Talk:SAFE Port Act
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a quality rating on the assessment scale. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance assessment on the assessment scale. | |
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Gambling, an attempt at building a useful gambling resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page (see Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information). |
Contents |
[edit] I bet the Mafia is happy it passed
Now serious gamblers will be forced to go to the underground to get their action. Good job government, you just helped the Mafia gain more customers. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.254.87.49 (talk • contribs) .
- As of right now there are online poker sites still operating, the government may find it difficult to enforce the act you may want to read this Msnbc article, and even if they were able to do so I doubt a serious gambler is going to go to the mob for a game, they will likely find some other way to play online, a home game or they will play at a casino, You may have seen the movie Rounders once too many times (just kidding) but seriously read the article and you’ll see what I mean. :) --Sirex98 06:55, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] "It is an act which, puts away the people from jobs that they used to do to support people."
I removed the following from the bottom of the article:
It is an act which, puts away the people from jobs that they used to do to support people.
Because it didn't really fit, and had the feeling of vandalism. I think the sentiment expressed is important, though, but I really don't know anything abut the Safe Port Act, so I don't really know. Anyone? --Badger151 19:21, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
- We don't do "sentiment". That sort of passage is not encyclopedic. 2005 20:27, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
-
- Agreed, but if there is a significant group that is against the act, for this reason, I though it might bear mentioning. --Badger151 21:16, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Would it be appropriate to add that persons engaged in illegal gambling, which was previous possible on the internet due to loopholes in enforcement, are opposed to this act? After all the changes in the law didn't do anything to outlaw gambling. They simply deals with how financial institutions deal with the proceeds of something that was already illegal. Did anyone here actually read the definitions in Sec. 5362(10)? --Holford 23:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
-
[edit] Protectionism
Shouldn't we mention the rumors of protectionism? There have been a large number, especially from the UK, Gibraltar and Australia, where many of these companies were based. I think it needs a mention at least, of course the word "rumor" would need to appear with it ;)
Segafreak2 22:12, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
- A line or two about Antigua's World Trade Organization ruling would be appropriate, although another ruling is due in a couple months, which would be more relevant since the previous ruling was prior to the Safe Port Act. 2005 22:27, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Pub.L. 109-347
The correct number of this law is Pub.L. 109-347, according to THOMAS. Markles used the USPL template to cite this, but due to a typo, linked to 109-367. 2005 noticed the broken link and reverted Markles' edit. The USPL template, linked to 109-347, would work correctly, except that the document is not available yet from the Government Printing Office web site. When this link: Pub.L. 109-347 starts working, we should revise the article. US 30 04:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Congressional supporters
I cleaned up the new paragraph on Jim Leach and Bill Frist. They are still serving in the Congress until their terms expire January 3. While it is relevant to this article that they were behind UIGEA, I'm not comfortable with calling out only those two. It smacks of editorial comment. For example, Sen. Jon Kyl supported UIGEA too, and he was reelected. US 30 21:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
12/10/2007 - I made sure to add Rep. Robert Goodlatte [R-VA], who co-authored H.R. 4411, and Jon Kyl who took over the gambling prohibition torch from his dead father Iowa Congressman Jphn Kyl. Please do not remove mention of these players. They were as instrumental as Leach and Frist in starting the illegal (accordin to the WTO) prohibition of online gambling in the United States. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.86.37.119 (talk • contribs).
[edit] Washington Watch
There is a dispute between user 2005 and anonymous user 193.95.179.200 regarding the link to the Washington Watch website. The referenced page is at best a secondary source. However, it links out to two significant places: one, the text of the law, which is duplicative of a link already on this page, and two, a Congressional Budget Office analysis of the cost of the law. This analysis focuses entirely on the port security provisions of the law. Therefore, as a compromise, I am removing the Washington Watch link, adding a section to this page regarding port security, and linking directly to the CBO analysis from the port security section.
There is another dispute between the same parties as to the ordering of paragraphs discussing gambling sites' reactions to the law. I agree with 2005's position. Sites dropping U.S. customers are more significant, since they illustrate the effect of the new law, than those not doing so. But the issue of paragraph ordering is hardly worth a discussion, let alone a revert war.
I don't own this page, so feel free to keep tinkering. US 30 18:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Doyle's Room should be added
It should be added to the list of online poker sites that don't accept US customers. From March they will allow players to withdraw from their accounts. User Sbpatel.
