[drzen]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You are splitting a very fine hair.

[/ QUOTE ]
No, I'm not - because the law was written deliberately so that it would not target players.

[/ QUOTE ]

It doesn't matter whom it targets. The outcome is that it's illegal for us to play online.

[ QUOTE ]
You can read the second reading debates

[/ QUOTE ]

I would rather poke my eyes with sticks, thanks.

[ QUOTE ]
but the whole point of the Australian law is to not target the person who's actually playing poker.

[/ QUOTE ]


WTF? The point of the law is to prevent services to gamblers, right? In particular to problem gamblers. They didn't invent it just to stop Betfair from making money.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Whether the person punished is you or the site, it's illegal for you to play there.

[/ QUOTE ]
No, it is not.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the hair you are splitting. If an owner of a football pitch is banned from allowing you to play football, you are banned from playing football on his pitch.

If a pub owner is fined for serving you when you are drunk, it is illegal for you to be served when you are drunk.

[ QUOTE ]
There is no offence against "playing poker online".

[/ QUOTE ]

And you will show me where I said there was one?

[ QUOTE ]
However, there is an offence against "running a poker site serving Australian customers."

[/ QUOTE ]

Whose effect is to illegalise your playing there. I enjoy splitting hairs with you and all, but you're going to have to bring more material, because I've kicked what you've brought for six already.

[ QUOTE ]
Lumping the site operator and the player together is just bad thinking.

[/ QUOTE ]

No one is doing that. I am suggesting that illegalising the provision of a service that allows an act effectively illegalises the act. You are counterarguing that what is actually illegalised is the provision of the service. No one has disputed that.

[ QUOTE ]
It's like thinking that drug posession is equivalent to drug dealing

[/ QUOTE ]

No, you are wrong. It's like saying that if you illegalised cigar bars that would illegalise cigar smoking in cigar bars. Or that if you stopped licensing nightclub bars that would illegalise drinking in nightclubs. In both cases, even if you fined the bar owner, not the smoker or drinker, the effect is to illegalise the actions of the latter.

Yes, in principle, provision of services to Australians is banned even if no Australian ever tried to use your service. You haven't mentioned this but it's pretty much the only leg you have to stand on.

[ QUOTE ]
- they are treated very differently in our court system.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not a good comparison. You are actually making a comparison to the situation in which Carbon has a website but argues that it is not advertising to or trying to attract Aussies, so it is not trafficking in gambling.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In the same way, it's illegal for you to drink in a pub if you're 13. This is true whether the law says you are fined or the pub is fined.

[/ QUOTE ]
No, it is not the same way - because in states where there is a law against consumption of alcohol by minors, it is actually illegal to consume as well as to sell alcohol (to minors).

[/ QUOTE ]

You are again splitting a hair instead of taking the point. Which rather implies to me that you can't actually answer the point.

In a state that did not have a law illegalising consumption of alcohol by minors, the law against serving them would illegalise their drinking just the same.

[ QUOTE ]
Another good comparison is with underage smoking - it's my understanding that it is not actually illegal for a 15 year old to smoke, but it certainly is illegal for someone to sell them cigarettes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, excellent. If you also illegalised donating cigarettes to 15yos, you would have illegalised 15yo smoking without criminalising the 15yo.

See, that's what you're trying to say. Poker playing is not criminalised. Well, so what? It's still illegal. You just showed how. I applaud you.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm glad I could clear that English idiom up for you. If there's anything else you're struggling with, please let me know.

[/ QUOTE ]
While you try to be a smart arse, you're actually displaying a total ignorance of the laws, and a stubbornness to be corrected. That's much worse than just being wrong in the first place.

The link I made highlighted this point very clearly.


This is not legal advice. If you want legal advice, see a lawyer.

[/ QUOTE ]

You'll have to actually find something to correct before I believe you've "corrected" me. Good luck with that, because my position is pretty solid, and yours is based in a lack of understanding of the difference between making something illegal de facto and criminalising it de jure.