Does Internet Freedom, beyond poker, mean anything to you? If it does, and of course you wouldnt be reading this if you didnt care about poker too, then what has recently happened in Kentucky circuit court should be a source of outrage to you.
The short story is this: the Governor of Kentucky was informed that his beloved racetrack wasnt doing as well as he (they) would like. In his excellency's infinite brilliance, he decided that Kentuckians were wagering too much money online, and that if he could stop that, those folks would instead bet their money on horses, like all decent people should anyway.
Just since telling folks to do this would probably not work, and since passing a law against Kentuckians themselves betting online might just actually rile up some Kentuckians (and probably not get passed by the legislature, that damned obstacle), a different idea was needed....how about we just get them damn gambling sites to stop taking Kentuckians' business? Well the sites wont agree....unless you can force them somehow.....how about a lawsuit seizing their domain names? Yeah thats the ticket!
And thats what they did. You can get the full story here: /headlines/2008/09/21/selected-coverage-of-kentucky-governor-steve-beshears-actions-against-internet-poker/
The importance of this dispute cannot be understated.
A web site does not offer its services to Kentuckians. A web site offers its services to anyone with access to the web. Surprisingly, given the fact that there are things on the web Governor (nah, lets call him Mullah, for reasons explained below) Beshear disapproves of, Kentucky allows its citizens to access the web. And while it probably has to do that with regard to speech (that pesky First Amendment we have in the US) there is no reason Mullah Beshear couldnt just make it illegal for Kentuckians to engage in commerce on the web (oh wait, there is that commerce clause thing, but it can obviously be ignored when inconvenient). I suspect, however, that the Mullah may run into opposition IN KENTUCKY if he tried to tell Kentuckians what they can and cannot do on the web.
So instead of telling Kentuckians what they can and cannot do, Mullah Beshear decides to tell the web sites what THEY can and cannot do. Doesnt matter that no part of them, their owners. employees, their operation or anything else has ever been "IN" Kentucky in any way, Kentuckians can access it!
And then along comes Judge (Mullah) Wingate who basically agrees: Kentuckians are accessing your site, so you must do what WE say! You could, at expense and effort not required by the place in which you operate, block Kentuckians from accessing your site, but since you didnt, you have given us "jurisdiction" and must do what we say. The only way out for you site owners is to not allow Kentuckians access to your site.
This is the precise legal position of Iran with respect to the interent. It was the position of the Chinese, but they modified it somewhat in the face of world pressure. Of course, both of those countries also have no problem prosecuting their own citizens for accessing "bad" sites.
So, what kind of internet do you want? One where it is the responsibility of each site operator to know the laws of every local jurisdiction in the world and block access from those jurisdictions where the site content is illegal (or be subject to prosecution)?
Or wouldnt you prefer an open internet where it is the responsibility of the jurisdiction to police its own citizens if it wants them to not access certain sites that are illegal in that jurisdiction but perfectly legal where they operate?
We already know what the Mullahs want.
And to add insult to injury, Mullah Wingate also had the hubris to rule poker is a game of chance under Kentucky law. He concluded that poker is gambling under KY law because the outcome ALWAYS involves an element of chance. The exact quote is "In the end, no matter how skillful or cunning the player, who wins and who loses is determined by the hands the players hold." Judge Wingate either has either never played poker and did not read the whole PPA brief, or he is absolutely the complete calling station and thus the donator welcome in any game. As all who actually know the game or are familiar with it are aware, there is a thing in poker called "folding." When a player folds he has lost, regardless of whether he has or would have had the best hand. When all players but one fold, that one wins regardless of the cards. I guess Wingate has never seen a hand NOT go to showdown, and has never heard of a "bluff." Or maybe he just cared a lot more about making the whole internet bow io his power then he did about actually analyzing the nature of poker under Kentucky law.
Round one to the troglydytes. We can at least hope for better on appeal.
Skallagrim