Newsflash: Ban on internet-gambling advertising challenged

[MicroBob]

http://www.2theadvocate.com/stories/...asino001.shtml

Web site wants free-speech for foreign gambling ads


By ALAN SAYRE
AP business writer

The operator of a gambling news site on the Internet has asked a federal judge to declare that advertisements in U.S. media for foreign online casinos and sports betting outlets are protected by free-speech rights.
The suit, filed by Louisiana-based Casino City Inc. in Baton Rouge federal court, challenges subpoenas sent by the Justice Department to media outlets for records dealing with the purchase of ads for offshore gambling sites.

Online casinos and sports betting books are not legal in the United States, but operations in such locales as the Caribbean have sprung up widely in recent years with U.S. residents making bets through credit card transactions.

The suit by Casino City, which operates a Web site featuring news about casinos and sports books but does not offer wagering, contends that the Justice Department action has "had a chilling effect upon free speech" -- as well as a dent in its advertising revenue.

The suit contends that the Justice Department also has warned major media trade groups, such as the National Association of Broadcasters, that running such ads may subject a media outlet to criminal prosecution under the 1961 Wire Communications Act, which was written to cover sports betting by telephone.

A number of major Internet portals recently stopped accepting ads for online casinos and sports books.

In a statement, Casino City president Michael Corfman said his company lost business with a cable television network and a mainstream casino after "their lawyers nixed the arrangement because of our involvement with online gaming."

Much of Casino City's revenue comes from ads for online gambling services, the suit said.

The company said that since the ads are for Internet operations that are legal in the countries where they operate, the ads running in the United States should be fully covered by the First Amendment as an "exercise of free expression."

The Justice Department declined comment.

Attorney Barry Richard, who is handling the suit for Casino City, said he did not believe that prosecutors were trying anything improper, but "I just think they can't do it constitutionally."

The suit, which was filed last week, was assigned to U.S. District Judge Frank Polozola. No hearing date has been set.

Despite U.S. restrictions, online gambling revenue topped $6 billion in 2003 and is projected to reach $7.6 billion, according to Christiansen Capital Advisors LLC.

The General Accounting Office has estimated there are 1,800 Internet gambling operations. Virtually all of them are based outside of the United States. As much as 70 percent of the wagers come from the United States, according to the report.

In March, the World Trade Organization issued a preliminary ruling that U.S. restrictions on Internet gambling violated trade commitments the United States has made as a member of the WTO. The Bush administration is appealing the ruling.

[Drunk Bob]

I have been watching a bit of cable lately and have seen ads for a certain flavored rum.

This is much more illegal than ads for internet poker.

[MicroBob]

i had wondered about those TV ads. i guess the liquors aren't quite hard enough to be banned on TV. you don't see ads for Jack Daniels or Tangeray Gin or Absolute Vodka for example.
but you see the flavored rum and 'Disorono on the Rocks' etc etc.
i don't know much about it though.


the guys in Baton Rouge are disputing the legality of the DOJ's crackdown on internet-advertising primarily i believe.
google and yahoo both bowed to pressure to take internet-gambling ads off their sites and ads in magazines i think can be questioned also.
cardplayer probably doesn't care about the pressure and doesn't have a wide-enough circulation to draw the washington legal-sharks.
but i'm sure partypoker would love to place an ad in USA Today, ESPN-magazine, wherever....and as it stands now i'm not sure how easy that would be for them to do.

again - i'm only vaguely familiar with the issues so i some of my assumptions may be incorrect.

[t_perkin]

Its getting worse in england too.

No cigarette advertising any more. I expect booze adverts will go soon too. Which is a real shame because they are usaully much better than the shows.

Tim

[Nightwish]

[ QUOTE ]
I have been watching a bit of cable lately and have seen ads for a certain flavored rum.

This is much more illegal than ads for internet poker.

[/ QUOTE ]
Since when is advertising booze illegal? AFAIK, hard liquor distillers had a self-imposed ban on TV advertising that they decided to repeal a couple years ago because of increased competition from beer (which never had such a self-imposed ban) and all the new malt liquor ads.

[MicroBob]

self-imposed?? really??
i thought it was right in there with the ban on cigarette ads (which i think dates back to 1972 or so) but i reallu don't know much about it.

i wish they could systematically eliminate each and every individual responsible for those awful Arbor Mist ads.
then again, it's probably the beverage of choice for many of my fishier friends on party.