NYT -- Feds seize Paradise cash

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

we need to oust the repressors.

No problem with that, but if you expect the Democrats to be friendly to online gaming, you're delusional. Like the "War" on drugs, it's a feel-good issue that *all* big-government types fall into lockstep on with few exceptions other than the likes of Barney Frank and Ron Paul.

[kmac]

FYI. Advertising is "Commercial Speach," and as such is entitled to less protection under 1st Amendment than other forms of speach.

[GrannyMae]

the dems are going to want to spend some money. they will also want to repeal most of the tax breaks W put out there. to pay for this, i think they would be more prone to actually allow regulation within the US. recently there have been some notable democratic governors that have been much more pro-gaming in order to reap the revenue and avoid the taxation. you are probably right that it is uphill either way tho.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

It's a double-edged sword. The downside to legalizing and regulating is more intrusion on our personal choices; less ability to obscure or avoid the taxes on our gains.

I think its at best a Hobson's choice.

[gabyyyyy]

There is no way these sites can survive if they cannot target Americans. If the DOJ succesfully bans online gambling ads on all U.S Sites these poker sites will shut down.

Sure there are people who play who do not live in the U.S but this is a very very low percentage.

Also note that these poker sites use American banks to issue checks. As long as they are using American resources the money is at risk. It may get to the point where the site owners feel it is time to cut and run, and the risk is greater then the reward.

[StellarWind]

[ QUOTE ]
FYI. Advertising is "Commercial Speach," and as such is entitled to less protection under 1st Amendment than other forms of speach.

[/ QUOTE ]
True. But the key word is "less". The courts have always given substantial 1st Amendment protection to commercial speech.

Given the enormous difficulty the government is having in even establishing that an online poker room in Costa Rica is against US law, I doubt that they can win in court in the long run.

Which I think they realize. But they can harrass, intimidate, and stigmatize very effectively and that is the real game here.

The current administration has developed a mindset that their mission is too important to allow anyone else to interfere. I expect the courts to rebuke them for attacking Discovery, but I also expect the administration to flout the will of the court and continue harrassing online gaming.

[fnurt]

Granny had it basically right. A couple things I want to elaborate on...

[ QUOTE ]
in june, the govt said to stop running the ads. in october paradise paid for ads because discovery was still accepting them. discovery is the scumbags here, not paradise. paradise was simply availing themselves of the offer for ad space that was still being sold even though discovery should have ceased their sales if they felt it was not legal. discovery has lawyers too and i can assure that they took the money because the lawyers said it was ok. paradise did their due dilligence and bought the ad space because this US company said "hi paradise, wanna buy some commercials? we know they may not air, and we will give you your money back if they don't, but we think you will be fine"..


[/ QUOTE ]

There are really two legal disputes here, Discovery vs. the feds, and Paradise vs. Discovery. Discovery vs. the feds is really quite simple; courts have said that online gaming is not illegal under federal law, unless you're running a sports book, but obviously the DOJ thinks they can find a court to say otherwise. Probably the DOJ will lose and they will have to give the money back, although it's kind of a crapshoot, if I'm legally allowed to use that word.

Paradise vs. Discovery is a little trickier. Normally, I wouldn't think that the fact the money was seized relieves Discovery of their contractual obligation. After all, if you owe me $100, but then you get mugged at the ATM before you can give me the money, you still owe me $100; you just have to find a different $100 to pay me with. But in this case, if the courts find there was illegal activity involved and let the DOJ keep the money, then that means the Discovery-Paradise contract had an illegal subject matter, and it won't be enforced, the same way that if your drug dealer rips you off you can't take him to court.

Now a deal is a deal, and Discovery and Paradise clearly understood there might be legal complications when they made their contract. For Discovery to say "nyah nyah, it's an unenforceable contract" might smell like Pokerspot to some people and might well lead some folks to label Discovery as scumbags.

But remember, at least in the eyes of some, Paradise is up to something illegal, and it's solely the fact that they're offshore that keeps them outside of U.S. jurisdiction. It might seem unfair for them to evade the U.S. criminal laws in this regard, and yet expect the U.S. contract law to help them out when they have a dispute with Discovery. Personally, I don't think they're doing anything wrong, and probably neither do you, but there is a bit of a contradiction here.

At the end of the day, everyone including the government would probably be a lot happier if online gaming were run by some of the major U.S. concerns like MGM and the feds regulated the crap out of it (at least your deposits would be safe); but that's a political hot potato so who knows when it will ever happen.

[bdk3clash]

[ QUOTE ]
on april 30, google and yahoo both stopped all ads for online-gaming sites.....presumably from pressure from the DOJ.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've seen a lot of statements like this, but check out the "Sponsored Links" from a Google search for "Partypoker."

Granted, these may be affiliates, but nevertheless, the "ban" doesn't seem to be total, at least on G-to-the-oogle.

[jdl22]

I think issues of the legality or constitutionality of what the DOJ is doing are irrelevent (sp?). Simply put, Ashcroft and boys don't care.

Consider Operation Pipe Dream. A little over a year ago the department of justice as they put it changed the official interpretation of the laws on the books about drug paraphernalia and proceeded to on the same day arrest, detain, and deport people that owned and ran shops that sell pipes and bongs for smoking what the Hawaiians call pakalolo. Since I was in Eugene, Oregon which is basically full of pot smoking hippies and non-hippies I heard a lot about this story. Several shops in town got shut down. People that were arrested weren't held for very long. I didn't follow the story much later on to see if people challenged it, but it didn't matter. Even if people were able to reverse the charges the actions of the DOJ managed to permanently shut down most all of the shops. There are currently only 1 or 2 open now which is much less than the number before. I mentioned this in another thread, but there was an article on the front page of the Register Guard the main newspaper in Eugene about how the glass blowing industry was affected. On the front page there is a quote from a glass blower saying that they are now ashamed of their job because they've resorted to making dildos.

So I think that the DOJ is doing the same here with the casinos. They are on shaky legal ground but they can still push their big stack around. If they lose in court it won't really matter because the damage is done. Other companies will think twice about taking on advertisements from online casinos. They know they can't legally stop them so they will simply try to use their resources to economically destroy the industry.

[Poker blog]

[ QUOTE ]
it's a feel-good issue that *all* big-government types fall into lockstep on with few exceptions other than the likes of Barney Frank and Ron Paul.

[/ QUOTE ]

Barney Frank may be pro online gambling -- I don't know. But Barney Frank is the biggest of the big government types.

We'll see what happens if a certain French-speaking socialist is elected.