As a followup to my earlier post on this ridiculous, unconstitutional law, it looks like the state is proceeding even beyond the text of the statute here. Tell me again how infringing on people’s First Amendment rights is Constitutional? I’m confused.
The first casualty in the state’s war on Internet gambling is a local Web site where nobody was actually doing any gambling.
What a Bellingham man did on his site was write about online gambling. He reviewed Internet casinos. He had links to them, and ran ads by them. He fancied himself a guide to an uncharted frontier, even compiling a list of “rogue casinos” that had bilked gamblers.
All that, says the state — the ads, the linking, even the discussing — violates a new state law barring online wagering or using the Internet to transmit “gambling information.”
“It’s what the feds would call ‘aiding and abetting,’ ” says the director of the state’s gambling commission, Rick Day. “Telling people how to gamble online, where to do it, giving a link to it — that’s all obviously enabling something that is illegal.”
This is overreaching bullshit. I’m a member of the bar of this state and I tell you here and now that this will be struck down as unconstitutional (state and federal). This is an easy violation of the First Amendment rights of individuals. This is not yelling fire in a movie theater, this is non-obscene, newsworthy commentary.
The text of the section I’m sure they’re relying upon, effective June 2006
Whoever knowingly transmits or receives gambling information by telephone, telegraph, radio, semaphore, the internet, a telecommunications transmission system, or similar means, or knowingly installs or maintains equipment for the transmission or receipt of gambling information shall be guilty of a class C felony subject to the penalty set forth in RCW 9A.20.021
The definition of “gambling information“:
“Gambling information,” as used in this chapter, means any wager made in the course of and any information intended to be used for professional gambling. In the application of this definition, information as to wagers, betting odds and changes in betting odds shall be presumed to be intended for use in professional gambling. This section shall not apply to newspapers of general circulation or commercial radio and television stations licensed by the federal communications commission.
The bold part is what I’m sure they’re going to try to shoehorn in to fit the law. Look at the carve outs to the definition. Can you spot the gigantic medium not listed? I knew you could!
According to the State’s gambling commish, it is now a conspiracy to commit a class C felony to discuss, using publicly available information, casinos. By their logic, it is also a crime for me to tell you that to fire a single action revolver, you pull back the hammer then pull the trigger … while aiming at a bunny. Or orphans.
Even more, linking to a website for information that could be used for gambling is illegal? What about a link to a site where odds are calculated? Why not make it illegal to link to a page that links to a page that links to a page with gambling information? What about a link to a site showing people how they can use their browsers to surf the internet? Not only could a how-to video lead to gambling, but also child porn and terrorism! Will no one think of the children?!?!?
What about a Washington resident who hosts a gambling information site in North Dakota? Are they liable? What about if it’s hosted in Canada? What about a North Dakota resident who rents server space from a Washington company? What about a North Dakota resident hosted in Canada? Are you going to sue them under Washington law? On what grounds?
There are numerous cases as to linking and the legality of such. MPAA v. 2600 will probably be looked to by the State. The case, which was both wrongly decided and contrary to prior First Amendment law, is not controlling for Washington courts (different jurisdiction. The holding is considered persuasive but not dispositive). The “deeplinking” cases (usually involving Ticketmaster) aren’t going to apply because those were copyright holders trying to enforce their copyright against a linkor whereas here the State is trying to say the linkor committed a felony. The State’s legal footing is slim, at best.
I’m sure the advertisements will be attacked as commercial (unprotected) speech for the purposes of constitutional review, but this is a blatantly bad move by the State. Controlling illegal activity, fine. Controlling people’s speech? Unconstitutional. This is in addition to the laws blatant unconstitutional infringement on the Commerce Clause of the federal Constitution. Just bad news all around.
Side note: my bumper sticker Atriotic commentary would be “The Republicans won’t let me do drugs and now the Democrats won’t let me gamble. This sucks.”
How ridiculous is it when a paper’s online arm listing sporting odds is doing something illegal (the newspaper exception can’t apply because it’s on the internet. Will no one think of the children yet?!?!) Also, I expect to be sued for linking to the paper printing the betting odds for the NBA Finals game 5.
But it’s totally OK for the State to run their own betting parlor website.

Fuckers.