Thoughts on banning US Based Internet Gambling
Odd ban from the land of Caesars Palace -Times Online
FOR the online gaming companies, the rights and wrongs of Senator Bill Frist’s action are neither here nor there. The simple fact is that they will no longer be able to transact business in the US. They have little alternative but to get used to it.
US-based internet gambling will also, probably, stay illegal. Online gaming was banned because it makes political sense. There will be plenty of people — on this side of the Atlantic at least — who will argue about how politically sensible the move is. But it will be harder to sell re-liberalisation to the great American electorate than it was to foist prohibition on the minority in the first place.
In the grand scheme of things, it may not actually matter very much that the online gaming industry has been brought to its knees. It is unpleasant for employees of the company and for those investors who have lost money. It is never good to see wealth destroyed needlessly. Meanwhile, players may be inconvenienced: but they are not being prevented from playing poker and the other pastimes. They just can’t play for money from the comfort of their home computers.
But is the world really a worse place because online gaming has been outlawed? In itself, will the banning deserve any more than a short footnote in history? No. For all that, however, the prohibition order is disconcerting for two reasons.
First, it will worry those entirely unconnected with gambling because it creates a particularly unnerving variety of uncertainty. While many people object to gambling, and governments may be justified in discouraging the activity, it does not feel as if online gambling should be illegal. Things are allowable, surely, as long as innocent bystanders are not damaged and society suffers no overall harm. US legislators appear to be willing to pass laws that run counter to the “live and let live” principles of liberal democracy.
In moving to frame law that is overtly moral, Senator Frist appears to have acted arbitrarily. If online gaming is outlawed simply because it is distasteful to a certain breed of legislator, it will create fear that other enterprises will be banned for illogical or spurious reasons.
Secondly, the prohibition order is disconcerting because it raises questions about whether non-US companies can expect to be treated fairly by stateside authorities. Many will suspect that PartyGaming and the other online operators have been brought low because there is little or no American commercial interest at stake. It is hard to see Harrah’s — replete with the kind of takeover bids that signal thoroughgoing success — being similarly undermined. Yet what, morally, is the difference between playing cards online and playing cards at Caesars Palace?
The mistake made by online gaming companies was to build US operations without gaining economic traction in the country. Seeking legal protection in domiciles off US shores the companies may, ultimately and rather ironically, made them no less vulnerable to attack. If they had found a way to put skin in the American economic game, they may have found themselves tolerated. more
