Isn't that interesting
Nov. Post, somehow shows up NOW! Good observation Colin. I', m goin dumb, deaf and blind, but I didn't see it before.
But, blackjack21.com was soliciting playas, by phone and erstwell.
AND could be good fortune coming for on-line play with last week's US Supreme Court decision to not ACT, to let anti-porn Internet Law DIE.
Thought someone else would relate. But here's my take.
The skinny: 1998 law to protect chillin, much as what was tooted about UIGEA(but enacted up front) died quietly after 10 years of litigation. It was pased overwhelmingly by CONGRESS but was fought on constitutional grounds and was never enacted.
ACLU fought case, with contention, apparantly agreed in abstinence by HIGH COURT, that
"It is not the role of the government to decide what people can see and do on the Internet."
An appeals court in Philly ruled the law would violate the 1st Amend., saying "filtering" technologies and other parental control tools are a less restrictive way to protect chillin from inappropriate on line content,(re: gambling?)
This now defunct "ACT" was passed a year after the SUPREME COURT ruled the "Communications Decency Act" was unconstitutional.
Critics of both acts asserted that pornographers and others could simply base their operations "offshore." beyond the reach of US law.
The precedents are here in TWO cases to revoke the UIGEA, with the only distinction the encomberence on US banking institutions. But the prevailing First Amendment Rights stated and refered to in both instances would seem to superceed the banking regulations.
This is not to mention the confusion as to how the UIGEA could be enforced. Not to mention that the "to come" enforcement provisions have not yet been developed.
Under the old Administration "National Security" played a "part" because of the ability on gambling sites to transfer money among "accounts."
But a new day has dawned. Hopefully it doesn't take 10 years for the sun to shine again.
