Why is there so much controversy about online gambling, and why is the Unites States Government attempting to stifle or even ban participation from its citizens?
After the introduction of the UIGEA, it is illegal in many states to open an account for online gambling. At land-based casinos, you can pull money out of your bank account from an ATM to purchase chips, which can then be used to gamble with even though it is no longer in cash form. What is the difference if you set up an online account for which you can deposit money into straight from your bank account? Either way, it is your own money that you are gambling with. So, what is the real motivation for the U.S. Government restricting its citizens from online gambling?
The U.S. used the excuse for the UIGEA bill that gambling profits could be used to fund terrorism. There is no evidence of this happening, but in our time it is arguably a valid concern. Or is it just a cop-out from the real reason? Ever since September 11, the government has tried to convince the citizens that everything is about terrorism-including their war. How many people still believe that? And if everything is about terrorism, then we are in for a long haul of new bills and stifled freedoms. As Todd Brunson pointed out in his article for Card Player Magazine, even non-profit organizations and charities could be used to fund terrorism. In this case, should we regulate every business and company’s profits in a paranoid attempt to stop all evil?
A great number of Americans believe this is just an excuse to hack away more freedoms. Many people are tired of hungry politicians forcing their beliefs upon them. But some people are not convinced in the corruption of this law and its un-American nature.
Some people say the concern dates back to times when gambling caused violence among the participants. But the U.S. allows land casinos to operate where social gambling is accepted-yet, with online gambling the element of violence cannot occur. Let’s even take a step further back to discuss an issue like gambling with your friends at a bar. There are already laws in place to punish acts of violence, so why would the U.S. pass another law to overlap existing laws? (In Mass Communications, it is unlawful for the government to censor the media from reporting or publishing material. These laws are called “prior restraint.” This term seems appropriate in this case as well.) Could these gambling laws be a form of prior restraint? Is there something else going on here as well?
Could these politics be based on or around the concern for gambling addicts? If the government made it difficult or illegal to gamble online, would it really help addicts or prevent people from acquiring this addiction? Again, this could be described as prior restraint. Also, as stated earlier, the U.S. allows land casinos where people can flock to if they are so inclined. Furthermore, what if some people prefer the benefits of gambling online? In general, people, addicts or hobbyists, will go where it is legal to gamble-even if that means spending their money outside of the U.S. (Can you see another problem brewing?)
Or how about this one? Americans who use their own money to gamble online will be prosecuted as criminals! Fair enough? We’ll rate you right up there with the drug dealers, robbers, murderers, etc. Well, if this is the case, the U.S. had better levy more taxes to increase the number of prisons to house these dastardly criminals.
By Victoria Maro
