Libertarian ping! To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here.
Posted on 03/30/2007 1:47:44 PM PDT by SubGeniusX
The US has failed to change legislation that unfairly targets offshore-based gambling websites, a World Trade Organization (WTO) panel has ruled. The WTO said the US could only continue to block such websites if its laws were equally applied to US firms that offer off-track betting on horse racing.
Shares in UK online gambling firms rose on the news.
However, analysts said it was unlikely that the UK firms would be allowed back into the US, a very profitable market.
Washington could simply carry out the WTO ruling or lodge an appeal. Also, the WTO has yet to give its final verdict on the case.
'Vindication'
The application against the US was taken to the WTO by the twin-island Caribbean nation Antigua and Barbuda, where a number of online gambling firms are based.
Antiguan Finance Minister Errol Cort welcomed the latest WTO ruling.
"It vindicates all that we have been saying for years about the discriminatory trade practices of the US in this area, and we look forward to the US opening its markets," he said.
However, the new ruling is just the latest twist in a long-running saga.
Back in 2005 the WTO initially ruled in favour of the US and against Antigua and Barbuda, saying the US had a right to prevent offshore betting as a means to protect public order and public morals.
Protectionism?
Washington has yet to indicate whether it will enact or appeal the new finding from the WTO's compliance panel, but any final ruling against the US would allow Antigua and Barbuda to seek trade sanctions against America.
The US has increasingly moved in recent years to prevent overseas-based gambling websites from targeting US citizens.
In October of last year it bought in a law that made it illegal for banks and credit card companies to settle payments to online gambling websites.
Two UK internet gambling bosses were also arrested last year while travelling through the US.
Pete Dicks, the former chairman of Sportingbet was eventually released, but former BetOnSports chief executive David Carruthers remains under house arrest in St Louis.
Such moves saw UK gambling firms such as Partygaming and 888 leave the US market almost overnight.
While Washington argues that it simply wishes to limit gambling, the overseas firms counter that the US move is simply protectionism and means to remove foreign competition.
not that the Gov't will take this seriously anyway ...
Poker Ping...
Libertarian/Nannystate ... Ping
:)
That's funny.
Nannystate Ping ...
hey Gabz ... can you add me to the ping list thanks
So this is why they don't want to allow us to gamble online. And I thought it was to protect Vegas' profits. Silly me.
Why should the government take this seriously? It was our elected legislature making a decision to protect the people of this country, whether you agree with it or not. The WTO shouldn't tell us what to do!
Betting on horses and state lotteries = moral.
Betting on poker = immoral.
Good to know that the morality of gambling depends on who is greasing the skids. I guess the online gambling business should have spread a little more cash around Washington to get onto the "moral" list.
What, if I may ask, exactly are they protecting "the people" of this country from?
I believe that the .gov had been trying to tax these places unsuccessfully for a while. I am sure that if the .gov managed to get the tax in that there would not have been a ban.
Go gambling allowed...unless the government is the house! (and allows its self 50% house odds.)
bookmark
Libertarian ping! To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here.
Second, the US gaming ban is complete BS. It is just special-interest legislation in place to make sure that campaign contributors don't lose market share, and to make sure that the government extracts all the revenue it "deserves" to pay for the next potato museum, corn subsidy, third-world dictator welfare, handouts to pharmaceutical companies in the form of "free" drug benefits, etc etc etc. The ban has nothing to do with the morality of gambling, and does not even have anything to do with the task of protecting people from their own bad decisions. The government just wants to make sure that the suckers waste their money at a place that politically well-connected folks benefit, and in such a way to keep the pork flowing. Nanny-state anti-free market cronyism.
Did you read about the round up of the $500 Million/year gambling ring in the DPRNJ?
Couldn't have said it better myself. That pretty much sums it all up and wraps it with a nice pretty bow.
And I don't even gamble (except when I order out for Chinese). But the gambling prohibitions are patently absurd and the motives are transparent to anyone with an IQ over 40 as you illustrated.
Sad day when meddlers in the WTO are actually right but we can't pay them heed because we are a sovereign nation and can't let anyone (read: Illegal aliens) forget it.
I agree, but, we joined the WTO, and agreed to abide by its rulings. Even though I am against the internet poker ban, we ought to just pull out of the WTO.
I want to place a $50 bet that USC will beat Nebraska to start off the college football season in a few months.
I can't do that from my computer (legally) but I can if I catch a $39 flight to Las Vegas.
This makes sense to some people.
A lot of those people are here on Free Republic. And, it makes sense to them in the following manner: I am bothered by knowing that Dog Gone is placing a bet. It ruins my day. It effects me. Therefore I want to use the power of government to keep Dog Gone from doing that. That makes me feel better. It is unfortunate he can do it in Vegas, but at least we can keep him from doing it on the internet.
That is literally how they look at the issue.
Unfortunately, I think you described it perfectly.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.