![]() |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
I don't think its the entire law, but its part of the 2003 Protect Act.
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
[ QUOTE ]
the 2003 Protect Act. [/ QUOTE ] Protect Act, or Patriot Act? Haven't heard of the former |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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?
|
![]() |
|
|