Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

WA Law Means Linking to Gambling Websites Illegal

Posted by Zonk on Fri Jun 16, 2006 03:15 PM
from the don't-click-the-bad-links dept.
The Internet Privacy United States Government The Courts News
tpoker writes "Following a previous story on Washington State making online gambling a felony, the Seattle Times reports that the first legal salvos have begun. 'The first casualty in the state's war on Internet gambling is a local Web site where nobody was actually doing any gambling. What a Bellingham man did on his site was write about online gambling. He reviewed Internet casinos. He had links to them, and ran ads by them. All that, says the state -- the ads, the linking, even the discussing -- violates a new state law barring online wagering or using the Internet to transmit 'gambling information ... Telling people how to gamble online, where to do it, giving a link to it -- that's all obviously enabling something that is illegal.'"
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] WA Law: 5 Years in Prison for Gambling Online 535 comments
tpoker writes "Online gambling has been an ongoing legal issue for the federal government, but Washington State has recently decided to take matters into their own hands. The Seattle PI reports, 'Beginning next month [June 7th], Washington residents who play poker or make other types of wagers on the Internet will be committing a Class C felony, equivalent under the law to possessing child pornography, threatening the governor or torturing an animal. Although the head of the state Gambling Commission says it is unlikely that individual online gamblers will be targeted for arrest, the new law carries stiff penalties: as much as five years in prison and a $10,000 fine.'"
[+] News: U.S. House to Vote on Anti-Online Gambling Act 334 comments
SonicSpike writes to mention that the House is set to vote on an act designed to choke off the U.S. money flow to internet gambling. Though illegal here in the states, overseas operators are getting a good deal of business from individuals with U.S. bank accounts and credit cards. From the article: "The legislation would make it illegal for banks and credit card companies to make payments to these sites. It also allows law enforcement officials to force Internet service providers to remove links to the websites. Many major credit card companies already refuse to process such payments. Opponents of the bill, including online gambling sites and a new group representing U.S. poker players, noted the growing popularity of Internet gambling and predicted that people would continue to sidestep laws."
[+] Internet Gambling CEO Arrested by FBI 298 comments
tightpoker writes to mention the news that several key individuals associated with online gambling site BetonSports have been indicted in a Missouri courtroom. Founder Stephen Kaplan, CEO David Carruthers, 9 other people and four corporations have been charged with crimes ranging from racketeering to fraud. The Sunday Time reports on the story as well, addressing fears this may be a prelude to a crackdown on all online gambling by U.S. law enforcement. From the article: "Nigel Parson, leisure analyst at Williams de Broë, said the move would 'throw online gambling stocks into a spin,' adding: 'David Carruthers is a prominent advocate of online gambling. The fear that this is an escalation of the anti-lobby will trouble markets.' Greg Harris, an analyst at Cannacord, said: 'It is too early to say if this is part of a broader strategy on prevention of internet gambling in the U.S. or if it is the Department of Justice flexing their muscles and trying to influence legislation.'"
[+] Your Rights Online: U.S. Arrests Online Gambling Company Chairman 634 comments
imaginaryelf writes "Reuters reports that U.S. authorities have arrested Peter Dicks, the chairman of U.K. based online sports betting company Sportingbet Plc, while he was passing through Dallas. Just two months ago, the CEO of another U.K. based online sports betting company, BetOnSports, was arrested on U.S. soil as well. They are both charged with violating the 1961 Federal Wire Act, which can be broadly interpreted as declaring all forms of online gambling illegal in the U.S. Is online gambling the Alcohol Prohibition of the 21st century?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

WA Law Means Linking to Gambling Websites Illegal 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • Plus Side? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Azarael (896715) on Friday June 16 2006, @03:17PM (#15551161) Homepage
    Maybe this will provide some legal leverage to go after people who spam blogs and forums with adds for online poker, etc?
    • Maybe this will provide some legal leverage to go after people who spam blogs and forums with adds for online poker, etc?

      Don't count on it. WA state laws have no effect on blogs and/or bloggers located in other states, much less the activities of casinos located outside the USA. How could a state law (not even a federal one) have any impact on a casino operator operating in the Dominican Republic?

      • Don't count on it. WA state laws have no effect on blogs and/or bloggers located in other states

        Don't count on that. Each state, via Article IV (section 2) of that fantastic federal constitution of ours provides for extradition between states, it is still not clear how juristidictional issues resolve (is the location of the crime client side? Server side? Both? Is there an interstate element (and hence under federal jurisdiction)?) What happens when a bank robber flees to the Dominican Republic? Do we

        • What happens when a bank robber flees to the Dominican Republic? Do we throw up our hands and say 'well, he's just too damn wily for us!'?

          No, but in that case it's up to federal law enforcement to deal with it. As soon as they cross outside of the state of WA it becomes a federal offense. Once they cross the US border it becomes an issue for both US and foriegn federal law enforcement officials. It's the federal government that has extradition laws, not each state. Since there's no corresponding federal
        • Per the obscenity lawsuits, the crime happens whereever they decide they can get the most favorable verdict.
          IE., a prosecuter in WA can decide that the Nevada site www.poker-n-prostitutes.com [not real (I hope)] violates the WA statute & initiate an extradition request for the owner of the site.
          Personnally I think this is a waste of time since it's going to be hammered on the 1st ammendment level. But that's government for you, if they have the choice to do something or to create a worthless law to wa

    • Maybe this will provide some legal leverage to go after people who spam blogs and forums with adds for online poker, etc?

      By all means, let's attack free enterprise and free speech, let's start with this internet site which promotes gambling. [walottery.com]

      • Interesting point, but that would be pretty much like killing a bug with a jackhammer. When you're wiping out large swaths of the Internet just to get at a small group of people, that's a pretty good indication that you're fighting a loosing battle. I wouldn't necessarily put it past some idiot lawmaker to try that, but I can't see it standing for too long.

  • Unconstitutionality approaching. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by sglider (648795) on Friday June 16 2006, @03:17PM (#15551162) Homepage Journal
    I give it a year before it's struck down as unconstitutional.

  • Bets? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Rob T Firefly (844560) on Friday June 16 2006, @03:18PM (#15551164) Homepage Journal
    Ten bucks says they find a way to lead Google away in handcuffs.

      • Re:Bets? (Score:3, Interesting)

        by kimvette (919543)
        The next step:

        Writing a novel where one of the characters is involved in online gambling is illegal.
        Oh, and since bank robbery is illegal, writing stories (online or in print) about bank robbers and the (fictional) details about how they did it will be illegal.

        The next step?
        Stating that you believe/disbelieve in god will be illegal because it "could" offend someone and lead to illegal acts such as assault, arson, etc.
        Stating that "Government (foo) sucks" "President (foo) sucks" will be illegal because it co

  • Breakin' the law (Score:5, Interesting)

    by pudge (3605) * <pudge@slashdCOMMAot.org minus punct> on Friday June 16 2006, @03:18PM (#15551170) Homepage Journal
    The same Seattle Times printed my letter to the editor [nwsource.com] on the same subject today.
  • I guess we know where this is going. I wonder how the new justices are going to vote....

    • Well, they just got rid of Knock-and-Announce for all intents and purposes (for a cute current USSC highlight), so the question isn't what they are going to do. The question is how much. I dunno, you wanna take bets on how badly they bone the First Amendment? (For all you creepy-crawlies--that means you, Slashdot laywer lurkers!--I'm well aware that the First Amendment does not apply directly to the states, but is rather incorporated under the Fourteenth Amendment. Just so you don't gang-bang my post, you

    • THis is a state law, it will go to the Washington state Supreme Court. The only way it would hit SCOTUS is if Washington state supremes uphold it, and the defendant appeals on US constitutional grounds.

  • Shades of the MPAA versus 2600 Magazine anyone? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by TWX (665546) on Friday June 16 2006, @03:19PM (#15551181)
    For some reason I'm thinking that precedent from MPAA vs 2600 Magazine might be a contributor, as they were successfully barred from even linking to DeCSS, even though they were no longer hosting it. And at that point, there was no ruling on the legality of DeCSS, either...

    I know, there are some differences, but still, I don't think that referencing something should necessarily be a crime. I'm sure that there are exceptions, where people are being made victims by directing others to certain places, but this just seems extreme.

      • Re:Shades of the MPAA versus 2600 Magazine anyone? (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Elemenope (905108) on Friday June 16 2006, @03:45PM (#15551452)

        The current paradigm is throw a wide net, round them all up, and let prosecutors sort them out afterwards. It's the new-and-improved shotgun methodology of law enforcement. And it works! They are almost guaranteed to catch somebody doing something naughty. Once I was arrested during a protest at a university, and charged with 'Disturbing the Peace' along with several other folks. Only later did they realize that in the great state that I live in, the statute forbids them from using DtP for civil disobedience cases. So, after the arrest, they cast about for some other statutory violation to make stick (they failed). I imagine most of the system operates approximately as sloppily.

  • By the logic of WA lawmakers... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Iphtashu Fitz (263795) on Friday June 16 2006, @03:20PM (#15551188)
    ...any discussion whatsoever of rape, incest, murder, drug use, etc. must also be illegal.

    Reminds me of when AOL added the word "breast" to their filters without thinking through the consequences. All the members of a breast cancer group suddenly had to start referring to themselves as survivors of "hooter cancer".
    • All the members of a breast cancer group suddenly had to start referring to themselves as survivors of "hooter cancer".

      Same deal with the cervical cancer groups. The filters discriminated against both hooter and cooter!

      /rimshot

    • AOL added the word "breast" to their filters

      There are no bad words. Only fucking idiots.

      KFG
      • Actually if you RTFA it's more like just discussing child porn (or any illegal activity). Linking to a site about the illegal activity doesn't appear to be necessary. Apparently the WA state law makes it illegal to transmit "gambling information." (nice & vague, ain't it?) The state is interpreting that to mean things like reviews of gambling sites are illegal. Even if the site didn't link to the reviewed gambling site I'd bet they'd just say "well people could easily find the website by searching fo

  • That seems like a violation of free speech, (Score:3, Interesting)

    by tpjunkie (911544) on Friday June 16 2006, @03:20PM (#15551189) Journal
    not to mention common sense. As much of the information (other than reviews) on his site could be easily found using a search engine, I'm not really sure how collecting it on one site could be illegal. It's a lot like someone putting up a website reviewing various types of marijuana they have purchased in the area, and where they purchased it. It may be an illegal activity, but writing about doing it is hardly a crime.

  • As a UK Tax payer... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MosesJones (55544) on Friday June 16 2006, @03:22PM (#15551211) Homepage

    I'd like to thank the US for these restrictive laws that prevent US companies making money out of internet gambling.

    Ahh the wonder of the US... legal to buy a gun... illegal to bet $10.

    Keep up the good work, why not try prohibition again as well?

    • I'd like to thank the US for these restrictive laws that prevent US companies making money out of internet gambling.

      You do realize this is a law in one state [census.gov] out of the fifty states () that make up the United States of America... a state the represents about 2.1% of the total population of the United Stated of America.

      Also it is very likely that this law will be found unconstitutional in part or whole at federal level (if not at the state level).

    • Keep up the good work, why not try prohibition again as well?

      We did. We changed its focus, thinking that would make a difference somehow.

      Columbia thanks us.

      KFG
    • So what your saying is that if we ban guns...

      It will be completely ok for the Gov't and States to completely screw us over?

  • gambling information (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Threni (635302) on Friday June 16 2006, @03:24PM (#15551233)
    > violates a new state law barring online wagering or using the Internet to transmit 'gambling
    > information

    You're telling me that hosting a site with the fact that opposing sides of a dice add up to 7 is now a criminal offence in parts of the USA?

    Land of the free, indeed. Whatever happened to doing whatever you wanted unless it hurt someone else?

  • Sounds a lot like the DMCA... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by doormat (63648) on Friday June 16 2006, @03:25PM (#15551241) Journal
    The one good side is that if this gets struck down, why cant we get the DMCA's "trafficing" clause struck down as well? Telling someone how to gamble online illegally vs. Dimitri Skylarov telling people how to crack PDFs. Whats the diff?
    • The diff is one is a pet law of some minor political goons and local tribes, the other is the pet law of a massive lobbying juggernaut with a vicelike grip on legislators at the federal level and a sustained propaganda campaign aimed at judges and the general public.

      When you can get away with using a single subpoena to prosecute 500 unrelated cases at once in violation of due process amendments, keeping your pet laws in place is just pocket change.

  • Well... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 16 2006, @03:25PM (#15551247)
    One might think this is a clear-cut case of free speech. Until one considers the result of the famous MPAA vs. 2600 [slashdot.org] case, where 2600 [2600.com] was found to have violated the DMCA by merely LINKING to DeCSS, the code by DVD Jon that decrypted DVDs so that Linux computers could play them.

    Another freedom, chipped away... And this one during the Clinton Administration. Sad for all of us.

  • Are they gonna arrest the newspapers? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by mcmonkey (96054) on Friday June 16 2006, @03:28PM (#15551277) Homepage
    Seattle Times lists sports betting odds [nwsource.com]

    That's using the internet to transmit gambling information.

  • Who is this law trying to save? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by pestilence669 (823950) on Friday June 16 2006, @03:28PM (#15551280)
    Who is this law trying to save? The children? You need a bank account or credit card to gamble online. Last I checked, most teens have neither.

    C'mon... of all victimless crimes, does online gambling really need legislation? Tax it like Nevada and be done with it.

    I mean... Washington has a state lottery. That means they endorse gambling. It can't be gambling that they hate... I think they hate all gambling where the state isn't the house.
    • Who is this law trying to save?

      It's intention is to save tax dollars. Every state in the US collects taxes from any legal casinos, bingo parlors, etc. located within their borders (this includes any casinos on indian reservations). Since these on-line casinos are located outside the US there's no way to collect taxes. That's one of the reasons why the federal government still has laws on the books about this. Ever since early 20th century it's been technically illegal to place any wager by electronic me

  • TV censorship coming to WA (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Iphtashu Fitz (263795) on Friday June 16 2006, @03:29PM (#15551284)
    So what's next, WA outlawing poker on TV? After all, it's promoting poker electronically. So all WA residents can say "bye-bye" to TV shows like the World Series of Poker, Celebrity Poker Showdown, etc? Then after that there's all the movies that depict gambling in them - from classics like "The Sting" to movies like Casino, Oceans 11, etc.

  • HA! (Score:5, Funny)

    by iminplaya (723125) <iminplaya.gmail@com> on Friday June 16 2006, @03:29PM (#15551287) Journal
    That'll show the Chinese who can censor better.

  • Why stop at one? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by booch (4157) <slashdot2009NO@SPAMcraigbuchek.com> on Friday June 16 2006, @03:31PM (#15551305) Homepage
    Why not make it illegal to link to a page that links to a page that links to gambling?

    I can actually see how the legislators could see a reason to do that. Taxpayer X wants to link to a gambling site, but knows that that's illegal. So he links to a site that has links to gambling sites, and tells you to click through. (Even worse, maybe that link redirects to the gambling site!) So clearly this needs to be stopped as well.

    And what about linking to a page that links to a page that links to a page that links to gambling?

  • vice laws (Score:5, Insightful)

    by zogger (617870) on Friday June 16 2006, @03:36PM (#15551367) Homepage Journal
    Vice laws are a big fat waste of time really, they have never worked, and several thousand years of human history shows that the collective *we* enjoy various vices. Governments all over should just admit reality and move on to something constructive.

  • Online Petition Started (Score:3, Informative)

    by terrymr (316118) * <terrymr@gmail . c om> on Friday June 16 2006, @03:43PM (#15551429)
    Washington residents please add your signature [petitiononline.com]

  • freedom of speech (Score:3)

    by fish_in_the_c (577259) on Friday June 16 2006, @03:43PM (#15551430)
    I'm sorry this is as bad as the DMCA.
    I don't mind people deciding what kind of regulations they
    want to have on gambling. There is a type of addiction some people
    can have to it which argues for some restrictions, but I would do my utmost to oppose stopping someone from talking about it.

    It is crossing a line and is undoubtedly unconstitutional.
    then again I'm not sure that has stopped people when it came to the DMCA.

    I don't like Nazi's but I'll support their right to tell people what they believe.
    I don't like abortionist but I'll support their legal right to tell people what they believe.

    What the conservatives pushing these laws don't realize is they are enabling the same kind of thing as the Canadian 'anti-hate speech' legislation which has made it very difficult to talk about the 'immorality' of homosexuality.
    (something I'd be pretty certain they would not want to see happen here.)

    in some ways they are cutting their own throats.
    the problem is that not enough people are united on a topic everyone should agree on.

    I may not support what you say but I am certainly going to support you right to say it.

    I wonder if anyone has ever considered if the political spectrum is more like a circle then a line. The closer you get to the far left or the far right the more you resemble the opposite.

    Myself I oppose Fascism I don't care if it is couched as 'conservative values' or 'broad minded liberal ideas'

    • Talking about it and linking to it are different things. The guy could have talked about the sites all he wanted, referred to them by name, and so on..

      He didn't cross the line until he explicitly linked to one.

      High Times doesn't get in any trouble for talking about weed, but if they started running ads for dealers willing to ship to the US... Trouble's afoot. Plenty of sites have been burned for linking to "seed banks" outside the US.

      Freedom of speech doesn't imply freedom of action. So sad, too bad.

  • Great argument (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Pedrito (94783) on Friday June 16 2006, @03:46PM (#15551456) Homepage
    "...that's all obviously enabling something that is illegal."

    Well, fantastic. So you can follow this up by making guns, knives, shovels, cars, bleach, and God knows what else illegal since they're obviously enabling murder. Oh, and we may as well outlaw crime mystery books since they provide information on how to do illegal things. But let's not stop at burning just crime mystery novels. We ought to burn chemistry books since that knowledge can be used to create poisons and explosives. And let's outlaw cars because criminals are notorious for using cars in their getaways. I see no reason to stop there, though. I can think of a lot of other stuff we ought to just outlaw today!

  • stupidity (Score:3, Funny)

    by fish_in_the_c (577259) on Friday June 16 2006, @03:51PM (#15551509)
    I wonder if it is illegal to offer a online gambling to ip addressing coming from Mexico on a server running in Washington state ( but inaccessible from that state.)

    Time to raid the server farms everyone.

    (how to get your competing server farm or web host if they are located in WA).
    1) rent from the space
    2) but up gambling sight ( using IP routed through foreign country.)
    3) report to WA the violation ( rinse repeate).

    Thus driving up your competitors operating costs because now they have to monitor every sight they host or be shut down.

    ( i know I know not that terribly realist but the thought was funny ;)

  • Legal Gambling Website in Washington (Score:5, Interesting)

    by paladinwannabe2 (889776) on Friday June 16 2006, @04:02PM (#15551604)
    Something tells me that the Washington State Lottery [walottery.com] will still get to promote itself online... apparently they also were even going to sell lottery tickets online [gtech.com] but I can't find evidence of them still doing it.

  • Indian lands (Score:3, Insightful)

    by robcube (983117) on Friday June 16 2006, @04:17PM (#15551722)
    It's legal gambling on Indian lands there, now how about putting the servers on Indian lands, would that make the linking illegal?
  • Replace California with the new title of "People's Republik of Washington State"

  • What about state run lotteries? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Ronin Developer (67677) on Friday June 16 2006, @04:18PM (#15551730)
    http://www.walottery.com/ [walottery.com]

    Last I checked, playing the lottery is a form of gambling. Their own site gives info on how to play, winning numbers, etc.

    Does the law not apply to them as well?

    RD

    • Re:Wow! Holy Free Speech Violation Batman (Score:5, Insightful)

      by DragonWriter (970822) on Friday June 16 2006, @04:11PM (#15551677)
      Surely even the current supreme court is going to knock this down.
      If they can't even get the right answer on "should evidence gained by police through a search conducted without actually knocking-and-announcing despite the fact that the search was authorized by a knock-and-announce warrant be excluded from a criminal case", I really don't trust them to get anything else right, either.

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.