- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Gotta love CasinoCity and his efforts, thanks for the article Dominique.
Loving it! 😎
I do love it but watch and see the gov / ashcroft won’t address the free speech issue, but rather they’ll fall back on the old spiel of why online gambling is bad.
it will be up to CC’s attorneys to see that the subject at hand is kept there; and not allowed to run over into moral, ethical and legal issues of gambling – and also that the laws are not brought into the issue which pertain to the individual states, rather than a federal thing.
Good point.
You’re right about how Ashcroft and his team will try to deflect the issue by making it a moral issue.
Barry Richards, the lead litigator, represented George W. Bush in 46 lawsuits, so I am optimistic he and his team will skillfully anticipate the opposition’s diversion tactics and will keep the focus where it belongs, both in court and in the press.
The team of lawyers is positively excellent.
I am sure it will not be possible to pull the wool over their eyes.
I am sure it will not be possible to pull the wool over their eyes
I don’t know about that; I’ve seen some unbelievable insults to one’s intelligence which include, OJ going free, this last election (you’ve got to wonder even if you’re a republican)
the fact that you can’t sue the phone company for accidently listing your business phone number as a number not listed by request of owner (it cost the guy his business which until that year had been very lucrative but he couldn’t figure out what was wrong until it was too late; and I guess there was some trouble getting it changed back at the phone company too, or something like that) and anyway not being listed in the phone book and then the 3 or 4 month’s it took to find out the number was listed as a “private number” and he went out of biz.
So he tried to sue them and it turns out there’s a law on the books that says you can’t sue a utility company for anything more than loss of life or limb, or something like that; so anyway, the guy lost everything because the phone company screwed up and yet he had no recourse.
so do I think they can get away with it? It wouldn’t be the biggest nor the most blatant injustice that I’ve ever seen, that’s for sure.
and in this case, they’ve got the ol’ “we are just doing what is best for you and the country” theme song to lean on.
Neither OJ nor the phone company were near well as armed.
Sure, I could bring you hundreds of stupid cases based on stupid laws. Thousands. Tens of thousands. And then some.
While I totally stand behind my previous comment, it also isn’t all that important what happens at this meeting. It is only the start.
The constitution is a different thing from other types of laws, and there are no ifs, whens or buts about it’s content.
Free speech is free speech.
Originally posted by Dominique
Free speech is free speech.How can advertising be called free speech?
Putting up a page about gambling would be free speech, but selling advertising would be considered a different activity, wouldn’t it?
I”m not trying to argue or say that you are wrong or anything, as I know nothing of U.S. law. It just seems to me that the DOJ may have a leg to stand on.
Well, you’ll have to take it up with the makers of the constitution, because in the United States, advertising is explicitly covered by the freedom of speech laws. It’s the law. No two ways about it.
Thanks Dom!
I didn’t know that. Now I see what all of the fuss is about.
… And I agree. What the industry needs is regulation not prohibition.
Regulation would solve so much….I hope they see the light eventually.
Thanks for this. You made my day!
