Yet Another Attempt to Stop Online Gambling
May 11th, 2009 | 
Author: 
Online gambling has always been contentious –there is someone, somewhere pointing an accusing finger at the activity. The latest to join the naysayers is the Minnesota state in the US. It has directed telephony and Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to block access to an “initial sample” of 200 online sites.
Ironically, the Alcohol and Gambling Enforcement Division (AGED) of Minnesota’s Department of Public Safety (DPS), has NOT cited the controversial Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 while sending a notice to the ISPs. It is taking refuge in The Wire Act of 1961 that makes it incumbent on “common carriers” to comply with the request to block telecommunication services used for gambling.
The notice to 11 ISPs was sent in end-April with a deadline for compliance. However, the move has sparked off protests against the attempt to curb online freedom, disintegrate the Internet and eventually monitor private activity and data.
Legal experts were quick to point out that ISPs are not common carriers, and that the law only bars phone companies from doing direct business with bet-takers. Also, as online gambling is illegal in the US, online casinos operate from other locations overseas, and have no direct dealings with ISPs in the US.
The first voice of protest was from Minnesota state representative, Pat Garofalo who introduced a Bill to bar the DPS from using force to block Internet gambling sites. According to him, a private sector ISP cannot be controlled by the government —that kind of thing is done in Communist China!
The Interactive Media and Entertainment & Gaming Association (iMEGA) has also reacted by filing a suit in the US District Court of Minneapolis. First, to get Minnesota to withdraw its order on the grounds that it is a violation of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution which guarantees free speech rights. And secondly, to warn other state governments that any similar move by them would also be challenged in court.
In a bold step, iMEGA has also communicated to the ISPs that it is not legally binding on them to comply the AGED’s directive. It has pointed out that Minnesota has neither the authority nor the jurisdiction to order the ISPs to block Minnesota residents’ access to sites that were not located within the state.
Technically speaking, it is true that blocking one IP may lead to obstructing several sites which may not be on the list of 200 sites and further still, may have nothing to do with online gambling. It should be mentioned that the Minnesota state has also warned residents that they could lose access to their Internet escrow accounts.
Moreover, past attempts to control the Internet have failed:
-
Kentucky tried to block access to 141 online gambling sites by seizing the domain names late 2008. However, a Court of Appeals struck down the act, ruling that the state had no jurisdiction.
- In 2004, a federal court did not allow Pennsylvania to get ISPs to block child-pornography sites, because the filters affected Internet users outside the state and blocked legitimate web sites.
Posted in 
Tags:
December 24th, 2009 10:41 pm
We just couldnt leave your website before saying that we really enjoyed the quality information you offer to your visitors… Will be back often to check up on new stuff you post!