NO, not yours, can't have - turns out Kentucky doesn't own the internet after all

[Bill]

Remember how the Governor of Kentucky seized 141 gambling domain names?

Well that boy just got a smackdown. Oh oh, I got the feeling Kentucky is going to be paying some big settlements - lets hope so anyway.

http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/37561


No, the government of Kentucky cannot seize the domain names (http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/33259) of offshore Internet gambling operations just because the governor disapproves of wagering and believes himself ruler of the free world.

In a decision what can only be described as the grownups regaining control, the Kentucky Court of Appeals yesterday overruled a lower court decision that allowed Gov. Steve Beshear's Keystone Cops to confiscate 141 domain names last fall.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation reports (http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/01/kentucky-court-appeals-overturns-lower-courts-seiz):
The Kentucky Court of Appeals today granted petitions by the Interactive Gaming Council (IGC) Interactive Media Entertainment and Gaming Association, Inc. (iMEGA) to overturn an earlier trial court ruling (http://www.eff.org/files/filenode/ky_v_domainnames/order-Kentuckyvs141InternetDomains.pdf) authorizing the seizure of domain names owned by operators of overseas gambling websites. While challenged on several additional fronts -- including on a wide range of Constitutional grounds (http://www.eff.org/files/filenode/ky_v_domainnames/amicusbriefky_0.pdf) by EFF and its fellow amici the ACLU of Kentucky and the Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT) -- the Court overturned the prior ruling based on an interpretation of Kentucky's "gambling device" forfeiture statute:

[I]t stretches credulity to conclude that a series of numbers, or Internet address, can be said to constitute a "machine or any mechanical or other device ... designed and manufactured primarily for use in connection with gambling."

Kentucky's entire approach to this matter stretches credulity (http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/26379), especially given the state's storied association with gambling of the racetrack variety.

You can read the ruling here (http://www.eff.org/files/kentuckyorder.pdf) (.pdf).

So, that's the end of that, right? Well, not necessarily.

A spokesman for the governor tells (http://www.kentucky.com/176/story/665769.html) the Lexington Herald-Leader: "We want to take some time to review (the ruling). No decision has yet been made on whether to appeal it to the state Supreme Court."

[nomercy]

"Beshear? Sounds like one a them Tarrrist! Better lock his ass up!"

All ur base are belong to... Kentucky?!|huh

[tickler]

|whisper|The gambling guys are looking at the COPA ruling to knock out the gambling bans.

Gambling Trade Group Looks to COPA Rulings
As Brennan pointed out, both laws specifically target activities and behavior on the Internet. "And only for the reason that it is on the Internet," he said. "You would not imagine laws being written attacking civil liberties in the offline world in a similar matter.

"All we have to do is look at the fact that for the gaming industry, gambling is legal in 48 of the 50 states to one degree or another. But now you have a federal law targeting Internet gaming and the only real reason is to appeal to a particular voting block, which is ultra-conservatives."
http://online.avn.com/articles/34347.html

[Pagan]

I live in a state (Texas) where a lot of things are illegal. We don't have the "Porn" shops that a lot of large cities do. You can't buy alcohol everywhere, and don't look for it on a Sunday morning at all. Do I miss them? Nope. I can buy my adult entertainment over the net, and I don't drink much. Each state, and most counties have their local laws which do need to be respected. As voters, we do have that privilege. It's within our borders, and we do have the right to restrict it.

At the same time, we need to realize that no one entity controls the Internet. Nothing the US tries to enforce is going to happen on a global basis. Voluntary, yes.. global no. The wrongful seizure of domain names should be corrected. Will seizure of the names discourage gambling? No. Those that wish to put up the sites will come up with other names. That is their right, and like it or not, they do have a right to run a business as long as it is legal in the jurisdiction of the owners. Being a Texan, living in a dry county, it would be wrong for me to own a casino - it would not be legal if it was a brick-and-mortar establishment. Now, if I lived in Las Vegas, different story.

However, some action needs to be taken to do an age verification. As we saw with the early age checks, most are easily defeated, and 16 year olds can use a debit card with a MasterCard/Visa logo just the same as a credit card. Like many of us do, these sites should have to register with the filtering agencies so that responsible parents can act accordingly. Gambling, just like porn, can be an addiction.