Its very interesting that you make this arguement. It was only a week or so ago that we were all telling Jay Cohen that we needed to isolate the sports betting issue from poker because it jeopardized our ability to play poker. Now we are going to isolate Kentucky from the rest of the country so that the rest of us can keep playing? At some point you have to draw the line. The sports betting issue I understand, but I'm not willing to begin conceding parts of the country. If this keeps up, nothing will be left.

Kentucky law seems to be as good a place as any to make a stand. It also presents a very hypocritical situation, ban one activity (poker), for the benefit of another (horse racing)? We're better off making a stand here than we are in Washington State or Utah.

Yeah the sites would literally not exist as gambling sites. I would hope this would actually lead to control of the internet leaving the US should it happen. Jay's link gives me some optimism it wont.

^^ Kentucky's laws on gambling already exist. If they in fact ban online poker sites from operating in the state, are they hypocritical? Yes. If that's the case, should they should be revoked? Yes. But that's not what this court case is about. The only thing that can be accomplished in this litigation is challenging whether online poker sites are in fact violating existing Kentucky law. If it is held that they are, do you want to stop playing poker wherever you are out of solidarity?

I agree. The outcome cant be the sites cant give in here and cut off Kentucky, they'll just cut off state-by-state if they give in on that front. Im for expanding the fight rather than containing it.

Because next week Indiana's governor does the same thing, then the week after Massachusetts does it, then the week after Illinois does it. We're all screwed anyways if they can actually seize the domain, so fight it here.

Sorry, I'm no lawyer. But I got a quick "none of your business and don't ask again" e-mail response from her, that ended that convo pretty quickly, oh well.

Absolutely.

Regarding sports betting, we tried to keep it together and tried to fight the good fight, but eventually had to give in to reality.

That's not the case with the Kentucky actions. This is certainly not the toughest state we could be up against. Beshear has helped by stating that this is a protectionist move. Participating in illegal gambling is not even a crime here...only offering and promoting. And, state law does not address the Internet at all. Finally, the beneficiaries of the actions are uniquely vulnerable to consumer backlash (unlike the NFL). So, if we're going to fight this tactic, this is the state for it.

If we give up here, what's to stop New York, Mass, and other states from doing the same? Giving in wouldn't just be a precedent....it would be a blueprint. And, if we did decide later to stand our ground, we'd still be bound by settlement agreements reached prior to that.

What firm? I have contacts that are not against discussing matters of public record.

LOL, that's an ex-girlfriend for you. If you don't mind my asking what firm does she work for, I just want to know who the sites have got to represent them. Only a few big firms in KY who would take this on.

As long as it's not Stites and Harbison then I'll be happy. (And Stites is a good firm but it just happens to be the one Gov. Beshear was in when elected.)

Just a quick note for those planning on attending the hearing tomorrow. The record in this case is currently under seal, which means it's not available for review by the public. It's possible that the court could conduct a closed hearing on this matter since the record is sealed.

I will attempt to find out if the hearing is open an let everyone know.

^^ Conducting a closed hearing on this would be an unconstitutional outrage. I'd be very surprised if that happened. It's almost impossible to close a court hearing.

Can the sealing of the record be contested? What grounds would they have for sealing it? Let me guess, it must be on the grounds of national security and under threat of terrorism.

Gov. Beshear has become the Ahmendinajad of the U.S. This is far more than even China has attempted as far as efforts to control the internet go. There is no doubt that if Beshear is successful, as another poster has commented, the internet as we know it is no more: we will all have to live with an internet that passes the laws of the most restrictive country/state on the planet.

Poker sites do not "broadcast" their games to Kentucky; they put their games up on the internet for people to access. Some folks from Kentucky access these sites. Interestingly, these Kentuckians are clearly NOT breaking any criminal law (Kentucky law specifically exempts players from any charge of illegal gambling).

In Iran, it is a crime punishable by death to insult the prophet Mohammed. If I post on my US based website: "Mohammed was a false prophet and a liar" under the legal theory espoused by Governor Beshear, Iran has the right to kill me. The only snag is Iran getting its hands on me. If Iran wanted to follow Beshear to the letter, it would get an Iranian court to order the forfeiture of all my assets to government of Iran, then take that order to California and force ICANN to turn the domain name of my website over to the state of Iran through an action to enforce a foreign judgment....

There are so many legal problems with this action that I dont have time at the moment to list them all ( I have communicated all of them to TE), but what I posted above is the basic one that should offend all lovers of internet freedom, not just poker players.

Beshear should be made an object of ridicule for this action.

Skallagrim

Please digg the FreedomWorks article at http://digg.com/politics/Stop_Intern...ip_in_Kentucky

Skall:

If you were selling anti-Islamic propaganda over the Internet to citizens of Iran, any difference? If the Iranian government asked you to block your website within Iran and you had the power to do so and told them to **** off, any difference? And I'm assuming ICANN, hopefully, doesn't recognize judgments from countries like Iran.