BcNexus writes "A story is developing that the state of Minnesota is contacting ISPs with a request to block about 200 gambling sites online. Minnesota is claiming authority to do so under a 1961 federal law, apparently the Federal Wire Wager Act. There are a couple interesting aspects to watch as this unfolds. Will the ISPs cooperate or will they argue about applicability to casino games, as other have? Will Minnesotans lose their money or access to their money in escrow accounts like the state is warning will happen?"
- The Federal Wire Act [wikipedia.org] was originally intended to prohibit betting on sports via [telephone] wires.
- The more-recent Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act [wikipedia.org] (UIGEA), which was secretly attached to the 'must-pass' Safe Port Act, made it illegal for banking institutions to allow outgoing financial transactions if the bank believes the funds are intended for online gambling purposes. Each bank must determine what is legal and what is not, with no guidance from the federal government.
We gamble every time we buy stock, how is this any different than on a poker table. Somehow, I don't see the "fairness" in this. Personally, I think the odds are better at Black Jack than on Enron.
And what about those sites that lets us play with "chip count" verses real money - are they going to be banned as well?
I also agree that if the state allows a lottery - which is gambling - they why not make gambling sites add a penny tax for each dollar bet and submit to the state from which that person resides?
Buying stock is tied to business success - It's "investing" rather than "gambling". Buying gas I think is a closer every-day similarity to gambling - The price could be lower tomorrow, and you would have lost out.
The thing that bugs me, is why in the hell do we allow churches to hold bingo tournaments with cash prizes in places that ban gambling!?! It's basically Keno for old ladies (I know, I know - Keno is Keno for old ladies...) Either legalize it or don't.
Buying stock is tied to business success - It's "investing" rather than "gambling".
That's only true indirectly. You actually make or lose money based on the moves of the other "players" (investors), which we hope is based on company success but isn't always in the way we would expect. You can literally lose money in the stock market if a company you invested in made $1/share last quarter if the speculation was saying it would make $1.05/share; it doesn't even take a long or detailed look into history to see many examples of exactly that. Either way the company was successful and profitable, but if people feel they can get a bigger return elsewhere they can and often do pull their money, leaving what you're left with worth less. Possibly less than you bought it for, depending on when you got in and what happened since.
In that sense, it really is more like poker than strict investment. In an investment, I make money if you make money. In poker, I make money if I can successfully read the other players at the table and act accordingly--even if I don't necessarily have the best hand.
Well see, in gambling, there are rules against cheating and bad things tend to happen to cheaters, therefore, gambling is bad.
With the stockmarket, cheating is called creative accounting and cheaters get even bigger bonuses, therefore, the stockmarket is good.
If you gamble, you can only gamble away your life savings, and that's bad.
In the stockmarket, you can gamble away everyone's life savings and make a huge profit for yourself, so that's good.
See, gambling is like socialism, and socialism bad. The stockmarket is like The Capitalist Free Market, and the Capitalist Free Market is good (and you're a dirty socialist commie pinko bastard hippie if you say otherwise).
Ok, I was going to let your post slide because I know where you are coming from but...just to be clear...
Stocks and gambling are NOT equivalents. Not even close. When you buy a stock, you own a piece of a company. As in, you own it just like you own a bike or a computer or any other asset in your house. You have (some) legal rights and some "claim" on future earnings. That's what stock, aka common equity, represents.
Additionally, the price of stocks is determined "by the market". In other words, all the buyers and sellers of stock determine the prices as they go along based on the value that they subjectively assign to each stock. That's the market we are speaking of and that's why the prices move. For every sell, there is a buy. And for every buy, there is a sell. The price is arrived at by this process and this process alone. In other words - it is not random.
Wayyyyyy different than gambling. Gambling is random and even worse, the end results (risk/reward profiles) are heavily skewed toward your competitor (the house). Stock price moves are determined by the market. Just a bunch of buyers and sellers agreeing on the price - but it isn't random, like gambling.
Ok, I have to go take the stick out of my ass now....carry on. Thx.
Since you seem to want to share your views on this, I'd like to ask you: How do you classify "prediction market" sites like Intrade.com, where you bet on real-world events. It doesn't represent ownership rights in a corporation (though it does represent ownership right to $10 conditional on a future event), but it is coupled to a real-world non-gambling event?
So where does betting exchange websites fall into this? Sites like betfair operate on the basis of a market every transaction or bet has a buyer and a seller.
The odds are determined by what the market dictates.
Interestingly some of these sites (like betfair) market themselves as betting websites while others which do the same thing are calling themselves prediction markets - see intrade.
Stock price moves are determined by the market. Just a bunch of buyers and sellers agreeing on the price - but it isn't random, like gambling.
Stock price moves may not have the same kind of "randomness" as a roll of the dice, but they're certainly not deterministic, either. If they were, we'd all be rich, except the other guy, of course. If we were to write a game based on equity trading, the "market model" used would probably be a Monte Carlo simulation.
And what about poker and similar games? The "price" of the bet is determined the players, who are estimating their chances versus each other's predicted actions using limited information. In other words, the poker table is a market.
I'm not arguing just to be contradictory here, but you did say: "Stocks and gambling are NOT equivalents. Not even close." and "Wayyyyyy different than gambling." and lastly ". . . it isn't random, like gambling." Randomness really means something is not perfectly predictable, but can only be predicted in a probabilistic sense.
Wayyyyyy different than gambling. Gambling is random and even worse, the end results (risk/reward profiles) are heavily skewed toward your competitor (the house). Stock price moves are determined by the market. Just a bunch of buyers and sellers agreeing on the price - but it isn't random, like gambling.
Not all gambling is random in the same way you describe. Some, are non-random, house-favored, such as sports/horse betting. Then, there is poker... The house takes a cut of pot. While your starting hand may be random, the winner is far from random.
As in, you own it just like you own a bike or a computer or any other asset in your house. You have (some) legal rights and some "claim" on future earnings. That's what stock, aka common equity, represents.
Also, I would argue that all stock really represents is voting power. It is not an asset in any real way. Your share is not equal to Company Worth/Total Shares. It's worth either par value ($1) or whatever the market thinks it is worth--> which can be completely independent of the company's intrinsic value (if such a thing exists).
No, buying stocks is NOT like gambling unless you do absolutely no research before buying stocks. Yes, there is risk in the market - that part is on par with gambling. But when it comes to stocks, given the plethora of information out there, you should be making decisions based upon research and on how you think that a company is going to do based on X, Y, or Z (e.g. Apple will be releasing a new iSomething this month - let's buy stock because I think that will make it more valuable).
Casino gambling is one matter, but sports betting is a different beast again.
How is buying a stock based on belief of increase in value different to looking at the odds on a sporting event and placing a bet on the basis that you think the odds are wrong?
Some exchanges let you sell bets and even a bookie will allow you to bet against. The odds on sporting events rarely stay the same.
I personally have zero problem with gambling being legal, so don't take this as an argument against it.
But there is another key difference between casino gambling and stocks, besides the ones others have mentioned: averaged over time, gambling loses you money and stocks earn you money. Gambling always has a house advantage; wouldn't exist if it didn't. Stocks, on the other hand, have a positive ROI when averaged over several years. Pick any stock index you like - it's nearly impossible to find a 10-yea
Prohibition doesn't work. Proxies make censorship such as this woefully ineffective at doing what they want it to. Free speech trumps their nanny state. Waste of money during a recession. The flaws are numerous and the sheer quantity of capital likely diverted from productive uses in order to enforce morality is offensive.
Prohibition doesn't work. Proxies make censorship such as this woefully ineffective at doing what they want it to. Free speech trumps their nanny state. Waste of money during a recession. The flaws are numerous and the sheer quantity of capital likely diverted from productive uses in order to enforce morality is offensive.
While I agree with your observation, cut away all the moral and ethical bullshit "justifications", and you'll come to the bottom line as to what is really driving this. It always comes down to someone feeling like they're being robbed. In this case, likely state officials feel as if they're not getting their "cut", or this is somehow cutting into other revenues.
While I agree with your observation, cut away all the moral and ethical bullshit "justifications", and you'll come to the bottom line as to what is really driving this. It always comes down to someone feeling like they're being robbed. In this case, likely state officials feel as if they're not getting their "cut", or this is somehow cutting into other revenues.
Precisely. Whenever the government passes a law there is always going to be something in it for whoever allowed siad bill's passing. The assumption of selfishness somewhere in any action is a useful one for determing the likely behavior of any entity which has evolved or was created by something which evolved.
Prohibition doesn't work. Proxies make censorship such as this woefully ineffective at doing what they want it to. Free speech trumps their nanny state. Waste of money during a recession. The flaws are numerous and the sheer quantity of capital likely diverted from productive uses in order to enforce morality is offensive.
There are very powerful Native American tribes in Minnesota--particularly around the Twin Cities. I should state that having lived there for 21 years, I never once heard of anything negative from them... until now. I think this may have more to do with ensuring that their clientele (casino gambling is only legal on Reservations and Native American run businesses) remain faithful to their facilities. Having played a little Full Tilt poker myself, I think they may have noticed a tiny drop in profits in th
If Minnesota already has some form of state-run gambling, then I understand (but don't codone) their motivations for attempting to ban online gambling. However, if gambling is totally illegal in the state, then I have no idea why they would want to ban the practise. What would they stand to gain?
Does the state even have the authority to do this? Internet access is presumably under the jurisdiction of the federal government and the FCC.
There are casinos in Minnesota only on Native American Reservations or run by Native American Tribes. Look up Mystic Lake Casino, Jackpot Junction, etc. See here [500nations.com].
Does the state even have the authority to do this?
Once upon a time, when power was distributed more to the state (you know, how the founders wanted it) I'm sure it would have been possible. Not so certain now...
Once upon a time, when power was distributed more to the state (you know, how the founders wanted it)
The founders fought like dogs amongst themselves over state/federal control, so there's no single "the founders" here.
Anyway, as far as the state having the legal authority to do this, I highly doubt it. States have long tried to bar things they don't like from entering the state. It used to be pornography, now it's gambling. If Utah can't stop Hustler from going through the mail system, I doubt Minnesota
What's interesting is that there has been a push by some people and the governor for a "racino", a place for placing race bets and video lottery, IIRC. Perhaps this is some weird way to try and get some groundswell for gambling to finally push it through the reluctant legislature.
So gambling is OK as long as it fills their coffers and at odds that would get any casino run out of town in Vegas. I wouldn't be surprised if the odds were more in your favor at a rigged poker game than at the Minnesota state lottery. Any argument against out-of-state gambling they could make would be hypocritical at best since Joe Sixpack could just as easily blow his paycheck on lotto tickets as he could on Online poker.
Now Utah [gambling-law-us.com] is pretty cut-and-dried on the subject and I would not criticize the
Yes they do, that's why they state the 1961 Wire Act:
"The Wire Act was intended to assist the states, territories and possessions of the United States, as well as the District of Columbia, in enforcing their respective laws on gambling and bookmaking and to suppress organized gambling activities.[58] Subsection (a) of the Wire Act, a criminal provision, provides:
Whoever being engaged in the business of betting or wagering knowingly uses a wire communication facility for the transmission in intersta
"In analyzing the first element, the legislative history[60] of the Wire Act seems to support the position that casual bettors would fall outside of the prosecutorial reach of the statute. During the House of Representatives debate on the bill, Congressman Emanuel Celler, Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee stated "[t]his bill only gets after the bookmaker, the gambler who makes it his business to take bets or to lay off bets. . . It does not go after the causal gambler who bets $2 on a race. That type of transaction is not within the purvue of the statute."[61] In Baborian, the federal district court concluded that Congress did not intend to include social bettors within the umbrella of the statute, even those bettors that bet large sums of money and show a certain degree of sophistication.[62] "
IANAL, but I would say from that statute that it is not illegal to gamble or to use gambling cites to gamble. It's illegal to be a bookie (sp?) or facilitate organized gambling as a business. The sites themselves my be illegal, but the users seem to be okay?
That's good for the end gambler, but what about the ISP? They are sort of in a gray zone between the two. Obviously they aren't making direct benefit from the gambling, but I'm sure someone could make an argument that they are acting as a facilitator (whether that argument would actually hold up, I doubt it).
You don't need to look at anything but the wording applicable section of the statute.
(d) When any common carrier, subject to the jurisdiction of the
Federal Communications Commission, is notified in writing by a
Federal, State, or local law enforcement agency, acting within its
jurisdiction, that any facility furnished by it is being used or
will be used for the purpose of transmitting or receiving gambling
information in interstate or foreign commerce in violation of
Federal,
People that say games like online poker are the same as gambling simply don't understand online poker. Over the long run (hundreds of thousands of hands), variance will no longer be a factor and the better players will win. It's similar to the stockmarket, and definitely a better investment then a lottery ticket. Look at communities like twoplustwo.com where thousands of players talk strategy and learn about the game, it's not gambling.
It doesn't matter. At the individual transaction level, you are still making a wager on a probabilistic event. Hence it is gambling.
Whether it is a game of skill or chance (or both, to varying degrees), it is gambling.
It's like gambling on the horses... a good judge of horseflesh who does his research well CAN win in the long run, just as with poker. That does not make the wagers he places something other than gambling.
What you're getting at is not about whether or not it is gambling... the long-stand
I work in a convenience store--one of many clerk jobs I've had, and lemmee tell ya, the state does whatever it can to make sure people don't infringe on their territory. They outlawed slot machines in bars, clubs, etc. years ago.
The interesting part is that people have found a way around it. We HAVE a machine in our store, but it's a "Skill Game". Instead of it being a chancy slot-game, you win on every spin by tapping a wild option on the screen, making three fruits/whatever else in a row. Most of the time
The world has changed. This law is irrelevant to the current reality. You can censor the hell out of your citizens (like China) or you can allow them to participate in a free and open internet, not both. Unless every country on this planet agrees to this outdated law, enforcement will be almost impossible. The only thing they will do is turn their citizens into criminals.
Minnesota your only choice is to either disconnect from the internet or accept that you can not control it. Of course to truly disconnect you would have to ban all forms of communication except for snail mail and the pony express. No phones, satellite dishes, cable, etc...
"You take the blue pill, the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill, you stay in Wonderland, and I show you how deep the rabbit hole goes." - Morpheus
I just submitted this actually...oh well, I'm just glad it made it up here even if I didn't get the credit.
The fundamental problem is that big business likes big government because big government can regulate and legislate in favor of big business. Online gambling is "illegal". Go back and look at the sponsors and co-sponsors of the bills who made it illegal, and then look at their largest donors. Guess who? Brick and mortar casinos, and Indian tribes....imagine that.
And when the utility companies are government-granted monopolies, then they are subservient to big government too. Utilities should be forced to compete in the free and open market without government subsidies or other forms of market insulation from bad decisions.
This is exactly a case which highlights why the government should be small and limited at all levels; when government gets big it inevitability restricts freedom either inadvertently, or on purpose either for its own ends or at the bequest of special interests.
The slippery slope argument here is paramount too because having a State government forcing ISPs and telcos to block specific sites sets a VERY dangerous precedent! In fact I consider this outright censorship because what's illegal about visiting a gambling website, even if one doesn't use the site to gamble.
Not to mention that making online gambling illegal violates one's right to contract which is inherent in a free society. The Constitutionality of this is questionable at best.
I live in Minnesota, I do not gamble online, but this is as stupid as it gets. There are a small handful of Indian Casinos in the state. Pressure from the tribes maybe? It just can't be "for the children". Guess I need to start making a few calls and sending a few emails.
Each of those elected members should take a fist full of $50 bills and go th their local highschool that has blocked sites. Then give $50 to each student who can access one of those blocked sites. They of course will be broke in no time and just may notice the futility of their ideas.
States rights is an 18th century anachronism. This is especially true in the 21st century internet age. How can Minnesota possibly enforce this? The boundary line between Minnesota and Wisconsin means nothing in 2009.
Proxies exist. If you start forcing ISPs to block stuff, all you will do is create a standard market for proxy services. Then you lose the ability for law enforcement to track down crimes as the most popular proxies will be ones outside the US that keep no log information.
is it even legal? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Here's the scoop:
- The Federal Wire Act [wikipedia.org] was originally intended to prohibit betting on sports via [telephone] wires.
- The more-recent Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act [wikipedia.org] (UIGEA), which was secretly attached to the 'must-pass' Safe Port Act, made it illegal for banking institutions to allow outgoing financial transactions if the bank believes the funds are intended for online gambling purposes. Each bank must determine what is legal and what is not, with no guidance from the federal government.
- The
Gambling (Score:5, Insightful)
And what about those sites that lets us play with "chip count" verses real money - are they going to be banned as well?
Re:Gambling (Score:5, Insightful)
I also agree that if the state allows a lottery - which is gambling - they why not make gambling sites add a penny tax for each dollar bet and submit to the state from which that person resides?
Parent
Re:Gambling (Score:5, Insightful)
Wasn't the US ruled against on a gambling law like this recently...?
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Buying stock is tied to business success - It's "investing" rather than "gambling". Buying gas I think is a closer every-day similarity to gambling - The price could be lower tomorrow, and you would have lost out.
The thing that bugs me, is why in the hell do we allow churches to hold bingo tournaments with cash prizes in places that ban gambling!?! It's basically Keno for old ladies (I know, I know - Keno is Keno for old ladies...) Either legalize it or don't.
I'll stop this rant before I start in on the
Re:Gambling (Score:5, Insightful)
That's only true indirectly. You actually make or lose money based on the moves of the other "players" (investors), which we hope is based on company success but isn't always in the way we would expect. You can literally lose money in the stock market if a company you invested in made $1/share last quarter if the speculation was saying it would make $1.05/share; it doesn't even take a long or detailed look into history to see many examples of exactly that. Either way the company was successful and profitable, but if people feel they can get a bigger return elsewhere they can and often do pull their money, leaving what you're left with worth less. Possibly less than you bought it for, depending on when you got in and what happened since.
In that sense, it really is more like poker than strict investment. In an investment, I make money if you make money. In poker, I make money if I can successfully read the other players at the table and act accordingly--even if I don't necessarily have the best hand.
Parent
Re:Gambling (Score:4, Funny)
True, but, it seems these days, most stocks don't pay dividends either.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Reverse psychology is a funny thing
Yeah man.
A "do not touch" sign makes exposed high-voltage wiring seem like an adorably cuddly kitten begging to be petted.
Totally
The allure of defecating in one's pants is irresistible when the goal is precisely the contrary
I completely ag- erm. Wait. What? Damn man, how do you get through the day?
Re:Gambling (Score:5, Insightful)
Well see, in gambling, there are rules against cheating and bad things tend to happen to cheaters, therefore, gambling is bad.
With the stockmarket, cheating is called creative accounting and cheaters get even bigger bonuses, therefore, the stockmarket is good.
If you gamble, you can only gamble away your life savings, and that's bad.
In the stockmarket, you can gamble away everyone's life savings and make a huge profit for yourself, so that's good.
See, gambling is like socialism, and socialism bad. The stockmarket is like The Capitalist Free Market, and the Capitalist Free Market is good (and you're a dirty socialist commie pinko bastard hippie if you say otherwise).
Parent
Kidding, I know....but.... (Score:5, Informative)
Stocks and gambling are NOT equivalents. Not even close. When you buy a stock, you own a piece of a company. As in, you own it just like you own a bike or a computer or any other asset in your house. You have (some) legal rights and some "claim" on future earnings. That's what stock, aka common equity, represents.
Additionally, the price of stocks is determined "by the market". In other words, all the buyers and sellers of stock determine the prices as they go along based on the value that they subjectively assign to each stock. That's the market we are speaking of and that's why the prices move. For every sell, there is a buy. And for every buy, there is a sell. The price is arrived at by this process and this process alone. In other words - it is not random.
Wayyyyyy different than gambling. Gambling is random and even worse, the end results (risk/reward profiles) are heavily skewed toward your competitor (the house). Stock price moves are determined by the market. Just a bunch of buyers and sellers agreeing on the price - but it isn't random, like gambling.
Ok, I have to go take the stick out of my ass now....carry on. Thx.
Parent
Re:Kidding, I know....but.... (Score:4, Informative)
Since you seem to want to share your views on this, I'd like to ask you: How do you classify "prediction market" sites like Intrade.com, where you bet on real-world events. It doesn't represent ownership rights in a corporation (though it does represent ownership right to $10 conditional on a future event), but it is coupled to a real-world non-gambling event?
And how does US law treat prediction markets?
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So where does betting exchange websites fall into this?
Sites like betfair operate on the basis of a market every transaction or bet has a buyer and a seller.
The odds are determined by what the market dictates.
Interestingly some of these sites (like betfair) market themselves as betting websites while others which do the same thing are calling themselves prediction markets - see intrade.
Ok, I was going to let your response slide, but (Score:3, Insightful)
So where do sites like the Chicago Board of Trade fit in?
There you bet on the future price of a stock by buying put and calls, the simplest of derivatives on assets or commodities.
And insurance, and ...
Re:Kidding, I know....but.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Stock price moves are determined by the market. Just a bunch of buyers and sellers agreeing on the price - but it isn't random, like gambling.
Stock price moves may not have the same kind of "randomness" as a roll of the dice, but they're certainly not deterministic, either. If they were, we'd all be rich, except the other guy, of course. If we were to write a game based on equity trading, the "market model" used would probably be a Monte Carlo simulation.
And what about poker and similar games? The "price" of the bet is determined the players, who are estimating their chances versus each other's predicted actions using limited information. In other words, the poker table is a market.
I'm not arguing just to be contradictory here, but you did say: "Stocks and gambling are NOT equivalents. Not even close." and "Wayyyyyy different than gambling." and lastly ". . . it isn't random, like gambling." Randomness really means something is not perfectly predictable, but can only be predicted in a probabilistic sense.
Parent
Re:Kidding, I know....but.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Wayyyyyy different than gambling. Gambling is random and even worse, the end results (risk/reward profiles) are heavily skewed toward your competitor (the house). Stock price moves are determined by the market. Just a bunch of buyers and sellers agreeing on the price - but it isn't random, like gambling.
Not all gambling is random in the same way you describe. Some, are non-random, house-favored, such as sports/horse betting. Then, there is poker... The house takes a cut of pot. While your starting hand may be random, the winner is far from random.
As in, you own it just like you own a bike or a computer or any other asset in your house. You have (some) legal rights and some "claim" on future earnings. That's what stock, aka common equity, represents.
Also, I would argue that all stock really represents is voting power. It is not an asset in any real way. Your share is not equal to Company Worth/Total Shares. It's worth either par value ($1) or whatever the market thinks it is worth--> which can be completely independent of the company's intrinsic value (if such a thing exists).
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
No, buying stocks is NOT like gambling unless you do absolutely no research before buying stocks. Yes, there is risk in the market - that part is on par with gambling. But when it comes to stocks, given the plethora of information out there, you should be making decisions based upon research and on how you think that a company is going to do based on X, Y, or Z (e.g. Apple will be releasing a new iSomething this month - let's buy stock because I think that will make it more valuable).
Of course, if your id
Re: (Score:2)
Card counting != real time stock analysis. Yup.
Being able to read the other players != knowing what a company is going to do. Totally.
Gambling != playing the stock market. Really. Absolutely different. See, there's this moral high ground that says it's different!
Re: (Score:2)
Casino gambling is one matter, but sports betting is a different beast again.
How is buying a stock based on belief of increase in value different to looking at the odds on a sporting event and placing a bet on the basis that you think the odds are wrong?
Some exchanges let you sell bets and even a bookie will allow you to bet against. The odds on sporting events rarely stay the same.
Stocks win, gambling loses (Score:2)
I personally have zero problem with gambling being legal, so don't take this as an argument against it.
But there is another key difference between casino gambling and stocks, besides the ones others have mentioned: averaged over time, gambling loses you money and stocks earn you money. Gambling always has a house advantage; wouldn't exist if it didn't. Stocks, on the other hand, have a positive ROI when averaged over several years. Pick any stock index you like - it's nearly impossible to find a 10-yea
a lesson in futility (Score:5, Insightful)
Prohibition doesn't work. Proxies make censorship such as this woefully ineffective at doing what they want it to. Free speech trumps their nanny state. Waste of money during a recession. The flaws are numerous and the sheer quantity of capital likely diverted from productive uses in order to enforce morality is offensive.
The real reason. (Score:5, Insightful)
Prohibition doesn't work. Proxies make censorship such as this woefully ineffective at doing what they want it to. Free speech trumps their nanny state. Waste of money during a recession. The flaws are numerous and the sheer quantity of capital likely diverted from productive uses in order to enforce morality is offensive.
While I agree with your observation, cut away all the moral and ethical bullshit "justifications", and you'll come to the bottom line as to what is really driving this. It always comes down to someone feeling like they're being robbed. In this case, likely state officials feel as if they're not getting their "cut", or this is somehow cutting into other revenues.
Parent
Re:The real reason. (Score:4, Insightful)
Precisely. Whenever the government passes a law there is always going to be something in it for whoever allowed siad bill's passing. The assumption of selfishness somewhere in any action is a useful one for determing the likely behavior of any entity which has evolved or was created by something which evolved.
Parent
A Lesson in Lobbying (Score:3, Insightful)
Prohibition doesn't work. Proxies make censorship such as this woefully ineffective at doing what they want it to. Free speech trumps their nanny state. Waste of money during a recession. The flaws are numerous and the sheer quantity of capital likely diverted from productive uses in order to enforce morality is offensive.
There are very powerful Native American tribes in Minnesota--particularly around the Twin Cities. I should state that having lived there for 21 years, I never once heard of anything negative from them ... until now. I think this may have more to do with ensuring that their clientele (casino gambling is only legal on Reservations and Native American run businesses) remain faithful to their facilities. Having played a little Full Tilt poker myself, I think they may have noticed a tiny drop in profits in th
Is there state-run gambling in Minnesota? (Score:4, Informative)
If Minnesota already has some form of state-run gambling, then I understand (but don't codone) their motivations for attempting to ban online gambling. However, if gambling is totally illegal in the state, then I have no idea why they would want to ban the practise. What would they stand to gain?
Does the state even have the authority to do this? Internet access is presumably under the jurisdiction of the federal government and the FCC.
Re:Is there state-run gambling in Minnesota? (Score:5, Informative)
Does the state even have the authority to do this?
Once upon a time, when power was distributed more to the state (you know, how the founders wanted it) I'm sure it would have been possible. Not so certain now ...
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Once upon a time, when power was distributed more to the state (you know, how the founders wanted it)
The founders fought like dogs amongst themselves over state/federal control, so there's no single "the founders" here.
Anyway, as far as the state having the legal authority to do this, I highly doubt it. States have long tried to bar things they don't like from entering the state. It used to be pornography, now it's gambling. If Utah can't stop Hustler from going through the mail system, I doubt Minnesota
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
So gambling is OK as long as it fills their coffers and at odds that would get any casino run out of town in Vegas. I wouldn't be surprised if the odds were more in your favor at a rigged poker game than at the Minnesota state lottery. Any argument against out-of-state gambling they could make would be hypocritical at best since Joe Sixpack could just as easily blow his paycheck on lotto tickets as he could on Online poker.
Now Utah [gambling-law-us.com] is pretty cut-and-dried on the subject and I would not criticize the
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
"The Wire Act was intended to assist the states, territories and possessions of the United States, as well as the District of Columbia, in enforcing their respective laws on gambling and bookmaking and to suppress organized gambling activities.[58] Subsection (a) of the Wire Act, a criminal provision, provides: Whoever being engaged in the business of betting or wagering knowingly uses a wire communication facility for the transmission in intersta
Federal Wire Act seems to say casual gambling okay (Score:5, Informative)
"In analyzing the first element, the legislative history[60] of the Wire Act seems to support the position that casual bettors would fall outside of the prosecutorial reach of the statute. During the House of Representatives debate on the bill, Congressman Emanuel Celler, Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee stated "[t]his bill only gets after the bookmaker, the gambler who makes it his business to take bets or to lay off bets. . . It does not go after the causal gambler who bets $2 on a race. That type of transaction is not within the purvue of the statute."[61] In Baborian, the federal district court concluded that Congress did not intend to include social bettors within the umbrella of the statute, even those bettors that bet large sums of money and show a certain degree of sophistication.[62] "
IANAL, but I would say from that statute that it is not illegal to gamble or to use gambling cites to gamble. It's illegal to be a bookie (sp?) or facilitate organized gambling as a business. The sites themselves my be illegal, but the users seem to be okay?
No?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Time for Regime Change (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And then wait a few years while they contest the election results in court.
Thank you Norm Coleman, we really didn't want two senators for our state anyways...
The bottom line... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Whether it is a game of skill or chance (or both, to varying degrees), it is gambling.
It's like gambling on the horses... a good judge of horseflesh who does his research well CAN win in the long run, just as with poker. That does not make the wagers he places something other than gambling.
What you're getting at is not about whether or not it is gambling... the long-stand
Come on... (Score:5, Funny)
State gambling is like the mafia (Score:2, Interesting)
I work in a convenience store--one of many clerk jobs I've had, and lemmee tell ya, the state does whatever it can to make sure people don't infringe on their territory. They outlawed slot machines in bars, clubs, etc. years ago.
The interesting part is that people have found a way around it. We HAVE a machine in our store, but it's a "Skill Game". Instead of it being a chancy slot-game, you win on every spin by tapping a wild option on the screen, making three fruits/whatever else in a row. Most of the time
Kentucky called (Score:5, Funny)
They want their hair brained scheme back
There was no Internet in 1961 (Score:3, Interesting)
This law is irrelevant to the current reality.
You can censor the hell out of your citizens (like China) or you can allow them to participate in a free and open internet, not both. Unless every country on this planet agrees to this outdated law, enforcement will be almost impossible.
The only thing they will do is turn their citizens into criminals.
Minnesota your only choice is to either disconnect from the internet or accept that you can not control it.
Of course to truly disconnect you would have to ban all forms of communication except for snail mail and the pony express. No phones, satellite dishes, cable, etc...
"You take the blue pill, the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill, you stay in Wonderland, and I show you how deep the rabbit hole goes." - Morpheus
Big business likes big government (Score:5, Insightful)
I just submitted this actually...oh well, I'm just glad it made it up here even if I didn't get the credit.
The fundamental problem is that big business likes big government because big government can regulate and legislate in favor of big business. Online gambling is "illegal". Go back and look at the sponsors and co-sponsors of the bills who made it illegal, and then look at their largest donors. Guess who? Brick and mortar casinos, and Indian tribes....imagine that.
And when the utility companies are government-granted monopolies, then they are subservient to big government too. Utilities should be forced to compete in the free and open market without government subsidies or other forms of market insulation from bad decisions.
This is exactly a case which highlights why the government should be small and limited at all levels; when government gets big it inevitability restricts freedom either inadvertently, or on purpose either for its own ends or at the bequest of special interests.
The slippery slope argument here is paramount too because having a State government forcing ISPs and telcos to block specific sites sets a VERY dangerous precedent! In fact I consider this outright censorship because what's illegal about visiting a gambling website, even if one doesn't use the site to gamble.
Not to mention that making online gambling illegal violates one's right to contract which is inherent in a free society. The Constitutionality of this is questionable at best.
Newest link to be blocked (Score:2, Funny)
Oh great where is my address book (Score:3, Insightful)
I live in Minnesota, I do not gamble online, but this is as stupid as it gets. There are a small handful of Indian Casinos in the state. Pressure from the tribes maybe? It just can't be "for the children". Guess I need to start making a few calls and sending a few emails.
We all know it wont work. (Score:2)
States rights a joke in the internet age (Score:2)
How pointless (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)