On June 7th 2006 in the state of Washington, a law which made gambling online a felony went into effect. This law angered many of the states citizens and many others who are simply for the freedom to gamble as they would choose. It is an economically driven law, as the state has a lottery and several Indian casinos they wish to protect. This isn't a law based on morality. Otherwise all gambling would be illegal in the state. Many consider the law extremely unfair. The punishment for breaking this law is harsher than committing an armed robbery. There's something else that people are wondering about this law. Is it legal?

The Seattle P-I online edition had an article by Blythe Lawrence and Tracy Johnson which asked just that. Their main concern was regarding websites which link to online casinos. Which are legal, and which aren't. The debate is whether the law is too vague and not specific enough. Will the law punish someone writing about online gambling or a site which has links to casinos? It seems the biggest concern is if the site is advertising the internet casino, or not.

Michael Overing, a Los Angeles lawyer who specializes in the First Amendment stated that a link alone is not enough in his opinion. "Providing a hypertext link does not seem to aid and abet gambling. Perhaps the law is overbroad in that respect."

The law states that anyone who "knowingly transmits or receives gambling information" via the internet is guilty of a Class C felony punishable by up to five years in prison. This could mean anything from placing links on your website to gambling online. While internet casinos are currently illegal in the United States the right to place a bet online is not illegal on a federal level.

Rick Day is the director of the Washington State Gambling Commission, according to Day the state won't be aiming their sites at the individual gambling enthusiast. "What you have to look at is whether that is a solicitation or inducement for people to engage in something that's illegal." In other words, if that enthusiast is just blogging about blackjack then they will be ok. However, if they are telling you to play blackjack in a certain online casino and then give a link to that internet casino they won't be.

According to Day the state is aiming at big corporations. What I want to know is his definition of big corporation. Apparently a big corporation is a guy who is running a website on his own to support his family.

Todd Boutte is a man from Bellingham who had a website which linked to internet casinos. He was interviewed by The Bellingham Herald and admitted that he ran the website but added that he didn't make bets nor did he take bets.

Day responded by telling The Bellingham Herald that those who link to gambling sites are in danger of prosecution. "Any party involved could be guilty of a violation of state law," he said. "If the site also has a link to a gambling site, then to us that's no different."

Boutte had no choice but to shut down his site. According to the P-I article, "He couldn't be reached for additional comment."

Both the attorney generals office and a professor of constitutional law at Seattle University believe that the law is valid as it is written.

Janelle Guthrie, spokeswoman for the state Attorney General's Office states, "The answer to what's legal and what isn't, changes every time you change the facts. We don't believe these laws are vague, and if they were challenged as unconstitutional, we would defend them."

David Skover, a professor of constitutional law at Seattle University agrees, "There is neither federal nor state constitutional protection for advertising for an illegal activity."

On the other hand Stewart Jay, a University of Washington law professor, thinks that there shouldn't be a line as to who can post and who can't. "If the P-I puts it on the Internet, it's legal. If Joe Blow puts it on the Internet, it's illegal," he said. "It's a very crude distinction that's being made here. When you discriminate between forms of speech and providers, the government has to provide a compelling reason."

I have to say my money is on the state Attorney General office. There's a big difference between saying "I had an amazing game at such and such internet casino and you should try playing there, here's the link" on a blog or a website about casinos, to "Internet casinos such as … allow people to play online," in a news article.

I want to know how they plan to prosecute the people who decide to deposit and play in internet casinos. Finding someone who owns and runs a website is one thing. However, going after the individual for wanting to play with their own money is quite another.

Margarita Prentice, the Democrat State Senator who sponsored the bill, is convinced that this bill will deter people from gambling online. Her logic is irrefutable, "The point is, if it's illegal, it's illegal. We were defending our state, and we cannot have illegal gambling."

Can someone explain defending the state to me please? Don't the citizens of her state deserve freedom of choice? Which would include the choice to stay home and play on their favorite online casino rather than driving over to the local Indian casino?

It will be interesting to see if Washington state will start to go after the internet casino player. To find who is gambling online they will have to impose on people's right to privacy. The ISP's will have to give up who is playing where. This could get very messy. Is this how Prentice defends her citizens? By snooping on them? Or is this another state who will finally say, it's illegal but we're not going to be bothered by it, like Hawaii? My guess is the latter, if Prentice wants to stay in office.

Related Links:

• Seattle P-I

Posted on: June 28, 2006

Add This Gambling Article To:
Del.icio.us	Digg	Google	Spurl
Furl	Simpy	Y! MyWeb

Back to June 2006's archive
Back to latest Articles