Banning pronography
- Thread starter threefeet
- Start date
Peter brought an excellent point !!!
I have to make a formal apology because it was partypoker.net or partypoker.com that are based in U.K. that ****** the American last Friday night.
I was shocked all the American were gone even you can play poker on partypoker.net (based in U.K.) without money, the U.K. based internet websites are so scared and their stocks dropped more than 25-30% !
I think the U.K. Government may also exert influence to bring all U.K. based online gaming in line with Washington policy.
******** is ******* in Mississippi but it is not ******* in Indian Reservations or park your huge boats along the Gulf Coast as long as it is not land based.
I have to make a formal apology because it was partypoker.net or partypoker.com that are based in U.K. that ****** the American last Friday night.
I was shocked all the American were gone even you can play poker on partypoker.net (based in U.K.) without money, the U.K. based internet websites are so scared and their stocks dropped more than 25-30% !
I think the U.K. Government may also exert influence to bring all U.K. based online gaming in line with Washington policy.
******** is ******* in Mississippi but it is not ******* in Indian Reservations or park your huge boats along the Gulf Coast as long as it is not land based.
Common law?
It's laws like such that lawyers live for. Here in the US, it would be ruled Unconstitutional overnight.
Ummm, the common law in those countries perhaps? I don't see it be remotely enforceable in Austrailia, much less other countries -- especially here in the US.
It's laws like such that lawyers live for. Here in the US, it would be ruled Unconstitutional overnight.
Re: Banning pronography, China did !
The US has ****** off-shore ******** over the Internet. There is a real fiscal issue. There have been enough lawsuits and capital loss that the US was ****** to step in. The US federal government is free to regulate international commerce with its citizens. It has far less power with interstate, and virtually no power over intrastate commerce.
BTW, I'm actually for the US blocking select access at the ARIN (North American) routers. Why? It has to do with security, not privacy. It would reduce about 99% of the attacks made from overseas. It really is a national security issue. I'm really surprised that they haven't done this at least with SMTP traffic.
Whoa! Whoa! Whoa! Get your facts straight!
The US has ****** off-shore ******** over the Internet. There is a real fiscal issue. There have been enough lawsuits and capital loss that the US was ****** to step in. The US federal government is free to regulate international commerce with its citizens. It has far less power with interstate, and virtually no power over intrastate commerce.
And virtually everyone knows it will get shot down -- whether in Congress itself or by the US federal courts. But even if it happened, it would only affect American citizens and no one else.
BTW, I'm actually for the US blocking select access at the ARIN (North American) routers. Why? It has to do with security, not privacy. It would reduce about 99% of the attacks made from overseas. It really is a national security issue. I'm really surprised that they haven't done this at least with SMTP traffic.
Re: Banning pronography, China did !
Why that was the original intent of the constitution and should be the way it is, that hasn't been true since Roosevelt and the New Deal. The courts have twisted the interstate commerce clause to include almost everything made everywhere. It would be nice if our founding laws weren’t twisted so much but they are. While in the last decade the courts have started slightly to go back to it's original intent they have already started backtracking on even that. If something only made and sold in one state even has the remotest effect on anything that might be sold interstate it can be regulated. (Which is almost everything for practical purposes) The California medical ********* case illustrates this fact. Even something like grain could theoretically be regulated even if only bought and grown in one state if it affects the prices of grain nationwide. As far as I know things like the federal minimum wage, safety standards, and pollution control, still effect a business whether they or their products are interstate or not. That is not to mention that the interstate commerce clause is one of the government biggest tools for *** control, so it shows that the government is by no means afraid to use it for purposes other than economic regulation. I have a hard time believing that the tightening of ******** regulation is more about the criticalness of regulating the economic aspects of ******** than it is about limiting something some people don’t like on a moral level.
Why that was the original intent of the constitution and should be the way it is, that hasn't been true since Roosevelt and the New Deal. The courts have twisted the interstate commerce clause to include almost everything made everywhere. It would be nice if our founding laws weren’t twisted so much but they are. While in the last decade the courts have started slightly to go back to it's original intent they have already started backtracking on even that. If something only made and sold in one state even has the remotest effect on anything that might be sold interstate it can be regulated. (Which is almost everything for practical purposes) The California medical ********* case illustrates this fact. Even something like grain could theoretically be regulated even if only bought and grown in one state if it affects the prices of grain nationwide. As far as I know things like the federal minimum wage, safety standards, and pollution control, still effect a business whether they or their products are interstate or not. That is not to mention that the interstate commerce clause is one of the government biggest tools for *** control, so it shows that the government is by no means afraid to use it for purposes other than economic regulation. I have a hard time believing that the tightening of ******** regulation is more about the criticalness of regulating the economic aspects of ******** than it is about limiting something some people don’t like on a moral level.
Similar threads
- Locked
