Internet Gambling and Enforcement Act (UIGEA), which was slipped into the SAFE
Port Act, 48 banned gambling, prohibited online poker sites and other betting companies from ‘‘knowingly accepting’’ money from United States–based customers, and
encouraged financial institutions to deny Internet gambling transactions. Since the
act’s inception, its legality has been in question. 49
Two states in the United States have attempted to further limit gambling online. In
October 2008, a circuit court judge in the state of Kentucky granted a request by the
governor to have 141 Web sites used by online gaming operations transferred to state
control. 50 In January 2009, following a petition filed by members of the Center for
Democracy and Technology, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and the American
Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky, 51 a Kentucky appeals court overturned the judge’s
request. 52 In May 2009, John Willems, director of the Alcohol and Gambling Enforcement Division (AGED) of Minnesota’s Department of Public Safety (DPS), filed an order
requiring that 11 ISPs, including Comcast, Charter, and Verizon Wireless, prevent state
residents from reaching approximately 200 gambling sites. 53 iMEGA (Interactive
Media, Entertainment, and Gaming Association) had filed a lawsuit against Willems
seeking an injunction to block implementation of the AGED order, 54 which was later
dropped when the Minnesota DPS reached a settlement with iMEGA. ISPs are no
longer required to block state residents’ access to gambling sites. 55
In 2008, Representative Barney Frank (Democrat, Massachusetts) again announced
plans to introduce legislation aimed at overturning the UIGEA. 56 He had failed a previous attempt in 2007 in the form of an act entitled the Internet Gambling Regulation
and Enforcement Act. 57
The legality of online gambling in Canada is unclear, as few gaming cases exist to
provide guidelines, although persons running online gaming operations can be subject
to criminal liability. 58 As a result, offshore gambling sites are currently legal to use in
Canada. 59 Advertising of such services is generally held to be illegal in Canada.
Defamation
As in other countries, the potential for legal liability for civil violations, including defamation and copyright, constrains the publishers of Internet content and certain service providers in the United States and Canada. These pressures can have a ‘‘chilling
effect’’ on lawful online content and conduct, and can threaten the anonymity of
users. The content and court adjudication of such laws constitute state action, even
when the lawsuits and threats are brought by private individuals or entities.
One crucial factor in determining liability for defamation is the provider’s relation to
the content—whether the provider functioned as a carrier, distributor, or publisher of
the defamatory content. In the United States the common law has been overridden by
a federal statute, a holdover portion of the CDA, 47 U.S.C. 230. A key part of the CDA
376
United States and Canada Overview
Port Act, 48 banned gambling, prohibited online poker sites and other betting companies from ‘‘knowingly accepting’’ money from United States–based customers, and
encouraged financial institutions to deny Internet gambling transactions. Since the
act’s inception, its legality has been in question. 49
Two states in the United States have attempted to further limit gambling online. In
October 2008, a circuit court judge in the state of Kentucky granted a request by the
governor to have 141 Web sites used by online gaming operations transferred to state
control. 50 In January 2009, following a petition filed by members of the Center for
Democracy and Technology, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and the American
Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky, 51 a Kentucky appeals court overturned the judge’s
request. 52 In May 2009, John Willems, director of the Alcohol and Gambling Enforcement Division (AGED) of Minnesota’s Department of Public Safety (DPS), filed an order
requiring that 11 ISPs, including Comcast, Charter, and Verizon Wireless, prevent state
residents from reaching approximately 200 gambling sites. 53 iMEGA (Interactive
Media, Entertainment, and Gaming Association) had filed a lawsuit against Willems
seeking an injunction to block implementation of the AGED order, 54 which was later
dropped when the Minnesota DPS reached a settlement with iMEGA. ISPs are no
longer required to block state residents’ access to gambling sites. 55
In 2008, Representative Barney Frank (Democrat, Massachusetts) again announced
plans to introduce legislation aimed at overturning the UIGEA. 56 He had failed a previous attempt in 2007 in the form of an act entitled the Internet Gambling Regulation
and Enforcement Act. 57
The legality of online gambling in Canada is unclear, as few gaming cases exist to
provide guidelines, although persons running online gaming operations can be subject
to criminal liability. 58 As a result, offshore gambling sites are currently legal to use in
Canada. 59 Advertising of such services is generally held to be illegal in Canada.
Defamation
As in other countries, the potential for legal liability for civil violations, including defamation and copyright, constrains the publishers of Internet content and certain service providers in the United States and Canada. These pressures can have a ‘‘chilling
effect’’ on lawful online content and conduct, and can threaten the anonymity of
users. The content and court adjudication of such laws constitute state action, even
when the lawsuits and threats are brought by private individuals or entities.
One crucial factor in determining liability for defamation is the provider’s relation to
the content—whether the provider functioned as a carrier, distributor, or publisher of
the defamatory content. In the United States the common law has been overridden by
a federal statute, a holdover portion of the CDA, 47 U.S.C. 230. A key part of the CDA
376
United States and Canada Overview