Kentucky Moves to Block Poker Domains

by , Sep 22, 2008 | 8:48 pm

The governor wants to erect a massive force field around the entire state to protect its citizens (and visitors) from electronically accessing the evils of untaxed gambling.

And we thought Washington state was bad for making it a felony to play online poker … now, in Kentucky, Governor Steve Beshear is trying to seize control of 141 gambling-related sites, blocking access to the likes of Full Tilt, PokerStars, Bodog, et al.


Yikes, this is some pathetic/scary shit. Not because he’s declaring sites we know and love as criminal enterprises, but because the guv wants to control its citizens’ private web access!

Um, hello, communism? What makes it worse is that he seems to be doing it on behalf of the brick-and-mortar casino industry … dude, I know you guys are slow in Kentucky, but the idea that online play hurts as opposed to helps casinos went dead in like 2006. No details on how one would actually block the internet within state lines … I suppose you can force your cable and phone providers to behave in certain ways … but, um, out-of-town cell phones maybe? Seriously, ‘Tucky-Guv-Dude, are you really that out of touch with the world/American Constitution?

[Non-topical, anti-Republican rant deleted] Stupid Democrat.

11 Comments to “Kentucky Moves to Block Poker Domains”

  1. Kevin Mathers

    Way to get it up before me Dan.

    BTW, Beshear’s a Democrat.

  2. Kevin Mathers

    And he was elected on a pro-gambling stance, but still has been unable to get casinos into Kentucky, to help prop up the thoroughbred industry. for all the domains blocked.

  3. Kevin Mathers

    Also worth a look is this site –

    From Jay Cohen in the 2+2 legislation forum:

    [quote] (7) “Player” means a person who engages in any form of gambling solely as a contestant or bettor, without receiving or becoming entitled to receive any profit therefrom other than personal gambling winnings, and without otherwise rendering any material assistance to the establishment, conduct, or operation of the particular gambling activity. A person who engages in “bookmaking” as defined in subsection (2) of this section is not a “player.” The status of a “player” shall be a defense to any prosecution under this chapter.

    So, fellow forum lawyers, both those that went to law school and those that didn’t, if it isn’t illegal for a player to gamble, and it isn’t illegal to receive the bets on the receiving end, where’s the violation of law?

    This section could have saved me in my case in NY. In my case the judge ruled the absence of any affirmative legislation made it illegal to place a bet in NY. This section specifically states it is NOT ILLEGAL for the player. The sites are not in KY and some of them are liecensed and regulated elsewhere. [/quote]

  4. Kevin Mathers

    Here’s the press release from the Gov’s office (with a link to bonus audio):

  5. DanM

    I feel pretty stupid about the party designation. You know, the funny thing is I actually checked — realizing I just couldn’t assume … and somehow saw something on the first page of Google results that seemed like enough confirmation to me.

    Regardless of party, though … this is shameful and terrible. I guess it’s encouraging, however, to know that Democrats can be non-sensical, too.

  6. Kevin Mathers

    Seems when it comes to states and online gambling, the Democrats take the lead in that department (Washington’s online poker ban was written by a Democrat, passed by a Democratic controlled legislature, signed by a Democratic governor).

  7. Johnny Hughes

    from Kentucky Gambler by Merle Haggard

    But a gambler never seems to stop, till he loses all he’s got
    and with a money – hungry fever, I played on
    I played till I’d lost all I’d won, I was right back where I’d started from
    Then I started wanting – to go home

    Kentucky gambler, there ain’t nobody, waiting in Kentucky
    When I ran out, somebody else walked in
    Kentucky gambler, looks like you ain’t really very lucky
    And it seems to me a gambler loses much more than he wins
    much more than he wins.

  8. Markus

    I agree with you Dan. More government involvement when the industry doesn’t need it. The guy is out of touch with reality. He needs to take a lesson from Ron Paul:

  9. Amrendra

    Okay but the more restriction will lead to harness the interest of poker lovers.

  10. Earl Burton

    This seems to me to be a non-substantive political move that has no guts to it. The sites are all foreign based and individual ISPs are not going to block one state from being able to access them. Thus, the governor’s move has little to no bite to it.

    I do agree with one thing, though…it is ignorant for any politician, regardless of party affiliation or idealism, to try to stop online gaming and poker. The most logical move is to regulate and tax the industry and protect the players. With the current problems in the financial world, however, I don’t believe we will see any action on this front for quite some time.

  11. Karridy

    Steve, you forgot Titan Poker. I hate that site.