NOTE: Free essay sample provided on this page should be used for references or sample purposes only. The sample essay is available to anyone, so any direct quoting without mentioning the source will be considered plagiarism by schools, colleges and universities that use plagiarism detection software. To get a completely brand-new, plagiarism-free essay, please use our essay writing service.
One click instant price quote
VIRTUAL VEGAS, SPORTS INTERNATIONAL, WAGERNET, INTERNET CASINOS, INTERLOTTO and GAMING WORLD are just six of the estimated hundreds of Web sites that now offer gaming-related services over the worldwide WEB, and that number is growing at a consistent rate. Are web users ready to be inundated with digital casinos? What sort of policies and or regulations should be implemented to deal with this? Should there be any? My answer is no, the government should allow people to use the Internet to their liking. Self regulation is a buzz word often mentioned on the Internet.
Some have asserted that self-regulation not only is the mechanism whereby Internet gaming should be regulated, but as a practical matter is the only way it can be regulated. However, will consumers be confident enough to trust individual providers? Are people ready to deal with what could be governmental regulation of individual web sites which offer gaming services? Should the state or federal Government try to regulate gambling?
and if the answer is yes, then which branch of the government should be responsible? There are many legal problems that stand in the way of Internet gaming. The most pressing two problems are individual state laws and regulations that make gambling illegal. The second is the federal statute forbidding the use of telecommunications in the betting or wagering business, 18 USC. 1084. 48 states have some form of legalized gaming through lotteries, race tracks or actual casino wagering.
The idea of casino gaming expansion has been hindered in recent years through non-passage of referendums legalizing gaming in many states. As always there exceptions to every rule. The State of Mississippi has a growing and fairly new casino gaming business. "Moreover, as gaming spread to more and more jurisdictions over the past decade, a public backlash against gaming seems to have materialized. The economic prosperity that certain state regulators hoped gaming would bring did not fully materialize, at least at the levels initially anticipated. " (McGuigan, pg. 4) New Jersey neighborhoods sitting on the outskirts of the casino district in Atlantic City are often cited as prime examples and evidence that gaming does not eliminate poverty, in fact it sometimes contributes to it. In January 1998, John Russell, a Justice Department spokesman, was widely quoted as stating, "We have no jurisdiction [to prosecute Internet gambling operators]. The offense has not been made on US soil. " Since then, the government appears to have had a change of heart. "In announcing the first federal indictments against Internet gambling operations in April 1998, both Attorney General Janet Reno and US Attorney Mary Jo White warned against using the Internet to engage in betting or wagering operations. " (Freeling, pg. 1) The federal Government has also taken its first steps to involvement in public policy decisions regarding gambling.
At the request of Senator Paul Simon and Congressman Frank Wolf a federal commission was created "to study the proliferation of gaming in the United States. " (Freeling pg. 1) Even with all of these tough measures, to date no court has ever held that federal Law prohibits Internet gambling. Instead, law enforcement has attempted by "attacking conduct that has long been considered illegal in the United States. " (Freeling, pg. 1) By using an old title aimed at stopping sports betting by means of telephone The US Government is trying to stop Internet gambling all together. Title 18 of the United States Code section 1084 makes it illegal to use a Wire communication facility (telephone lines) in the business of betting or wagering. It provides, in pertinent part: Whoever being engaged in the business of betting or wagering knowingly uses a wire communication facility for the transmission in interstate or foreign commerce of bets or wagers or information assisting in the placing of bets or wagers on any sporting event or contest, or for the transmission of a wire communication which entitles the recipient to receive money or credit as a result of bets or wagers, or for information assisting in the placing of bets or wagers, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.
Much of the media reporting about gambling on the Net has included uncertainties about whether wagering on the Net is illegal. "On its face, the statute makes it illegal for individuals to use wire communications for the purpose of engaging in the business of betting or wagering. " (Barker, pg. 4) However most federal laws regulating gambling were developed in response to advances in communication. "Regulations were implemented about advertising a national lottery through the mail shortly after the establishment of a federal postal system. " (Janower, pg. 4) The same thing happened when radio and television were introduced. Because the Government can not keep up with emerging technologies current federal gambling laws were not drafted to address communications over the Internet. The problems that exist are based on how to enforce these laws. For example, certain cases have interpreted that the statute applies to the business operator, the person conducting the betting or wagering business, and not to the individual bettor. "On the other hand, anyone who professionally engages in making bets or wagering and who engages in any use of interstate facilities are guilty and can be criminally prosecuted. Also, cases have distinguished between using wire communications to transmit in interstate or foreign commerce bets or wagers and in simply receiving bets, which has been held in some cases not to be a violation of the Act. " (Wiggins, pg. 3) The wording of section 1084 could make for a strong argument that it is referring only to sports related gambling. The word sporting seems to come before the word "event" and "contest. " If this were true, the government would have to be limited to prosecuting only sports related bets. "In several cases construing section 1084, a defendant was charged with a violation of the statute for non sports related gambling, but in each case the charges were dismissed on other grounds.
In cases where conviction occurred, sports' betting was the only activity contested. Thus no reported cases have applied this section to non sports related gambling. If this is the case on-line casinos would seem to be free and clear. There are other statutes on gambling that further confuse the issue. Section 1955 (18 USC 1995) - Makes it a crime to conduct, finance, manage, supervise direct, or own an illegal gambling business.
In that statute congress defined gambling very broadly to include pool-selling, bookmaking, maintaining slot machines, roulette wheels or dice tables, and conducting lotteries or numbers games. Congress did not address any of these issues specifically in 1084, so does that mean that 1084 is meant to cover only sports betting? In 1997 Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona was the sponsor of the Internet Gambling Prohibition act. This bill would extend the federal criminal code to prohibit almost all Internet gambling. The question seems to be does this bill go too far by banning all gambling, some of, which is legal in many states, like lotto or bingo. Bingo is even played in some churches.
Tom Bell director of telecommunications studies at the Libertarian Cato Institute makes an interesting point: "The states position is hypocritical. Turning to the feds for legislation, states claim to be advocates for consumers, but they are also seeking to ward off competition. States are in the gambling business (i. e.
lotto, casino etc. ) and they don't want competition from the Internet. " (Bell, pg. 6) This whole issue comes down to whether or not we as people need the Government involved in Internet gambling. The World Wide Web is a vast uncharted new territory that until recently has remained largely unregulated. The fact that it does not exist in any physical form, with no specific boundaries makes it even more difficult. Should the government try to regulate Internet gaming? Absolutely not.
The federal government has already shown it has no idea how to deal with this issue by trying to apply a law that was written 40 years ago. There is no way the government could regulate gambling on the 'net because it is to much to deal with. No matter what the government tries to do, it won't matter because as long as people want to gamble, the will continue to find ways to do so. Bibliography: Analysis of house Vote on the Internet gambling Prohibition Act (July 23, 2000) Tech Law Journal Author not available. Retrieved from the World Wide Web Oct... 17 2000. web This article gives an in-depth look into discussions in congress and the breakdown of the vote, democrats versus republicans on the issue.
It takes a look at how states voted, compares legalized gambling states versus non-gambling states, North versus south versus west etc. I thought that this article was important because it gives you a more in-depth look into how this country feels. By comparing senators votes and using them as a representation of their people it gives us a better feeling into how people feel. Barker, Garry (Aug. 16, 2000) Internet regulation Doomed.
Retrieved from the World Wide Web on Oct. 17 2000. web This article is actually about how attempts in Australia to regulate gambling sites and punish people who use them have proved unsuccessful. The author show who US legislators are headed down the same path. Bell, Tom W. (Mar. 1998) Internet Gambling -- popular, inexorable, and (eventually) legal. Retrieved from the World Wide Web Oct... 17 2000. web gambling.
html. This article is written by the same man, Tom W. Bell, Who, in another article I used, testified in front of a senate subcommittee on why it is futile to regulate Gambling on the Internet. I consider Mr. Bell to be quite an expert in this field and in this article he covers all the main issues. From consumer demand to the anti gaming lobby to the different laws trying to be invited, it is a good starting point for information on this subject.
Bliley, Thomas (Aug. 1998) Internet gambling. Retrieved from the World Wide Web on Oct. 17, 2000. web values. org / inte ...
Free research essays on topics related to: world wide, prohibition act, federal government, sports betting, gambling
Research essay sample on Prohibition Act Federal Government
