Relevant 1st Amend. case decided in Nevada last week ?

[Russ Fox]

[ QUOTE ]
The basic premise is that online poker is not illegal everywhere in the US. Hypothetical State A does NOT outlaw it and there is no Federal law which outlaws it.


[/ QUOTE ]
Unfortunately, the USDOJ currently holds the opposite opinion--that federal law today does outlaw all Internet gambling. This view has been stated many times, including the letters by the DOJ to North Dakota and Nevada (when they were considering laws on Internet gambling). And a broadcaster, holding a license from the federal government, has no choice but to obey the views of the DOJ. The risks of fines and even the potential of losing the license are too high. Whether the DOJ's view is correct or not is irrelevant when the US government holds all the cards.

If and when a state has legal intrastate online gambling, I believe at that time it would be legal for an in-state broadcaster to air advertisements for said site, with appropriate disclaimers.

-- Russ Fox

[JPFisher55]

Federal case law exists that holds that federal law only outlaws sports betting. Even the Neteller case was a sportsbetting case.
I agree that the threat of prosecution has chilled legal advertising of online gambling. Which is why I hope that iMEGA wins its case. I don't think that even the Bush DOJ would violate a court ordered injunction; well I hope not.

[tangled]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The basic premise is that online poker is not illegal everywhere in the US. Hypothetical State A does NOT outlaw it and there is no Federal law which outlaws it.


[/ QUOTE ]
Unfortunately, the USDOJ currently holds the opposite opinion--that federal law today does outlaw all Internet gambling. This view has been stated many times, including the letters by the DOJ to North Dakota and Nevada (when they were considering laws on Internet gambling). And a broadcaster, holding a license from the federal government, has no choice but to obey the views of the DOJ. The risks of fines and even the potential of losing the license are too high. Whether the DOJ's view is correct or not is irrelevant when the US government holds all the cards.

If and when a state has legal intrastate online gambling, I believe at that time it would be legal for an in-state broadcaster to air advertisements for said site, with appropriate disclaimers.

-- Russ Fox

[/ QUOTE ]


I am so shocked by your post that I am wondering if there is some brilliant nuance that I am missing.

The DOJ does not interpret law, they enforce it. The courts interpret law and so far they have said that the Wire Act does not apply to poker.

It is "revelant" if the DOJ is correct in their opinion of the federal legality of online poker.

You make it sound as if the DOJ has never been contradicted by the courts, and so it is futile to ever challenge their opinion.

[Zobags]

[ QUOTE ]
You make it sound as if the DOJ has never been contradicted by the courts

[/ QUOTE ]

But they are rarely contradicted by large media outlets.

[Russ Fox]

[ QUOTE ]
The DOJ does not interpret law, they enforce it. The courts interpret law and so far they have said that the Wire Act does not apply to poker.

[/ QUOTE ]
You are, of course, correct--courts interpret the law. And in the only appeals court ruling to date, the Fifth Circuit ruled that online poker was not illegal (in re Mastercard ).

So what.

Assume, for the moment, that you hold a broadcast license. You have received a letter from the DOJ stating that if you broadcast any advertisements for any online gambling .com website, you will be fined, and could face further punishment (including loss of your broadcast license). Would you accept any advertisements from a .com site?

Those letters were sent to every media group (NAB, etc.) and to media outlets that had aired online gambling advertisements a few years ago. Some media companies have received fines and/or have had to forward monies received for such ads to the government--the DOJ is not making an idle threat.

Broadcasters hold licenses from the US government. The US government says that accepting such ads can cost you your license. Until the government changes that policy, no broadcast medium will be airing advertisements for any .com sites. No broadcaster will engage in a Pyrrhic battle that could cost them their license.

-- Russ Fox

[JPFisher55]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The DOJ does not interpret law, they enforce it. The courts interpret law and so far they have said that the Wire Act does not apply to poker.

[/ QUOTE ]
You are, of course, correct--courts interpret the law. And in the only appeals court ruling to date, the Fifth Circuit ruled that online poker was not illegal (in re Mastercard ).

So what.

Assume, for the moment, that you hold a broadcast license. You have received a letter from the DOJ stating that if you broadcast any advertisements for any online gambling .com website, you will be fined, and could face further punishment (including loss of your broadcast license). Would you accept any advertisements from a .com site?

Those letters were sent to every media group (NAB, etc.) and to media outlets that had aired online gambling advertisements a few years ago. Some media companies have received fines and/or have had to forward monies received for such ads to the government--the DOJ is not making an idle threat.

Broadcasters hold licenses from the US government. The US government says that accepting such ads can cost you your license. Until the government changes that policy, no broadcast medium will be airing advertisements for any .com sites. No broadcaster will engage in a Pyrrhic battle that could cost them their license.

-- Russ Fox

[/ QUOTE ]

Mr. Fox is right. This "chilling affect" is the basis for the harm cited by iMEGA in its lawsuit against AG Gonzales.
It's sad when the Justice Department will not honor federal case law precedence.

[MiltonFriedman]

You are kind of missing the point.

The First amendment discussion is not limited to broadcasting licensees under the FCC jurisdiction.

The Nevada case involved newspapers, the internet sites are hosted on the internet, there are a slew of advertising and marketing options which are not under the FCC jurisdiction. The FCC and its licensees are at best a footnote to this discussion.

[MiltonFriedman]

Mr. Fox's point is inapposite to the discussion. (As for whether it is correct, that is debatable at best, as broadcasters did air Dot.Net ads for years following the DOJ letters.)

[MiltonFriedman]

Your hopes for iMEGA winning an injunction will be dashed, given the relief they are after .... . Their chances are less than those of hitting a 1 outer. (I would be delighted to be proven wrong.)

[JPFisher55]

[ QUOTE ]
Your hopes for iMEGA winning an injunction will be dashed, given the relief they are after .... . Their chances are less than those of hitting a 1 outer. (I would be delighted to be proven wrong.)

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree concerning their request for a TRO. But I disagree about their prayer for a final injunction. I think their constitution arguments are strong. Their original petition is better than their recent brief.
The biggest problems that I see for iMEGA in their lawsuit are standing and ripeness issues.
All we can do is wait and hope for the best.