Industry advocates react to Kentucky ruling
In the wake of Franklin County Circuit Court Judge Thomas Wingate's decision
against the online gambling sites in a Kentucky case, officials from iMEGA, the
Poker Players Alliance and even the Internet Commerce Association have released
statements.
Essentially, Judge Wingate has ordered owners of 141 online gambling domain names to appear at a Nov. 17 forfeiture hearing and demonstrate that they are blocking traffic from residents in Kentucky. If the sites don't appear or don't comply with the ruling, the domains will be forfeited to the state.
According to iMEGA, which was founded to foster cooperation between the online industry and government at all levels, believes that Wingate misapplied several existing Kentucky laws and long-standing principles regarding his court's jurisdiction over the matter.
"This decision must not be allowed to stand, because of the threat it poses to the Internet as a whole," said Joe Brennan Jr., iMEGA chairman.
"Judge Wingate has ignored the clear laws of his own state in coming to a decision that essentially green-lights any jurisdiction - in the U.S. and abroad - to ignore our rights and abuse their power to do away with competition or speech or content with which they oppose, regardless of the law. This is a dark day for Internet freedom."
iMEGA believes the affect of this ruling will be felt across the entire online world. Other Internet industries could be at risk, such as social networking, video gaming, adult entertainment and others.
"What Judge Wingate has done is to create the 'ultimate weapon' to be used by the powerful and influential to attack content they oppose," Brennan said.
"This will enable government to eliminate competition from differing ideas, beliefs and commerce. This decision today is where it starts, but where will it stop?"
Jeremiah Johnston, ICA president, had similar thoughts on the decision, noting that his organization is extremely disappointed in the decision.
"This is a dangerous decision not just for domain name investors and developers but for all who value commerce and free speech on the Internet," Johnston said.
"The Court has incorrectly held that domain names are a form of property subject to in rem jurisdiction anywhere on the face of the Earth where their associated Web sites may be viewed on a computer screen. "
Johnston also pointed out that if this decision was broadly adopted, then Internet commerce and speech would be at risk on a global basis.
"For example, U.S. companies conducting legal business activities in this nation could be subject to seizure orders for their domain names issued by foreign courts for lack of compliance with local law and regulation merely because their websites can be viewed abroad," he said.
"Even more worrisome, the courts of totalitarian regimes could issue seizures orders against domain names used to spread truth and advocate freedom to their repressed populations. The remedy proposed by the court - geographic blocking so that none of the subject websites can be viewed from within Kentucky - is infeasible for individual domain names which could be subject to different laws and regulation in thousands of jurisdictions worldwide."
Both iMEGA and the ICA plan to remain actively engaged in the litigation, and iMEGA is already preparing its challenge to the ruling in both the State and Federal courts.
The Poker Players Alliance has also been active in the litigation to help protect poker players' rights. The organization also expressed its disappointment in Judge Wingate's ruling, though it had a few more reasons along with the issue of personal rights and Internet freedoms to add to the list of why the judge shouldn't have ruled the way he did.
"Clearly, we believe the judge in this case got it wrong," said John Pappas, PPA executive director. "First of all, we strongly disagree with Judge Wingate's ruling that poker is not a game of skill. As demonstrated in the amicus brief we filed, skill plays an essential role in being a successful poker player."
Essentially, Judge Wingate has ordered owners of 141 online gambling domain names to appear at a Nov. 17 forfeiture hearing and demonstrate that they are blocking traffic from residents in Kentucky. If the sites don't appear or don't comply with the ruling, the domains will be forfeited to the state.
According to iMEGA, which was founded to foster cooperation between the online industry and government at all levels, believes that Wingate misapplied several existing Kentucky laws and long-standing principles regarding his court's jurisdiction over the matter.
"This decision must not be allowed to stand, because of the threat it poses to the Internet as a whole," said Joe Brennan Jr., iMEGA chairman.
"Judge Wingate has ignored the clear laws of his own state in coming to a decision that essentially green-lights any jurisdiction - in the U.S. and abroad - to ignore our rights and abuse their power to do away with competition or speech or content with which they oppose, regardless of the law. This is a dark day for Internet freedom."
iMEGA believes the affect of this ruling will be felt across the entire online world. Other Internet industries could be at risk, such as social networking, video gaming, adult entertainment and others.
"What Judge Wingate has done is to create the 'ultimate weapon' to be used by the powerful and influential to attack content they oppose," Brennan said.
"This will enable government to eliminate competition from differing ideas, beliefs and commerce. This decision today is where it starts, but where will it stop?"
Jeremiah Johnston, ICA president, had similar thoughts on the decision, noting that his organization is extremely disappointed in the decision.
"This is a dangerous decision not just for domain name investors and developers but for all who value commerce and free speech on the Internet," Johnston said.
"The Court has incorrectly held that domain names are a form of property subject to in rem jurisdiction anywhere on the face of the Earth where their associated Web sites may be viewed on a computer screen. "
Johnston also pointed out that if this decision was broadly adopted, then Internet commerce and speech would be at risk on a global basis.
"For example, U.S. companies conducting legal business activities in this nation could be subject to seizure orders for their domain names issued by foreign courts for lack of compliance with local law and regulation merely because their websites can be viewed abroad," he said.
"Even more worrisome, the courts of totalitarian regimes could issue seizures orders against domain names used to spread truth and advocate freedom to their repressed populations. The remedy proposed by the court - geographic blocking so that none of the subject websites can be viewed from within Kentucky - is infeasible for individual domain names which could be subject to different laws and regulation in thousands of jurisdictions worldwide."
Both iMEGA and the ICA plan to remain actively engaged in the litigation, and iMEGA is already preparing its challenge to the ruling in both the State and Federal courts.
The Poker Players Alliance has also been active in the litigation to help protect poker players' rights. The organization also expressed its disappointment in Judge Wingate's ruling, though it had a few more reasons along with the issue of personal rights and Internet freedoms to add to the list of why the judge shouldn't have ruled the way he did.
"Clearly, we believe the judge in this case got it wrong," said John Pappas, PPA executive director. "First of all, we strongly disagree with Judge Wingate's ruling that poker is not a game of skill. As demonstrated in the amicus brief we filed, skill plays an essential role in being a successful poker player."
"Governor Beshear has shown great leadership in protecting and promoting the rights of Kentuckians to gamble on horse racing and in casinos," Muny said. "He should do the same for those Kentuckians who seek the freedom to engage in online poker."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resources