The "UIGEA is unconstitutional" argument is a loser

[joeker]

Just saw an article on Gambling 911 trying to compare the porn industry's latest legal victory based on free speech to online gambling.

I really hope people don't start using the UIGEA is unconstitutional argument because that route is a big loser.

Gambling is NOT free speech, it's commerce, and the U.S. Congress is given full power to regulate commerce in the constitution, and that's what the UIGEA does. The UIGEA is completely constitutional. There are plenty of valid arguments to use against the UIGEA and this is NOT one of them.

This is not constitutional issue, it's a legislative one and that's what needs to be focused on.

[Karak567]

How is the porn industry not commerce?

Congress can use the elastic clause and extend their power to pretty much everything if they wanted to. This is why we have the courts.

[Grasshopp3r]

Any argument has the potential to be successful. How flag burning is free speech is beyond me.

[Anders]

[ QUOTE ]
Any argument has the potential to be successful. How flag burning is free speech is beyond me.

[/ QUOTE ]

The day that a law is passed outlawing flag burning would be the day that I burn my first flag.

[joeker]

It's a loser and a waste of time going that route

None of the anti-porn laws deal with commerce, they deal with free speech

What a waste of time and resources this will be, I hope the PPA doesn't take this argument

[MiltonFriedman]

"None of the anti-porn laws deal with commerce, they deal with free speech'

This is simply flat out wrong. They sometimes deal with interstate commerce in materials;

As the court recognized when striking down the NY censorship law in ALA v. Pataki, the Internet is much like the railroad system, because it is used to transport speech and information all over the country. The New York law, like similar state laws, violated the Commerce Clause because it would have required a Texan who posts a web page or message to abide by New York standards, even if no one from New York ever saw the page or read the post.

The court in A[merian Library Assn] v. Pataki held that internet users must be protected from "inconsistent legislation that, taken to its most extreme, could paralyze development of the Internet altogether."

(I happen to agre that interstategaming is NOT a free speech area, but please do not ignore interstate commerce law cases which may be relevant.)

[Skallagrim]

Milton is right here folks, as has been discussed before.

And Adanthar, since the courts have been willing to use the Dormant Commerce Clause to strike down INTERNET CHILD PORNOGRAPHY laws, why on earth do think they wouldnt take a poker case seriously? Is online Poker worse than kidde porn (which, by the way, is also not protected by the first amendment)?

Congress failed to engage in national regulation of internet gambling when it passed the UIGEA, instead deferring to individual state law. While its possible that the courts would say gambling is so unique it was okay for congress to do this, it would be the first such exemption to traditional commerce clause reasoning. Highly unlikely IMO.

Skallagrim

[El_Hombre_Grande]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Any argument has the potential to be successful. How flag burning is free speech is beyond me.

[/ QUOTE ]

The day that a law is passed outlawing flag burning would be the day that I burn my first flag.

[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutely. I've been saying this for years, and everybody looks at me like I'm a communist. Of course you can burn the American flag in America -- because we are free to express our political beliefs, period. I will not burn a flag, out of respect, but I would the day you tell me I'm no longer free to do so. At that point, the flag is just a mockery of itself, like the Soviet constitution. And of course, this is the purest form of political speech there is.

[joeker]

LOL....all this arguing about this legal minutia is irrelevant

I stand by my assertion that the UIGEA is completely constitutional and that arguing it isnt is a waste of time and resources.

This is a good debate though...NH sirs

[JPFisher55]

Some of the state laws regulating gambling as it applies to internet gambling may violate the Commerce Clause under the DCC cases. Thus under the UIGEA, breaching those laws may not be unlawful gambling.
The only problem is that one could interpret the UIGEA to provide federal approval to all these state gambling laws.
I don't see any fundamental right to gamble like free speech that would protect our right to internet gambling as the US constitution is presently interpreted by the US Supreme Court. One hundred years ago, when the view of legitimate role of government was much more restricted, I would have differed. But then the UIGEA or any similar restriction would never have been introduced in Congress 100 years ago. No one ever contested gambling laws 100 years ago because they were hardly ever enforced.