wisdom said:
They have much bigger fish to fry. Besides:
"US CITIZENS PLEASE NOTE: The information contained at this site is for news and entertainment purposes only. Any use of this information in violation of any federal, state or local law is prohibited. © 2006 RX Advertising, Inc. LLC , All Rights Reserved"
and closing down an entertainment site would infringe on the right to free speech guaranteed in the US Constitution.
It's hard enough to prosecute a sportsbook.. (See how many they have successfully processed.)
The DOJ choose not to file against Google, yahoo, etc... Just warned.
Casinocity sued the DOJ and the DOJ, rather than get a ruling said, we wont threaten them, drop the case...
There is a whole freedom of speech element that comes into play and then there is the element that the web is worldwide.
Much easier to prove a "crime" occurred when WSEX takes a bet from an American than when a website that is available to the entire world talks about gambling.
The DOJ itself has given more advertising to WSEX than anyone else. Maybe they should indict themselves.
-Sean
The DOJ choose not to file against Google, yahoo, etc... Just warned.
Casinocity sued the DOJ and the DOJ, rather than get a ruling said, we wont threaten them, drop the case...
There is a whole freedom of speech element that comes into play and then there is the element that the web is worldwide.
Much easier to prove a "crime" occurred when WSEX takes a bet from an American than when a website that is available to the entire world talks about gambling.
The DOJ itself has given more advertising to WSEX than anyone else. Maybe they should indict themselves.
-Sean
sean1 said:
As I've noted in other threads on the subject, I'm sure the DoJ has taken the tack they have for a reason. If they start to do things like go after informational sites like this one, or start to try any sort of web censorship it'll open up a sh*tstorm. All sorts of organizations, politicians and groups that otherwise could give a flying f*ck about us sports gamblers will get involved with the issue based on these principles alone--off the top of my head I can think of the NLA (National Library Association), the ACLU, the EFF(Electronic Freedom Foundation). Jon Kyl has made scolding the Chinese for their Internet censorship a pet project--maybe he'd have to pull a John Kerry and say that he voted for Internet gambling after he voted against it in order to maintain some credibility.
That's why the DoJ has chosen the strategy they have--they can arrest a few foreign businessmen and cause a lot of disruption in the industry and aside from those of us directly involved very few people notice and even fewer people care...
They can get a lot of mileage with this strategy and just throwing around a few idle threats here and there. The last thing they want is to have some sort of formal precedent set that, say, informational sites like this one are Constitutionally protected. They benefit much more from the uncertainty surrounding the issue as much as they do any specific laws or enforcement tools..
