Is Kentucky’s Seizing of Gambling Websites the End of the Internet?

With the unprecedented legal move, Kentucky state Governor Steve Beshear recently declared that 141 named poker and modern casino gambling domain names will be seized, since their corresponding ?nternet sites are catering to the residents of Kentucky. Governor Beshear claimed that these domains are considered to be gaming devices, so, are subject to the local Kentucky laws permitting their confiscation. Beshear also claimed that use of these gambling sites just by Kentucky residents, is directly cutting into Kentucky’s localized industries, namely its state-sanctioned horse-racing and lottery markets.

Although all of the named gambling websites are physically to be found outside of the United States (and are regulated by their hometown jurisdictions), the domain names themselves are registered with a U. Ring. -based registrar (안전놀이터). Thus, Beshear claimed that your makes them subject to local Kentucky law, which specifically bandits “gaming devices”. Beshear claimed that the domain names themselves are thought of as gaming devices. As such, Beshear filed a lawsuit that requires these types of 141 gaming site domain names to be confiscated and given up from GoDaddy. com.

In a bizarre decision, Kentucky Franklin County Circuit Court Judge Wingate ruled in favor of the very the state of Kentucky, and set a compliance date of Until 3rd, 2008, for all of these websites to block access to Kentucky people or be faced with the forfeiture of their domain names. At the same time puzzling, was GoDaddy. com’s decision to abide by Court Wingate’s legal decision.

Those fighting this decision, practitioners on behalf of the Internet Gaming Counsel and the Interactive Media Celebration & Gaming Association (IMEGA), plan on fighting the constitutionality of this decision, and plan on appealing at both the talk about and federal levels. This could easily wind up going to the Superior Court for ruling. They contend that the law remaining applied does not belong in the Cirtuit Court, since the intercontinental Internet does not apply to local law.

Currently, there has in no way been a general consensus from the effected gaming sites, whether or not or not they plan on abiding by the court’s decision. With early indications, it appears that there has been general “ignoring” of the final decision on the part of these gambling websites, but the final decision that they get remains to be seen.

The ramifications of this decision are extensive. If the gambling websites decide to comply and block connection of their sites to Kentucky residents, then what is to get rid of other states from seeking the same sanctions? More importantly, if this option stands, what will prevent any local jurisidiction from stating that your chosen nonlocal website is causing economic and industry violation on a local business? What if Johnny’s bookstore in London, claims that Amazon. com is siphoning away industry from its local store? Will a local judge leadership on the confiscation of the Amazom. com domain name, or rule among bodybuilders that Amazon. com should block access to all Idaho residents?

Unquestionably, Internet freedom is at stake here. The worldwide nature of the Internet is certainly at risk given this decision, therefore begs the question as to whether local law can rule or restrict global law. The future of the Internet as we know it again today, may very well hinge on the final outcome and results of the main appeal process.