NationStates Jolt Archive

US politicians have launched a fresh bid to stop overseas internet gambling sites reaching American users.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4723814.stm

After the whole China thing, this sounds like double standards to me. :confused:

Good. We have to protect our own American bookies. The internet is just unfair competition. How can a local home-town bookie compete with international sites that don't hospitalize people for not paying up?

...And there I was, thinking our government couldn't possibly make a bigger dick of itself. Well, I now know to never jumpt to conclusions.

After the whole China thing, this sounds like double standards to me. :confused:
Dont worry; the US are nice, fluffy authoritarians.

After the whole China thing, this sounds like double standards to me. :confused:

No it isn't double standards. The Democratic American People's Re-education Squad will be along any minute to explain the error of your ways to you and fix your broken limbs...

You do know that the majority of sports gambling going on is illegal, right?

Canada City']You do know that the majority of sports gambling going on is illegal, right?

And what people were doing in China was illegal. Right back at you BOO YAH

*shrugs* This has much more to do with revenue than censorship per se. If they could get their chunk of hide from the winnings they wouldn't give a shit. Besides which, it's from the democrats, what do you expect.

...And there I was, thinking our government couldn't possibly make a bigger dick of itself. Well, I now know to never jumpt to conclusions.
Did you look to see how YOUR representative voted? I find it funny that people jump to conclusions about things - there are laws proposed all the time - most don't make it. It's going to the Senate now - I suggest if you don't like it you write to YOUR senator.

I will give you the benefit of the doubt of knowing how our system of government works and how a bill becomes a law, but with your statement - I am seriously questioning as to whether you do or not. Just to let people know - we do not have a national government - we have a federal government. The House of Representatives is made up of members of Congress who represent the district of a state. They are supposed to represent THEIR voters interests - not necessarily the national interests. The Senate is the upper house of Congress and is made up of members who represent a state. Again - they are supposed to represent the interest of their state. If people have a problem with this law then I suggest you get with your congressmen who REPRESENT you in Congress and let them know you feelings. If they vote against your interests and you feel so strongly about the issue -t hen I suggest you vote against them - regardless of whether they are in your "party". That is the way a representative democratic federation, which the US is, works.

As for sports betting which is mentioned here - that it not illegal on the national level. That is the state issue and is determined by the states. New Jersey allow sports betting.

BTW - I wouldn't exactly call this censorship (what information are you being prevented from seeing?). Under the Constitution the federal government has authority to manage internatonal trade. Since internet betting is from overseas, Congress can regulate it. States themselves can also make it illegal - and many have. NJ I believe is currently looking at making internet gambling illegal.

<snip>.
What's up? I'm from Trenton. Welcome to NS.

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/63d181a0-9fe6-11da-a703-0000779e2340.html

Oh, don’t be stupid. It is completely absurd to compare the American government’s attempts to put mild restrictions on international online gambling rackets to a police state like China routing out and suppressing free speech. Our concern with these sites is that they are demonstrably prone to be vehicles of money laundering and racketeering. According to that same article, the WTO does not find this to be in violation of any international trade treatises, and it is totally justified for our government to want to keep criminal conduits off our shores.

This is not suppression of free speech. This is what we here in America like to call “protecting our citizens from thugs and gangsters.” …. How primitive of us.

Now, you’re going to sit there and tell me that you find these concerns hypocritical because meanwhile we advocate freedom of speech? Because we take issue with China deploying omnipresent, AI-driven anime characters that monitor web sites and chat rooms in order to report dissent to a shadowy governmental bureau? We, in your mind, are hypocrites, because we are strongly opposed the use of a system of Orwellian, psychologically manipulative police tactics geared toward silencing a basic human right?

Frankly, I haven’t the patience for someone who is comfortable with a government that actually prides itself on its suppression of free speech, but gets all sanctimonious over a government that has a slight problem with international gambling cartels on its soil.

I'd feel better if they went after oversea scam mailers...

What's up? I'm from Trenton. Welcome to NS.
I'm just north of you in Plainsboro, actually in the process of moving to Trenton (by the Trenton Thunder Stadium)

I've actually been to Nation States for a while - but hardly ever post in the forums. Thanks for the welcome though. :)

Frankly, I haven’t the patience for someone who is comfortable with a government that actually prides itself on its suppression of free speech, but gets all sanctimonious over a government that has a slight problem with international gambling cartels on its soil.
You have so little patience, you didn't bother to notice that I did not state my position on Chinese internet controls. :rolleyes:

What is my position on it? You don't know. You only assume you know. Because you are too impatient to look for the facts.

It is hypocritical though. What the US is proposing to do is the exact same thing as China is doing. Same tech, same application, same scope for abuse. That doesn't sound like much of an endorsement to you, does it?

Double standards 4tw.

I'd feel better if they went after oversea scam mailers...
That would have my support. At least then you'd know you're going after criminals, instead of this "well, some of them launder money as well" bullshit.

How can they criminalize gambling site that aren't based in the U.S.? How do they honestly expect to enforce such a law even if they make it?!?

I suspect that this won't even make it through Congress. What do you think? Place your bets!! :D

How can they criminalize gambling site that aren't based in the U.S.? How do they honestly expect to enforce such a law even if they make it?!?

They can't enforce it, not without putting controls on the internet - like Germany and Austria do.

I suspect that this won't even make it through Congress. What do you think? Place your bets!! :D
I don't think it has any chance of making it past the senate.

The point is not that we're employing the same technology. The point is that while the US seeks to protect our people from criminals, the People's Republic of China is systematically, tactically suppressing freedom of speech. You cannot compare mild, anti-money laundering measures to an Orwellian, police state.

Besides, whatever we're trying to do with this online gambling thing isn't exactly that important to our people. If it was, and we disagreed with it, we would elect new representatives. Online gambling is not a terribly important issue. What is infinitley more important is the undermining of human dignity in China. Thus, the two are utterly imcomparable.

You cannot compare mild, anti-money laundering measures to an Orwellian, police state.
Things begin with small steps. Once people accept one little change, it becomes easier to make another, and another, etc. No-one ends up in a police state suddenly. It happens without anyone noticing. Thus defense of an absolute principle is important.

How can they criminalize gambling site that aren't based in the U.S.? How do they honestly expect to enforce such a law even if they make it?!?

I suspect that this won't even make it through Congress. What do you think? Place your bets!! :D
<.<
>.>


*whispers* $10 on no *slips LG cash under the table*

I suspect that this won't even make it through Congress. What do you think? Place your bets!! :D
Now that would be the most sane response to this bullshit. :p

US politicians have launched a fresh bid to stop overseas internet gambling sites reaching American users.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4723814.stm

After the whole China thing, this sounds like double standards to me. :confused:
It's one standard. No gambling over the telecommunications structure in the US period. The way things are now, on-line gambling is quasi-legal so long as it's not a US company wasn't going to last. The country was essentially shutting out only US companies from the largest market. Full legalization is a political impossibility, so presto. Its and end to the schitzophrenia. Just not the end that was most desirable for legit companies outside of the US, not that their desires were either important or particularly likely to be fullfilled.

It's one standard. No gambling over the telecommunications structure in the US period.
It's an anachronism that is sending out the wrong message. It announces that yes, the US will put up a firewall around its borders which selectively blocks online content. And then it lectures other countries about blocking content of which their legislature does not approve. You simply cannot have it both ways and maintain any sort of integrity.

One country may block access to sports betting websites, another may block access to a particular media outlet, it amounts to the same thing - a limiting of choice for internet users in line with domestic law, and that's a slippery slope.

As if the freedom to share one's thoughts and commecial activity were the same thing. The only thing they have in common is the infrastructure.

And while it might be nice if our countries all treated us like big boys. I notice that you can't order whores on-line legally, or pot, or a whole host of other things either. At the end of the day, it's one country deciding what's acceptable commercial activity withing it's borders and applying that to everyone. Which is a fair sight different that ruthlessly persecuting people for simply discussing the possiblity of a live not lived under oppression.

The point is not that we're employing the same technology. The point is that while the US seeks to protect our people from criminals, the People's Republic of China is systematically, tactically suppressing freedom of speech.the peoples republic of china is protecting itself from more than mere criminals, it is trying to stop counterrevolutinarys, who are the mortal enemy of the proletariat, it is a matter of life and death and unlike the prosecution of some petty criminals a valid reason to controll the internet.

Pssh, this just seems like the US having tantrum over something it can't control. And it has no right to ban online gambling under its current treaty obligations.

And as far as I understand the law they can only enforce a ban on internet gambling by censoring the sites. Seeing as they can't make the transactions illegal because the transaction takes place on foreign soil and so is not subject to US law.

To me this just seems like a form of elitism. The stock market for the rich. but no gambling for others. And if the US was really worried about money laundering then they'd be better off cooperating with other countries in an attempt to break up the criminal syndicates that do launder money.

At the end of the day, it's one country deciding what's acceptable commercial activity withing it's borders and applying that to everyone. Which is a fair sight different that ruthlessly persecuting people for simply discussing the possiblity of a live not lived under oppression.
There is no difference. Take the Falun Gong. According to Chinese law, it is a banned organisation and a threat to the people and the state. The US also maintains a list of banned organisations which it perceives to be a threat to the people and the state. It is not at all far-fetched that one day the US will block access to their websites under some new piece of domestic security legislation. Objectively, there is no difference. Even if comparing restriction of commercial activity and restriction of political activity, there is no difference. The whole Cold War was fought on the principle that the two are indistinguishable and inseparable! Only if you have chosen a side and made a value judgement, is there a difference. I tend to view these things from a remote, uninvolved perspective, and can see the common folly.

Now that would be the most sane response to this bullshit. :p

But do you expect sanity in Congress? Srsly.