Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

WA Law Means Linking to Gambling Websites Illegal 300

Posted by Zonk
from the don't-click-the-bad-links dept.
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.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

WA Law Means Linking to Gambling Websites Illegal

Comments Filter:
  • Plus Side? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Azarael (896715) on Friday June 16, 2006 @03:17PM (#15551161) Homepage
    Maybe this will provide some legal leverage to go after people who spam blogs and forums with adds for online poker, etc?
    • Re:Plus Side? (Score:3, Informative)

      by Iphtashu Fitz (263795)
      Maybe this will provide some legal leverage to go after people who spam blogs and forums with adds for online poker, etc?

      Don't count on it. WA state laws have no effect on blogs and/or bloggers located in other states, much less the activities of casinos located outside the USA. How could a state law (not even a federal one) have any impact on a casino operator operating in the Dominican Republic?

      • I'm not American, so I'm really not familiar with how state and federal laws work. In this case, would it be similar to a person committing a crime in Washington though?

        Also, don't get me wrong. As far as I can tell, this law is totally ridiculous and my post was pretty much the only good thing that I could imagine will come of it.
      • Re:Plus Side? (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Elemenope (905108)

        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

        • What happens when a bank robber flees to the Dominican Republic?

          You try to extradite and/or kidnap him so that he can be tried in the US (you don't think a little thing like national sovereignty is going to stop Uncle Sam, do you?).

          Do we throw up our hands and say 'well, he's just too damn wily for us!'?

          No, because no rocket-powered vehicles or anvils are involved.

        • Re:Plus Side? (Score:3, Informative)

          by Iphtashu Fitz (263795)
          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!'?

          No, but in that case it's up to federal law enforcement to deal with it. As soon as they cross outside of the state of WA it becomes a federal offense. Once they cross the US border it becomes an issue for both US and foriegn federal law enforcement officials. It's the federal government that has extradition laws, not each state. Since there's no corresponding federal
        • Sometimes. [wikipedia.org]
        • Re:Plus Side? (Score:3, Informative)

          by tinkerghost (944862)
          Per the obscenity lawsuits, the crime happens whereever they decide they can get the most favorable verdict.
          IE., a prosecuter in WA can decide that the Nevada site www.poker-n-prostitutes.com [not real (I hope)] violates the WA statute & initiate an extradition request for the owner of the site.
          Personnally I think this is a waste of time since it's going to be hammered on the 1st ammendment level. But that's government for you, if they have the choice to do something or to create a worthless law to wa
    • By all means... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by ackthpt (218170) *

      Maybe this will provide some legal leverage to go after people who spam blogs and forums with adds for online poker, etc?

      By all means, let's attack free enterprise and free speech, let's start with this internet site which promotes gambling. [walottery.com]

  • by sglider (648795) on Friday June 16, 2006 @03:17PM (#15551162) Homepage Journal
    I give it a year before it's struck down as unconstitutional.
  • Bets? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Rob T Firefly (844560) on Friday June 16, 2006 @03:18PM (#15551164) Homepage Journal
    Ten bucks says they find a way to lead Google away in handcuffs.
    • Ten bucks says they find a way to lead Google away in handcuffs.

      Twenty bucks says someone will claim MSFT was behind the legislation if that happens.

    • by Surt (22457)
      Ten bucks says they find a way to lead Google away in handcuffs.

      Yup:
      http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&hs=xf0&safe=off &client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&s a=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=gambling+we bsite&spell=1 [google.com]

      If google has any washington based employees, they better watch out.
  • Breakin' the law (Score:5, Interesting)

    by pudge (3605) * <slashdot.pudge@net> on Friday June 16, 2006 @03:18PM (#15551170) Homepage Journal
    The same Seattle Times printed my letter to the editor [nwsource.com] on the same subject today.
    • Your observation answers my key question: why would they risk having their law struck down by trying it out on a site which is probably not in violation? (I haven't read the text of the law, so I can't say for certain.)

      Answer: because to the Indian tribe casinos, linking to gambling site causes at least as much harm as gambling on one. Anti-gambling activists would probably care more about the actual gambling sites, but those who stand to make money from gambling demand that they limit the exposure as well.
    • So, um... which one's yours? I'm hoping it's the first one, because -- dang -- that one's got some seriously vicious snark to it.
  • I guess we know where this is going. I wonder how the new justices are going to vote....
    • Re:Supreme Court? (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Elemenope (905108)

      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

      • First the second, now the rest!

        The new bill of rights.

        I. You shall not take the states name in vane, this includes corporations. You must worship the state as your religion. You must not speak out against the state.
        II. The state shall arm itsself against you. This is for your protection. You may not be armed yourself.
        III. Soldiers or police and freely enter your house as they please. They have full rights to your property.
        IV. The state shall record your actions at any time it pleases. Cameras and microphone
    • THis is a state law, it will go to the Washington state Supreme Court. The only way it would hit SCOTUS is if Washington state supremes uphold it, and the defendant appeals on US constitutional grounds.
      • Very true, however if the question one of the Federal constitution, then the defendant can bypass the state Supremes and go directly to the SCOTUS and then go directly to jail, do not collect 200 dollars.
  • by TWX (665546) on Friday June 16, 2006 @03:19PM (#15551181)
    For some reason I'm thinking that precedent from MPAA vs 2600 Magazine might be a contributor, as they were successfully barred from even linking to DeCSS, even though they were no longer hosting it. And at that point, there was no ruling on the legality of DeCSS, either...

    I know, there are some differences, but still, I don't think that referencing something should necessarily be a crime. I'm sure that there are exceptions, where people are being made victims by directing others to certain places, but this just seems extreme.
    • Indeed. the 2600 suit was a low point and it may even be low enough for lawyers to find and use it.. Snake Belly Low...
        This is WA after all and gambling is what they seem to do for elections. gives a whole new meaning to "Crap Shoot"

      By the way, re your Sig:
      PROC OPTIONS (MAIN); PUT LIST "LOL"; END;
    • Sheesh.
      It seems to my little mind that linking to something on the Internet is essentially a form of speech, and should be protected under The U.S. Constitution. A hyperlink, after all, is really just a form of "see also". Is it illegal for me to write instructions telling people where to find brothels in Nevada, even though prostitution remains illegal in my state? I sure hope not. And if not, then what's the difference between that and linking to a Nevada brothel's web site [shadyladyranch.com]? I hope that the Supreme Court
  • by Iphtashu Fitz (263795) on Friday June 16, 2006 @03:20PM (#15551188)
    ...any discussion whatsoever of rape, incest, murder, drug use, etc. must also be illegal.

    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".
    • All the members of a breast cancer group suddenly had to start referring to themselves as survivors of "hooter cancer".

      Same deal with the cervical cancer groups. The filters discriminated against both hooter and cooter!

      /rimshot

    • AOL added the word "breast" to their filters

      There are no bad words. Only fucking idiots.

      KFG
  • by tpjunkie (911544) on Friday June 16, 2006 @03:20PM (#15551189) Journal
    not to mention common sense. As much of the information (other than reviews) on his site could be easily found using a search engine, I'm not really sure how collecting it on one site could be illegal. It's a lot like someone putting up a website reviewing various types of marijuana they have purchased in the area, and where they purchased it. It may be an illegal activity, but writing about doing it is hardly a crime.
  • by MosesJones (55544) on Friday June 16, 2006 @03:22PM (#15551211) Homepage

    I'd like to thank the US for these restrictive laws that prevent US companies making money out of internet gambling.

    Ahh the wonder of the US... legal to buy a gun... illegal to bet $10.

    Keep up the good work, why not try prohibition again as well?
    • Yeah, its absolutely insane. I'd go to an online card room regulated by the Nevada, California, or Washington state gambling commission in a minute before going to Party Poker [partpoker.net] or Poker Stars [pokerstars.com]. I'd feel safer with my money.

      Oh, and as a Washington citizen I just became a felon again! Twice!
    • by shawnce (146129)

      I'd like to thank the US for these restrictive laws that prevent US companies making money out of internet gambling.

      You do realize this is a law in one state [census.gov] out of the fifty states () that make up the United States of America... a state the represents about 2.1% of the total population of the United Stated of America.

      Also it is very likely that this law will be found unconstitutional in part or whole at federal level (if not at the state level).

      • You do realize this is a law in one state out of the fifty states () that make up the United States of America... a state the represents about 2.1% of the total population of the United Stated of America.

        Regardless, gambling -- other than state lotteries (how's that for hypocrisy) is illegal in most US jurisdictions. This WA law just slides down that slippery slope to make talking about gambling illegal.

        So the OP's original contention that its illegal to bet $10 is correct in the general case.
    • by kfg (145172) *
      Keep up the good work, why not try prohibition again as well?

      We did. We changed its focus, thinking that would make a difference somehow.

      Columbia thanks us.

      KFG
    • So what your saying is that if we ban guns...

      It will be completely ok for the Gov't and States to completely screw us over?
  • by Threni (635302) on Friday June 16, 2006 @03:24PM (#15551233)
    > violates a new state law barring online wagering or using the Internet to transmit 'gambling
    > information

    You're telling me that hosting a site with the fact that opposing sides of a dice add up to 7 is now a criminal offence in parts of the USA?

    Land of the free, indeed. Whatever happened to doing whatever you wanted unless it hurt someone else?
    • Land of the free, indeed. Whatever happened to doing whatever you wanted unless it hurt someone else?

      My fellow countryman seem to have completely given up any desire for anything even remotely resembling freedom. It's appalling and it's depressing. This is just the latest instance in our downward slide, and the worst of it is that I can't think of anyplace else that isn't just as bad in one way or another.

  • by doormat (63648) on Friday June 16, 2006 @03:25PM (#15551241) Homepage Journal
    The one good side is that if this gets struck down, why cant we get the DMCA's "trafficing" clause struck down as well? Telling someone how to gamble online illegally vs. Dimitri Skylarov telling people how to crack PDFs. Whats the diff?
    • The diff is one is a pet law of some minor political goons and local tribes, the other is the pet law of a massive lobbying juggernaut with a vicelike grip on legislators at the federal level and a sustained propaganda campaign aimed at judges and the general public.

      When you can get away with using a single subpoena to prosecute 500 unrelated cases at once in violation of due process amendments, keeping your pet laws in place is just pocket change.
  • Well... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 16, 2006 @03:25PM (#15551247)
    One might think this is a clear-cut case of free speech. Until one considers the result of the famous MPAA vs. 2600 [slashdot.org] case, where 2600 [2600.com] was found to have violated the DMCA by merely LINKING to DeCSS, the code by DVD Jon that decrypted DVDs so that Linux computers could play them.

    Another freedom, chipped away... And this one during the Clinton Administration. Sad for all of us.
  • by mcmonkey (96054) on Friday June 16, 2006 @03:28PM (#15551277) Homepage
    Seattle Times lists sports betting odds [nwsource.com]

    That's using the internet to transmit gambling information.

  • by pestilence669 (823950) on Friday June 16, 2006 @03:28PM (#15551280)
    Who is this law trying to save? The children? You need a bank account or credit card to gamble online. Last I checked, most teens have neither.

    C'mon... of all victimless crimes, does online gambling really need legislation? Tax it like Nevada and be done with it.

    I mean... Washington has a state lottery. That means they endorse gambling. It can't be gambling that they hate... I think they hate all gambling where the state isn't the house.
    • Who is this law trying to save?

      It's intention is to save tax dollars. Every state in the US collects taxes from any legal casinos, bingo parlors, etc. located within their borders (this includes any casinos on indian reservations). Since these on-line casinos are located outside the US there's no way to collect taxes. That's one of the reasons why the federal government still has laws on the books about this. Ever since early 20th century it's been technically illegal to place any wager by electronic me
      • As I mentioned in another thread on this topic, Wizards of the Coast (now owned by Hasbro) is based in WA state. People who play Magic the Gathering Online and compete in tournaments for prizes are breaking the new WA state gambling law. However, they are paying taxes on purchases from Wizards of the Coast, and Wizards pays WA state taxes.

        The real basis behind this law was lobbying from the tribal casinos. They don't want people gambling online because they think those gamblers will then, in turn, be mor
        • The real basis behind this law was lobbying from the tribal casinos. They don't want people gambling online because they think those gamblers will then, in turn, be more likely to drive over to the casinos to play in person.

          And the reason the politcians agreed with this is because by the same logic it means the state collects more taxes. More gambling in the casinos means more income for the casinos which means more taxes levied against those casinos by the state. It's "win-win" for both the casino operat
          • And the reason the politcians agreed with this is because by the same logic it means the state collects more taxes.

            No, the reason that politicians agreed with this is because not doing so meant their opponents in the next elections would get more contributions from tribal casino operators.

            Politicians aren't all that consistently motivated by prospects of tax revenues (otherwise, there would never be tax cuts), they are motivated consistently by where campaign contributions go.

            • Actually, at the risk of contradicting my original point, politicians in WA state don't ever make tax cuts. Go ahead try to find one :)

              This state's goverment has been controlled by Democrats for a long, long time. In particular this is due to King County, which has the largest population and is heavily liberal. The rest of the state is not, but can't generally muster the votes to overcome King County.

              Since the legislators are spineless, the only time WA gets tax cuts is when an initiative passes (thank g
    • Online poker can not be regulated in any reasable means.
      It is protecting the consumer.

      Don't forget, gambling and casinos come with a lot baggages. If the people in Nevada who don't gamble are impacted negativley by gambling.
  • by Iphtashu Fitz (263795) on Friday June 16, 2006 @03:29PM (#15551284)
    So what's next, WA outlawing poker on TV? After all, it's promoting poker electronically. So all WA residents can say "bye-bye" to TV shows like the World Series of Poker, Celebrity Poker Showdown, etc? Then after that there's all the movies that depict gambling in them - from classics like "The Sting" to movies like Casino, Oceans 11, etc.

    • Many stations also have nationally advertised commercials for gambling sites, with the web address and whatnot as well. I would assume the channels running them will all be facing felony charges as well? ESPN execs are going to be in a lot of trouble....
  • HA! (Score:5, Funny)

    by iminplaya (723125) <iminplaya.gmail@com> on Friday June 16, 2006 @03:29PM (#15551287) Journal
    That'll show the Chinese who can censor better.
  • Why stop at one? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by booch (4157) <[moc.kehcubgiarc] [ta] [0102todhsals]> on Friday June 16, 2006 @03:31PM (#15551305) Homepage
    Why not make it illegal to link to a page that links to a page that links to gambling?

    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?
    • I have a trump card -- link to Google. The amount of gambling information you can find in 5 minutes of searching is just as good as a whole page full of links. Really though, this law pisses me off -- and I don't even LIVE in Washington. You want to know what pisses me off about it?... Well you probably already know, but I will tell you -- "oh, you supplied information about gambling so now you're a felon, :D yay". What about kids who post pictures of themselves doing drugs on their myspace -- why can't
  • the authors of Gnutella/eMule/bitTorrent software . . . after all, it gives you access to where all of that illegal content is, right?
  • that's all obviously enabling something that is illegal

    Not taking steps to kill everyone you encounter enables them to commit illegal acts, and such enablement is illegal, so you have to kill people?

    What? Murder is illegal?

    So, what you're saying is that commiting an act is illegal as is not commiting it?

    If I'm guilty of a crime by simply existing, then the law is fscked enough to be ignored in its entirety. And again, we come to the conclusion that murder is fine.

    Jesting aside, the bigger issue he

    • And what if you link to a site that links to a site that links to a gambling site?
      • And what if you link to a site that links to a site that links to a gambling site?

        There are two trobling aspects to this:

        1. Legislators pass laws without understanding the ramifications of just *what* the law makes illegal, when anyone with half a brain can see the absurdities that result.

        2. It is becomming increasingly difficult for a reasonable person to know what is legal and what isn't. Besides the sheer number of laws, often an "unreasonable" action might be perfectly harmless.

        For example, it i

  • Let's outlaw all media that shows killing. Like you know, that Schwarzenegger movie.
  • What are the implications running a crawler..?
    Makes it your Google, MSN-search, Yahoo, AskJeeves, altavista, hotbot and many more illegal?

    Or are they *again* going to be forced to filter out what "might be [illegal|offensive] in [state|country] xyz"...
  • vice laws (Score:5, Insightful)

    by zogger (617870) on Friday June 16, 2006 @03:36PM (#15551367) Homepage Journal
    Vice laws are a big fat waste of time really, they have never worked, and several thousand years of human history shows that the collective *we* enjoy various vices. Governments all over should just admit reality and move on to something constructive.
    • Well sure, but won't someone please, please think of the union employees who might be displaced?

      The people who enforce vice laws and their support staff probably don't have any skills that can be transfered to other jobs. They are unlikely to find other jobs where they can lord it over the rest of us. And that's the bottom line to the people who thrive on working in government, to keep their cushy jobs, and find a way to employ their friends as well. The question of if these jobs are "useful" or "relevant

  • Yay! (Score:2, Funny)

    by Chas (5144)

    Okay kiddies! Let's play "BREAK THE INTERNET!"

    You can't host, can't link, can't surf, can't, can't, can't.

    Your computer's on? Can't have that! ARREST HIM!

    Fuck, Yakov Smirnov's going to be moving back to Russia pretty soon.

    In Russia, you go to parties to fuck.

    In America, the parties fuck YOU!

  • by terrymr (316118) * <<moc.liamg> <ta> <rmyrret>> on Friday June 16, 2006 @03:43PM (#15551429)
    Washington residents please add your signature [petitiononline.com]
  • by fish_in_the_c (577259) on Friday June 16, 2006 @03:43PM (#15551430)
    I'm sorry this is as bad as the DMCA.
    I don't mind people deciding what kind of regulations they
    want to have on gambling. There is a type of addiction some people
    can have to it which argues for some restrictions, but I would do my utmost to oppose stopping someone from talking about it.

    It is crossing a line and is undoubtedly unconstitutional.
    then again I'm not sure that has stopped people when it came to the DMCA.

    I don't like Nazi's but I'll support their right to tell people what they believe.
    I don't like abortionist but I'll support their legal right to tell people what they believe.

    What the conservatives pushing these laws don't realize is they are enabling the same kind of thing as the Canadian 'anti-hate speech' legislation which has made it very difficult to talk about the 'immorality' of homosexuality.
    (something I'd be pretty certain they would not want to see happen here.)

    in some ways they are cutting their own throats.
    the problem is that not enough people are united on a topic everyone should agree on.

    I may not support what you say but I am certainly going to support you right to say it.

    I wonder if anyone has ever considered if the political spectrum is more like a circle then a line. The closer you get to the far left or the far right the more you resemble the opposite.

    Myself I oppose Fascism I don't care if it is couched as 'conservative values' or 'broad minded liberal ideas'

    • Re:freedom of speech (Score:3, Informative)

      by stratjakt (596332)
      Talking about it and linking to it are different things. The guy could have talked about the sites all he wanted, referred to them by name, and so on..

      He didn't cross the line until he explicitly linked to one.

      High Times doesn't get in any trouble for talking about weed, but if they started running ads for dealers willing to ship to the US... Trouble's afoot. Plenty of sites have been burned for linking to "seed banks" outside the US.

      Freedom of speech doesn't imply freedom of action. So sad, too bad.
      • ahh I had misunderstood that. some previous statements lead me to believe he was in trouble for talking about it.

        do you suppose that would include telling people how to find gambling sites using Google?

        besides that since when does a link DO anything. seems to me you should be able to link to a gambling site because you are criticizing and want to references it even if you are explicitly discouraging gambling.

        I guess if it is linking and only linking I'm kind on the fence about that.
        I don't see where provi
  • Great argument (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Pedrito (94783) on Friday June 16, 2006 @03:46PM (#15551456) Homepage
    "...that's all obviously enabling something that is illegal."

    Well, fantastic. So you can follow this up by making guns, knives, shovels, cars, bleach, and God knows what else illegal since they're obviously enabling murder. Oh, and we may as well outlaw crime mystery books since they provide information on how to do illegal things. But let's not stop at burning just crime mystery novels. We ought to burn chemistry books since that knowledge can be used to create poisons and explosives. And let's outlaw cars because criminals are notorious for using cars in their getaways. I see no reason to stop there, though. I can think of a lot of other stuff we ought to just outlaw today!
  • The republicans won't let me do drugs and now the democrats won't let me gamble. This sucks.
    • Don't you know that being forbidden from doing things you enjoy that harm no one is for your own good?

      America is just as bad as the Taliban. How long until they outlaw musical instruments and owning pet birds?
  • "or even DISCUSSING????"

    Surely even the current supreme court is going to knock this down.

    Surely this is free speech to even the most casual observer???
    • by DragonWriter (970822) on Friday June 16, 2006 @04:11PM (#15551677)
      Surely even the current supreme court is going to knock this down.
      If they can't even get the right answer on "should evidence gained by police through a search conducted without actually knocking-and-announcing despite the fact that the search was authorized by a knock-and-announce warrant be excluded from a criminal case", I really don't trust them to get anything else right, either.
  • stupidity (Score:3, Funny)

    by fish_in_the_c (577259) on Friday June 16, 2006 @03:51PM (#15551509)
    I wonder if it is illegal to offer a online gambling to ip addressing coming from Mexico on a server running in Washington state ( but inaccessible from that state.)

    Time to raid the server farms everyone.

    (how to get your competing server farm or web host if they are located in WA).
    1) rent from the space
    2) but up gambling sight ( using IP routed through foreign country.)
    3) report to WA the violation ( rinse repeate).

    Thus driving up your competitors operating costs because now they have to monitor every sight they host or be shut down.

    ( i know I know not that terribly realist but the thought was funny ;)
  • by paladinwannabe2 (889776) on Friday June 16, 2006 @04:02PM (#15551604)
    Something tells me that the Washington State Lottery [walottery.com] will still get to promote itself online... apparently they also were even going to sell lottery tickets online [gtech.com] but I can't find evidence of them still doing it.
  • Indian lands (Score:3, Insightful)

    by robcube (983117) on Friday June 16, 2006 @04:17PM (#15551722)
    It's legal gambling on Indian lands there, now how about putting the servers on Indian lands, would that make the linking illegal?
  • by HotNeedleOfInquiry (598897) on Friday June 16, 2006 @04:17PM (#15551723)
    Replace California with the new title of "People's Republik of Washington State"
  • by Ronin Developer (67677) on Friday June 16, 2006 @04:18PM (#15551730)
    http://www.walottery.com/ [walottery.com]

    Last I checked, playing the lottery is a form of gambling. Their own site gives info on how to play, winning numbers, etc.

    Does the law not apply to them as well?

    RD

  • Washington has a huge number of brick and morter casinos and poker rooms who obviously are very happy about this law, but it's also a good indication that there's a lot of people in the state of like playing poker. With elections coming up in a few months, I hope this law get a lot of attention.

There is nothing so easy but that it becomes difficult when you do it reluctantly. -- Publius Terentius Afer (Terence)

Working...