[JPFisher55]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The DOJ does not interpret law, they enforce it. The courts interpret law and so far they have said that the Wire Act does not apply to poker.

[/ QUOTE ]
You are, of course, correct--courts interpret the law. And in the only appeals court ruling to date, the Fifth Circuit ruled that online poker was not illegal (in re Mastercard ).

So what.

Assume, for the moment, that you hold a broadcast license. You have received a letter from the DOJ stating that if you broadcast any advertisements for any online gambling .com website, you will be fined, and could face further punishment (including loss of your broadcast license). Would you accept any advertisements from a .com site?

Those letters were sent to every media group (NAB, etc.) and to media outlets that had aired online gambling advertisements a few years ago. Some media companies have received fines and/or have had to forward monies received for such ads to the government--the DOJ is not making an idle threat.

Broadcasters hold licenses from the US government. The US government says that accepting such ads can cost you your license. Until the government changes that policy, no broadcast medium will be airing advertisements for any .com sites. No broadcaster will engage in a Pyrrhic battle that could cost them their license.

-- Russ Fox

[/ QUOTE ]

Mr. Fox is right. This "chilling affect" is the basis for the harm cited by iMEGA in its lawsuit against AG Gonzales.
It's sad when the Justice Department will not honor federal case law precedence.