Minnesota Sued Over Online Gambling Ban, While Frank Again Introduces Bill To Legalize It

from the know-when-to-hold-em dept

We noted several days ago that Minnesota was trying to force ISPs to block gambling web sites, going down a path trodden by several other states. That path, of course, has always ended in failure after the courts have weighed in. It looks like the courts will now get their chance to rain on Minnesotan politicians' parade, as a trade group has sued the director of the state's Department of Public Safety's Alcohol and Gambling Enforcement division to stop the ban. The group uses the suit to remind the director that he doesn't have the authority to mandate the blocking by ISPs, something the court will likely reinforce.

Meanwhile, online gambling's biggest friend in Congress, Massachusetts Rep. Barney Frank, has again introduced legislation that would legalize and regulate online gambling in the US. It sounds pretty much the same as his earlier attempts, all of which have failed, and would take the eminently reasonable step of allowing Americans to gamble in a regulated environment where they're protected by rules and law, as opposed to the current situation where they're pushed into the gray market (or worse), and have no protection. Frank also says he'll introduce separate legislation that will stop the enforcement of the UIGEA, which says that banks must stop processing any transactions that fund online gambling. At least one big casino company seems to think Frank's got a good chance of finally getting his law through: Harrah's, which recently hired the former CEO of major online gambling company PartyGaming to head its online efforts ahead of legalization.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    identicon
    Chuck Norris' Enemy (deceased), May 11th, 2009 @ 6:36am

    What's in a name

    Gambling is just what it is, a gamble. Whether you do it through regulation or through the "gray market (or worse)" your dumb ass took the gamble so live with the consequences. If gambling is regulated, then the casino's lawyers will take your house. If unregulated then the casino's goons will take your thumbs. Don't be so naive as to think the government wants to protect gamblers. They just want to collect the taxes off your winnings.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      woe83h, May 11th, 2009 @ 6:45am

      Re: What's in a name

      wrong; you should be claiming your winnings on your taxes anyways. they just aren't taxing the deposits and each game you play online.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Chuck Norris' Enemy (deceased), May 11th, 2009 @ 7:13am

        Re: Re: What's in a name

        How many people "should" and don't. Without government regulation it gets difficult for Uncle Sam to keep track.

        they just aren't taxing the deposits and each game you play online.

        Yet! =]

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, May 11th, 2009 @ 7:43am

          Re: Re: Re: What's in a name

          Thats why it should be legalized make the company responsible for reporting the tax info and sent out yearly statements showing (wins - losses = taxable winnings) just like at the track

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Chuck Norris, May 11th, 2009 @ 7:20am

      Re: What's in a name

      >by Chuck Norris' Enemy (deceased) - May 11th, 2009 @ 6:36am
      >Gambling is just what it is, a gamble. Whether you do it
      >through regulation or through the "gray market (or
      >worse)" your dumb ass took the gamble so live with the
      >consequences.

      Actually, there's a huge difference. In a regulated environment, you know the odds and know the score. You can make informed decisions with this information.

      In an unregulated environment, you could literally be playing against a programmer who is looking at exactly what cards you are holding, has complete control of the deck or even worse. That's NOT gambling, that's being cheated.

      There IS a difference.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        AZ, May 11th, 2009 @ 7:53am

        Re: Re: What's in a name

        Unregulated environment is a funny term to use for illegal online gambling. You get what you pay for. Seems the people who are gambling online would be the same group who are keeping the spammers in business.

        Vegas is legal, yet I always seem to end up with less money after leaving and they just keep building bigger hotels.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          ChrisB (profile), May 11th, 2009 @ 11:24am

          Re: Re: Re: What's in a name

          I gamble online. Actually, I play poker, which is a game of skill with a chance element (like backgammon, for example).

          I'm Canadian so our government hasn't made it illegal. I gamble at a site that has a good reputation (prompt payments, good protection against cheating, etc). There is little incentive for a site to cheat its customers because online casinos are insanely profitable. However, there have been cases when *employees* for sites have been caught cheated customers.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      TX CHL Instructor (profile), May 11th, 2009 @ 7:38am

      Re: What's in a name

      One (small) advantage to government regulation: It might be (slightly) harder for the casino to cheat without getting caught. Although a properly-run casino is wildly profitable without having to resort to cheating. Unfortunately, really large lumps of money tend to attract organized crime, with or without regulation (note Mark Twain's observation regarding congress and organized crime).

      I would agree that the primary motivation for legalization (aka regulation) would be tax revenue. I don't have a problem with that, per se, but I would prefer that the government just stop trying to be my nanny, period (even though I personally have no interest in gambling).
      --
      www.chl-tx.com (Thanks, BHO, for the wonderful stimulus you have given my business!)

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    jjray, May 11th, 2009 @ 7:16am

    jihad against internet gambling

    I've always thought the government jihad in the US against internet gambling was more about protecting brick and mortar gambling operations in the US and less about protecting the public. The Indian gambling lobbyists in Minnesota must be powerful.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, May 11th, 2009 @ 9:55am

      Re: jihad against internet gambling

      "The Indian gambling lobbyists in Minnesota must be powerful." More then you think.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    9th District Voter, May 11th, 2009 @ 10:54am

    Fwank Should Be Illegal

    Bahney Fwank is a SFB* and should be made illegal.
    I live in his district and I am allowed to say this.

    I also wish to apologize to the good people of the rest of the US for being unable to vote this fag out of office.



    * Sh*t for Brains

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 11th, 2009 @ 12:03pm

    There are quite a few issues with online gambling. Money laundering, underage gambling, addiction, all of these are real issues.

    Of course, the main issue for our government is taxing the winnings.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Kyla Lawson, Dec 7th, 2009 @ 2:59pm

    I think the bill is very relevant since the government can gain from taxing online casinos like the Gamblux casino and they are multiplying and gaining popularity. The only thing that hinders this bill are the moral issues like Anonymous coward said.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    kevin (profile), Apr 25th, 2011 @ 2:55am

    The idiocy continues. Why? So the oil companies can put their pipeline from Uzbekistan, southwards, all across Afganistan. Oh, and those Taliban? They won't let the CIA get all their black ops monies from the heroin trade. wood pellet fuel

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This