Still promoting Online Gambling?

25 comments

http://www.gambling-law-us.com/Federal-Laws/internet-gambling-ban.htm

"Aider and Abettor Liability

The federal aider and abettor statute, 18 U.S.C. 2, provides:

"(a) Whoever commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission, is punishable as a principal.
(b) Whoever willfully causes an act to be done which if directly performed by him or another would be an offense against the United States, is punishable as a principal."

The criminal provision of Section 5366 creates a new "offense against the United States." All those who aid or abet an online gambling website that is in violation of Section 5363, and thus of Section 5366, are punishable as if they were the online gambling Website. The same goes for those who are employees and officers. In appropriate cases this "punishable as a principal" law may also ensnare directors, major shareholders, advertising media, affiliates and those who are so-called consultants, team members or front men for the online gambling Websites."

The new illegal online gambling proabition law creates an "offense against the United States", A new law in the United States, you bet, but not really a 'new' law, all Fascist Governments have had the same type of law, they just call it something a little different...

Comments

blog spam

be interesting to see if you could go after all those blogs that have been spammed to death with texas hold-em links for aiding and abetting

..

I was wondering more about google.

Are they gonna remove all online gambling links or are they going to ignore this new law? This law went into effect Oct 13, 2006, so google is currently breaking the law and committing "an offense against the United States".

BTW - How does google currently get by the Washington state law that makes writing about, discussing or having links to online gambling sites a crime (not just a crime but a class B Criminal Felony)?

My guess is google is too big and far too rich for the US or Washington State justice departments to screw with so they get a "free pass" on complying with this new law...

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003062386_danny15.html

My guess is google is too

Quote:
My guess is google is too big and far too rich for the US or Washington State justice departments to screw with so they get a "free pass" on complying with this new law...

I'd be confident that Google could successfully argue that they're not aiding, abetting, inducing etc. without relying on being "too being and far too rich". If they relied on the latter then they'd be faced with Eliot Spitzer types queuing up to take them down.

I think a company like

I think a company like Google would never get challenged on this law because the US government knows this is a bogus law on shaky grounds by some asshole trying to legislate morals...and that if they challenged Google on it the law would end up dying one way or another.

----------

Quote:
some asshole trying to legislate morals

LOL LOL LOL

That is the root of the problem.. not Google providing whatever information is out there on the Web... the problem is Washington trying to regulate everything... and some idiot out there thinking 'this is a great idea' and then forces his or her will on the other 300 million or so living in this country.

Google gets a Pass

Google gets a pass on all the new laws being passed. Same goes for 2257 laws that require any sexually explicit image hosted on your server to be accompanied by the appropriate paperwork.

These laws are created to get votes, not be enforced.

>> How does google

>> How does google currently get by the Washington state law that makes writing about, discussing or having links to online gambling sites a crime

I'd guess they'd argue lack of intent. They aren't "creating" anything, per se, merely reflecting what others have created. If it were necessary, I'd think they could get out from under simply by saying they will remove offending content, incompliance with the law on application. Similar to how they handle the "Nazi content in Germany" issue - they don't get sued every time they list a new Neo-Nazi site, so long as they ban it if they are asked to.

I think any "free pass" comes down to lawmakers knowing they've got a shky case, and Google having the expertise and money, and desire to fight any such case through to the end. They'd have a damn good chance of winning too, which would upset someones pet project.

"Never fight a battle you can't afford to lose" - Sun Tzu

TOS

Personally - I think they'd just rely on their TOS

Quote:
4 Prohibited Uses; License Grant; Representations and Warranties.
Customer shall not, and shall not authorize any party to:
........ (c) advertise anything illegal or engage in any illegal.....

https://adwords.google.com/select/tsandcsfinder

Going down

The Washington law has two obvious Constitutional problems - the First Amendment and the Commerce clause. If the Washington statute really makes writing about or linking to online gambling sites illegal, it is overbroad and would be struck down under the First Amendment as infringing on free speech. The Commerce clause problem would arise because in the US only the federal government can regulate interstate commerce, and state actions that go too far in trying to control actions in other states or commerce that crosses state lines get struck down. Legislators pass laws all the time that they know are unconstitutional - it allows them to act like they are doing something, but they can relax knowing that the stupid law is not going to stay on the books. On top of all that, they get to rail against activist judges in their next campaign.

As for the federal law, because this is a criminal statute, the key concept is prosecutorial discretion. Prosecutors don't prosecute everyone they technically could prosecute. When I was still practicing law, I had a partner who had been US Attorney in Chicago, and he was fond of saying that, if the full powers of the US government were applied to the task, any random name selected from the phone book could legitimately be prosecuted and convicted of something. It's not hard to run afoul of mail or wire fraud, if someone wants to make a federal case out of it (say, if you can help them make a case against someone important but you need a little firm encouragement).

This law is just one more tool in an already full toolbox, and it's not going to get rolled out against someone whose blog got spammed. It might get rolled out against the guys who did the blog spamming, but probably only if the government has some reason to want to put some pressure on those guys (for example, if they want to build a case against the principals of the gaming company, and the SEO consultants placing the blog spam need to have their memories invigorated about what happened in meetings with the company principals).

As for Google, I don't think we need to set up the Google defense fund just yet. There are two issues - results that show up in organic results, and results that show up in Google ads. I doubt the law would be read to extend to organic results. As for ads, I would be surprised if they keep serving online gaming ads in the US.

know when to hold em..

... still playing hold em online.... "i raise".

yes

>>if the full powers of the US government were applied to the task, any random name selected from the phone book could legitimately be prosecuted and convicted of something

someone told me the other day the US tax code is so complex no one person alive knows it all. Now extend that to all other laws.

It makes you wonder what we need laws for at all. Why not just put the plaintiff against the judge and let the judge decide depending on what side of bed he got out? :)

the good old days

Quote:
Why not just put the plaintiff against the judge and let the judge decide depending on what side of bed he got out? :)

Why stop there? Let's bring back trial by drowning! If Google can survive being drowned by spam then it is virtuous, if not then the way of Altavista it shall go ... ;-)

lol

yeah, does Google weigh the same as a duck? stoke up that bonfire......

..

Quote:
still playing hold em online...

This law did not make playing poker or gambling online illegal.

The new federal law made transferring money to and from gambling sites illegal and having hypertext links that point to a gambling site are illegal and 'helping' people to gamble is illegal. So as long as there are poker and casino sites that you can access you are not breaking the law by playing poker or gambling online, as far as I know. (Disclaimer: Iam not an attorney - this is not legal advice)

Several well known poker rooms have said they are going to continue business as normal as they do not feel they are breaking any law as Poker is a game of skill and not a game of chance.

?As far as Sergey or Larry going to jail for promoting gambling by having hypertext links that point to gambling sites; I don't think the government is going to take on google over this, the gov will start with some individual that does not have the resources to "argue" their case, thus setting precedent and case law.

Raycam - as an x-attorney what do you think about the new "offense against the United States" law on the books?

As an attorney

I know enough not to comment on something that I haven't researched. I don't know whether or how similar language has been interpreted, or what can be shown about legislative intent, to the extent that matters.

The recently passed law was not the main event on making gambling illegal. There are existing statutes on the books that involve using the federal wires. From what little I know, there seems to be a lot of uncertainty about the exact scope of those laws, because they apparently haven't been tested at the highest levels. They seem to prohibit phoning in bets on horse races or football games, but beyond that it seems to get squirrelly.

I wouldn't bet on the argument holding up that poker is a game of skill, and therefore not gambling. Most of what passes for gambling has, or could have, a skill element to it. On the other hand, where you have state raffle and sweepstakes laws that require an element of skill to be legal, what counts for the skill element seems to be pretty minimal. I'm just not sure that translates. Sometimes, the same words have very different meanings in different contexts. It's all a matter of the case law, and even then it doesn't really get locked down until and unless the Supreme Court rules on it. (It's no defense, by the way, that you read the statute as allowing something that the court eventually finds is illegal behavior). Some of the folks taking the aggressive "poker is legal" position may be figuring that the money left on the table by the former big players justifies never setting foot in the US again. In other words, they may not really care if you get prosecuted; they may just be pretty certain that they can't be prosecuted if they stay out of the US.

As I noted above, a lot of this is going to turn on prosecutorial discretion. Some prosecutor could, if he wanted, start bringing cases against ordinary people who play poker online just to test the law. I view that as being about as likely as widespread busts of Wednesday night Bingo games at local Catholic parishes. However, stranger things have happened. As you assess your risk, I would say that it's generally a pretty good rule that your risk increases substantially the closer you are to the people they really want to get. There are folks at Enron who spent a lot of time before grand juries that might never have met a lawyer if the government didn't want to nail someone at the top of Enron. If you are a potential witness against a major target, you live in a much riskier place than someone who has nothing to contribute to the main case.

Experts: Ban won't stop online gambling

Here is an article for ya's

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061024/ap_on_hi_te/online_gambling

-------------

From what I have read elsewhere, the language of the new statute does not change existing gaming law.... like stated above it, goes after the transfer of monies to gambling sites and the action of the site operators themselves... not the indivdual playing. And I don't think there has been one prosecution in states that make it unlawful to play online poker in their state. And at the federal level, the US has no jurisdiction offshore, where these sites reside.

But what can this law do? It can really hurt the poker community. Tournaments have grown tremendously from the big sponsors coming in - which are the gaming sites - the sites pay for a ton of seats in the tournament for online players. The boom of Internet sites have multiplied the amount of newcomers to the sport as well as re-energized the people who were always playing. The days of every player wearing a poker site's hat or t-shirt on TV might change. If a lot of U.S. players get deterred from Online Poker .. these sites aren't gonna be floating the type of money they are used to... and the Poker boom could be stopped in its tracks. It will never kill Poker but it could go back to where it was 10 years ago and the winners aren't making $12 mill at the WSOP.

can't stop online gambling

No matter where, people always want to be on a sport or an event or play poker or a simulated casino. It's just a matter of whether or not they can safely send their money to organizations offshore.

The trust factor on whether they will get paid if they win is a big thing and if the US government are going to prohibit online wagering on everything then things will get driven underground and the bettors will lose out to overnight scam set ups and other associated skullduggery rising from prohibition.

Raycam actually did something that a lot of people didn't, he commented that he wouldn't say anything until researching a little more. Now if people stopped blowing it all out of proportion and did some reasearch on what was happening there would have been less hype and more sense being written on the interneck about it all.

I won't be...

abetting on this or that.

dun dun dun.........tsssssssssssss

But seriously, what annoys me about this topic is knowing that this is merely a revenue & lobbiest issue. The "crime against the US" is not keeping those funds in the hands of the government.

..

BBC - US gambling law flawed - Jowell
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6090358.stm

****

Carlo wrote:

Quote:
Now if people stopped blowing it all out of proportion and did some reasearch on what was happening there would have been less hype and more sense being written on the interneck about it all.

I have spent more money than most people make in a year on lawyers to research this new law... Four sets of lawyers, four totally and completely different ?opinions... All worthless.

..

Here is an article about the new law from.... another laywer.

http://www.pokerplayernewspaper.com/viewarticle.php?id=1548

An interesting 10 minute Video on the Current Gambling situation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZmC0Fql1yw

Interesting. I'll play this

Interesting. I'll play this on the projector at work and get everyone else's opinion. right now I am undecided.

Rumors & Non Truths

>>START RUMOR/RUMOUR CONTROL

Neteller would be required by LAW to immediately disclose seizure of funds to the Financial Services Authority in the U.K. No such disclosure has been reported to date. Hence, no seized funds...

>>>END RUMOR/RUMOUR CONTROL

>>>START NEW RUMOR/RUMOUR

The rumor I hear is that the DOJ and it's anal drag queen leader Alberto G. will let Neteller keep all the American money (Now how 'Bush' is it to give away what does not belong to you?), as long as Neteller lets the DOJ have all it's records... ALL THE RECORDS - Even the non-US account records...

>>>END NEW RUMOR/RUMOUR

DELETED

this question was answered in another thread.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.