Posted on 07/29/2003 9:32:08 AM PDT by Willie Green
For education and discussion only. Not for commercial use.
Morals czar William Bennett is considering filing lawsuits against Las Vegas casino companies that may have leaked documents detailing his gambling habits.
Bennett, the architect and leading advocate of Nancy Reagan's "Just Say No" anti-drug campaign, was outed in the May issue of The Washington Monthly magazine as a gambler who has wagered -- and lost -- millions over the past decade at Bellagio and Caesars Atlantic City.
During a 60-minute interview with Tim Russert on CNCB this weekend, the former education secretary complained his privacy rights had been "deliberately damaged" while also mocking Las Vegas' latest national marketing campaigns.
"By the way, there's a commercial on that people may have seen about Las Vegas, that 'What happens here stays here.' Well, not in my case. Some people there were trying to do me great harm," Bennett said.
The "What happens here" ad campaign is part of the Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority's latest marketing campaign to boost tourism to the city.
He argued the magazine report stemmed from the release of "some documents" by the casinos themselves which was not legal and violated his privacy rights.
He alleges documents were selectively leaked to create a false impression that he had a gaming problem.
While Bennett did not dispute the legitimacy of the documents and said he had no problem with the reporters who have written stories on his gambling, he told Russert the release of the information was not legal and he is looking into the possibility of legal action against the casinos.
On Monday, Bennett declined to comment further on the possibility of legal action against the casino companies.
Spokesmen for Park Place Entertainment Corp. , owner of the Caesars Atlantic City, and MGM Mirage, which operates Bellagio, declined comment.
Industry insiders have said details in The Washington Monthly article suggest the data about Bennett's gambling habits might actually have come from documents produced by Central Credit, a subsidiary of First Data Corp. of Greenwood Village, Colo.
Central Credit, which has denied being a source of the documents, is the gaming industry equivalent of credit reporting agency TRW. It allows member casinos to run credit checks on debts, marker activity and repayment habits of casino customers.
Industry experts and civil liberties attorneys doubt Bennett has a cause of action.
Las Vegas professor and casino gambling expert Bill Thompson said Bennett's privacy rights "were violated. I think he has a beef, but I don't know if he has a legal argument."
Allen Lichtenstein, general counsel for the Nevada chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, said "It might be good policy, but in the absence of some policy or contract, it does not appear there is a cause of action," he said.
Good thing I didn't play Snowball Bingo in the Grand Salon. I'd be banned from FR fer shur.
Leni
Not really, since that is the basis of his lawsuit and you called him a hypocrite for filing the suit.
First of all he didn't. So your phony argument is moot.
Second, does the wealthy Saudi Sheak have self restraint "issues" if he bets a 100K at a time? Most wouldn't think so, do you have a double standard?
He quit smoking immediately after he accepted the job. A hypocrite advocates one position and does the opposite, he didn’t do that did he even though “nicotine” was legal? Straw man alert!
Why, this charming citation, when his gambling habit came to the fore, sums things up quite nicely: “I view it as drinking. If you can't handle it, don't do it.”
Where did he not “handle” anything? How does that make him a not virtuous? It DOESN’T!
Self-Discipline
Compassion
Responsibility
Friendship
Work
Courage
Perseverance
Honesty
Loyalty
Faith
Mr. Bennett's legal case is a separate issue from his gambling. He has admitted to the world that he gambled.
Having your private credit or financial information leaked to the press, is an offense that any victim should pursue in a court of law. I doubt you would be so apathetic, if it was your own personal information that was doled out to the press. What if it had been his medical information, his tax records, his credit report? Shouldn't that all be vehemently protected?
He argued the magazine report stemmed from the release of "some documents" by the casinos themselves which was not legal and violated his privacy rights.
He alleges documents were selectively leaked to create a false impression that he had a gaming problem.
While Bennett did not dispute the legitimacy of the documents and said he had no problem with the reporters who have written stories on his gambling, he told Russert the release of the information was not legal and he is looking into the possibility of legal action against the casinos.
Do you smoke marijuana, by any chance? You seem to have a memory problem. 'Immediately'? He quit not immediately, but rather after a few months, and only after antitobacco advocates paid for full-page newspaper ads "asking President Bush's drug czar, William Bennett, to take a`drug-free challenge' and quit his two-pack-a-day cigarette smoking habit".
A hypocrite advocates one position and does the opposite, he didn’t do that did he even though “nicotine” was legal? Straw man alert!
Wrong. Folded under political pressure alert. Utter cosmeticism alert.
Why, this charming citation, when his gambling habit came to the fore, sums things up quite nicely: “I view it as drinking. If you can't handle it, don't do it.”
Where did he not “handle” anything? How does that make him a not virtuous? It DOESN’T!
I'm sorry, but for a self-professed man of virtue, for someone who makes money bemoaning the decay of America's moral fiber to patently stupid, fawning audiences, to blow millions at games of chance when it could have been spent elsewhere (say, scholarships) is reprehensible.
I'm not suprised you can't grasp that concept.
If the casinos maintain a credit rating data base for gamblers, then they have a duty to insure that the information is never accessed for improper reasons. If it was, in this case, then I have no problem with Bill Bennett suing and if I were on the jury I would make him owner of the offending casino(s). Maybe the solution is just not to have such a data base, and therefore not to extend credit to gamblers. Sounds like a win-win situation to me.
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.