[jlkrusty]

I agree that you can always deposit your funds into a third party (such as Neteller) and then have them deposit your funds into the online casino. So, I agree with Linus that this should be a non-issue.

However, if the law is successful at forcing ISPs to prohibit access to the sites, then what? I mean, even if the avid poker player could get around this, it will still kill the game because the fish poker players would not be so diligent.

Which brings me to the question of how this could possibly be constitutional. Congress's power to regulate commerce does not mean that they can restrict access to view, read, and download stuff from the web. That's all protected freedom of speech. Party Poker, for example, always advertises itself on T.V. as a free poker school--not a money gambling site. And you can use the Party Poker program for play money--wherein you never exchange a single dime. So, how can Congress force ISPs to restrict access to a site that offers something completely legal?

If they do start restricting access to sites like Party Poker, couldn't Congress restrict access (through local ISPs) to any internet site they want? Isn't this what the U.S. was so critical of China about--restricting ISPs from providing access to certain internet sites? God, I love America.

Anyone have any thoughts on this? Linus, what are your thoughts on this?