Log in

No account? Create an account
Andrei in the office


Andrei's Universe

One man's journey from infinity to nothingness

Previous Entry Share Flag Next Entry

Wait... wait.. stop me if you've heard this one... A realization

Please note: this is one of those posts that I telepathically communicated someone else to enter for me from outside Washington so that I don't commit a felony. Those of you reading in Washington have been warned.

So, the Federal governemnt is trying to propose that internet Gambling is bad. Bad in that whole unehtical way.
Granted.. since there's been no move by the government to do anything about say, "Porn" on the internet; I guess then that tThe government is giving online Porn the okay.

But what I really want to know is..

How much will they enforce this? Will this be an all or nothing thing? Or is this a situaiton where someone 'miiiight' get caught if they take a chance on gambling online?

I mean... it's a good thing we've kept people from gambling on line with something that has a percentage chance of being risky.

I mean what group of people would take a Gamble like that?

Quote of the week:
The white cracker who wrote the National Anthem knew what he was doing. He set the word free to a note so high nobody could reach it. That was deliberate. Belize - Angels in America

  • 1
The purpose of the fed bill is to do what they've done with porn: force ISP's and hosts to do their dirty work for them. Washington can't compel an ISP to do diddly-squat, as they're almost entirely headquartered outside Washington. But a federal law? Well, that means Bell, Verizon, AT&T, whoever can be compelled to block access to gambling sites. Except horse racing and lotteries, of course, because -some- gambling is a-ok and not at all dangerous or immoral.

You also have to remember this is primarily a banking bill: it forbids banks and credit card companies from being involved in gambling in any way, including sites like NetTeller that deal with gambling. Again, they force private industry to do their enforcement.

So no, I don't see a person-to-person enforcement. They have private corporations spend the money and resources to enforce their laws, and we'll all see a nifty increase in our bills to show for our lost freedoms.

It isn't the possibility of personal enforcement that worries me here. The worry in my mind is the precedent regarding jurisdiction and interpretation of effectively non-existant evidence. If an individual is sitting in a room gambling for cash in a city which it is illegal in, there is obvious jurisdiction and evidence apparent. One of the main strengths of the internet (in comparison to BBSs and the like) has been the lack of jurisdictional right from the point of view of enforcement. This situation in Washington state is chilling from a common law perspective.

The problem I see with laws such as this one is that it enhances the possibility of selective enforcement. If a law is passed against something everyone (or a lot of people) do, then the law easily can become an excuse to arrest someone just because - for example - you don't like them.

On the other hand, hey I guess they won't have to arrest Minister Smith for preaching against gambling in his sermon because this law apparently just eliminated that "sin", eh?

The feds are absolutely moving against online porn. 2257 and the assault on that erotic stories site are evidence enough for me.

  • 1