Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
The Boston Globe reports:
Even as Governor Deval Patrick seeks to license three resort casinos in Massachusetts, he hopes to clamp down on the explosion in Internet gambling by making it illegal for state residents to place a bet on line. He has proposed jail terms of up to two years and $25,000 fines for violators.
Going after the gambling sites is bad enough, but Patrick wants to go far beyond that and do what even the Bush administration has not done, try and throw those who play on such sites in jail:
A 46-year-old federal law prohibits betting using telephone lines, which the US Department of Justice has interpreted as prohibiting all online gambling. The government's policy has been to prosecute the operators of Internet gambling sites, but not the gamblers.Patrick's provision takes aim at both and would levy the same penalties on either end of the transaction. Courts have been divided over the legality of placing bets on line, and state laws vary on the issue. Massachusetts currently has no prohibition, and if its ban is adopted. it would join such states as Utah, Nevada, and Washington...
Patrick's provision, which is described in three paragraphs of the bill, applies to anyone in Massachusetts who places or receives a wager of any type using a telephone, cellphone, Internet, or local wireless networks. It also applies to anyone who knowingly installs equipment for transmitting wagers. The provision also specifically exempts the proposed casinos from the law.
No, courts have not been divided on this issue. The Wire Act absolutely does not forbid any form of online gambling other than bets on sporting contests; that issue was settled by the 5th Circuit in In Re Mastercard in a decision that consolidated dozens of cases throughout the country, so it is binding in every judicial district. Barney Frank is right:
"Why is gambling in a casino OK and gambling on the Internet is not?" Frank said. "He's making a big mistake. He's giving opponents an argument against him."
And I'm one of them. Deval Patrick has been mentioned as someone almost certain to be on the short list of Supreme Court nominees for any Democrat elected to the White House. He will not get my support, not after this.
Comments
I regret my vote for him now.
I will never vote for or support him again.
Posted by: spurge | November 16, 2007 10:11 AM
I think y'all are going a little bit overboard. Seems to me this is pure political expediency and not a firmly held idological position.
Posted by: Rasputin | November 16, 2007 10:38 AM
This may be too obvious to state, but clearly he is trying to protect the money that the liscensed casinos shunt to the state.
Posted by: KeithB | November 16, 2007 11:29 AM
Tyranny in the name of political expediency is no less loathsome than tyranny in the name of ideology. Hell, it may be worse; the list of liberties it may be expedient to get rid of is endless.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | November 16, 2007 11:30 AM
Online gambling should be legal, safe, regulated, and a money earner for the government (via taxes). None of the states that allows a lottery within its borders--probably the most pernicious form of gambling there is--has a leg to stand on.
Posted by: tacitus | November 16, 2007 1:00 PM
Tyranny in the name of political expediency is no less loathsome than tyranny in the name of ideology.
That's a phrase I'll have to remember and use more often.
Posted by: THobbes | November 16, 2007 5:35 PM
Sounds like a no-brainer to me!
Posted by: twincats | November 16, 2007 6:39 PM
It'd be nice to say that idiocy only infects the red states ... sadly not the case.
Posted by: dogmeatib | November 16, 2007 7:02 PM
I predict Deval Patrick will be a disappointment to the progressive community. He has proven to be a corporatist to the bone. You would think we'd have learned from Mitt what a poor bargain a "manager" can be.
Posted by: fcc | November 17, 2007 10:45 PM
fcc, if you read bluemassgroup.com you would find that Patrick is already a disappointment to more than a few people in the progressive community. He actually hasn't done anything except come up with his casino scheme in the ten or so months that he has been in office.
BTW, it appears that the people who led Patrick's campaign are working for Obama. Might give you some idea what an Obama malAdministration might look like.
Posted by: raj | November 18, 2007 2:48 PM
How does that follow?
Posted by: Azkyroth | November 20, 2007 1:43 AM