What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
74 Comments
- TheEngineer2008, on 05/05/2009, -0/+39Please tell Tim Pawlenty not to censor the Internet!
Contact info for Gov. Pawlenty
email: tim.pawlenty@state.mn.us
Twitter: http://twitter.com/Pawlenty
telephone: 651-296-3391
toll free: 1-800-657-3717
fax: 651-296-2089 - TheEngineer2008, on 05/05/2009, -1/+35Dear Governor Pawlenty,
I am writing to express my displeasure with your state's plan to censor the Internet to stop Minnesotans from playing a hand of poker in the comfort of their own home. I ask that you stand up for Internet freedom.
While this action may have been initiated by John Willems, Director of the Minnesota Department of Public Safety's Alcohol and Gambling Enforcement Division (a department that is under DFL Secretary of State Mark Ritchie), it is yours now. You are the chief executive of your state and you clearly have the authority to stop this if you choose to. At a minimum, you can have the attorney general review it for legality or challenge it in court yourself. You can also speak out against it. If you choose to remain silent on the issue and refuse to act, Americans will (rightly) take this as your tacit authorization of a very unpopular censorship action. It will surely be remembered in 2012 if you choose to run for national office.
You have ample reason to stop this on purely legal grounds. Here are a few:
* Many sites on the block order do not accept U.S. customers. As such, Minnesota cannot make a Wire Act claim for a block of such sites. Minnesota will just be blocking free speech. You can and should rescind the entire blocking order as a clear violation of the First Amendment protections of free speech.
* The Wire Act has never been held to apply to anything but interstate sports betting. The state of Minnesota will be in for a long, expensive, and potentially losing court battle to get this definition expanded judicially.
* Blocks by Minnesota would likely result in inadvertent blocking to residents of neighboring states. Other states may not wish for the Minnesota government nanny to "protect" their citizens from freedom.
* The block order includes sites that offer only poker. However, games of skill like poker are likely not "gambling" as defined by Minnesota law. From your own state's website: "What about games of skill? If the activity is a game of skill, then criminal penalties don't apply. Skill activities might include darts, bowling and pool tournaments." Perhaps the State Attorney General's Office believes Texas Hold'em and other poker games are not included, but Minnesota will have to prove this in court, where poker has recently won several rulings in states with similar laws on skill vs. chance. Again, you may find yourself in for a long, expensive, and potentially losing court battle.
* The block order irresponsibly threatened players' funds. Minnesota has made no allegations that players are breaking any state or federal laws, so this misleading and inaccurate scaremongering is reason enough to rescind the entire blocking order.
* Kentucky Governor Steve Beshear tried to censor the Internet for online poker and gaming, too. When he initiated his protectionist crusade, he thought no one would object. Well, besides the thousands of Kentuckians who called and wrote, pro-rights groups like the million-member Poker Players Alliance, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the ACLU, and many others fought for Internet freedom -- in court. Beshear won at the circuit court level, but lost his case at the Kentucky Court of Appeals. He's now appealing to the Kentucky Supreme Court, where even eBay and Network Solutions have filed briefs opposing his unpopular actions. At least Beshear did this with a contingency-fee only law firm. Under Minnesota's plan, taxpayers will be required to foot the bill for this very expensive (and likely unpopular) effort.
* Willems expressed surprise at the volume of calls from poker players. However, those calls were generated from word-of-mouth only. Willems should expect many more calls from people who care about their freedoms as news of this plan gets out. Willems also said, "if (poker players) want to make their case, they should also do so to the state’s policy makers." Well, the Poker Players Alliance does not believe the state policy makers appointed Willems as the Minnesota Internet Czar. PPA stated that the state's plan was based on "a clear misrepresentation of federal law, as well as Minnesota law, used in an unprecedented way to try and censor the Internet." They went on to declare that they are "calling (Minnesota's) bluff." In Kentucky, that meant court action.
What's most important to me is your support for freedom. Please respond to this letter and let me know you will change your mind and support liberty. I will be watching your actions on this issue closely and, should you choose to run for national office, will definitely keep them in mind in 2012. I hope that I -- along with my over one million fellow Poker Players Alliance members -- can count on your support.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely, - TheEngineer2008, on 05/05/2009, -0/+20If the state blocking demand succeeds, where will it stop? Many people will wish for porn to be next. If that happens, will sites be required to ensure in advance that they have appropriate filters before being granted access to the state? Will some speech be blocked, especially political speech? Will commercial sites doing business in New York state be required to post sales tax bonds prior to being permitted in the state?
Any toehold by government into the Internet could easily lead to overt government regulation of the Internet. It's imperative that we keep government out of the Internet! - oldbookguy, on 05/05/2009, -1/+20
At least ONE republican STILL respects a person freedom in their own home! - cntlscrut, on 05/05/2009, -1/+16they should instead vote to censor Rep. Bachmann. I mean really, is everybody in MN insane?
- oriondr, on 05/05/2009, -0/+9imposed net neutrality? wtf?
- BC71289, on 05/06/2009, -0/+7Blocking the internet is the modern day banning of books.
The gov should just know that you shouldn't ***** do it. - twiztidsinz, on 05/05/2009, -0/+6You have NO clue what Net Neutrality is, tool.
- Ebacherville, on 05/06/2009, -0/+5IM a MN resident, so the states saying that they have to bock gambling sites.. well then how come the state has its own gambling.. we have scratchoffs powerball pick 5 3 6.. you name it the sate does it..
I see this as a way to "monopolize" they want to be the only source.. its all about the cash .. its really sick when the state says no gambling , except if its with us .. I cant believe people put up with some of the stupidity/manhandling of government.. and they they ask for more!
Thanks you sir, hit me again sir!
PS our "governor" sucks.. really like the rest of government reps most are pretty useless. They sure did great when we called in droves of millions to say no bail outs... they did it anyway.. and there going to do it again with this stress test crap. - shazbotben, on 05/05/2009, -0/+5The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
And yes, making private ISP's block ANYTHING is internet censorship.
Not to mention the murky illegality of gambling is ridiculous to begin with... - catxors, on 05/05/2009, -0/+5We really need a federal law that bars state and local governments from regulating the interwebs.
- TheEngineer2008, on 05/05/2009, -0/+5What makes you think it's illegal? The Commerce Clause gives Congress the right to regulate interstate commerce, not the state of Minnesota. Even if Minnesota did have this right, the applicability of their laws to poker is very questionable. Also, the Minnesota legislature did not pass a law to censor the state's Internet -- some law enforcement official did it on his own. Seems the cure is worse than the problem.
Finally, what's it to you if your neighbor plays a hand of cards in his own home with his own money? - oriondr, on 05/05/2009, -1/+6The accent is by-and-large a myth, only small towns in northern Minnesota (and people from the small towns) have a thick accent.
- asgardshill, on 05/05/2009, -3/+7While you're at it guys, how about installing your second US Senator, you know the guy who won the election? You DO get two of them.
- TheEngineer2008, on 05/06/2009, -0/+4I sent him a copy. :-)
- newman8r, on 05/05/2009, -0/+4It's so ***** sad to see that the internet, which once belonged to the people, is within the firm grasp of big government
This time freedom prevails, but the future is very murky. - oriondr, on 05/05/2009, -0/+4No, no we're not.
Keep in mind, we haven't voted for a republican for president longer than any other state. - samsmartjr, on 05/05/2009, -2/+5Why is that Republicans keep campaigning on ensuring our freedoms and preventing government infringement on our rights always try to pass laws that keep us from having any fun?
- billraydrums, on 05/06/2009, -2/+5Can we put a muzzle on Michele Bachmann instead?
- inactive, on 05/05/2009, -0/+3The government does not want competition from any other organization running gambling rackets.
- CurlyFoot, on 05/05/2009, -1/+4You can listen to me say, "***** off" and see if you can hear the accent or not.
- TheEngineer2008, on 05/05/2009, -0/+3Probably not, but it's best that politicians who even think about censoring the Internet hear from a lot of freedom-loving Americans so they'll know to keep their hands off our liberties.
- mrsteveman1, on 05/06/2009, -0/+3This is the government we're talking about, they slip down the slope and get right back up on top to do it all over again.
- TheEngineer2008, on 05/05/2009, -0/+3New York is trying to tax Amazon right now. Three state attorneys general today ordered Craigslist to remove prostitution ads and porn from their site. Where's the fallacy???
- inactive, on 05/06/2009, -0/+2Because they are liars.
- CurlyFoot, on 05/05/2009, -2/+4Pawlenty is a ***** hack.
- scheibs14, on 05/05/2009, -2/+4Farmington represent!
- GilThielander, on 05/06/2009, -0/+2Oof-da, that's a nice piece of legislation!
- gravylookout, on 05/06/2009, -0/+2Talk to anyone in North West Minnesota or North Dakota about hockey and it comes right out.
- TheEngineer2008, on 05/06/2009, -0/+2@hutch1973,
We brought similar issues in fighting Kentucky's attempts at regulating the Internet to stop online poker and were successful, winning in the KY Court of Appeals. Minn. will get a similar fight.
Yes, the Commerce Clause does prohibit Minnesota's actions (at least we believe so...we'll have to get a Minn. judge to concur), so the Minn. law is likely moot regarding online poker. We also believe we have a real argument for poker to be declared a lawful game of skill under Minnesota law.
You talk about laws -- surely we have a right to contest in court the applicability of such laws. That's the law as well.
One more thing on laws -- Minn. made no allegations of players breaking any state laws. Their issues are with sites not located within the state.
I don't support censoring the Internet for adult porn (I don't care for porn, but I have no desire to stop my fellow man or woman from accessing it). Child porn, OTOH, is very unlawful under many laws, and there's nothing for an ISP to block, as it's not out in the open due to other, more effective laws. That's how crime is fought -- by going after criminals, not communication. - IHaveCrayons, on 05/06/2009, -0/+2I don't see how gambling and censoring are the same thing. If something is illegal in a certain state then it should be illegal. For example, child pornography is censored on the internet because its illegal. Stopping something from facilitating an illegal activity is not censorship. I mean, I am not sponsoring censorship or anything but let's say things how they really are.
- Ebacherville, on 05/06/2009, -0/+2hell yes he is.. IM a resident of MN.. he and most the rest up on the hill suck.
- smacksaw, on 05/06/2009, -1/+3The only fallacy being committed here is this fallacy of logic you've stated.
- GBPACKGB, on 05/06/2009, -0/+2Only those who live in Minnesota's sixth district.
- pete2770, on 05/06/2009, -1/+2Funny, I've lived in Wisconsin, Minneapolis, and now a very small town in Minnesota. I don't notice an accent, no one on the internet notices my accent (voice programs). Old people have it, but by and large Minnesotans speak proper midwest/broadcast English.
- yeahaboutthat, on 05/06/2009, -0/+1Norman619:
The true travesty behind these flawed legislative campaigns is the MONUMENTAL WASTE of state resources used while these nonsensical, ill-conceived and rarely thought-through bills make their way into either the trash can or the statutes. Even if enacted then challenged in court, it's merely another enormous waste of community resources to adjudicate the constitutionality of a piece of bad legislation.
Particularly for legislators elected on either the "save the children" or "protect the person from him/herself" platforms, there is rarely any political push-back over this kind of silliness. The fact that these inane, politically shallow legislators are in the seats they're in is all our faults. - BlackLabel2021, on 05/06/2009, -0/+1This is true, and I commend Representative Garofalo for, I guess, doing so... However, in the state of Minnesota only five types of gambling are legal- pull-tabs, raffles, bingo, tipboards, and paddlewheels. Seeing as how it would take a lot more effort and a lot more focus to figure out who's legally doing these types of gambling online, thus taking away man hours and brain power from more pressing issues, why wouldn't it make sense to just ban all forms of gambling?
To me this doesn't seem so much an issue of censorship, but more of an issue on weather or not to follow the law, and how closely do you follow it.
But... Maybe I'm way off base... - maz2331, on 05/06/2009, -0/+1The reason that there's problems with state (or Federal) attempts to ban Internet gambling is that they amount to a violation of trade agreements. While the US Constitution legally trumps treaties on American soil, the obligations are valid so long as they don't conflict with it. These trade agreements were entered into under legitimate Congressional and Presidential authority, and no state can pass legislation trumping Federal law, the Constiution, or legitimate treaty obligations.
While I generally favor the states' rights arguments, there really are times where the issue is clearly Federal in nature, and others where international agreements most certainly apply. This is one of them, since MN is attempting to regulate an interstate and international commerce activity. - norman619, on 05/05/2009, -0/+1I doubt even if they passed that law that it would hold to examnation by the suprime court.
- cntlscrut, on 05/06/2009, -0/+1Don't worry. I live in GA, if that makes you feel any better.
- smacksaw, on 05/06/2009, -0/+1Her and Pawlenty. Someone check the water there. It'll take some time, since there's 10,000 lakes.
- GBPACKGB, on 05/06/2009, -0/+1Um... Net neutrality is a good thing, buddy.
- GilThielander, on 05/06/2009, -0/+1FYI: 3.2% Alcohol by *weight is approximately equal to 4.0% Alcohol by *volume, (i.e. "3.2" has the same kick as your domestic tap you buy at the bar.)
- GilThielander, on 05/06/2009, -0/+1I always thought Garafalo was a flake, he proved me wrong. I might have to vote for him again.
- cntlscrut, on 05/06/2009, -0/+1no, censor, as in to block, or not allow media, speech or content.
- maz2331, on 05/06/2009, -0/+1Maybe without the "naked" part. I'm no prude, but some things ARE best left unseen....
- inactive, on 05/07/2009, -0/+1By 0.8% right? It's not good to mix weight and volume you can't compare them it's like saying my wife is 400 lbs but if you look at her by volume she's only 70 liters.
- TheEngineer2008, on 05/06/2009, -0/+1Standing up for liberty and Internet freedom is pretty damned important.
- GilThielander, on 05/08/2009, -0/+1I don't understand what you are trying to say. I understand that volume and weight are different measurements. I think I made that very clear in my original post. I wouldn't have even posted anything, but your original post made it sound like you thought 3.2 beer (by weight) is somehow "less than" regular beer.
- JohnnySoftware, on 08/06/2009, -0/+1Gambling and freedom of the speech are pretty far apart.
-
Show 51 - 74 of 74 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is