Are not players assisting in the business? Last time I checked, a site can't function without players.

And glance ahead to the following section:

E. Whoever designs, develops, manages, supervises, maintains, provides, or produces any computer services, computer system, computer network, computer software, or any server providing a Home Page, Web Site, or any other product accessing the Internet, World Wide Web, or any part thereof offering to any client for the primary purpose of the conducting as a business of any game, contest, lottery, or contrivance whereby a person risks the loss of anything of value in order to realize a profit shall be fined not more than twenty thousand dollars, or imprisoned with or without hard labor, for not more than five years, or both.

Section D ($500 fine and/or 6 months behind bars) is for players, and Section E ($20,000 fine and/or 5 years behind bars) is for operators.

Its not illegal and NJ is about to start regulation so I highly doubt the Doj is going after anyone else especially being that they said the wire act does not apply to poker.

The phrase is directly assisting, players certainly help the business indirectly, but I'd hate to be the prosecutor charged with making this statute stick against a player.

No mention of players in section D.

Federal gambling law has a long standing tradition of treating a mere player as distinct from one who actually assists the conducting of the game as a business. In simple terms, a mere player of online poker is not committing a Federal crime.

A player MAY be committing a state crime. The legal analysis varies quite considerably from state to state.

And just because the Federal Courts have interpreted Federal statutes in one way does not mean the State Courts may not interpret their state statutes in a different way.

One would have to make a thorough review of Louisiana Court decisions to resolve the matter (and I have not done this, one of you two should). But as a matter of their statutes, I do note that the same "conducting a business" language is also used in the regular anti-gambling provisions. And there is this provision: "§90.2. Gambling in public, A. Gambling in public is the aiding or abetting or participation in any game, contest, lottery, or contrivance, in any location or place open to the view of the public or the people at large...."

There are also specific laws against participating in underage play.

So the LA Legislature knew how to specifically add participation to an offense when it wanted.

Skallagrim

From the short preamble, where they say they want to protect individual rights, it seems they weren't going after players, but the statute itself is a great bluff if nothing else.

Who would ever think that 'gambling by computer' wouldn't apply to the gambler? Whoever wrote that is either a full blown moron or a genius, I'm going with genius - and probably a good poker player.

Nobody with an ounce of common sense.

Exactly! Well Played LA, that must have made for great headlines:

GAMBLING BY COMPUTER IS ILLEGAL

don't read the fine print

It appears I got this one wrong, GAMBLING BY COMPUTER isn't just a bluff, it's a real crime and someone was actually charged with it.

It isn't for playing though, it's for running 'internet cafe' type businesses where people are allowed to gamble.

this