Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Supreme Court Strikes Down Federal Law Prohibiting Sports Gambling (espn.com)

Posted by msmash on from the new-rules dept.

The Supreme Court has struck down a 1992 federal law that effectively prevented most states from legalizing sports betting, clearing up a legal gray area and opening a door for state governments to join in what has become a lucrative industry. From a report: The court ruled 6-3 to strike down the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PAPSA), a 1992 law that barred state-authorized sports gambling with some exceptions. It made Nevada the only state where a person could wager on the results of a single game.

States that want to offer legal sports betting may now do so, and New Jersey plans to be first. Delaware, Mississippi, New York, Pennsylvania and West Virginia are among the states expected to quickly get into the legal bookmaking game.

15 of 171 comments (clear)

  1. Another one bites the dust... by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Good. Another law regulating harmless activities between consenting adults bites the dust...

    1. Re:Another one bites the dust... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Gambling is harmless. Gambling more than you can afford is not, but that is the problem of the gambler, and does not require legislation.

    2. Re:Another one bites the dust... by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 3, Insightful

      A tax is involuntary. No one is being forced to bet on sports or pay a fine/go to jail.

    3. Re: Another one bites the dust... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Nope, gambling is an industry that foments harm and injury, making misery for so many.

      Even if we assume consent, a peril in itself, the folly of ignoring the pestilence of the affairs us evident.

      And of course, economically it will end up being a way for the state to lever its duties to garner enrichment that will be assessed against the victims of this parasitic industry.

      We'd be better off banning organized professional sporting. It just hurts us all.

    4. Re: Another one bites the dust... by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'd be all for banning spending public funds on stadium construction, since taxpayers are being forced to support PRIVATE sports teams. But betting is voluntary. Don't want to pay? Don't place the bet, problem solved.

    5. Re: Another one bites the dust... by SirSlud · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, it's also the problem of his or her children, family, etc. I'm not arguing one way or the other, but people do not exist in vacuums.

      --
      "Old man yells at systemd"
    6. Re:Another one bites the dust... by Locke2005 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Gambling is a tax on people that don't understand probability and statistics!

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    7. Re:Another one bites the dust... by jwhyche · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Studies can also show that virtually anything that brings jobs will bring crime. But studies also show that you can't legislate morality, or at least you shouldn't. This is another attempt to do just that. Good riddance.

      --
      I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
    8. Re: Another one bites the dust... by cayenne8 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Well, it's also the problem of his or her children, family, etc. I'm not arguing one way or the other, but people do not exist in vacuums.

      Again, that's not the problem of the government really....and extreme are the rare case.

      The government is not (supposed to be) here to be a nanny over the populace, and protect them from their own idiocy. Adult grown people should have the freedom to make their own decisions, and live with the consequences thereof. That's one of the things this country was founded upon.

      I don't need the government making my decisions for me.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    9. Re:Another one bites the dust... by Obfuscant · · Score: 5, Insightful

      But studies also show that you can't legislate morality, or at least you shouldn't.

      Every law deals with morality. Even the ones against murder. "Thou Shall Not Kill" is a moral statement. So is "don't steal". What one can do in a contractual framework, ditto.

      The sports gambling laws are there because gambling on sports games leads to attempts to rig those games. Point shaving, for example. This is not a hypothesis, it is why the laws were created in the first place. History shows it happens.

      Those who forget history tend to repeat it.

    10. Re: Another one bites the dust... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      People who are hooked on drugs commit crimes to ensure their future supply of those drugs. You can say "not my problem" but eventually they will make it your problem. In the end analysis, it is often cheaper to pay to rehabilitate them than to simply keep imprisoning them and dealing with the societal damage they cause when back out on the streets. Addicts who die are actually the least of your problem.

      Drug addicts ruin (and sometimes end) the lives of innocent people. What price do you put on that? When your brother or son ends up dead because some junkie killed him in a mugging-gone-bad, are you just going to say "damn idiot junkie"

      We regulate vices because people with vices do bad things to other innocent citizens.

    11. Re:Another one bites the dust... by lexman098 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It sounds like you don't really understand gambling addiction. It's a mental condition similar to alcoholism. I don't think we should outright ban it (or alcohol), but it's naive to dismiss those negatively affected by it saying "meh, no one put a gun to your head".

    12. Re: Another one bites the dust... by mnemotronic · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The government is not (supposed to be) here to be a nanny over the populace, and protect them from their own idiocy.

      Which is exactly why the government should stop warning people about the dangers of drugs. Stop the nanny state. If people are too stupid to realize there is a good chance they will die from using drugs, that's their problem.

      While I agree with the basics, in my experience, real life gets a little fuzzy around the edges. How about if what I do might affect someone else? Like if I take drugs while pregnant and my child ends up with birth defects? Maybe it was the fentanyl or the booze. Might have been the heroin. Prove it. Society still has an addicted mother on it's hands, and now it has a very sick baby too.

      And I have a problem with the "too stupid to realize" idea. It's easy to throw stones. Most addicts know what they're doing isn't right, while they're doing it, but the power of addiction takes over the brain. Normal logic is background noise to the GOTTA FUCKING HAVE IT AND I'LL KILL YOU IF YOU GET IN MY WAY. People who haven't been addicted can never comprehend the weird mind fucks that go on and overpowering, irresistible body aching attraction.

      The same goes for publicly-funded drug rehab. It's not the government's responsibility to force other people to pay for your idiocy.

      At some point society draws a line that says "We'll do something about it if you are this sick or this bad, but not before". Everyone has their own idea of where the line goes; who gets covered; who doesn't; which criminals get locked up; which go free; which get a promotion and fat bonus check. In the end we get a line drawn by representatives whose real motivations we can only guess at. Then the rest of us get to complain about how unfair the line is while avoiding an honest examination of our own motivations.

      --
      The Russians have won. They have made the world a cesspool of distrust, greed, fear and hate.
  2. Blatant corruption? by Locke2005 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm more concerned that the swamp managed to pass a law giving Nevada exclusive rights to sports gambling! How doe$ that happen?

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  3. The law was kind of sneaky by rsilvergun · · Score: 4, Insightful

    it didn't ban sports gambling, it make it illegal for the States to lift their existing bans. That way Nevada (who lobbied for the law) could keep right on gambling.

    I'd love to see gambling fully legalized. The Casino operators are crazy rich and use their money to buy all kinds of influence. It'd be nice to see some of that power broke up even a little bit.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/