7/10/2007 iMEGA Suit Against UIGEA Strongest Fight Against the US Bill

[MiltonFriedman]

Permafrost, take the time to actually read the ACLU v. Gonzales cases. My unrefreshed recollection is that the answer would be:

A person with a protected right in State A (let's call it Missouri) to access a site can be impacted because State B (let's call it Washington) has a law which defines the exact same conduct legal in Missouri to be illegal in Washington. What is the conduct ? ... The SITE discussing poker or gambling software perhaps. (This content actually is privately banned from Google Adwords.)

(Let's further say that the Washington law is sufficiently narrow to outlaw the site's conduct there.... and the site's conduct in Missouri is clearly allowed.)

The impact is on the Site and on the guy in Missouri. Their activity is chilled becasue the Federal Anti-Strategy law leaves the site open to conflicting state standards and criminal prosecution. Because a less intrusive means exists to ensure the Federal goal, the rights of Mo. players and sites looking to provide that service must be protected.

Bluntly put, the argument is that the Federal UIGE Act fails because it sinks to the lowest common denominator in addressing US players' rights and imposes upon Missourians' access to online poker the mores and rules of Utah. The service providers' rights are also trampled because, even if they block 10 or 11 States, their ability to accept deposits from ANY US player is blocked.

(Permafrost, I would be shocked if the Regs turn out to say, (a) Sports betting violates the Wire Act, therefore no deposits are okay, but (b) deposits from these 39 States are okay while deposits from these 11 States are not okay for poker. That would be an insanely well-tailored regulation, and permissible under the Act.)