PDA

View Full Version : 2+2 forum illegal?


Merovingian
06-29-2006, 09:42 AM
We all know that there has been an anti-online gambling trend within government policy lately, with states such as Washington taking the lead, however, an even more bizarre issue has arisen. Sites even mentioning online gambling are now being targeted for "aiding and abetting".

Talk about a free rights violation, it seems Washington is controlling what people talk about on their site now.

The following article can be found at: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003062386_danny15.html

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

This column may be illegal

The first casualty in the state's war on Internet gambling is a local Web site where nobody was actually doing any gambling.

What a Bellingham man did on his site was write about online gambling. He reviewed Internet casinos. He had links to them, and ran ads by them. He fancied himself a guide to an uncharted frontier, even compiling a list of "rogue casinos" that had bilked gamblers.

All that, says the state — the ads, the linking, even the discussing — violates a new state law barring online wagering or using the Internet to transmit "gambling information."

"It's what the feds would call 'aiding and abetting,' " says the director of the state's gambling commission, Rick Day. "Telling people how to gamble online, where to do it, giving a link to it — that's all obviously enabling something that is illegal."

Uh-oh. This is starting to get a little creepy.

I hadn't been all worked up about the state's crusade against Internet gambling, including the new law that makes most online betting a felony.

Yes, it's insincere. This is the same state that's happy to enable your online wagering if you're playing the ponies.

But mostly it seemed the law was unenforceable. And passé. A society steeped in televised Texas Hold'em and Indian casinos is suddenly supposed to recoil at the idea of placing bets with a mouse? I figured the law was a bluff.

Then I heard about Todd Boutte. He's a former Wal-Mart worker in Bellingham who started a casino review called IntegrityCasinoGuide.com. He worried about the new law but figured he'd be OK because his site has no actual gambling.

Not so, said the state. Writing about online gambling in a way that seems promotional can earn a cease-and-desist order, and potentially, a criminal charge. Boutte learned this when a Bellingham Herald article featured state officials saying his site was illegal. He later shut it down and is trying to sell it out of state.

advertising
"1984 has finally arrived," Boutte says. "I can't believe this is happening in a liberal place like Washington."

More may be on the way. The state plans to hire an investigator to enforce the new law.

Gambling officials told me The Seattle Times may be afoul of the law because we print a poker how-to column, "Card Shark," by gambler Daniel Negreanu. He sometimes tells readers to hone their skills at online casinos. And at the end of each column is a Web address, fullcontactpoker.com, where readers can comment.

If you type in that address, you whiz off to Negreanu's digital casino based in the Antilles.

It's a tangled Web, isn't it? The state says we'd best do our part to untangle it.

"My suggestion to you is to remove from your paper any advice about online gambling and any links to illegal sites," Day said.

So even this column could be illegal?

The state's gone from trying to control gambling, which is legit, to trying to control people speaking about gambling.

It's hard to take coming from a state that bombards us with pitches for the biggest sucker's bet of all. You know, the one they call the lottery.

Danny Westneat's column appears Thursday and Sunday. Reach him at 206-464-2086 or dwestneat@seattletimes.com.

neverforgetlol
06-29-2006, 09:46 AM
already posted a while ago

Merovingian
06-29-2006, 09:49 AM
Ah, sorry about that.

LinusKS
06-30-2006, 12:52 PM
Posting information about poker & gambling is fine.

"Promoting" illegal or unlicensed gambling operations, on the other hand... is probably not fine. (In fact, it's explicitly prohibited, in many, if not all states.)

2+2, to my understanding, is not affiliated with, or an affiliate for, any internet gambling site.

I'd imagine that's a decision they made in consultation with their lawyers. I'm just speculating, of course.

Zele
06-30-2006, 04:17 PM
But 2+2 does provide links to gambling sites:

http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c21/cvanzele/22.jpg

pokerduker
06-30-2006, 04:54 PM
I started another thread regarding any legal action that has been taken against online poker affiliates. It can be found here: http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showfl...e=0#Post6375409 (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=6375409&an=0&page=0#Post 6375409)

In the replies to my post there are some good citations of companies in a position similar to 2+2 that were forced to forfeit substantial amounts after being charged with promoting an illegal activity. I'm not a lawyer but it would seem readily apparent that 2+2 is as 'guilty' as those mentioned.

I am not arguing that they SHOULD be found guilty, I'm just saying it would be CONSISTENT with these other cases if they WERE to be found guilty.

LinusKS
07-01-2006, 01:13 AM
This is from a "warning letter" sent by the DOJ to the National Association of Broadcasters, back in 2003.

[ QUOTE ]
“As you are no doubt aware. advertisements for Internet gambling and offshore sportsbook operations are ubiquitous on the Internet, in print ads. and over the radio and television. The sheer volume of advertisements for offshore sports books and online casinos is troubling because it misleads the public in the United States into believing that such gambling is legal. when in fact, it is not. Because of the possibility that some of your organization's members may be accepting money to place such advertisements, the Department of Justice, as a public service, would like you to be aware that the entities and individuals placing these advertisements may be violating various state and federal laws and that entities and individuals that accept and run such advertisements may be aiding and abetting these illegal activities.

“With very few exceptions limited to licensed sportsbook operations in Nevada, state and federal laws prohibit the operation of sportsbooks and Internet gambling within the United States, whether or not such operations are based offshore. United States Attorneys' Offices in several districts have successfully prosecuted offshore sportsbookmaking and Internet gambling operations, and the Department of Justice win [sic.] continue to pursue such cases.

“Notwithstanding their frequent claims of legitimacy, Internet gambling and offshore sportsbook operations that accept bets from customers in the United States violate Sections 1084, 1952, and 1955 of Title 18 of the United States Code, each of which is a Class E felony. Additionally, pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 2, any person or entity who aids or abets in the commission of any of the above-listed offenses is punishable as a principal violator of those statutes. The Department of Justice is responsible for enforcing these statutes. and we reserve the right to prosecute violators of the law.

“Broadcasters and other media outlets should know of the illegality of offshore sportsbook and Internet gambling operations since, presumably, they would not run advertisements for illegal narcotics sales, prostitution, child pornography or other prohibited activities. We'd appreciate it if you would forward this public service message to all of your member organizations which may be running such advertisements, so that they may consult with their counsel or take whatever actions they deem appropriate.”

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not any kind of expert in Federal criminal law, but the letter seems to imply, at least, that the DOJ thinks even running an ad for a gambling site is equivalent to aiding or abetting.

Cable channels that run ads for Party or whoever, run ads for the play money version of the sites (.net, usually, instead of .com). I'd speculate the "warning letter" is the reason why.

I think 2+2 is safer merely running ads -- selling space to advertisers -- than it would be if those were affiliate links. But as to whether they're completely safe - I don't know. I hope they have a lawyer, and I assume that they do.