gambling on line

Saw a good article on poker gambling law on pokernex.com. Cheers John
I wanted to suggest having a list of sites like riverbelle.com online casino linked from this page? any thoughts?
Wikipedia isn't a link repository. The online casino article links to dmoz list of online casions so that is taken care of. 2005 20:31, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi. There's several problems with this article, mostly revolving around the "Legal Issues" section.
The first problem is the link to "playwinningpoker.com." This is an affiliate site, a site that makes money for its owner by channelling traffic to the gambling sites it promotes. Typically affiliates are paid on a profit-sharing basis, according to how much traffic they drive to their advertisers, and how much the traffic (the punters) lose. This is a problem, first of all, because the affiliate improves his Google rating by linking to a popular, trusted, site like Wikipedia. This is a huge financial issue to affiliates, who spend a lot of time, money, and effort trying to get their sites ranked high on Google. While it's great SEO strategy for the affiliate, it's bad news for Wikipedia. It's also a problem because it creates conflict of interest issues. Addressing the (il)legality of internet gambling is bad business for affiliates - they have an interest in presenting gambling in the best light they possibly can. The article is also factually incorrect, and misleading. But the affiliate-link is the first problem I wanted to address. Thanks. LinusK 20:59, 8 July 2006 (UTC)=LinusK July 8, 2006
I have removed the sentence about "no other laws prohibit internet gambling" as well as the affiliate link. The first is celarly incorrect, and the second I concur is a questionable source at best. Steve Badger is definitely a poker authority, but even his link admits he is not an attorney. Tubby Spencer 21:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC) I fixed the sentence to say what the cite says, rather than the previous confusing summary sentence. The two courts ruled what they ruled. LinusK, you need to familarize yourself with the Wikipedia. A good idea to start with is Wikipedia:Citing sources. Significant entries should always be cited, in this case both court ruling are included in their entirety and a briefer summary is included. The commerciality of websites is irrelevant to the accuracy of content. The affiliate business model of a website is obviously not a concern to the fact of a ruling of a US court. Feel free to edit the encyclopedia, but focus on the content of the material, not your bias about certain types of websites. 2005 22:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC) Hi. There's still problems with this. The statement, "Online gambling is legal and regulated in many countries including most members of the European Union," needs to be sourced. The UK has started the process of licensing internet gambling sites, but most of them continue to operate out of Gibraltar and the Isle of Man. I don't know of any internet gambling site that has a license from Germany, Italy, France, or any other EU country. Well, there are things you don't know, apparently. :) betandwin.com, for instance, is based in Austria and is on the Austrian stock exchange. Fearwig 13:53, 10 July 2006 (UTC) You need to distinguish between the MasterCard case, and the Cohen case, and you need to put the MasterCard case in context. The WTO decision is interesting, but it didn't "effectively allow[] state laws prohibiting gambling in Louisiana, Massachusetts, South Dakota and Utah. The WTO does not make or unmake laws in the US, either at the state or Federal level. The main problem with the article, though, is that it's misleading. I am glad to see the affiliate link gone, though. LinusK. European countries have online gambling options like lotteries, which doesn't mean they regulate online gambling businesses. Apples and oranges. You are talking about something different. 2005 03:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC) Well, either way, if they don't regulate online gambling businesses, the article shouldn't say that they do. I'm going to try to make some changes. If you don't like what I'm doing, I hope you'll explain what's wrong, instead of just reverting. Thanks.[User:LinusKLinusK]] 21:10, 9 July 2006 (UTC)=LinusK. It says what it says. They regulate what they regulate. They don't regulate everything and anything under the sun. Nobody does that. It could be more clear that they regulate "some" types of Internet gambling but not others, but that is sort of self-evident. 2005 22:25, 9 July 2006 (UTC) In the United States, the link between availability and problem gambling was investigated in 1999 by the National Gambling Impact Study, which found that "the presence of a gambling facility within 50 miles roughly doubles the prevalence of problem and pathological gamblers". If this finding is correct, it is reasonable to expect that easy access to gambling online would also increase problem gambling.
That's a common, but fallacious interpretation of a correlational study--if the presence of a facility doubles the prevalence of problem gamblers, it is just as reasonable to assume that a portion of that prevalence, potentially (if not surely) all of that prevalence, is made of pathological gamblers who choose to locate themselves near a casino, as many would. Additionally (and probably statistically more significantly), people who have access to a casino are more likely to show symptoms of pathological gambling even when such predisposition may exist in a much larger portion of the general population--I am somewhat surprised the figures aren't "ten times" or more instead of "double". Anyhow, I'm arguing semantics for my own entertainment, and while I find the interpretation interesting it sounds as though it falls under WP:NOR, especially since there are many ways to interpret correlational data (see the "marriage makes people wealthier because more wealthy people get married" debate, for instance). Thoughts on removal of this bit? Fearwig 13:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that portion certainly draws an apples and oranges conclusion. I took out one part and left the direct quote from the study, which whether it is "right" or not, is the POV of that study. It also make that section more in line with the rest of the article, which mostly just directs readers to more extensive/specific articles. 2005 19:42, 10 July 2006 (UTC) There are varying opinions on online gambling's legality at the moment espcially with the new laws passed in the US. I found this to be a good article on the different view points around this issueOnline gambling is a general term for gambling using the Internet. This article provides a brief introduction to some of the forms of online gambling, as well as discussing general issues.Typically, gamblers upload funds to the online gambling company, make bets or play the games that it offers, and then cash out any winnings. European gamblers can often fund gambling accounts by credit card or debit card, and cash out winnings directly back to the card. However, most US banks prohibit the use of their cards for the purpose of internet gambling, and attempts by Americans to use credit cards at internet gambling sites are usually rejected.[1] A number of electronic money services offer accounts with which online gambling can be funded. However, many top fund-transfer sites such as FirePay, Neteller & Moneybookers have discontinued service for U.S. residents.
Payment by check and wire transfer is also common.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled[2] in November 2002 that the Federal Wire Act prohibits electronic transmission of information for sports betting across telecommunications lines but affirmed a lower court ruling[3] that the Wire Act "'in plain language' does not prohibit Internet gambling on a game of chance."
Some states have specific laws against online gambling of any kind. Also, owning an online gaming operation without proper licensing would be illegal, and no states are currently granting online gaming licenses.
In March 2003, Deputy Assistant Attorney General John G. Malcolm testified before the Senate Banking Committee regarding the special problems presented by online gambling.[4] A major concern of the United States Department of Justice is online money laundering. The anonymous nature of the Internet and the use of encryption make it especially difficult to trace online money laundering transactions.
In April 2004 Google and Yahoo!, the two largest internet search engines, announced that they were removing online gambling advertising from their sites. The move followed a United States Department of Justice announcement that, in what some say is a contradiction of the Appeals Court ruling, the Wire Act relating to telephone betting applies to all forms of Internet gambling, and that any advertising of such gambling "may" be deemed as aiding and abetting. Critics of the Justice Department's move say that it has no legal basis for pressuring companies to remove advertisements and that the advertisements are protected by the First Amendment.[5] As of April 2005, Yahoo! has instigated a restrictive policy about gambling ads.[6]
In August 2004, Casino City, an online portal for internet gambling sites, sued the US Department of Justice. The complaint alleged, inter alia, that the websites business—promoting internet gambling—was legal, and requested a declaration from the court that its business was protected by the First Amendment. The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana dismissed the case in February 2005.
In its opinion, the District Court wrote,
It is well-established that the First Amendment does not protect the right to advertise illegal activity... The government's interest is specifically directed towards the advertising of illegal activity, namely Internet gambling... Furthermore, the speech in which the plaintiff wishes to engage is misleading because it falsely portrays the image that Internet gambling is legal... Because plaintiff's speech concerns misleading information and illegal activities, it does not fall within the speech that is protected by the First Amendment.[7] The US Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit, dismissed Casino City's appeal in January, 2006.[8]
In February 2005 the North Dakota House of Representatives passed a bill to legalize and regulate online poker and online poker cardroom operators in the State. Testifying before the State Senate, Nigel Payne, CEO of Paradise Poker, pledged to relocate to the state if the bill became law. However, the measure was defeated by the State Senate in March 2005. Rep. Jim Kasper, who sponsored the 2005 legislation, plans to introduce similar bills in the 2007 North Dakota legislative session.
In July 2006, David Carruthers, the CEO of BetonSports, a company publicly traded on the London Stock Exchange was detained in Texas while changing planes on his way from London to Costa Rica.[9] He and ten other individuals had been previously charged in a sealed indictment with violations of US Federal laws relating to illegal gambling. While as noted above, a United States Appeals court has stated that the Wire Act does not apply to non-sports betting, the Supreme Court of the United States previously refused to hear an appeal of the conviction of Jay Cohen, where lower courts held that the Wire Act does make it illegal to own a sports betting operation that offers such betting to United States citizens.[10]
The BetOnSports indictment alleged violations of at least 9 different Federal statutes, including 18 USC Sec. 1953 (Operation of an Illegal Gambling Business).[11] Carruthers is currently under house arrest on a one million dollar bail bond.[12]
In September 2006, Sportingbet reported that its chairman, Peter Dicks, was detained in New York City on a Louisiana warrant while traveling in the United States on business unrelated to online gaming.[13] Louisiana is one of the few states that has a specific law prohibiting gambling online. At the end of the month, New York dismissed the Louisiana warrant.[14]
Also in September 2006, just before adjourning for the midterm elections, both the House of Representatives and Senate passed legislation (as an amendment to the unrelated SAFE Port Act) that would make transactions from banks or similar institutions to online gambling sites illegal. This differed from a previous bill passed only by the House that expanded the scope of the Wire Act. The passed bill only addressed banking issues.[15] The Act was signed into law on October 13, 2006 by President George W. Bush. At the UIGEA bill-signing ceremony, Bush did not mention the Internet gambling measure, which was supported by the National Football League but opposed by banking groups.[16]
In response to SAFE Port Act, a number of online gambling operators including PartyGaming, Bwin, Cassava Enterprises, and Sportingbet announced that real-money gambling operations would be suspended for U.S. customers. PartyGaming's stock dropped by 60% following its announcement. Other operators such as PokerStars, Bodog, and World Sports Exchange announced their intention to continue serving customers in the U.S.
On April 26, 2007, Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) introduced HR 2046, the Internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement Act, which would modify UIGEA by providing a provision for licensing of Internet gambling facilities by the Director of the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network.
On June 7, 2007, Rep. Robert Wexler (D-FL) introduced HR 2610, the Skill Game Protection Act, which would legalize Internet poker, bridge, chess, and other games of skill. Also on June 7, Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA) introduced H.R. 2607, the Internet Gambling Regulation and Tax Enforcement Act. IGRTEA would legislate Internet gambling tax collection requirements.
On June 8, 2007, the House Financial Services Committee, chaired by Barney Frank, held a hearing entitled, "Can Internet Gambling Be Effectively Regulated to Protect Consumers and the Payments System?".[17] Expert witnesses at the hearing testified that Internet gambling can be effectively regulated for age verification, money laundering issues, facilitation of state and federal tax collection, and for issues relating to compulsive gambling.