[damaniac]

I don't know why this would be that broad. It would seemingly protect advertising for internet gambling in states where it is banned (although I'd want to search Westlaw for some case law on this), but I don't know why this would apply to gaming itself. The gaming would almost certainly be considered commercial activity, not speech (someone's going to say: "But an argument could be made that..." No, sorry. The courts won't find that internet gambling is a form of speech. I don't care if you think it should be; it isn't in the court's eyes and that's whose opinion matters).

Again, I'd want to see the opinion too, but there is a substantative right to free speech, not so to commerce (not since Lochner died, anyway). And of course this a district court. So until an appellate court makes such a statement in a published case, it doesn't mean much in terms of precedent (though would be hopeful that other courts could find that way).