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.
What is he blaming someone else for that he actually did himself? The article seems to indicate that he is suing the casinos for something THEY are responsible for - namely, keeping their records on him confidential.
Now, we can argue about whether or not he should have been gambling. We can argue about whether he should sue or not. But there is no question that it is the responsiblity of the casino to keep such records confidential.
So you think casinos should be able to release names and amounts won/lost for all gamblers? How about if your name was on the list? Would you want that information made public, or do you think the casino should be keeping that information confidential?
So you don't think facts can be 'skewed' to give a false impression? Seems to me the liberal media does that kind of thing all the time.
You know full well that the criminal case had to be dropped after the Starr gave her blanket immunity, and the state could not 'prove' that their evidence was independent of what Tripp told to Starr. Back in the old days of conservative thinking, this would have been described as "getting off on a technicality."
Just don't be surpised to open up the paper one day and read that someone found out you still dress up like Billy Jack and walk around your apartment on Saturday night threatening to kick Bernard Posner's butt (I'm sorry. Was that supposed to be a secret?).
What are your feelings about Clinton's adultry?
Keep them to yourself.
Face it. This is just a question of "Whose ox is being gored."
It was enough to make a difference in his family's life:
"It was a high level, was a lot of money," he said, and "counting up, has made a difference in our lives."
Which is different from his first statement when the story surfaced:
"Over 10 years, I'd say I've come out pretty close to even," Bennett told Newsweek. "You can roll up and down a lot in one day, as we have on many occasions," Bennett explains.
BTW, who is the we he refers to?
The bible doesn't explicitly support gambling, nor does it explicitly command us not to gamble.
Personally, I don't gamble - seems a waste of money. But from a biblical perspective, I don't see a problem with it as long as it does not take first place in our lives.
If Bill and his wife had an open marriage, would adultry still be a vice?
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.