Bill text up

[xxThe_Lebowskixx]

The worst part of this text imho is that it seems Fed will play a central role locating which foriegn banks have gambling connections.

[kleath]

[ QUOTE ]
After reading and re-reading the text here, I'm not seeing any language that exempts horse racing/lotteries. I'm not the most experienced in reading forms like this but I'm just saying I don't see it.
Did those exemptions disappear? Did Frist basically take a dump on ALL gambling and not just us?

[/ QUOTE ]

222-223 there is some horse racing mentions.

sup from SRK btw Viscant.

Another thing I noticed in this was that if prizepools are not affected by the amount of players it seems tournaments are not considered wagers.

[Jeff W]

[ QUOTE ]
someone mentioned this in their interpretation of the first bill (see the link in my post above), that its possible we could challenge the constitutionality of this bill on the basis that they failed to give fair notice of exactly what this bill prohibits because its so extremely vague/overbroad. kind of a reach i guess, but who knows..

[/ QUOTE ]

Wouldn't this have to be challenged in court--i.e. long drawn out process with damage done by the time it's over anyway?

[mlagoo]

yeah

edit: but i mean, saying the "damage is done" is probably overstating it.

first of all, if the way you guys are interpreting the ISP thing is correct (and i think it should be and hope it is), then i don't think this bill is "armageddon" or whatever. if it is, however, and online poker is totally [censored], it's better for it to come back in three years than not at all.

[xxThe_Lebowskixx]

oh yeah, how the heck did ISP block make it in there?

where is the AACP?

if it is not illegal to play poker for individual, why cant they access the site?

[kipin]

The government should fear the people, the people should never fear the government.

Somewhere we took a wrong turn.

[whitepotatoe]

I think that was a long time ago.

[Megenoita]

There does seem to be good news in this text--there is no revision of the Wire Act, is that correct? That seems to be a very positive sign. It means that if there is a way found to get money in and out, and assuming party and pokerstars and the other big sites keep on allowing U.S. citizens to play, we can continue to play online poker--it's not clearly illegal as it would be had the revision gotten in.

[luckyharr]

[ QUOTE ]
They only have to remove the links IF THEY ARE GIVEN NOTICE to remove the links. The bill explicitly says that ISP's have ZERO responsibility to go looking for these links and have ZERO liability for links that they weren't notified of by the fed govt.

If for some reason the hilarious thought of the fed govt trying to track down every poker link on every site and also tying that site to an ISP and sending out ntoice to the ISP, etc doesn't make you realize how ineffective this part of the bill is, consider: every poker / gambling website can just head for a candian ISP.



[/ QUOTE ]

True. It is a hilarious that our tax dollars would go towards manually hunting down links. I would assume they would just create scripts to automatically scan web sites for links, and automatically generate notifications to the ISP hosting offending web sites. I mean, that's the way I'd go about it enforcing that part of the bill. Hmmm, maybe there's a business opportunity here?

Also, the Canadian argument. Isn't that a moot point if the Canadian ISP's lack US traffic? I feel like a huge amount of advertising inventory would be off limits to the poker sites. Correct me if I'm completely misunderstanding you here.

Meh, I hope Lucky Chances starts spreading more mid limit holdem games.

[DrewOnTilt]

[ QUOTE ]
The best part of this text imho is that it seems Fed will play a central role locating which foriegn banks have gambling connections.

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP. After this fiasco, I don't think thate the federal government is competent enough to protect a cup of warm piss.