Well, they are right - the laws are archaic. My argument is that Opinions (the Judge's written decision after deciding a case) are handed down daily from multiple jurisdictions dealing with the breadth and scope of the Wire Act, and how it applies to modern circumstances and situations. So, while the legislators say that the law is archaic, they fail to mention that this OLD law is easily applied to everday, modern cases. It's a red herring.
While laws can "read" scary, you have to consider how they're going to enforce those laws. Consider the "cigarette" ban many states are enacting, where you're not allowed to smoke indoors at public places. This law is quite easy to enforce because it's *easy* to fine a bar allowing smokers. Once you start fining bars and clubs, they enforce the rules.
It's important to consider how a law can be enforced before considering its ramifications. If enforcing a law is impractical there's a solid chance it just won't pass. I wonder how they are going to enforce an "internet gambling" law? They certainly can fine credit card companies if they allow a deposit to an "internet gambling" website. (
WOW - that's alot of records to go though! Do we need to increase taxes to pay for the new government entity we need to form to handle this work?)
The problem - for the government - is dealing w/ the three-way transactions. (Ie: Bank Account > Paypal / Neteller > Website). Would sites such as PayPal / Neteller / etc. full under the gambit of "gambling websites?" Not at all! If the government disallowed the transfer from my bank account to my Neteller account, I have an EASY 1st Amendment argument that the new law is unconstitutional because it's over-encompassing.
02-25-06, 01:36 PM
Threaded Mode