Different Thinking Might Result in Different Outcomes
Every now and then we hear about initiatives that address online legislation. I am not referring only to gambling legislation but to legislation that deals with the virtual space as a whole. Most laws that we know of were created in a world without the web, a world where people did not interact through cyberspace and therefore many laws do not reflect the delicate interaction between people on the internet. Be it buying produces or playing at an online casino – the law wasn’t meant to regulate such actions. As time goes by additional laws are created which are supposed to offer a better understanding of how people should be regulated through the virtual space of the web.
At times, the law makes it clearer that things are forbidden be it outside the web or using the web (like online gambling in America, for instance), but sometimes the rephrasing of the law comes to show that when the act is virtual – it’s fine. Currently, the situation in the United States is not good – legislation wise. People are not allowed to use the web for gambling and the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act is very clear on that notion. People are constantly trying to overthrow the current ban, but they are looking at the wrong direction. While bill similar to Barney Frank’s regulation proposal might do the trick, it will be hard to raise support from a large diversity of people.
Groups that are calling for internet-only laws could help the industry achieve the freedom it is looking for. The internet has no borders and there are no countries or lines. Such an environment should have its own set of rules and regulation systems. If the industry manages to extract the virtual space from the jurisdiction of government laws, they might gain the ability to offer services freely.