« Environment - More on "SCOTUS to Reconsider Wading Into Asian Carp Fight " | Main | Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 0 today (and 7 NFP) »

Friday, March 19, 2010

Courts - Yet more on: "Kentucky Supreme Court to hear online gambling case"

For background, start with this ILB entry from Nov. 3, 2009.

Beth Musgrave reports today in the Lexington Herald-Leader:

FRANKFORT — In a censorship case with international repercussions, the Kentucky Supreme Court ruled Thursday that owners of gambling Web sites must appear in court to defend themselves against Kentucky's attempts to seize their domain names and stop illegal Internet gambling.

The Internet gambling sites had been represented in court by pro-Internet gambling associations and players' groups — such as the Interactive Media Entertainment and Gaming Association and the Interactive Gaming Council — not by the owners of the Web sites, who have remained anonymous.

One of the lawyers for the gambling sites said Thursday that he expects the domain name owners to comply with the Supreme Court's decision.

"All of the parties are going to get together and determine how we are going to proceed and comply with this technical issue," said Jon Fleisch aker, a Louisville lawyer who represents Interactive Media Entertainment and Gaming Association. "I think it is a very, very temporary setback. It's a very unusual decision because it signals an interest in the merits of the case and gives us a road map on how to get back to the Supreme Court quickly."

Justice and Public Safety Secretary J. Michael Brown said the state was pleased with the ruling, "in that it allows us to continue our efforts to curb illegal Internet gambling."

If the state succeeds, online gambling advocates said Internet freedoms could be curtailed around the world.

"There are fundamental freedoms at stake in this case, not only the freedom of poker players in Kentucky and globally, but Internet freedom across the globe," the Poker Players Alliance said in a statement. "The commonwealth's effort at such a bold, broad and, we believe, unlawful seizure sets a dangerous precedent for anyone who uses the Internet."

In 2008, a Franklin Circuit Court judge said the state could seize 141 Internet domain names of online gambling sites that were allegedly taking illegal bets from Kentuckians. Lawyers acting on behalf of the gambling sites appealed to the Kentucky Court of Appeals to stop the seizure, which the appellate court granted.

State officials appealed to the Kentucky Supreme Court, arguing in part that those who have argued on behalf of the domain names had no legal standing to do so.

The court, in a 6-0 opinion, said the associations must disclose the companies that they represent. "The problem, however, is that (the Interactive Gaming Council) fails to disclose who these registrants are," wrote Supreme Court Justice Mary Noble. * * *

The 141 domain names have continued to operate as the case works its way through the courts.

"State wins procedural round in fight over gambling Web sites" is the headline to the Louisville Courier Journal coverage by Stephenie Steitzer.

For some perspective, see this article from Gambling 911 quoting the Electronic Frontier Foundation:

In amicus briefs filed with the Court of Appeals and the Kentucky Supreme Court in support of a writ vacating the trial court's order, EFF, Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT), and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) argued that the First Amendment, the Commerce Clause, and the Due Process Clause of the Constitution prohibit state courts from interfering with Internet domain names that were registered and maintained outside the state.

Posted by Marcia Oddi on March 19, 2010 10:33 AM
Posted to Courts in general