|
 Internet
Gambling Ban: Why
Should You Oppose It
This past December,
the United States
settled a trade
dispute with Canada,
Europe, and Japan
over the recently
enacted Unlawful
Internet Gambling
Enforcement Act.
The problem is that
the law carves out
exemptions for some
forms of gambling,
such as state
lotteries and
domestic horse
racing, while
banning most other
forms, most notably
poker, the most
popular form of
online wagering.
The most popular
online poker sites
are all based
overseas, where
online gambling is
legal. This gave
rise to the trade
dispute between the
U.S. and most of the
rest of the western
world.
The U.S. Trade
Office won't release
the terms of the
settlement—an odd
development itself,
given that the
settlement involves
U.S. tax dollars,
was negotiated by
employees of the
U.S. government, and
isn't likely to
involve any
information related
to national
security. But most
experts believe that
given the immense
popularity of online
poker, and the fact
that America is home
not only to most of
the world's poker
players but also the
wealthiest, the
settlement was
likely in the tens
of billions of
dollars.
The U.S. was
negotiating from a
position of
weakness. For the
last few years, the
tiny island nation
of Antigua has been
challenging the U.S.
online gambling ban
in the World Trade
Organization.
Antigua has won
every step of the
way.
RelatedColumn
Archive
Internet Gambling
Ban: Why You Should
Oppose ItGovernment
Power Grabs:
'Predicting' 2008
Death of Main
Street, One Local
Zoning Law at a
TimeCasualties of
the Corrupt Drug
WarSchwarzenegger
Vetoes Justice
Full-page Straight
Talk Archive
Last week, just days
after the U.S.
settlement with
Europe, Japan, and
Canada, the WTO
awarded Antigua $21
million in annual
reparations for
losses to the
Antiguan economy
caused by the
American ban on
Internet gambling.
Because tariffs on
U.S. goods would
hurt the Antiguan
economy far more
than the U.S.
economy, the WTO
gave the okay for
Antigua to recoup
its losses in the
form of copyright
infringement,
essentially making
the country a haven
for movie, music,
and software piracy.
Had the U.S. not
settled with the
world's economic
powerhouses, we
might have seen a
massive battle
unfold between the
U.S. entertainment
industry and the
moral majority types
behind the gambling
ban.
That doesn't mean
the settlement is
something to be
proud of. On the
contrary, it's
pretty despicable.
It's bad enough that
the federal
government feels
it's proper and
appropriate to tell
American citizens
what they're
permitted to do on
their own time in
their own homes with
their own money. But
it's also willing to
spend tens of
billions of dollars
of money paid to the
government by those
same citizens in the
form of taxes to
ensure it retains
that power, and that
it's jurisdiction to
enforce that power
covers the entire
globe.
Ah, but it gets
worse.
The U.S. could have
actually resolved
all of this and
preserved its
precious gambling
prohibition by
simply making the
prohibition uniform.
But that wouldn't
do. Just as
important as the ban
on Internet gambling
itself were the
carve-outs for
politically-protected
special interest
groups—lotteries and
horse racing. So the
tens of billions the
U.S. government is
paying to settle the
trade dispute is not
only to preserve the
gambling ban, it's
to preserve the
congressionally-granted
monopoly on online
wagering for
interests with more
political clout than
poker players.
There are likely
many people whose
reaction to all of
this is "so what?"
It's tough to get
too worked up over a
ban on something as
seemingly niche and
targeted as a ban on
Internet gambling.
Who other than
Internet gamblers
should care?
Part of the problem
is the mentality
that comes with this
kind of legislation.
The gambling ban
seems to have been
supported by two
similar approaches
to governance that,
although they come
from opposite sides
of the political
spectrum, are
generally quite
similar.
From the right, many
feel that if they're
personally morally
opposed to a
particular
consensual activity,
it ought to be
banned for everyone.
From the left, it's
the mentality that
because some people
can't engage in a
particular activity
responsibly and
without harming
themselves, that
activity ought to be
banned for everyone.
One is moral
paternalism. The
other is Nanny State
paternalism. But the
result is the same.
The government makes
your decisions for
you.
The other reason
even non-gamblers
ought to be
concerned about all
of this is that it
will be difficult
for the government
to enforce this ban
without giving law
enforcement some
exceptionally broad
powers. Federal
authorities can't
arrest the owners of
gaming sites because
they're based
offshore, in
countries where
gambling is legal
(unless they're
foolish enough to
come to the U.S.).
The only option,
then, is to go after
the gamblers
themselves. That
means deputizing
banks, credit card
companies, and
Internet Service
Providers to start
monitoring their
customers spending
and web surfing
habits. Because the
penalties against
these companies for
violating the law
are likely to be
severe and because
the law specifically
exempts them from
liability for
over-enforcement,
your bank and ISP
are likely to err on
the side of banning
legal transactions
and erroneously
reporting you to
federal authorities
than to err on the
side of leaving you
alone.
You needn't make
your living playing
Texas Hold 'Em to
worry about the
effects of the
government requiring
your bank and ISP to
spy on you. If
there's any good
news in all of this,
it's that technology
and globalization
have made it
increasingly
difficult for
Congress to enforce
its own morality on
our private
behavior.
The bad news is that
because of that, the
government will
continue to seek
increasingly broad
powers to get its
way.
----
Radley Balko is a
senior editor with
Reason magazine. He
publishes the weblog,
www.TheAgitator.com
Originally published
to Gambling911.com
January 1, 2008
10:53 am EST |
