Impact of Child Porn case on imega?

[Legislurker]

It seems a lot of the First Amendment arguments in this case are similar to ones iMega is using. The Justices seemed sceptical that the law was "too broad". I am not a Court watcher but Im afraid if they reinstate this law, iMega's free speech/association argument will suffer.

Story.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...oryId=15762491

[JPFisher55]

The article was not specific on what the law actually covered or its language so who knows. The previous rulings cited by the article help the iMEGA. Those rulings struck down statutes attempting to prohibit child pornography on the Internet because they were too broad; even though child pornography is not protected by the 1st amendment.
The UIGEA is about as broad as it gets. It can affect my right to play online poker in MO where it is legal.

[Legislurker]

I don't think its the entire law, but its part of the 2003 Protect Act.

[Lottery Larry]

[ QUOTE ]
the 2003 Protect Act.

[/ QUOTE ]

Protect Act, or Patriot Act? Haven't heard of the former

[Legislurker]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PROTECT_Act_of_2003

[JPFisher55]

If that law cannot pass Supreme Court muster, then the UIGEA has no chance when it, and big if, gets to the Supreme Court. Heck under the UIGEA, no one knows what is exactly unlawful Internet gambling and thus what is a crime?

[Legislurker]

So if the Court lets the current decision stand, then iMega has a solid chance to win thier case on the same grounds? Just checking to make sure Im reading right, Im in massive caffeine withdrawl today.

[Skallagrim]

This case helps iMega only a little.

Playing poker for money is commerce, not speech. The rules are very different. There is a small part of the iMega case that talks about advertisers and such. That has some real speech issues, but thats not the part we care about.

The rest of the iMega case will not be helped - the over breadth of the UIGEA is clear, but over broad laws are only unconstitutional on their face in speech cases, and even then they only strike the part of the law that inhibits the freedom of speech. Over broad commercial laws may get struck down for other reasons (and, of course, I hope this one will), but this free speech case wont make much of a difference to the outcome.

Skallagrim

[JPFisher55]

Actually, Skall, I was thinking about the vagueness argument that I believe applies to any criminal statute. How can one tell what is a crime under UIGEA without some definition of UIG? I am somewhat surprised that the iMEGA filings do not make a bigger vagueness argument
In addition, IMO playing online poker in your home does have some constitution protection as an act of privacy. The UIGEA chills that right. This is the biggest argument used by iMEGA in its filings to enjoin the UIGEA. I am not sure if the privacy right fits under the first amendment but I think that Supreme Court applied the first amendment to the sodomy cases to overturn state statutes prohibiting gay sex in one's home.

[Skallagrim]

I was only responding the the question about the pending child porn case, JP. It only concerns speech. Very little of the iMega suit is about speech.

Vagueness and privacy concerns are legit arguments, but they are not present in this pending case, so it cant help them.

Skallagrim