- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I know, they are melting away like butter into the sand of the sahara.
LandofOz wrote:If you owned an online casino that was generating 100s of millions of dollars in annual profit, wouldn’t you challenge this legislation in court, especially since it has more holes in it than swiss cheese? If it was your only chance of getting this legislation thrown out, wouldn’t you take it? Why haven’t any of the big online casinos done so? Do you think that anyone will mount a court challenge?You can’t just walk into court and say “I challenge this law”. Someone has to actually be charged with breaking the law before any challenge can be mounted.
The legislation was well-crafted in that it stayed away from attempting to criminalize the act of gambling online itself. The hope of the proponents of the bill was that the implied threat would be persuasion enough to force many online gaming companies to sever ties with the US long before anyone was actually charged with breaking the law. They were right. It worked brilliantly.
It worked brilliantly in that it created an initial shock and awe. Wether or not it will be effective in preventing Americans from gambling online for the next 270 days remains to be seen. This will be a make or break period for this law. If US citizens continue to gamble then this law will surely be a joke. Let´s wait and see.
ScurvyDog wrote:You can’t just walk into court and say “I challenge this law”. Someone has to actually be charged with breaking the law before any challenge can be mounted.The legislation was well-crafted in that it stayed away from attempting to criminalize the act of gambling online itself. The hope of the proponents of the bill was that the implied threat would be persuasion enough to force many online gaming companies to sever ties with the US long before anyone was actually charged with breaking the law. They were right. It worked brilliantly.
They don’t want to criminalize online gambling because
one day the landbased casinos will go in for the kill.
:popcorn:
Goldfinger wrote:It worked brilliantly in that it created an initial shock and awe. Wether or not it will be effective in preventing Americans from gambling online for the next 270 days remains to be seen. This will be a make or break period for this law. If US citizens continue to gamble then this law will surely be a joke. Let´s wait and see.
I agree 100 %. It has definitely created a “sky is falling” mentality in the industry the last couple of weeks, but it will be interesting to see if it really creates the deterrent or not. Wait and see it is. If Congress goes Democratic in November, that will help the situation a bit. If the Republicans stay in control, there will probably be more pressure on the banking industry to comply with the law and its regulations. If the Dems are in, I can see them being more sympathetic to the burden it will put on the banking sector, and I can see this law being as effective as the Can-Spam-Act of 2003. Again, we will have to wait and see.On what grounds would you go to court for?
There doesn’t appear to be a constitutional issues here. At least, I don’t see one off the bat. Odds are you wouldn’t be granted standing or the issue wouldn’t be justiciable anyway.
“There doesn’t appear to be a constitutional issues here”
I disagree.
Why should some people be able to profit from gambling in the US (Las Vegas casinos and sportsbooks for example), while other people cannot engage in the activity?
IMO, that’s unconstitutional and unequal treatment under the law.
Whether it takes place online or land base is really of no substance.
But if you want to argue that, why should some people be able to profit from online wagering (on horses for example) while others cannot in other forms?
Again, imo, it’s a joke.
Lastly, why should some people be able to advertise casinos (vegas, atlantic city, foxwoods, whatever) while other people cannot?
Again, imo that’s unconstitutional and unequal treatment under the law.
Don’t take this wrong, but have you read and studied the Constitution? How is requiring that someone be licensed to engage in gambling unequal treatment under the law when said licensing is not restrictive on age, sex or religion? Specifically please.
Furthermore, the commerce clause of the Constitution gives Congress the right to regulate commerce with foreign nations and between states.
The Constitution doesn’t guarantee that each US citizen must be able to take advantage of the same business opportunities, just that opportunities should have the same criteria for all (price, licensing, rules, etc).
I could go on, but this isn’t a the proper forum for a deep debate. It’s easy to use the catch phrase of “unconstitutional” when angered about government decisions.
If you can point to specifics, I’m all ears. While I took Constitutional Law, I’m certainly no expert. You argument basically amounts to “anything the government does to limit my income (like not letting you deal drugs) is unconstitutional.”
My 2 cents says this law will be challenge on several fronts:
1) The banking industry is going to fight real hard to get their part in this bill removed. It’s next to impossible for banks to institute anything in the next 2-3 years, no matter 270 days.
2) The WTO is going to come into play on grounds of unfair trade practice. Antigua was a nice little trial balloon, but the UK is making online gambling completely legal, and the EU recently forced those countries that were prohibiting online gambling to allow it. One if not more of these countries will likely jump into the fray with poor little Antigua (or should we call them David as in David and Goliath). Maybe the companies that are setting up in the UK will urge the UK to jump on this, they did loose $6B in market value after all, what clearer a case could you have to prove unfair trade practices (online horse betting, lotteries and some fantasy sports are legal in the US now).
3) The ACLU will jump into the censorship issue (blocking websites that have links to gambling sites). At least I can’t imagine they wouldn’t challenge that clear violation of free speach. The new law doesn’t say you can’t have affiliate links, it says you can’t have any links.
Again, all my humble opinion, but I don’t see this law amounting to much.
“anything the government does to limit my income (like not letting you deal drugs) is unconstitutional.”
No, my argument is other people in the U.S (for example vegas sportsbooks) have a license to take wagers… Why the heck should other people go to jail for doing the same?
That is a load of rubbish.
Everyone can do it… Or no-one can do it.
That’s equal rights for all.
