Thursday, September 03, 2009
Just saw this at Wired magazine:
A move to scuttle legislation outlawing online gambling suffered a major setback when a federal appeals court set aside constitutional and other legal challenges to the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006.
A three-judge panel of the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals brushed aside assertions that the act (.pdf) breached the privacy rights of gamblers to be free of government regulation in their own homes. The court also set aside a challenge that the law was too vague.
“Here you have the government targeting something solely because it was on the internet. Every right and civil liberty in the offline world should convey in the online world,” said Joe Brennan Jr., chairman of a trade group of gamblers, affiliated marketers and offshore online casinos that brought the case.
According to the 2006 act, Congress adopted the regulation forbidding financial institutions from transacting in gaming revenues because “traditional law enforcement mechanisms are often inadequate for enforcing gambling prohibitions or regulations on the internet, especially where gambling crosses state or national borders.”
The decision comes as Congress is considering softening the ban in order to tax gambling proceeds, which could generate billions in federal gambling receipts annually.
The lawsuit decided Tuesday was brought by the Interactive Media Entertainment and Gaming Association. The group, Brennan said, is considering its legal options, including going to the Supreme Court or asking the Philadelphia-based appeals court to reconsider.
Brennan pointed out that some form of non-virtual gambling — such as lotteries, casinos, horse and dog racing — is allowed in all states but Hawaii and Utah.
The group, in its privacy argument, cited Lawrence v. Texas, a 2003 Supreme Court decision reversing a state law outlawing homosexual sex.
“As the Supreme Court explained in Lawrence, such laws ‘touch upon the most private human conduct, sexual behavior, and in the most private of places, the home,’” the appellate court responded. (.pdf) “Gambling, even in the home, simply does not involve any individual interests of the same constitutional magnitude. Accordingly, such conduct is not protected by any right to privacy under the Constitution.”
Despite the act barring banks from transacting in online gaming wagers and proceeds, the Poker’s Player Alliance estimates as many as 10 million Americans wager about $6 billion online annually. Many overseas internet gambling sites have blocked access to the United States, while others have not.
John Pappas, the alliance’s executive director, views online gambling no different than Wall Street derivative trading – a lawful method to bet for or against commodity prices and mortgage foreclosures, for example – all on the internet.
“The idea that one area is now unlawful but the other activity is permissible and acceptable seems a bit inconsistent, especially when you consider the activity in the financial markets can have significant impact worldwide or nationwide,” Pappas said.
Tuesday, September 01, 2009
Hey there, gentle reader. I'm still here.
The end of August was when I had planned to return to business as usual here. And now it's September 1st and I'm ill equipped, as Otis would say.
Aw hell, there's plenty of time to get back on the bus and bang worthy poker blogging out here like the good old days. I naively thought that going part-time at the ad agency would free me up, but instead, I'm more busy than ever. Funny how that works.
If I had my druthers, I'd work on repurposing this monster of a poker blog on a domain. Build it all out with proper I/A and categorization, et al. And start cranking out new stuff.
Alas, one can dream, can't he?
For now, let me throw a few tidbits out there. Part of me thinks I was lucky to get out of poker when I learned that the founder of PokerListings was murdered in his home in front of his young child. That's pretty fucked up right there, my friends.
And then Party Poker purchased the WPT for only 12 million?
It makes me feel like the cranky old guy muttering about the good old days and these damn kids and their rock and roll music and how it's probably best just to stay shuttered up in my house and get the fuck off of my lawn.
Quick segue: want to see my proud city represented in the video contest to appear on FOX Sports in the Million Dollar Challenge to play Daniel Negreanu for a million bucks?
Go hit the PokerStars blog and watch that first video. Yikes! Frenchy, indeed.
Another interesting link I wanted to throw out there was this NPR story entitled: Spotting Lies: Listen, Don't Look. Lord, I love me some psychological warfare.
And funny, but despite the title of the above article, it didn't mention "Poker-clack", the term coined by the ancient Mike Caro a long, long time ago in his Book of Tells. And I just wanted to say it was superb seeing Mike on ESPN's WSOP Main Event coverage this year. I've been wondering where the hell he disappeared to.
For the record, I have tons of Caro content in my notes. I just need to start writing about it. It's tough because things have passed so far by where/when his poker literature was written. It's just a different universe now.
And so I guess that's it for now. Thanks for stopping by this humble poker blog.
Allow me to leave you with a video that disturbed some parents out there. I really wanted to put it on MMAjunkie.com but brighter minds prevailed.
All Content Copyright Iggy 2003-2007
Information on this site is intended for news and entertainment purposes only.
100% Signup Bonus at PokerStars.com up to $50