumps domestic law. It comes in second to the Constitution itself. There are a couple of cases this term though that might provide some more definite case law on this, and with the current composition of the court, I wouldn't be surprised if treaties were marginalized.
http://bgcommonsense.blogspot.com
For god's sake! the democrats are right wing, free market industrialists and professionals. JUST like the republicans.
Socialism is national healthcare, nationalised industries, nationalised housing, government control of resources.
The democrats and republicans are two very closely related flavours of free market conservatism (with a huge military/industrial bias).
You don't know what socialism is.