November 14th: House Judiciary Committee Hearing Thread

[tangled]

Chairman Conyers:

I would first like to thank you for revisiting the issue of online gaming. This is an issue that deserves more attention from Congress.

I am a nurse and I have a family. I like to relax sometimes at home and play low-stakes poker online. I always play responsibly and in moderation. If I had to go to a casino to play, I wouldn’t be able to enjoy my chosen past time, as traveling to a casino and the time spent there would take too much time away from my family. Also, the stakes offered at casinos would make playing irresponsible for me. As far as my situation goes, the UIGEA is anti-family legislation.

I resent with spitting indignation the idea of someone coming into my home and trying to tell me what I can and can not do there. The celebratory attitude and smug arrogance of many of the selectively anti-gambling proponents is convulsive.

I know that many allege that allowing online gaming will harm society in some ways. This approach is timeless. Enemies of the notion of personal freedoms for everyone have always argued this. There is not a single freedom that someone can not imagine some harm in some way for society. Our founding fathers proved that government can allow personal freedom and still be effective.

This is not to say that government should not prohibit some behavior from time to time due to the harm that it may cause. But it is to say that the onus is on the prohibitionists to prove that the harm really is significant, unavoidable without the prohibition, and that the harm can not be addressed in other, less restrictive ways.

Proponents of the UIGEA have not even come close to meeting these burdens. In reality, only a small percentage of people use the online gaming product in a destructive way. And those that do, would be better helped by professional treatment and effective self-initiated programs than by unenforceable restrictions. For the vulnerable, online gaming is not going to stop just because a law is passed. Many will find a way to play regardless the law. Indeed the only people who will stop using this product are the ones who use it responsibly. With the control that regulation brings, money can be put aside to truly help the troubled gambler. Also, sophisticated and effective technology exists to prevent children from playing online.

Society can be protected without violating the sanctity of my home.

Further, it has been alleged that terrorists might use online gaming as a method to launder money. I must concede this is a realistic threat, because even though there has not been one proven case of this happening to date, now - now -that this industry has been driven more underground with the passage of the UIGEA, the possibility does exist. One of the best reasons to regulate this industry is so it can be monitored and policed by the good guys, and the terrorists can be forced back into their cold, damp caves.

There is more I could say on this issue, but I think this enough for now.

Thank you again for reading and considering.

[KEW]

[ QUOTE ]

Nothing is showing as you know.
I suggest we write and request C-Span to cover this.

Write:
viewer@c-span.org

My letter:

I am writing you in the hope you may decide to broadcast the House Judiciary Hearing on Wednesday Nov. 14, 2007 concerning Hearing on Establishing Consistent Enforcement Policies in the Context of Online Wagers .

This hearing is of great importance since decisions based on the outcome of this hearing will impact the USTR'S negotiations over up to 100 BILLION dollars in WTO trade sanctions with the European Union over the current UIGEA and the attempted withdrawal of U. S. commitments over Internet Wagering made as part of the G.A.T. agreement.

Thanks in advance,


obg

[/ QUOTE ]

E-mail sent

[Moemar]

I am cruising Cspan and Cspan-2? Is there any coverage of this?

[Kevmath]

Hearing link (real audio)

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
I am cruising Cspan and Cspan-2? Is there any coverage of this?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, no. Just online.

[TheEngineer]

Annie Duke's Q&A is better than her testimony.

[CompatiblePoker]

[ QUOTE ]
Annie Duke's Q&A is better than her testimony.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed. She sounds much more confident when she's not reading scripts.

[flight2q]

The DOJ aszwipe has tried to divert the discussion to sexual predators online, and the Calopy guy has fallen for it. Annie Duke now talking about it and giving a bad example of technology.

[Moemar]

ok, TY guys, i am trying to listen online! Think positive thoughts

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
Annie Duke now talking about it and giving a bad example of technology.

[/ QUOTE ]

She wisely moved off it, at least.