I've written before about Washington's new law against internet gambling, one of the most obnoxious and hypocritical pieces of legislation imaginable. Remember how they assured everyone that they didn't intend to go after the players with this law? Apparently that's because they were planning to go after people who just talked about internet gambling. The Seattle Times reports:
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. He fancied himself a guide to an uncharted frontier, even compiling a list of "rogue casinos" that had bilked gamblers.
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."
By God, send in the SWAT team and get this menace to society off the streets before he starts molesting children and beating up old ladies! And they better get this guy too:
Then I heard about Todd Boutte. He's a former Wal-Mart worker in Bellingham who started a casino review called IntegrityCasinoGuide.com. He worried about the new law but figured he'd be OK because his site has no actual gambling.Not so, said the state. Writing about online gambling in a way that seems promotional can earn a cease-and-desist order, and potentially, a criminal charge. Boutte learned this when a Bellingham Herald article featured state officials saying his site was illegal. He later shut it down and is trying to sell it out of state.
In fact, you can be in trouble with the law if you even print a column by someone else about poker that mentions online poker sites:
Gambling officials told me The Seattle Times may be afoul of the law because we print a poker how-to column, "Card Shark," by gambler Daniel Negreanu. He sometimes tells readers to hone their skills at online casinos. And at the end of each column is a Web address, fullcontactpoker.com, where readers can comment.
And remember that Washington, like most states, bombards its citizens with advertisements encouraging them to play the lottery, a pure gambling device with absolutely no skill involved whatsoever. In the ghetto, they'd call it "running the numbers" and they'd arrest anyone involved in it. But as long as the state is getting a cut of the action, then that kind of gambling is a-okay. And Washington doesn't even mind online gambling as long as it's on the horse races - that lobby had some serious pull, as did the brick and mortar casinos and card rooms who bankrolled the government's attempt to eliminate their competition.
But sit in your home and play poker, a game of skill, against others on your computer? Hell, even talk about playing poker online? Put your hands where I can see em, felon, and don't make any sudden moves. For historical continuity, I hope they at least make the cops who arrest these people wear brown shirts. For those in the state of Washington, I urge you: throw these authoritarian bastards out of office - every single one of them, this law passed the Senate unanimously - and send them back to their homes where the only people they can bother with their zeal for intruding into other people's lives are the neighbors whose windows they peek in.
- Log in to post comments
Outrageous; and my only response is, I live in the State of Washington and I advocate internet gambling.
I even linked to Google's search results for "on-line casino." I think every blogger right, left, center ought to do the same.
Dear Ed "Mental Midget" Brayton,
Surely there are more grievous civil rights issues right now you should worry about, situations that are far more heinous and directly impact a greater number of people. It's typical of a privileged White man of wealth to waste our time with something so trivial in the grand scheme of things. Cry me a river already!
Besides, the State is totally within its rights to regulate this. Show me one word in the Constitution about a right to gambling online! And of course this is not a right at all, but a privilege, if you have a problem with it then by gum you should get elected so you can pass a law prohibiting it. End of story.
And what about the incidental costs of online wagering to the rest of us, hunh? I mean, gambling can lead to addiction or bankruptcy, and who pays the cost for lost mortgages and bankruptcy proceedings, hunh? You and me, that's who, in the form of higher insurance costs!
Anyway, as far as I know there's no law against against visiting such sites, just against making them and putting them online. You're still free to read them. If you can find any, since it's illegal to make or post them. And if you DO find any, send them along to the regulatory board like a good fellow so we can shut them down too, mkay?
On second thought, you should cancel this whole blog, because no matter what you write about, it either is not as bad as something else or you should get elected and quit bothering us with it. Can you write about bunnies instead? I like bunnies.
Sincerely,
Your Readers
P.S. I might build a JavaScript "Anti-Mental-Midget Post Generator" along these lines, replacing "gambling" with whatever subject you like, since I can now see how enormously utilitarian this line of argumentation is. It can be used on any subject, this is great! I can SO stop thinking now.
How dim are these people? Shouldn't being a state legislator involve having a passing familiarity with, not to mention allegiance to, the first amendment?
Response to Jeff Hebert:
1. I live in Canada...home of the beaver and American-seducing on-line gambling. Or is it gaming?
2. So in summary, nah nah nah nah...nahhhh.
3. Is that Hebert as in HEB-ert, or as in ee-BEAR?
What if a blog run by someone in Seattle had comments with links to on-line gambling? Would the stormtroopers crash in on them? Would a blogger be legally obliged to police comments submitted to his blog?
Dave S.,
1. I blame you for all my country's woes. Doesn't Canada mean "Satan's Whore" in some language or another? Well, it should!
2. I'm rubber and you're glue.
3. It's "ay-BEAR" -- great-grandad was from France. I am not sure what he was retreating from.
P.S. Just to be clear, both that earlier post and this one are just in fun.
No worries Jeff. I realize that tongue-in-cheekedness sometimes doesn't translate itself well to the written word, but I knew where you were coming from. :)
And its "Santa's Whore". You must have read a bad translation.
Dear Jeff,
If you don't like what Ed chooses to write about, don't read it.
Regarding the State being within its "rights" (an absurd notion; states don't have a "right" to interfere with individual liberty, they have the power to do so, legitimate only to the extent that it is within those limitted powers ceded to the state by the people,) it most certainly is not within its legitimate authority in its outlawing of speech about online gambling. I neither gamble online nor do illicit drugs, but much of the authority claimed by the states on these issues is not legitimate.
And lastly, do not presume to speak for any of Ed's readers but yourself, you smug fsck.
Jeff said (and Craig apparently didn't read...)
Now would Ed and the rest of you start focusing on issues of 'real oppression'? (And Craig, it's a joke; try reading the comments on Ed's post on Roethlisberger)
Oops, I missed the joke. Sorry for my cluelessness, Jeff. I am an idiot.
Yep, I assumed (after I realised I missed the joke) that there was some context I wasn't getting. Damn, with the new additions there is just too much ScienceBloggy goodness for me to keep up with all the thread comments.
Mr. Hebert. I tip my hat sir. Well done.
I, too, am ashamed of my state's unabashed hypocrisy and moralistic meddling.
Shameless topic change: on top of that, there's our nation's Supreme Court, which has invented a new comedy genre: the no-knock joke.
Writing about online gambling in a way that seems promotional can earn a cease-and-desist order, and potentially, a criminal charge.
That's both vague AND a restriction of free speech. I can easily see such a law being used to punish anyone who disagrees with the state's gambling laws. If I say that on-line gambling isn't evil enough to be banned, that "seems promotional," doesn't it?
The only thing that would have made Jeff's comment any funnier is if someone in Washington had offered to bet on whether anyone would take it seriously.
Here's hoping the ACLU catches wind of this and beats down this obvious violation of the first amendment. Then we'll get to hear the Washington senators crowing about unelected judges legislating from the bench and other such nonsense.
I used to live in Washington and this law has guaranteed that I will never move back there.
I am also planning to move my blogs to an offshore server as a precaution in case the rest of the US goes the way of Washington.
Jacqueline:
What a weird coincidence. I checked out your blog and saw that your boyfriend is Terrence Chan. I remember Terrence very well from the rec.gambling.poker newsgroup (back when it was actually worth reading and not just a big list of online poker promotional offers). He and I even exchanged email a few times (he might remember me as the guy Razzo threatened to beat up because I ragged on his bosses - then again, Razzo threatened to beat up a lot of guys, so maybe not). He was always on the short list of RGPers I would most like to meet in real life.
Using the internet to transmit gambling information?
So the World Cup, the Superbowl, the World Series... in fact, all sports events, all beauty contests, all political races are banned from the internet?
Who's making book on how long it takes for this law to be overturned?
And I remember Jacqueline as one of the best leaders the Washington State LP ever had.
Can't wait 'til she starts running the National LP!
"Show me one word in the Constitution about a right to gambling online!"
Amendment 9: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
In other words, just because the framers didn't anticipate that states would one day be so mad as to outlaw gambling, or so impossibly visionary as to anticipate computer networks, doesn't mean we should take the constitution as saying that only those rights which are explicitly protected in the constitution are valid.