Some unlikely bedfellows are rounding on Internet gambling, reports the Los Angeles Times. Internet casinos have been springing up fairly regularly over the past 18 months or so, nearly all of them off-shore, requiring a local bank account in whatever, usually exotic location the server is located. There are federal and state laws preventing sports betting over wires, which was initiated to stop inter-state activity. Critics of the Internet casinos think similar measures should be enforced once more. Republican Senators Jon Kyl of Arizona and Orrin Hatch of Utah will campaign to ban Internet gambling when Congress reconvenes. Minnesota Attorney General Hubert H. Humphrey III has sued Granite Gate Resorts of Las Vegas, which operates its WagerNet site, http://www.wagernet.com, out of Belize, arguing somewhat grayly, that the state of Minnesota decides what is legal entertainment for Minnesotans, and as the site advertises that the site is legal for Minnesotans to bet through, it is fraudulent. Ironically, the site is operating on a points, not cash basis at the moment. But it does include a warning to consult your local, county and state authorities regarding restrictions on off-shore sports betting via telephone before registering. Senator Jon Kyl’s position is more straightforward: all gambling is morally bad according to him, regardless of the medium. Internet gambling is also opposed by the American Gaming Association, not a body that would normally find itself allied with the likes of Kyl. Its objection is that there are currently no checks and balances on the off-shore sites, although they obviously have none of Kyl’s moral objections. It gets more complicated still, because native American nations are exempt from most federal gambling legislation. The Foxwoods casino and resort on a reservation at Ledyard, Connecticut is touted as the largest in North America. Those supposedly in the know say that the most likely result of a two-year gambling review that Congress began this year is a call to limit on-line gambling, by which time it could have snowballed. And legislators say the underlying issue is gambling, which is legal in one form or another in most parts of America. But if Congress feels that it is right to legislate against Internet gambling – having seen the Communications Decency Act blocked by a federal appeals court – then why not go after controlling general Internet access as well?
