Will the gambling bill make Google and Yahoo remove sites from their search results?

vanzack did us a great service with his analysis of the gambling bill here: http://forum2.therx.com/showthread.php?t=409586

It seems to me that this bill will mean that servers from Yahoo and Google are covered by Interactive Computer Service so they will have to remove sites fom their search results if they get a takedown order from the Feds.

I know that now they voluntarily don't allow pay per click paid ads for gambling, but this will mean they have to get rid of them form their natural search results too.

How do you read it vanzack and you other guys?

Can the Feds defend themselves?

There is simply to much money at stake. In addition, the Feds are using intimadation and fear tatics far to much. This is against far to many people, far to many companies, that are spread out all over the world.

They continue to act like our law is world law and you have no other choice but to obey or else.

Simply put, people are going to turn arouund and fight back. Its the, COME GET ME SYNDROME. They can not get come get us all.


Now that the Feds have given themselves the power to start in on american companies and banks, they think they have won. In there mind there is no choice, Comply or go to Jail. You have no right to file a lawsuit or stop us from doing anything. They operate on this mindset. There is no such thing as opposition.


When these companies start fighting back, we will see what happens.

My take, it has no shot. They can bark, but expect a fight this time on several fronts. They are taking on to many people at the same time.

In reality, its any corparations best strategy. That or let them into every aspect of your buisness and demand you turn over everything as well as watch it. Much cheaper to sue and let the Feds defend. With as many as they are going after, GOOD LUCK.

In the meantime, its Buisness as Usual, with no money out of there pocket, trying to comply and what not. It relieves fear of prosecution from prosecuters anywhere, plus it stops, for the time being, states issuing warrants against people in other states and countries.

It puts everything in limbo for everyone. Feds will be decades trying to defend, much less, enforce.


Look for the banking intitution to come out with the first challenge. Peoples careers and lives are at stake, because of a law they cant possibly enforce.
They are vunerable to any and everything if they dont. They have to close ranks and defend.


I am telling you guys once again. This little tatic, may just have cost these guys the election. Its not good when the financial intitution turns against you.
Triple so at election time. You can add that they cost many in that world untold millions with that BoS move, and there is nothing like getting even.



Insert EVIL LAUGH, HERE.

that would be one more of the unenforceable parts of this bill

first...........you would not only have to remove the sites per se but also the sites that talk about the sites (therx for example) and then sites that talk about the sites.......and so on (Washington Post for example talking about therx who in turn talks about gaming sites)

and of course there are lesser known foreign based search engines

honestly if they had to do that........it would be even less feasible than coding ACH's

While the Act concerns the Prohibition of Funding, the section relating to Interactive Computer Services looks like the orphan part of a separate issue that was not removed when the parent concerning Prohibition of Internet Access was removed from the language.

In that section I read "...the removal of, or disabling of access to, an online site violating section 5363".

Now if I had anything to do with the major search engines and was given a list of sites I would leave the URL intact but disable access by redirecting to a page that would say: "the US government will not allow us to redirect to this site in conformity with the Safe Port Act." On that redirect page I would provide a link to the Safe Port Act.

I guess the drafters understand hyperlink clicking but not cut and paste.

I am telling you guys once again. This little tatic, may just have cost these guys the election. Its not good when the financial intitution turns against you.
Triple so at election time. You can add that they cost many in that world untold millions with that BoS move, and there is nothing like getting even.

Sugarbear, I hope the ruling party will lose big this November. But - it will not be due to this issue, urgent as it is to people who read this forum. Even some dedicated online bettors still believe Bush is God and the GOP the Holy Ghost. (Just read the posts on a certain other board on this site.)

It will be decided by politically more substantive issues; Iraq, trust in the truthfulness or lack of same of the ruling group, the economic future as perceived by large groups of people. And the like. There are also significant numbers of folk who will support the incumbents based on "family values," which would include anti-gambling.

But if the relatively small number of people who will vote against the GOP strictly because of the Ban, and that small number swings a tight election away from a Bushitter, -- well, that's cause to celebrate!

:thumbsup2:

To much negative press 5 weeks before the election could kill them, plus inspire people who may not have voted to vote.


This will be a big main stream issue, shortly. I still say the justice department
will be chiming in loudly shortly.