John Kyl "addresses" online gaming

[xxThe_Lebowskixx]

what a [censored] retard.

[Sniper]

Skall,

Why do you keep acting like this is going to play out in a US court... that hasn't been the case so far and the world has significantly changed...

[Skallagrim]

Sniper,

When someone from FTP or Stars or epassporte or whomever is actually busted for providing, promoting, funding or even just playing online poker, all of the arguments I have advanced at one time or another will be made in Court. Either that or there will be a guilty plea.

The "world," meaning legislation, may change ... but until it does, I want to be ready to defend my (and everyone else's) online poker playing under current law.

You should too.

Skallagrim

[lfairban]

What about the Neteller case? Is that what you are talking about?

[Sniper]

Skall, yes, but,

what about the impact before things even get to court?...

[lfairban]

If you read carefully, you will notice that he never once aledges that playing poker for money online is illegal.

He does however imply it.

[Skallagrim]

Neteller was hooked because of its involvement with sportsbetting.

And yes sniper, things do happen before cases go to court, just like people fold before the showdown (again neteller comes to mind). But as soon as the Feds mess with one person or company willing to take their chances in court, these arguments will matter.

[Homer]

[ QUOTE ]
"And finally, if poker gambling enthusiasts truly believe it is a “game of skill,” they can gain an “exemption” by proving that to a court. Under most definitions of “gambling” in state laws, games of skill are not “gambling” even if there is an entry fee and a prize to be won. While poker, like other card games, involves an element of skill, the hands that win or lose are a result of chance – “the luck of the draw.” If enthusiasts could prove otherwise to the satisfaction of a court, then they would not be subject to online gambling restrictions."

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see the relevance of this, especially considering the legality of lotteries and horse betting. Americans should have the right to gamble in their homes, be it on poker, sports, slots, keno, etc. To hell with having to prove that a form of betting is skill-based in order for it to be legal.

[Skallagrim]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"And finally, if poker gambling enthusiasts truly believe it is a “game of skill,” they can gain an “exemption” by proving that to a court. Under most definitions of “gambling” in state laws, games of skill are not “gambling” even if there is an entry fee and a prize to be won. While poker, like other card games, involves an element of skill, the hands that win or lose are a result of chance – “the luck of the draw.” If enthusiasts could prove otherwise to the satisfaction of a court, then they would not be subject to online gambling restrictions."

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see the relevance of this, especially considering the legality of lotteries and horse betting. Americans should have the right to gamble in their homes, be it on poker, sports, slots, keno, etc. To hell with having to prove that a form of betting is skill-based in order for it to be legal.

[/ QUOTE ]

One last time. It shouldnt matter, but in terms of what is politicially possible, it does at this time.

So choose: hold out for full freedom (may have a long wait)
or
take whatever freedom you can get now (and dont stop working for full freedom later).

Anyone know how to make poll in these forums?

Skallagrim

[Grasshopp3r]

I think that you pursue both as they are not mutually exclusive.