- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
It wont last forever.. Because the revenue is too vast for them to ignore.. There probably just working out how to completly screw everyone over and rob as much money as they can. Without looking like criminals. (which ofcourse they are)
Bet that Australian politicians, online casino players, lawyers, journalists and gaming entrepreneurs will continue to monitor this space closely. It’s been said that Australians are the biggest gamblers and online gamblers in the world, and this subject matters is of great interest to many Australians for these reasons. Keep up the good fight.
Greg Tingle
Director
Media Man Australia
Casino News Media
Classic Slots Online
Poker News Media
Australian Casino News@Nathan 206736 wrote:
U.S. Internet gambling ban appears “likely to withstand” challenge, according to Law.com
From the CAP Newswire:
July 8, 2009 (CAP Newswire) — Yesterday, the legal challenge from iMEGA (Interactive Media Entertainment & Gaming Association) to the constitutionality of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 (UIGEA) was heard in the United States’ 3rd Circuit Court in Philadelphia. Although no official judgment has been determined yet, according to an early assessment at Law.com, the three judges hearing the challenge unfortunately appeared likely to uphold rather than overturn America’s online gambling ban.
iMEGA’s legal challenge, as argued by law professor Stephen A. Saltzburg of George Washington University and New Jersey attorney Eric M. Bernstein, was on the grounds that the law was too vague to be implemented fairly. But the justices appeared to reject that logic.
“I’m struggling with what’s vague about that,” 3rd Circuit Judge Kent A. Jordan said, responding to Saltzburg’s claim that the UIGEA is flawed because online gambling websites can be accessed from all countries, not just the websites’ home countries. Jordan said that it didn’t matter where else a transaction was taking place; it mattered only if the conduct was taking place in the legally defined area, and that notion is clearly definable and not vague at all.
“It may be difficult to prove where the bet was placed, but that doesn’t make the law unconstitutionally vague — that’s a question of proof,” Judge Dolores K. Sloviter agreed.
Justice Jordan added that just because gamblers took issue with the way state laws were drafted, “that doesn’t mean this statute is vague.”
The Law.com article concludes that iMEGA’s challenge is likely to fail, at least at this stage. To read the entire article for yourself, please click here.
