Meanwhile, Kentucky Court Stuff to Non-Pokery People

Domain name can’t be a gambling device

by , Nov 10, 2008 | 1:25 pm

Right now, the Supreme Court is (re)considering connotations of the F-word when mentioned in passing on TV. That seems particularly interesting — at least in terms of the perspective it provides — as I’m reading what Bill Poser has to say about the Kentucky domain seizure cases. Poser is a linguistics expert who contends that Gov. Steve Beshear’s claims have no teeth, because of a linguistics problem treating a domain name like a “gambling device” … which he contends simply holds no legal water.

In addition, this non-poker blogger says the case has problems because:

* Many people like internet gambling.
* Many people think that it is none of the State’s business.
* The State’s action is not the result of a consistent anti-gambling policy but is pure rent-seeking. Kentucky is a gambling-friendly state. It is just trying to reduce the competition.
* Quite a few of the domain names are not in fact associated with internet gambling sites.
* The court’s ex parte order violates due process.
* The court does not have jurisdiction over either the businesses or the domain name registrars.
* The court’s action violates the Commerce Clause of the Constitution.

For those of you who care about the outcome of this case — and really, we all should, regardless of how we feel about poker, because it potentially impacts anyone who uses the F-ing internet — check out the rest of what he has to say.

Comments are closed.