WA Law Means Linking to Gambling Websites Illegal 300
tpoker writes "Following a previous story on Washington State making online gambling a felony, the Seattle Times reports that the first legal salvos have begun. 'The first casualty in the state's war on Internet gambling is a local Web site where nobody was actually doing any gambling. What a Bellingham man did on his site was write about online gambling. He reviewed Internet casinos. He had links to them, and ran ads by them. All that, says the state -- the ads, the linking, even the discussing -- violates a new state law barring online wagering or using the Internet to transmit 'gambling information ... Telling people how to gamble online, where to do it, giving a link to it -- that's all obviously enabling something that is illegal.'"
Plus Side? (Score:4, Interesting)
Breakin' the law (Score:5, Interesting)
By the logic of WA lawmakers... (Score:5, Interesting)
Reminds me of when AOL added the word "breast" to their filters without thinking through the consequences. All the members of a breast cancer group suddenly had to start referring to themselves as survivors of "hooter cancer".
That seems like a violation of free speech, (Score:3, Interesting)
Sounds a lot like the DMCA... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Supreme Court? (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, they just got rid of Knock-and-Announce for all intents and purposes (for a cute current USSC highlight), so the question isn't what they are going to do. The question is how much. I dunno, you wanna take bets on how badly they bone the First Amendment? (For all you creepy-crawlies--that means you, Slashdot laywer lurkers!--I'm well aware that the First Amendment does not apply directly to the states, but is rather incorporated under the Fourteenth Amendment. Just so you don't gang-bang my post, you see.) My personal wager is that they find some way to justify this law using national security! Hah, wager! I crack me up.
Are they gonna arrest the newspapers? (Score:5, Interesting)
That's using the internet to transmit gambling information.
Why stop at one? (Score:5, Interesting)
I can actually see how the legislators could see a reason to do that. Taxpayer X wants to link to a gambling site, but knows that that's illegal. So he links to a site that has links to gambling sites, and tells you to click through. (Even worse, maybe that link redirects to the gambling site!) So clearly this needs to be stopped as well.
And what about linking to a page that links to a page that links to a page that links to gambling?
Re:Bets? (Score:3, Interesting)
Writing a novel where one of the characters is involved in online gambling is illegal.
Oh, and since bank robbery is illegal, writing stories (online or in print) about bank robbers and the (fictional) details about how they did it will be illegal.
The next step?
Stating that you believe/disbelieve in god will be illegal because it "could" offend someone and lead to illegal acts such as assault, arson, etc.
Stating that "Government (foo) sucks" "President (foo) sucks" will be illegal because it could incite some wacko to assassinate someone.
Think it's a stretch? Well, outlawing discussion of an illegal activity is actually a violation of your first amendment rights so by banning the discussion of gambling, where really does it end? The precedent of limiting speech is very clear, since the discussion has been squelched and ruled illegal because it "could" lead to the DoublePlusUnGood activity, then surely discussing other illegal activities, whether hypothetical, real, or fictional (I make the distinction between hypothetical and fictional here since one is simply an academic discussion and the other is entertainment) would be ruled illegal as well. Where does it end?
This law ought to be turned over by the Federal courts as unconstitutional right away. I hope he fights it to the end.
Re:Unconstitutionality approaching. (Score:2, Interesting)
States that currently allow gambling in all it's forms (read: Nevada) will allow online gambling but I believe other states will start to follow Washington's example over the next year.
Re:Plus Side? (Score:3, Interesting)
Don't count on it. WA state laws have no effect on blogs and/or bloggers located in other states
Don't count on that. Each state, via Article IV (section 2) of that fantastic federal constitution of ours provides for extradition between states, it is still not clear how juristidictional issues resolve (is the location of the crime client side? Server side? Both? Is there an interstate element (and hence under federal jurisdiction)?) What happens when a bank robber flees to the Dominican Republic? Do we throw up our hands and say 'well, he's just too damn wily for us!'?
Re:Shades of the MPAA versus 2600 Magazine anyone? (Score:4, Interesting)
The current paradigm is throw a wide net, round them all up, and let prosecutors sort them out afterwards. It's the new-and-improved shotgun methodology of law enforcement. And it works! They are almost guaranteed to catch somebody doing something naughty. Once I was arrested during a protest at a university, and charged with 'Disturbing the Peace' along with several other folks. Only later did they realize that in the great state that I live in, the statute forbids them from using DtP for civil disobedience cases. So, after the arrest, they cast about for some other statutory violation to make stick (they failed). I imagine most of the system operates approximately as sloppily.
Re:Are they gonna arrest the newspapers? (Score:2, Interesting)
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1904468136 [amazon.com] "Gambling Online" complete with a sample excerpt of the book!
Legal Gambling Website in Washington (Score:5, Interesting)