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)
Re:Plus Side? (Score:3, Informative)
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?
Re:Plus Side? (Score:2)
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)
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
Re:Plus Side? (Score:2)
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)
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
Re:Plus Side? (Score:2)
Re:Plus Side? (Score:3, Informative)
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)
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]
Re:Plus Side? (Score:3)
Unconstitutionality approaching. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Unconstitutionality approaching. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Unconstitutionality approaching. (Score:2)
Re:Unconstitutionality approaching. (Score:2)
Oh, just give it time. The Supreme Court gutted the Fourth amendment yesterday. They can't strike all our Constitutional rights down at once. :-)
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:Unconstitutionality approaching. (Score:2)
- online gambling, of course
- downloading music
- reverse engineering of hardware and software
Leaving aside
Re:Unconstitutionality approaching. (Score:4, Funny)
Bets? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Bets? (Score:2)
Twenty bucks says someone will claim MSFT was behind the legislation if that happens.
Re:Bets? (Score:2)
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.
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 co
Re:Bets? (Score:2)
well, what about google ads regarding gambling? if one was so inclined, you could put those under the same qualification.
Re:Bets? (Score:2)
You have very cute and endearing notions about justice, fairness, police and prosecutorial discretion, the strength of constitutional principles, and probably life in general. And, I see, amazing technology that is able to crawl inside a person's head and determine intent...keep your damn headcrabs away from me, dammit!!!
Maybe I'm being mean. I am a bad person after all. But you were being pedantic, and that's never nice. ;)
Re:Bets? (Score:2)
You are a very magical man (woman?)! I am in awe of your process, but I still fear your headcrabs. I also seem to recall that magical system having flaws of its own; the sampling process for example, biases towards people who can afford financially to participate in the process and are not wily enough to escape having to do it, and is nothing like a random sample because the parties are allowed to select for secret biases when the group is formed and that representative sample often has more care and conc
Re:Bets? (Score:2)
I realize this was a tongue-in-cheek comment, but consider: What other huge company, based in Washington, runs a pretty big search engine that has sponsored results?
I think this pretty much guarantees that this law will never be used against a large search provider. You don't bite the hand that lays the big blue 'e'... or something like that.
Breakin' the law (Score:5, Interesting)
Good observation (Score:2)
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.
Hope you guess my name? (Score:2)
Re:Hope you guess my name? (Score:3, Informative)
Supreme Court? (Score:2)
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
Re:Supreme Court? (Score:2)
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
Re:Supreme Court? (Score:2)
Re:Supreme Court? (Score:2)
Shades of the MPAA versus 2600 Magazine anyone? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Shades of the MPAA versus 2600 Magazine anyone? (Score:2)
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;
Should be a clear-cut first amendment issue (Score:2)
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
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:Shades of the MPAA versus 2600 Magazine anyone? (Score:2)
You mean, build more prisons? But that's a growth industry! Good for the economy! And keeps the damned riff-raff locked away; heck, they could be out walkin' the streets! Kidding aside, ever since the drug war started in earnest, prison populations have exploded. If they find a juicy new class of people to lock away, it would be wise (if not morally vacuous) to buy stock in prison management and or construction contractors.
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".
Re:By the logic of WA lawmakers... (Score:2)
Same deal with the cervical cancer groups. The filters discriminated against both hooter and cooter!
Re:By the logic of WA lawmakers... (Score:3, Informative)
There are no bad words. Only fucking idiots.
KFG
Re:By the logic of WA lawmakers... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:By the logic of WA lawmakers... (Score:2)
Re:By the logic of WA lawmakers... (Score:2)
Brings up a good question (Score:2)
That seems like a violation of free speech, (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:That seems like a violation of free speech, (Score:2)
As a UK Tax payer... (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re:As a UK Tax payer... (Score:2)
Oh, and as a Washington citizen I just became a felon again! Twice!
Re:As a UK Tax payer... (Score:2)
Re:As a UK Tax payer... (Score:3, Informative)
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).
Re:As a UK Tax payer... (Score:2)
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.
Re:As a UK Tax payer... (Score:3, Informative)
We did. We changed its focus, thinking that would make a difference somehow.
Columbia thanks us.
KFG
Re:As a UK Tax payer... (Score:3, Insightful)
It will be completely ok for the Gov't and States to completely screw us over?
gambling information (Score:4, Insightful)
> 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?
Re:gambling information (Score:2)
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.
Re:gambling information (Score:2)
The state has become and entity, just like corporations, just like you.
Every time you gamble online Baby Washington bleeds a little more.
First they tell me im competing in a 'global economy'. Ok I thought... Then I took part in the 'global economy', and they threw my ass in jail.
Sounds a lot like the DMCA... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Sounds a lot like the DMCA... (Score:2, Informative)
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)
Another freedom, chipped away... And this one during the Clinton Administration. Sad for all of us.
Are they gonna arrest the newspapers? (Score:5, Interesting)
That's using the internet to transmit gambling information.
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!
Re:Are they gonna arrest the newspapers? (Score:2)
Who is this law trying to save? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Who is this law trying to save? (Score:3, Informative)
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
not always the case (Score:2)
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
Re:not always the case (Score:2)
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
Re:not always the case (Score:2)
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.
Re:not always the case (Score:2)
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
Re:Who is this law trying to save? (Score:2)
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.
TV censorship coming to WA (Score:5, Insightful)
What about commercials they run? (Score:2)
HA! (Score:5, Funny)
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:Why stop at one? (Score:2)
As a prelude to the *AA going after . . . (Score:2)
So, murder is fine now? (Score:2)
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
Re:So, murder is fine now? (Score:2)
Re:So, murder is fine now? (Score:2)
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
Murder is illegal (Score:2)
Searchengine's are illegal now? (Score:2)
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)
Re:vice laws (Score:2)
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)
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!
Online Petition Started (Score:3, Informative)
freedom of speech (Score:3)
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)
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.
Re:freedom of speech (Score:2)
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)
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!
I'm so bummed... (Score:2)
Re:I'm so bummed... (Score:2)
America is just as bad as the Taliban. How long until they outlaw musical instruments and owning pet birds?
Wow! Holy Free Speech Violation Batman (Score:2)
Surely even the current supreme court is going to knock this down.
Surely this is free speech to even the most casual observer???
Re:Wow! Holy Free Speech Violation Batman (Score:5, Insightful)
stupidity (Score:3, Funny)
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
Legal Gambling Website in Washington (Score:5, Interesting)
Indian lands (Score:3, Insightful)
It's nice to see Washington State... (Score:3, Funny)
What about state run lotteries? (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Should be an interesting election (Score:2)