Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by chromas on Thursday January 17 2019, @10:01AM   Printer-friendly

2011 ban on interstate, foreign sports betting extended to online lotteries, poker, casinos

Last November, US Justice Department officials, having reviewed the nation's laws, quietly concluded that, oops, interstate and international internet gambling is actually illegal. For some reason, that view was only made public on Monday. And for now, this hot take is not being enforced across the country.

Published here [PDF], the opinion was written by the DoJ's Office of Legal Counsel, and is effectively a screeching U-turn on seven years of policy. In 2011, the office concluded that 18 US Code § 1084(a), which makes it illegal to use phones and telecommunications to gamble across state lines and the border, only applied to sports betting.

Well, the office was asked to think that over again, and it's come to another conclusion: online poker and similar internet gambling dens are also verboten, not just sports betting. That means e-casinos and online poker rooms with interstate and foreign players are operating illegally, according to the office's legal eagles.

[...] Gambling industry analyst Chris Grove told Reuters while the change won't affect big betting operations located offshore, online state lotteries and e-casinos in the country, whose annual revenues combined are just under US$500m, would be hit.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 17 2019, @08:05PM (6 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 17 2019, @08:05PM (#788011)

    Only to the extent that interfering with someone's informed, personal or consensual choices is immoral.

    Only to the extent that one respects the rights of individuals' morals only and denies that groups can in fact form shared moral understandings that bind on a population larger than themselves.

    Let's at least try not to let the superstitious myth-followers form the basis for how we give the rules a careful examination. That rarely ends well. Which we can show by simply looking at the awful legislation they've managed to put in play over the years.

    Let's try to remember that the superstitious myth-followers outnumber the carfeful rule examiners by a ratio of at least 10:1, and probably much higher. And many have no compunction about destroying those who disturb their nice order of things, anywhere from symbolically to literal destruction. The only thing restraining them from doing so.... are their morals. We could also remember that the careful rule examiners have no basis for proving a better record at things. They also tend to annoy the vast masses they are outnumbered by, for example by suggesting they are superstitious myth-followers. (And on this occasion we won't discuss whether those people may in fact be right about the myths they believe in and that you might be wrong, or that there may be individuals in that group who believe just as you do that it is all myth... but there is nevertheless good reason for buying into it.)

    I would say that they don't have a legitimate authority to do so, and never have — there's nowhere for such an authority to come from, save voluntary slavery — but the power... yes, that they do have.

    Except that one cannot be a willing slave. Slavery, by its definition, is an unwilling act. If one willingly cedes power or service (without reservation) one is not a slave. But let's run with it... individuals have ceded whatever natural rights or power they have to a larger collective group. Whether you like that or believe that is moral or not doesn't change the fact that it exists.... unless you have a larger group willing to override them. So what you have instead is a collection of a group of people who set down standards that all, including you, shall follow. I agree it is best when that includes a basic degree of liberty. Which is why (if you're USian) you have the rights you do have. The error is in thinking those rights are unlimited. For example, planning to overthrow the political order. You might not like that your rights are limited in this regard, but they are on a very practical level.
    Get enough people together who decide you don't matter... and you don't. Unless you assemble more people who do, but you do face an uphill battle because they don't have compunctions that you do regarding liberty and collectivism.

  • (Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Thursday January 17 2019, @10:40PM (3 children)

    by fyngyrz (6567) on Thursday January 17 2019, @10:40PM (#788049) Journal

    Only to the extent that one respects the rights of individuals' morals only and denies that groups

    Yes. Such as the Nazis. As it turns out, the group can be quite wrong. As is the case with Christians, Muslims, mommy-law enthusiasts, and other adherents / sycophants of those advocating the infringement of informed, personal or consensual choice. When the group is wrong, someone ought to (at a minimum) point that out. Likely do more than that.

    I do respect the liberties of the individual above those of the group. Were that it were so everywhere and everywho; but it isn't. Yet we can still shine light on the matter, which is what we are doing.

    Let's try to remember that the superstitious myth-followers outnumber the carfeful[sic] rule examiners by a ratio of at least 10:1

    ...yes, well, let's also try to remember that no matter how many children believe in the tooth fairy, there still isn't one just because someone imagined there might be, and told them a story about it. Likewise, adults and [insert whatever entity here.] And deceiving people isn't often a positive thing to do.

    And on this occasion we won't discuss whether those people may in fact be right about the myths they believe in

    Good. It's pretty much a waste of time to point out that there's exactly as much evidence for a God or gods as there is for the tooth fairy. Oops. Well, it was my time to spend. 😊

    or that there may be individuals in that group who believe just as you do that it is all myth... but there is nevertheless good reason for buying into it.

    Okay, we won't talk about the blatant hypocrisy either. So next:

    Except that one cannot be a willing slave.

    Absolutely wrong. Slavery is a state of being controlled, rather than controlling. Not a matter of willing or unwilling. However, liberty is something you have, that you can certainly choose to compromise to any degree — that is its nature, after all. You can do it in small ways, like work at a job you hate, you can do it in large ways, like become a soldier, oath-bound to obey orders even unto death, and you can do it completely, by agreeing that your life now belongs to another, hook, line and sinker, to do as they will (and frankly, joining the military really isn't too far off that mark.) Your reasons, given that you are well informed, are sufficient in any case. A complete transfer of your liberties to the whims and caprices of others is slavery, regardless of if it was done willingly or not. Yet there remains a difference: what is mine to give, I can (or should be able to) give. What is taken without my consent is sufficient cause for violence. But that difference is not the state of slavery. Far from it. The issue is consent. One can certainly consent to a course of action that contains all manner of unpleasantness out of your control (or the opposite.) Again, the military is a fine example of that.

    In all cases, it is my lawn you must stay off of, unless I say "come ahead" and/or "here, it's your lawn now because [reasons.]"

    --
    It's only when a mosquito lands on a man's testicles
    that he realizes violence is not always the answer.

    • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 18 2019, @12:40AM (2 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 18 2019, @12:40AM (#788088)

      Yes. Such as the Nazis. As it turns out, the group can be quite wrong. As is the case with Christians, Muslims, mommy-law enthusiasts, and other adherents / sycophants of those advocating the infringement of informed, personal or consensual choice. When the group is wrong, someone ought to (at a minimum) point that out. Likely do more than that.

      I do respect the liberties of the individual above those of the group. Were that it were so everywhere and everywho; but it isn't. Yet we can still shine light on the matter, which is what we are doing.

      Yes, you do win the Godwin award! Congrats! Whether the group is wrong or not isn't the issue. The issue is that the group can enforce its will on you, should it elect to do so, whether that is right or wrong. And sure, that's exactly what the Nazis did. That they were wrong is irrelevant to that they did in fact do it, and continued to do it until stopped by a power with greater force to achieve its will. What do you make of the rights of liberty for those dead in the gas chambers, God rest their souls? That their morality was completely wrong did not keep them from enforcing it on all those in their domain. So yep, group morality triumphs again over individual morality... both in what the Nazis did and ultimately in their defeat.

      Let's try to remember that the superstitious myth-followers outnumber the carfeful[sic] rule examiners by a ratio of at least 10:1

      ...yes, well, let's also try to remember that no matter how many children believe in the tooth fairy, there still isn't one just because someone imagined there might be, and told them a story about it. Likewise, adults and [insert whatever entity here.] And deceiving people isn't often a positive thing to do.

      [Citation needed]. Deceipt may indeed be ethically justifiable for any number of reasons. (Why do people convince kids about the tooth fairy, BTW? Are they all just plain EEEEvil?) But that aside, it's significant enough for this purpose to realize you are seriously outnumbered and have provided no more proof that your beliefs are any more true than the majority.

      And on this occasion we won't discuss whether those people may in fact be right about the myths they believe in

      Good. It's pretty much a waste of time to point out that there's exactly as much evidence for a God or gods as there is for the tooth fairy. Oops. Well, it was my time to spend. 😊

      Yes, except that they have no obligation to prove to you whether it is true or not. They do not require your consent for them to bind you to their principles, literally or figuratively. Better find yourself a group that can counter them and give you your space to be at liberty. Witness any number of places still in the world today where disagreement results in death. And should you ever succeed to as seriously outnumber the [insert name of faith]'s faithful, you will have the same privilege whether or not you choose to exercise it. You can provide your visions of liberty for all. Until you are then defeated in your season.

      or that there may be individuals in that group who believe just as you do that it is all myth... but there is nevertheless good reason for buying into it.

      Okay, we won't talk about the blatant hypocrisy either. So next:

      No, you can talk about it all you want. Just because it exists does not invalidate that it exists. But it's no more relevant if the hangman putting the noose around the heretic's neck agrees or disagrees with the heretic if the hanging is still carried out. There certainly are "heretics" among the "faithful" who choose to act "faithfully" for any given faith.

      Except that one cannot be a willing slave.

      Absolutely wrong. Slavery is a state of being controlled, rather than controlling. Not a matter of willing or unwilling. However, liberty is something you have, that you can certainly choose to compromise to any degree — that is its nature, after all. You can do it in small ways, like work at a job you hate, you can do it in large ways, like become a soldier, oath-bound to obey orders even unto death, and you can do it completely, by agreeing that your life now belongs to another, hook, line and sinker, to do as they will (and frankly, joining the military really isn't too far off that mark.) Your reasons, given that you are well informed, are sufficient in any case. A complete transfer of your liberties to the whims and caprices of others is slavery, regardless of if it was done willingly or not. Yet there remains a difference: what is mine to give, I can (or should be able to) give. What is taken without my consent is sufficient cause for violence. But that difference is not the state of slavery. Far from it. The issue is consent. One can certainly consent to a course of action that contains all manner of unpleasantness out of your control (or the opposite.) Again, the military is a fine example of that.

      In all cases, it is my lawn you must stay off of, unless I say "come ahead" and/or "here, it's your lawn now because [reasons.]"

      I disagree with what being a slave is. A conscript is a slave. A freely enlisted soldier is not. Despite both of them placing themselves under others control unto death if necessary. The question is whether the cessation of rights was done willingly. But beside the point.
      Yes, you are free to have your lawn and keep everyone off it or give it away. Right up to the moment when the group surrounds you makes a collective decision (or assents collectively) that your lawn is necessary. Then all the liberties you established for yourself (or think you possessed by some divine right) will be found to be nonexistent as you are evicted by processes of eminent domain. Or lynched. The outcome will be the same. Liberty does not exist in a vacuum but is always found in relationship to a larger structure. Or more properly, your liberty will always be circumscribed by the powers which are larger than you. I can walk all over the face of this planet.... right until the atmosphere is burned away by solar expansion, nuclear war, or people with more arms than I burn the oxygen out of "my" "free" air. Then my liberty is at an end by the forces which were larger than I can counter. So I'm pretty glad I live in a place that lets me walk around some until the tidal wave or earthquake or natural death takes my liberty.

      • (Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Friday January 18 2019, @01:25AM (1 child)

        by fyngyrz (6567) on Friday January 18 2019, @01:25AM (#788103) Journal

        Okay, I'll leave it there. Last word on this is yours. Thanks.

        --
        No sense being pessimistic, it wouldn't work anyway.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 18 2019, @06:34PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 18 2019, @06:34PM (#788348)

          Well, I'll take that last word then to say thank you as well. I don't disagree with you at all that the liberty of the individual is of extreme importance. Just that it takes a group to make that happen. (See a couple of posts below). So thanks for the stimulated thinking and I hope your vision is realized and we get to a point where your chart is in fact the law of the land.

  • (Score: 2) by shortscreen on Thursday January 17 2019, @10:55PM (1 child)

    by shortscreen (2252) on Thursday January 17 2019, @10:55PM (#788055) Journal

    Only to the extent that one respects the rights of individuals' morals only and denies that groups can in fact form shared moral understandings that bind on a population larger than themselves.

    A group that wishes to enforce a moral standard against its own members certainly has that right. But they need to use their own power, not government power, to do so. The only reason to use government power to enforce moral standards is to target people who would not opt-in to self-policing, or in other words, people who are by definition NOT part of the group.

    • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 18 2019, @06:22PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 18 2019, @06:22PM (#788333)

      The only reason to use government power to enforce moral standards is to target people who would not opt-in to self-policing, or in other words, people who are by definition NOT part of the group.

      Correct. My point is that "they need" and "they should" are good ideals to have, but not ones that can be relied upon without the numbers to back it up. History shows that when a group is sufficiently large they will bind all individuals to their moral codes. Personally, I believe this is to try and ensure survival of the group. And I'm not convinced it is not wrong (that groups should likewise have a desire to survive), even though we find many times the moral code enforced is repulsive to the minority and there are groups that I would prefer not survive. But the fact is that it happens.

      One cannot expect that one individual's liberty will be sufficient to overturn either mob rule or democratic rule (if there is a difference....) if it is in disagreement with having individual liberty. But a majority or supermajority group of people who believe in liberty, or who make liberty a shared moral norm: that's got power.

      It is better, irony notable, to form a group who believes in individual liberty and freedom in sufficient numbers to become the majority who can make that freedom and group's non-judgmentality (*itself* a morality if that wasn't clear earlier) the code which binds all. To tell other subgroups that they may enforce their other morality only on the subgroup unless what they do impinges on another. That majority group, then, does still need individuals willing to defend those ideals, which clashes somewhat - it absolutely requires individuals who are willing to fight and die, together, to promote the cause of individual liberty. We're probably closer to being able to achieve that ideal in the United States than at any other time in its history. And the risks have likewise never been higher. And it will probably never be perfect.

      All I'm trying to note is that the vision that fyngyrz promotes (which is very well thought out on the individual level) has to become that group morality of the majority in order to succeed. Or

      the people can not be all, & always, well informed. the part which is wrong [. . .] will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. if they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. we have had 13. states independant 11. years. there has been one rebellion. that comes to one rebellion in a century & a half for each state. what country before ever existed a century & half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? let them take arms. the remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. what signify a few lives lost in a century or two? the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. it is it’s natural manure.

      Source [monticello.org]. But it takes a majority willing to be the fertilizer or the mob wins.