SEARCH NEWS:

 

LA TIMES' Take on Internet Gambling

In a Nov. 19, 1996 story called POSTCARD FROM CYBERSPACE, the LOS ANGELES TIMES had the following lead-in:
There are two sure bets about gambling and the Internet, one obvious and one rather ominous:

1. There's plenty of money to be made, and the boomlet in gambling Web sites is about to break wide open.
2. Gambling is shaping up as the first substantial test of regulation of the Internet. Because of bet No. 1, forces are gathering to derail Web gambling."

It continued by noting that Republican Sens. Jon Kyl of Arizona and Orrin Hatch of Utah will renew their campaign to ban Internet gambling when Congress reconvenes in January '97.

Referencing the fight over the Communications Decency Act, the Times said, "The anti-gambling move may end up being the usable tool for regulating a medium that the government cannot easily control."

They continue: "Sen. Kyl, a conservative, explains that gambling is morally bad, that social ills always follow gambling and that he wants to see it eliminated altogether, Net or not. Gambling is not a freedom of expression, he said, and government intervention should not be seen as interfering with the widespread Net attitudes that there should be no regulation. His approach would be to punish both the casino and individual bettors.

They also spoke with Frank Fahrenkopf, head of the American Gaming Assn. in Washington who says that he opposes Internet gambling, not as competition, he said, but because there are no checks on the casinos.

"Gambling has grown to a $44.3-billion business in this country precisely because there is tough regulation and law enforcement that has allowed public confidence to grow that games will be run honestly and there will be payouts," Fahrenkopf said. "There are no guarantees with these Web sites."

Fahrenkopf further added, "From a broad philosophical point of view, the basic attack based on a moral tone is a disturbing sign that the government would want to step in against something that people have wanted since the beginning of time."

The Times took on a freedom of choice tone when they added, "Yet limits on a medium that is global, free-spirited and insistent on choice is precisely what's at stake. Do we really want to start limiting what a federal appellate judge has described as "the most participatory form of mass speech yet developed"? And what happens if this regulation, too, turns out to be generally unenforceable, because what is illegal in one country is legal in another? Once Congress crosses this line, why will our government hesitate to regulate Internet access for all kinds of individuals and all kinds of content that could be used to violate some law somewhere in the U.S.? What happened to the dream of an international, free marketplace of ideas?"

RGT applauds the Times for its calm head and freedom of choice tone when it concludes, "Before we move headlong into passing laws in the United States to control behavior overseas, we ought to recognize the gambling issue as something other than offering moral support for betting. This is a fight over whether government will allow consumers to set the standards for a new medium."

< Gaming News