KenSmith said:
Frankly, if you're in the US, I just don't see the point of trying to find a place to play. By definition, anyone who accepts your play is willing to break the law.
Ken, I'm surprised at you. What law do you think is being broken? Well, if you believe that whatever the Bush administration says is the law is, by definition, the law, fine. But I'm old-fashioned enough to think that an act is prohibited only if there is a statute outlawing it. The UIGEA did not add to the definition of gambling activities prohibited by federal law. It only set up a new enforcement regime, targeting financial transactions funding gambling that was already prohibited by another federal or state law. The only major gambling prohibition in federal law is the Wire Act. The courts have repeatedly found that the Wire Act means what it says, that it only restricts wagering on racing and sports. Depending on where your feet are planted, there may be a state law that applies to you, with additional gambling prohibitions. But most states do not have statutes prohibiting gambling over the Internet.
Read I. Nelson Rose's analysis if you want an opinion more detailed and better informed than mine.
The current administration has plainly taken a position that cannot reasonably find support in the statutes. It is using intimidation, rather than legitimate legal means, to try to shut down activities that certain zealots, who are political supporters, oppose.