Cactus, I don't think the comparison to China is that far off. Most of the time it is over the top, but not here.

A far better AP story on this just came out. Read/Digg: http://digg.com/d1pwWp

Minnesota officials are trying a novel tactic to block online gambling sites - using a federal law that enables restrictions on phone calls used for wagering.

The state's Department of Public Safety said Wednesday it had asked 11 Internet service providers to block access to 200 online gambling sites.

The state is citing a federal law that requires "common carriers," a term that mainly applies to phone companies, to comply with requests that they block telecommunications services used for gambling.

But Internet service providers are not common carriers, meaning it's unlikely that a court would compel an ISP to comply with Minnesota's request, said John Morris, general counsel at the Center for Democracy and Technology in Washington.....

Perhaps over the top, but I don't think it is a faulty analogy. If I am not mistaken, China is well known for using ISPs to block websites. How is this different?

It is not different. The only difference is what sites are blocked.

And sometimes it is very effective indeed to let politicians know that when they have strayed into a troubled area, the trouble is more like a hornet's nest than a scholar's study.

All those NRA letters and press releases are so polite, thats why they have been so effective over the years (sarcasm).

Skallagrim

I understand this is a very scary prospect but I sincerely believe there is no way this will go through. If another state is not allowed to block kiddie porn why would Minnesota be allowed to block gambling sites. Also, US ISPs have no ties to oversea gambling sites and cannot impose any such ban.

From the article I read:

The state is citing a federal law that requires "common carriers," a term that mainly applies to phone companies, to comply with requests that they block telecommunications services used for gambling.

But Internet service providers are not common carriers, meaning it's unlikely that a court would compel an ISP to comply with Minnesota's request, said John Morris, general counsel at the Center for Democracy and Technology in Washington.

Morris also noted that the law appears to apply to phone companies directly doing business with bet-takers. But American restrictions on online gambling have already forced gambling sites overseas, where U.S. ISPs have no direct links to them.

"I think this is a very problematic and significant misreading of the statute," Morris said.

This article can be found here: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Novel-...1832.html?.v=2

Mr. Governor,

I am writing in response to the Department of Public Safety's recent announcement that it has asked ISP's to block Minnesotan's access to certain internet gambling websites. As a resident of Minnesota and a supporter of your most recent reelection campaign I can't fully described how outraged I am at this action.

The release erroneously states that gambling is illegal in all 50 states and mentions the absurd notion that internet gambling somehow supports terrorist and criminal organizations. Recent gambling laws passed in the US Congress did nothing to make internet gambling illegal. Further, the idea that internet gambling supports terrorism is sensationalist and false.

Most fearsome to me is the idea that the government of Minnesota deems it appropriate to censor internet websites at its own discretion. This country is based on the concept of individual freedom and liberty - government censorship goes against everything the Country is based on and everything I believe in.

As a self-proclaimed conservative, how can you justify this expansion of government and intrusion into the private lives of citizens? What happened to individuals being responsible for their own actions? How could the government of Minnesota possibly have the right to prevent citizens from participating in a legal activity in the privacy of their own homes? If we censor a few internet websites, what's next? More websites? Books, movies, music, all kinds of information? What's to stop the government from intruding in every aspect of our lives?

The only proper resolution to this travesty in the making is for the Department of Public Safety to rescind its request of ISPs to censor internet websites. Let me emphasize that I voted for you in the last election and underwent a considerable word of mouth campaign to bring acquaintances of mine around to your side. If you proceed with this big-goverment censorship course of action I will be forced to reconsider my support of you as Governor and as a future candidate.

I was looking forward to the chance to send a Minnesotan to the oval office. But I can't suppport someone who would actively seek to take away my rights and censor the internet. It is not too late for you to reconsider your position on this important issue and rectify this situation. If my vote and continued support is imporant to you I expect that you will respond to this email in a timely matter. I will be following up with a phone call to your office later this week. Thank you.

Very nice letter!

Is there any reason why someone can't be in court *tomorrow* with an order to show cause that includes a TRO to temporarily enjoin this apparent impingement on basic constitutional rights? One has to expect that a judge would look kindly on something that smells like a prior restraint on speech, and which seems overbroad.

It seems like they're trying to use the Wire Act as justification for blocking

Great letter indeed!

I could make a few small changes regarding legality, but then they would know it was written by a lawyer so better to keep it your way.

If Minnesota really pushes this, and the Feds fail to pass any new clarifying legislation, this could really become the ultimate battle, both legally and politically. If Minnesota is successful, just about every Attorney General or Gaming Commission in the country will do the same. While the most determined and internet savvy of you may still find a way to play, the vast majority of the 50% of online poker players who are US players will quit if that happens. Then instead of fighting while preserving an ability to play, we will be fighting from the position of "let us play." That is a much weaker position.

Everybody really needs to realize that this HAS TO BE WHERE WE MAKE OUR STAND.

Skallagrim

Not a lawyer are you? I frequently have to explain to my alleged criminal clients what is meant by their right to a "speedy trial." My explanation always includes the statement that what is "speedy" to lawyers and judges is not even close to what is "speedy" to the average person.

Seriously, legal challenges to this action will happen "very fast." But "very fast" to us lawyers is a few days to a week, not tomorrow. And even that time table doesn't start to run until the MN "demand" is formally served (as opposed to publicly announced).

Skallagrim

Skall,

I have handled many cases where my clients have required us to be in court the next day to protect their rights, and we do it, as most larger firms can and would. And those cases (a) generally do not involve constitutional violations that (b) stink of prior restraint as badly as this one.

People are being denied their livelihood by virtue of this action. A challenge can and should occur with alacrity. I can assure you that if this happened in my State, I would be in court -- or working with someone who would be in court -- as quickly as possible with the best set of papers we could prepare in a short time frame.

I wish my friends in Minnesota the best of luck in contesting this outrage.

Hey Skall, who has standing in this matter? Can the PPA just use one member in MN to establish standing? Or do just the ISP's receiving the request have standing? Or do all parties have to wait until the State actually attempts to enforce its "request" against ISP's who do not voluntarily comply? What happens if an ISP voluntarily complies?

How could a citizen aggrieved by this -- a customer of one of the ISPs who already has complied -- not have standing? He/she is directly injured by this directive.

Force the issue by naming both the State and the ISP as defendants, so if the ISP was not inclined to sue on its own, now it's tough luck, it's in the case already, so it may as well support the plaintiff's position.

How about next time, you write the effin letter?? You want to be a critic, then get to work! I am so tired of those that complain and do nothing.