This house bill is at least taking the right approach to trying to prevent online gambling, no matter what one thinks of the harm such activity causes (or what regions of the country may be influencing the legislation). But I am curious how the bill will withstand judicial scrutiny if it requires ISPs to block access to certain sites, given that blocking technologies inevitably block protected speech as well. The better approach, and the one stressed in the bill, is impose liability on the payment intermediaries (like credit cards). The various options for curtailing internet gambling and controlling other internet activities are discussed in length in a paper available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=696601.
Slashdot Mirror
This house bill is at least taking the right approach to trying to prevent online gambling, no matter what one thinks of the harm such activity causes (or what regions of the country may be influencing the legislation). But I am curious how the bill will withstand judicial scrutiny if it requires ISPs to block access to certain sites, given that blocking technologies inevitably block protected speech as well. The better approach, and the one stressed in the bill, is impose liability on the payment intermediaries (like credit cards). The various options for curtailing internet gambling and controlling other internet activities are discussed in length in a paper available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=696601.