[damaniac]

[ QUOTE ]
"You'd have to get creative to argue that online gambling is free speech, I think."

How creative, really ?

1. Video games is a business, the company puts out software that someone pays to play on.

2. The publisher/provider of the software seems to enjoy speech protection.

3. Online poker sites publish/provide software that someone pays to play on.

4. Is there a valid "content" ban against real money play on the software ?? Under this line of cases, apparently not, because the same activity is allowed offline,by the government in brick & mortar venues.

5. Money laundering needs some evidentiary basis to stand up to scrutiny, otherwise why ban the activity rather than tailor a remedy for that possible ill. Cf ACLU v. Gonzales,

[/ QUOTE ]

Sounds like there are a couple of ways you're trying to take this (neither of which will work).

One is the speech angle. Yeah, I get your argument; no court is going to find a ban on Internet gambling to be a ban on a form of speech as protected by the First Amendment. They're just not.

The other thing is an equal protection argument. Ie, that by banning internet gambling in some areas but not others, the government is discriminating against people who prefer to play on the banned games. This would be an equal protection claim, since you have one class of people (poker players, say) being treated from another (people who bet on horse races).

The problem is that this triggers rational basis scrutiny. The only things one needs to know about rational basis: 1) it needn't be rational and 2) it doesn't have to be the actual basis for the law. If the court can think of an argument that one could use that might make sense to someone somewhere, that's basically it.

I admire your efforts and your posts, but really, gambling isn't speech in the eyes of the courts, and it isn't going to be found to be.