ZDNet Government

David Gewirtz
Home / News & Blogs / ZDNet Government

KY judge gives gambling sites 30 days to block users

By | October 17, 2008, 8:04am PDT

Summary: A Kentucky judge gave over 100 gambling sites 30 days to block Kentucky users or have their domain names transferred to the state. An appeal seems likely.

A Kentucky judge Thursday gave online gambling sites 30 days to block the state’s users or face transfer of their domain names to the state, the Kentucky Herald-Leader reports.

Kentucky Gov. Steve Beshear had pressed for a ban on the sites in support of Kentucky’s legal gambling. Bershear also wants to bring casino gaming to the state. The sites had asked the judge to reconsider a previous ruling in the state’s favor. But in a 44-page ruling, the judge found the sites’ claims of international chaos unpersuasive.

“The Internet, with all its benefits and advantages to modern day commerce and life, is still not above the law,” Wingate wrote. In his order, Wingate concurred with state lawyers who said that a domain itself is a gaming device.

In September, Wingate had ordered transfer of the domain names of 141 gambling sites to the state. Attorneys had argued that the state had no jurisdiction. Wingate not only rejected that argument but also ordered attorneys who represent gambling Web sites to tell the court who their clients are.

No word on yet on an appeal, but one has to think the odds on that are a sure thing.

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

More from “ZDNet Government”

Topics

Kentucky, Site, State, Games, Domain Names, Personal Technology, Internet, Richard Koman

Disclosure

Richard Koman

http://government.zdnet.com/?page_id=3731

Biography

Richard Koman

Richard Koman is an attorney admitted to practice in California. As a technology writer since the mid-1980s, Richard Koman has documented the role of computing in the transformation of the graphic arts, the growth of the Web and the birth of the peer-to-peer phenomenon. He worked as a book and web editor for O'Reilly Media throughout the 1990s, editing several influential websites and numerous best-sellers. As a lawyer, as well as a tech writer, he brings a unique perspective to the blog's intersection of law, government and technology.

Talkback Most Recent of 20 Talkback(s)

  • I doubt this will stand a Supreme court...
    challenge. This is no less than stealing by the court. It is not the duty of individual site owners to block specific users from their site.

    I can't see where a state court could have jurisdiction over domain names and sites not residing in its state. It is nearly impossible for them to block everyone in the state. It is more reasonable for the state's ISP's to block access. But even this goes in the face of the sanctity of the Internet. If it is illegal then the user should be held responsible. When a user logs on he/she should have to check a box indicating they are not from Kentucky. This would put the responsibility where it belongs. This is a very scary precedence. This judge sounds like he is simply on a power trip.

    I hope these site owners take this to the supreme court.
    ZDNet Gravatar
    bjbrock
    17th Oct 2008
  • Next step would be state appeals court
    But I agree I cannot see how the state court has jurisdiction over domain registrations where:
    1. registrats are not in the state
    2. defendants are not in the state
    3. no particular marketing efforts to users in the states.
    4. effect of state's action would be to deprive defendants of property
    5. effect of court's action would be to wipe out entire business.

    And anyway, how is a domain a gambling device?
    ZDNet Gravatar
    rkoman@...
    17th Oct 2008
  • duh...
    1. The victims (of the crime) ARE in the state.
    1a. The fiduciary DUTY of the state is to protect it's citizens from crime.
    1b. The "crime" is occurring within the boundaries of the state and therefore the state may find jurisdiction there.
    2. Nobody else has been taking any action anywhere else.
    3. The casinos pretty much flipped off our congress by ignoring the laws that they created (we elected them, remember).
    4. I believe the term "device" was used loosely or not to be translated literally - the internet can be loosely deemed a device.
    4a. The law would quickly be revised if this were found to be untrue.
    5. Internet domain names are NOT property, I believe that is one of the claims by the defense (casinos).
    6. The entire business would NOT be wiped out, they would just lose a major share of business.

    Sorry, but I find the vast majority of your arguments to be frivolous. Thanks for trying. NEXT?
    ZDNet Gravatar
    snowfreeze@...
    17th Oct 2008
  • duuuuuh
    1. The question of jurisdiction is one of what right the state has over the DEFENDANTS. While they have an interest in protecting their citizens, they have to show willful availment of the forum. They probably can do this. Kentuckians no doubt signed website agreements with the gambling sites. But the issue of the state's right to confiscate defendants' property is quite another matter.

    1a. There is no crime. It is lawful for the sites to operate on the Internet. It may not be legal in Kentucky, but there is no operation in Kentucky other than the users interacting from Kentucky with non-KY computers.

    3. Not much I can say about 2 and 3

    4. The term device was intended to refer to gambling machinery. slot machines, that sort of thing. "The Internet is a device?" The freeway system is a "device" to get to a casino? The financial system is a "device" to gamble? (well taht seems true)

    4a. Ah, then it is the duty of the legislature to amend the statute, not the courts to reinterpret a straight-forward law to an absurd result. This is pure judicial activism

    5. A domain name is not property? I have a domain name. I paid money for it. No one else can take it from me. If they do (sex.com), I'm entitled to a range of remedies. If they even infringe on my trademark in their own registration I'm entitled to a remedy. My domain is clearly my property. If it's not property then I have an exclusive license to it and that's a valuable property interest. Same result.

    6. They lose their domain. Their customers around the world cannot find them. How is that not a wipeout?
    ZDNet Gravatar
    rkoman@...
    19th Oct 2008
  • RE: KY judge gives gambling sites 30 days to block users
    Ok all you gambling sites in Russia,Japan,China,Germany,Texas,Florida,Italy,Guam,Myanmar,Thailand,Korea you must submit all your sites to Kentuky they have GOD control of all gambling sites on the internets!

    You kids playing quaters in Arkansas will have your winnings sent to Kentucky as well.
    Kentucky owns all gambling sites and the word "GAMBLING" as well.

    People in Kentucky are smoking something.
    ZDNet Gravatar
    inachu
    17th Oct 2008
  • Not smokin' anything - but feeling ashamed
    We in KY who work in new media are hanging our head in shame at the failness of it all.
    ZDNet Gravatar
    websiteadvice
    17th Oct 2008
  • RE: KY judge gives gambling sites 30 days to block users
    Agreed, but there are a few other thing the Judge failed to take into account. One this is a violation of interstate commerce. Not the first time Kentucky has done this. Once again it comes down to money and the state. In this case the state will eventually lose and end up paying the legal fees of all involved. Tax payers money being wasted yet again.
    ZDNet Gravatar
    mburton325
    17th Oct 2008
  • Good point
    It's a blatant infringement on interstate commerce. But remember they can try to make an argument that the state's interest outweighs the burden on commerce. And since this is gambling, the state can argue a strong interest.

    This argument is pretty much undercut by the fact that the state wants to bring in physical casinos, so they are not showing much interest is protecting citizens from gambling.

    This argument would come down to whether rational basis or strict scrutiny were being applied.
    ZDNet Gravatar
    rkoman@...
    19th Oct 2008
  • Ignoratio Elencho
    The gambling websites (and other interested parties) may actually be using this case to force the issue: who can control the Internet? They line up an ignorant judge and greedy local politicians to do all the dirty work, They get an egregious ruling with far-reaching ramifications, which a higher court *must* overturn in order to protect legitimate businesses who now have a stake in the outcome.

    I smell a red herring here.
    ZDNet Gravatar
    terry flores
    17th Oct 2008
  • Interesting thought - we'll never know
    Interesting perspective. We'll never know. It will remove the topic from limbo and put something on the books. I guess if they have the confidence it would be a smart thing to do.
    ZDNet Gravatar
    websiteadvice
    17th Oct 2008
  • But ....
    The governor started this action, so how are the websites trying to game the system??
    ZDNet Gravatar
    rkoman@...
    19th Oct 2008
  • RE: KY judge gives gambling sites 30 days to block users
    The "online gambling" websites are nothing more than THIEVES, performing thefts daily in absolute anonymity and protecting from any sort of recourse.

    It is IMPOSSIBLE to block an entire state from accessing their websites. Even if it were invented, someone on the border of the state could access the sites via a wireless network. Furthermore, bodog has it available for download on mobile phones. If anyone has a mobile phone in Kentucky, then they are still able to access bodog. That being said, once again, IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO BLOCK AN ENTIRE STATE FROM ACCESSING A WEBSITE.

    Additional sources to back up my response:
    http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AqEA5MD9MyiwjJ4APu272ljty6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20070928103732AA5zGcE

    I hope absolutepoker, ultimatebet and bodoglife all crash and burn harder and go down completely in flames... PERMANENTLY.
    ZDNet Gravatar
    snowfreeze@...
    17th Oct 2008
  • Do you know why KY is trying to block...
    online gambling? It is to protect their own gambling interests. You sound like a hypocrite. Or someone who lost their shirt gambling and wants to blame everyone else.
    ZDNet Gravatar
    bjbrock
    17th Oct 2008
  • Moron.
    And you sound like a MORON. Online gambling is ILLEGAL. Local gambling typically isn't. You just THINK you know what's going on here. You are just ASSUMING. THAT MAKES YOU IGNORANT. You can't dispute what I have to say. You just try to tell me that I am wrong. That makes YOU the hypocrite, in case you were too ignorant to figure that out for yourself.
    ZDNet Gravatar
    snowfreeze@...
    17th Oct 2008
  • Name calling
    Civility please.
    ZDNet Gravatar
    rkoman@...
    19th Oct 2008
View More Comments

Talkback - Tell Us What You Think

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

Blog Roll

Blog Archive