I agree. I think the lawmakers snuck this in as a back up in case (and very likely) they have problems with the banking part of the bill. I think the ACLU will have a field day with these provisions in the bill that go after ISP’s and webmasters that promote gambling sites. I think it is weak and heavy handed. Think of the millions of people who pass the time playing their favorite games(bingo,poker,cribbage, etc) for free. Most of these free gaming sites have links to casinos or are provided by casinos. Look @ pogo.com. 100’s of thousands play there. These sites are just going to fold up? These thousands of players are just going to bend over and find another form of entertainment? I think if the AOLs of the world block the gaming sites then they lose a lot of customers.
Look how large the poker industry has grown in the last ten years. This growth is not just because of popular shows such as Celebrity Poker etc. It is because the millions who love these shows can also play for free online. Do you think the poker industry that is making billions is not going to throw millions @ attorneys to protect their industry?
This bill’s hypocrisy stink couldn’t be any higher, especially the provisions protecting their interests (horse racing and Indian gaming, not to mention the absurd move of attaching it to port security, this alone is going raise a lot of eyebrows). Think of Prohibition, what if they said Kentucky and Texas are exempt, because our cronies still have heavy interests in liquor there? Yeah that would have went over well.
I could be wrong but I think that the way this bill was written, how it was attached to port security and the obvious hypocrisy could ultimately backfire on them. It is open to many attacks, no? Wouldn’t they have been better off making it a straight banking/gambling bill, with no protections of their interests, didn’t go after ISP’s etc., and that stood alone-not on the back of national security (being a good patriot) bill?
Just my biased opinon.