Kentucky may block gambling sites; attack sites still receive public funds

Remember the right-wing attack websites and message forums of the late '90s? The Last Word covered this public scandal and exposed the fact that these projects - designed to defame private individuals just for having the "wrong" views - were supported with taxpayer dollars.

I believe in free speech and the unfettered flow of ideas, but there's no doubt that the laws are too weak in protecting victims of these sites - which constituted out-and-out harassment. I know this because I was a victim. If the sites weren't criminal, they were certainly a civil matter - but the laws are so feeble and the system is so intent on protecting and even subsidizing these sites that victims have little power for recourse.

These sites have largely fallen by the wayside in the 2000s, but lately the concept has been reborn on a much smaller scale: The new sites repackage old lies under the open content concept. Like the many treacherous sites of old, the new sites receive special rights and privileges that other folks lack.

Now the state of Kentucky is trying to block gambling websites. In an unprecedented move, the state wants to seize 141 domain names that belong to these sites and shut them off.

I realize Kentucky loses revenue when the citizenry uses these sites instead of indulging in legalized forms of gaming such as bingo or the state lottery. But seizing domains raises questions: Are the gambling sites legal in other jurisdictions? (Perhaps not in the U.S., but possibly in other countries.) Is Kentucky seizing all that comes with the domains, including the files on the site? If not, is Kentucky trying to block access to the sites from within the state, while the sites remain accessible in other states? (Apparently so.) Will it force ISP's to block them?

It's a slippery slope we can't afford. This is especially true if the sites still exist but are blocked in Kentucky, for that would be nothing short of government restraint of speech. Government can restrict gambling; it can't restrict speech. Gambling that takes place on a website falls under gaming laws. But merely viewing a website is not itself gambling.

A more sensible course of action would be to legalize and regulate online gambling and ensure the state gets revenue from it - as it does with other types of gaming. You can't complain about gambling sites not paying taxes if you keep them illegal, which is what keeps them from paying taxes.

Meanwhile, attack websites and forums operate with no limits. I don't support forcing ISP's to block them, but it begs asking why these sites are still subsidized by our tax dollars. Public universities have hosted some of the accounts that posted the defamatory material. They've even hosted some of the websites. Other hosts of these sites have also received public funds.

All at your expense.

(Source: http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2008/09/23/ap5458185.html;
http://www.kypost.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=18747748-4ec9-42eb-bad2-5713979b3d6c)