Kentucky Appeals Court Tells Kentucky To Hold Off Seizing Domains

from the wait-just-a-second... dept

While a lower court in Kentucky had agreed to allow the state to seize 141 domain names as being "illegal gambling devices" despite having nothing to do with the state of Kentucky, other than being available on internet connections there (and everywhere else), an appeals court has now issued an injunction to stop the state from seizing the domains until the appeal can be heard. While we still have to wait for the full appeal, at least damage won't be done in the interim.

There's one other interesting note in the article, which is that Kentucky's Attorney General appears to be trying to distance himself from the case. Even though most state actions are normally taken by the AGs office, in this case, the lawsuit was filed by the state's Secretary of Justice and Public Safety (there's some question if it's legal for this person to bring the suit). Either way, the AG's name was on the case, but he's now specifically asked to have his name removed from the case. That seems like quite a statement. When even the Attorney General of the state wants nothing to do with the lawsuit, perhaps it's time for the state to admit it overstepped some legal bounds.

Filed Under: domain names, gambling, governor, kentucky, online gambling

EFF, ACLU Ask Court To Strike Down Kentucky's Domain Name Seizure

from the good-for-them dept

You may recall that a judge recently allowed Kentucky's governor to seize a bunch of domain names that were related to gambling -- even if neither the owners nor the servers were based in Kentucky -- setting a terrible precedent. That's why it's good to see the EFF, the ACLU and the Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT) team up yet again to ask an appeals court to overturn this decision. Hopefully the appeals court recognizes how truly awful the original decision was, and notes how it seems to violate multiple clauses of the Constitution.

Filed Under: domain names, gambling, governor, kentucky, online gambling
Companies: aclu, cdt, eff

Whitehouse Accused Of Trying To Push Through Anti-Gambling Regulation No One Wants

from the hurry-up-and-regulate dept

Even as some of our elected representatives are trying to re-legalize poker, the White House appears to be trying to shove through the regulations put in place a couple years ago to stop online gambling. The Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 put the responsibility on financial institutions to stop any financial transactions used in online gambling. As we see all too often, it's a situation where the government is putting the liability on a third party to stop an undesirable activity, rather than on those actually involved in the activity. Not surprisingly, financial institutions have been protesting any regulations enforcing this law -- and with the current financial collapse going on, they're pushing back hard on any effort to enforce the law. So, what happens? Apparently, the White House has assigned a former NFL lobbyist working for the White House to try to force the regulations through, apparently putting tremendous pressure to get things moving. Congress is now asking the White House to explain why they're trying to rush this through, just as financial institutions are having so much trouble. It certainly does raise questions. Considering the push to reverse the law in the first place, combined with the protests from financial institutions that it shouldn't be their problem to stop online gambling, why is the White House putting excess pressure to try to make it happen?

Filed Under: gambling, laws, online gambling, regulations, white house

Judge Allows Kentucky To Seize Domain Names

from the bad,-bad-news dept

Last month, we wrote about a judge allowing Kentucky's governor to seize 141 domain names that were somehow associated with gambling sites under a bizarre interpretation of Kentucky law. Pretty much everyone involved admits that this is just Kentucky's governor protecting local gambling establishments who supported him in the election. No one is even hiding the fact that this is purely about protecting the governor's political supporters from any sort of competition.

However, what's scary is in how the seizure is incredibly broad and far-reaching. None of the sites are based in Kentucky. Many of the sites are nothing more than holding pages, rather than actual online casinos. And, the law itself interprets these sites as "illegal gambling devices" which seems like a big stretch. There was some pushback, as people explained to the judge what an incredibly bad precedent this ruling would set -- as it would effectively allow any local law to be used to take possession of any website.

Apparently, the judge doesn't care. Late last week, the judge upheld the original ruling, giving one small out to the various sites. If they implement filters that block access to any IP address in Kentucky, they can keep their domain names. That's backwards. It shouldn't be the responsibility of a website that is just online to use geocoding techniques to comply with every single local law. If that were the case, the internet would ground to a halt, as any website would face so many different liabilities from so many different jurisdictions to make it impossible to comply -- and in each lack of compliance, face a potential seizure of the domain name. This is a bad ruling by any stretch of the imagination, made even more bizarre by the judge's unilateral ruling before a hearing was even held. The whole thing sounds quite questionable, and hopefully will be dumped on appeal.

Filed Under: domain names, gambling, governor, kentucky, online gambling

Sorry, But Google Ads Aren't Driving People To Gamble

from the get-real dept

Google has apparently banned advertisements for online gambling operations in the UK for years. Even though online gambling is legal in the UK, there were strict rules on advertising that Google didn't want to have to deal with. However, those rules have now been relaxed, so Google is now starting to accept those ads again... and are being attacked by a variety of different groups, including the Church of England, claiming that the global financial crisis could be made worse if Google drives people to gamble.

Can we take a break here and inject a little common sense into the discussion? Google is not the guilty party here.

An ad on Google is not going to drive someone to gamble. If someone wants to do some online gambling, they'll find a way to do it. If they do a search on online gambling, they'll find plenty of sites in the organic results, let alone the paid spots. And it means they sought it out. This isn't to deny that some people have a problem with being unable to moderate their gambling, but to blame it on Google ads is simply grandstanding over something that has no impact on the issue.

Filed Under: advertising, gambling, uk
Companies: google

Kentucky's Gambling Domain Name Grab Sets A Terrible Precedent

from the governors-who-want-more-power dept

Last month, we wrote about a bizarre lawsuit in Kentucky, where a judge gave the government the ability to seize the domain names of numerous online gambling sites, even though none of them were based in Kentucky, or even registered via Kentucky-based registrars. The whole thing smelled of corruption, given that the governor is closely tied to offline casino interests, and his campaign apparently included a big promise to bring more offline casinos to Kentucky. This effort seems mostly focused on not just blocking out online competitors, but seizing their domain names. Lots of people are pushing back and explaining how ridiculous the scenario is to the judge, noting, for example, that following similar logic would allow any country to seize any domain name. For example, China could decide that the BBC website violates its laws and demand that the BBC domain name be turned over to the Chinese government. Most folks would recognize that this is ridiculous -- but it's effectively what the Kentucky governor has done.

Filed Under: domain names, gambling, governor, kentucky, online gambling

Kentucky Governor Seizes Online Gambling Domain Names

from the can't-have-competition-for-horse-racing dept

It's always fascinating to watch US politicians act as complete hypocrites when it comes to gambling. They talk about moral issues on why they need to stop online gambling, but allow their own personal favorite types of gambling, such as horse races and lottery. Kentucky, of course, is a big horse racing state, so perhaps it should come as no surprise that the state has strict anti-online-gambling laws. These laws are so strict that the state's governor is using them to seize 141 domain names of sites that the state claims are used for illegal gambling. Of course, it appears that many of the domains aren't online gambling sites at all, but parked domains. The state doesn't seem shy about the fact that it's doing this to "protect" the horse racing business, but of course, throws in the moral argument as well:

"Illegal Internet gambling poses a unique threat to our Commonwealth. For individuals - particularly our youth - it is tantamount to a virtual home invasion. For some of our vital and most venerable legitimate enterprises, it undermines their exemplary regulatory compliance and siphons away their constituents."

Home invasion? Really? A parked domain is the equivalent of a home invasion?

Filed Under: domain names, gambling, governor, kentucky, online gambling

Create An Ad For An Online Gambling Company? Face Jail Time!

from the is-that-even-illegal? dept

The US gov't has long had an odd fascination with stopping online gambling (except for horse racing -- which politicians engage in -- and state lotteries, for obvious reasons). Sometimes, this obsession reaches bizarre levels, such as the claim a few years back that it wasn't just illegal to run an online gambling operation, but that it was illegal to help advertise one. Most have pointed out that this has little actual legal basis, and is likely a violation of free speech rights -- but that hasn't stopped the government from using such threats.

Two years ago, the feds charged some ad execs with a whole bunch of crimes simply because they had the company BetOnSports as a client. BetOnSports, of course, was completely legal outside the US, but that didn't stop the US from claiming otherwise (even arresting BetOnSports' CEO as he was traveling through the US in a completely separate action from the lawsuit in this post). Even if it turns out that BetOnSports is somehow illegal, it makes no sense to drag in execs from a totally different company that only created promotional campaigns for BetOnSports. That hardly seems to deserve getting charged criminally.

But, when the gov't wants to put you down, it finds a way. The three ad execs have now all plead guilty in the case. Even though they had nothing to do with running the gambling site, they agreed to a plea bargain to avoid a lengthy and costly trial that could have resulted in a lot of jail time. It's not clear yet what the sentences will be in this case, as that will be announced in October, but at least some of the execs may get off without jail time. That's good, but it still remains ridiculous that they had to go through this two year ordeal just because they created promotions for the company.

Filed Under: advertising, gambling, online gambling
Companies: betonsports

LA Includes Piracy With Drugs, Gangs, Prostitution And Gambling As 'Detrimental To Public Health & Safety'

from the but-of-course dept

Various laws have allowed local governments to declare specific property "detrimental to public health & safety" when that property becomes overrun with drugs, gangs, prostitution or gambling. However, the entertainment industry's hometown gov't in Los Angeles has now expanded the list to include music and movie piracy as well. Whatever you think of unauthorized copying of content, it's difficult to see how you can, with a straight face, claim that it is the equivalent of property being overrun with drugs, gangs prostitution or gambling.

Filed Under: drugs, gambling, gangs, health and safety, los angeles, piracy, prostititution

Hollywood Is Hardly An Innocent Victim In Trade Disputes

from the poetic-justice dept

My Cato colleague Sallie James describes the ongoing standoff between the US and the rest of the world at the World Trade Organization over gambling. When Congress banned online gambling, tiny Antigua filed a complaint alleging that the actions violated WTO rules. Antigua won, but the United States has so far bullied them out of taking advantage of their victory. The US has threatened to retaliate against Antigua if the latter begins targeting US copyrights as authorized in the trade ruling. James says that the United States is in the process of negotiating alternative compensation, including increased access to other American services markets. If that deal falls through, she warns, Hollywood might find itself "footing the bill" for the US government's ill-conceived gambling ban.

I certainly agree with her that the gambling ban was a bad idea, but I'm not sure it makes sense to paint Hollywood as an innocent victim here. After all, Hollywood has been pushing for decades to link trade policy and copyright law, going so far as to support free-trade agreements that include terms micro-managing other countries' copyright policies and requiring them to enact laws like the DMCA as a condition of access to American markets. Free traders rightly object when special interests try to use free trade agreements as a way to coerce countries into enacting their preferred labor and environmental policies. We should be equally incensed when Hollywood lobbies for the use of trade agreements to coerce countries into enacting their preferred copyright policies. So there's a certain amount of poetic justice in the fact that Hollywood has found its copyrights in the crosshairs of a trade dispute. James also correctly notes that retaliatory tarriffs are an insane way to impose damages on the losing country in a WTO dispute because tariffs hurt consumers in the "winning" country at the same time it hurts producers in the "losing" country. In contrast, if damages are imposed by targeting copyright law, consumers in the winning country will actually be made better off by lower prices for the copyrighted products in question. So while it would be best of Congress repealed its idiotic gambling ban, I'm not going too upset if Hollywood's attempts to link copyright law to trade policy come back to bite them.

Filed Under: antigua, copyrights, fair trade, gambling, trade, wto