[SBRPicks]

In the final part of his August 2011 interview with SBRtv, Professor I. Nelson Rose addresses several questions posed by SBR posters, including one by SBR John regarding the legality of free plays at sportsbooks given out by portal sites.

SBRtv would like to thank again Professor Rose for being so generous with his time and energy. His site is www.gamblingandthelaw.com, where you can sign up for his e-mail newsletter in which he regularly gives opinions and updates on gambling law.





Check out the video and forum thread for PART 1 of the interview, which includes a discussion about web domain seizures

Check out the video and forum thread for PART 2 of the interview, which includes a discussion of the impact of online poker legalization bills

[jgilmartin]

Smooth jazz FTW

[shari91]

Very informative. And at least we got an answer about the SBR freeplays. Definitely helps to keep it in perspective as to how serious this situation is.

Great job as always Peter

[SBR_John]

Very informative. And at least we got an answer about the SBR freeplays. Definitely helps to keep it in perspective as to how serious this situation is.

Great job as always Peter

Did we? Seems like more of the same, full of could be's and might be's. Which is the frustrating part. No one knows not even the Attorney Generals know. In fact its probably unconstitutional to have laws so vague that they hinder the pursuit of happiness...could be, might be and maybe??????

[RudyRuetigger]

this guy said what i did about freeplays except my advice was free

[saints7011]

Very informative. And at least we got an answer about the SBR freeplays. Definitely helps to keep it in perspective as to how serious this situation is.

Great job as always Peter

you should probably listen to the interview again...

we DID NOT get an answer...

Loshak did a damn good job with this series though...

[shari91]

Whoa everyone - I meant that at least he answered the question. As in: He provided a response and said that it was a murky area. And because of that, it reiterates to me why this process is taking longer to get an answer that SBR feels comfortable moving forward with than whatever time frames a few impatient posters think should apply in this instance. It's not just a simple case of open a law book and follow whatever answer you see. Or at least that's what I interpreted from his response, no?

[saints7011]

Whoa everyone - I meant that at least he answered the question. As in: He provided a response and said that it was a murky area. And because of that, it reiterates to me why this process is taking longer to get an answer that SBR feels comfortable moving forward with than whatever time frames a few impatient posters think should apply in this instance. It's not just a simple case of open a law book and follow whatever answer you see. Or at least that's what I interpreted from his response, no?

Im laughing at the "Whoa everyone"...

[CarpeDime]

Actually I took his answer to mean that it's a gray area, like a lot of legal issues nowadays. He's saying that if they wanted to go after a portal, they could use giving out free plays to sportsbooks as something to stand on, and what Nelson outlined is probably how they would frame it. But that also, it would be far from clear-cut, and there could be a good defense against it.

But this is why unenforced or selectively enforced laws, or ambiguous, unclear laws are so dangerous, because they allow authorities to go after anyone they want for any reason, and then use the unenforced or selectively enforced laws as the justification. You see this all the time, in many areas of the law.

No one cares about unenforced or ambiguous laws, specifically because they are unenforced and too ambiguous for anyone to really be worried about. But then if they hang around on the books, they become tools authorities can use to go after someone for unrelated or only tangentially related reasons.

So in short, I think what he meant was, at the moment giving away free plays doesn't seem to be illegal enough to be likely to get anyone in trouble on its own, but it is illegal enough to probably be able to be used against someone if an authority wants to go after someone. Not to put words in Nelson's mouth, and that's just what I took from it.

[shari91]

Im laughing at the "Whoa everyone"...

haha yeah well when I came in here there hadn't been a response in 9hrs to this thread and I was like "at least he replied to John's question and said why this situation is all just a cesspool of who knows." Which justified John saying awhile ago why this situation isn't as nearly as cut and dry as a few of us thought. Then when I check back, I have you e-bulldogs all down my throat.

Actually I took his answer to mean that it's a gray area, like a lot of legal issues nowadays. He's saying that if they wanted to go after a portal, they could use giving out free plays to sportsbooks as something to stand on, and what Nelson outlined is probably how they would frame it. But that also, it would be far from clear-cut, and there could be a good defense against it. But this is why unenforced or selectively enforced laws, or ambiguous, unclear laws are so dangerous, because they allow authorities to go after anyone they want for any reason, and then use the unenforced or selectively enforced laws as the justification. You see this all the time, in many areas of the law. No one cares about unenforced or ambiguous laws, specifically because they are unenforced and too ambiguous for anyone to really be worried about. But then if they hang around on the books, they become tools authorities can use to go after someone for unrelated or only tangentially related reasons. So in short, I think what he meant was, at the moment giving away free plays doesn't seem to be illegal enough to be likely to get anyone in trouble on its own, but it is illegal enough to probably be able to be used against someone if an authority wants to go after someone. Not to put words in Nelson's mouth, and that's just what I took from it.

Yeah, that's the basic gist of what I got from it too. It just seems like there's no way to know what will happen because you can be seen as promoting, aiding and abetting, etc... if they really want to paint that picture. End result: I now have a few more facts to give people when they question me as to why it's taking a bit longer than they'd like to figure out the freeplay situation. To me this would be a big move as a business owner either way until someone else sets the precedent on this specific scenario - the ultimate gamble (no pun intended).

[polishkielbasa10]

so, he never answered the big question of weather it's ok to place a bet in the US online??

[fsutomahawk]

so, he never answered the big question of weather it's ok to place a bet in the US online??

Yes he did in the first or second part of the interview, can't remember which right now. It is not illegal to place a wager in the United States at the federal level. In some states it is.
Go back and watch the first two parts of the interview.