natural way to communism

Whatever else you may think of him, when Jesse Ventura was the Minnesota Governor, this would never have been allowed to stand. Furthermore, this "John Williams" in the Minnesota Dept. of Public Slavery would've had more than his backside handed to him. This action totally flies in the face of the 1st Amendment, and I hope the EFF and/or ACLU take the State of Minnesota to the cleaners over it.

*This* is why the Framers wrote the Second Amendment--to protect the other nine. No, I'm not advocating violence, so hear me out. After America's successful Revolution against my country of origin (yes, I'm originally British), George Mason, the Father of the Bill of Rights, famously said, "to disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them." Virtually all other Framers--Washington, Hamilton, Jefferson, Patrick Henry, Samuel Adams, etc., agreed wholeheartedly. It is our *final* defence against overreaching governments like what Minnesota is doing here.

What's next, banning Wikipedia for having an article on gambling? Or perhaps banning Linux Journal for this very article?

check http://yourtvonline.com

This absolutely is a threat to our freedoms and we've had the government getting more bold all the time, trampling on the Constitution.

Great article but not so great news.....

Great article. I think this is a threat to freedom.
A good read on about some updates on linux:
http://www.techunits.com/content/list/linux

I am from Minnesota and my best friend is a pretty successful online poker player. He is irate about this for obvious reasons. I would be more angry but is there anything that can really be done about it? I'm sad to say that at the age of 24 I have no faith in making a change in the government.

To the poster who made "um. there is no UNited" - He is basically correct if not for a lack of grammar and spelling. The ISPs and government are owned by the same people. Dance proles dance

Good stuff dude, most impressive!

RT
www.anonymity.ru.tc

This absolutely is a threat to our freedoms and we've had the government getting more bold all the time, trampling on the Constitution.

What is to prevent a state from issuing this sort of letter blocking access any other topic that might be illegal in that state?

You hit the nail on the head, as well as answered your own question, about two lines later. The U.S. Constitution prevents them from doing so. Unlike many other regimes undertaking internet censorship, the U.S. has an established, written, and for-all-intents-and-purposes immutable constitution that clearly lays out what government may and may not do, and a fairly simple mechanism to see that they do as they're supposed to. It doesn't take years of protests, or replacing the government, or a revolution: it takes a plaintiff, a petition, and a federal judge who knows how to sign his own name.

If what these states are doing is unconstitutional, and I believe it is, then all that requires to be done is for someone with standing (that is, someone being affected by the actions) to file a petition with the U.S. District Court for their district, alleging that the activities are unconstitutional, and requesting that the Court enjoin the state(s) from continuing. My guess is that if it is taken up in the courts, the argument will be less about free speech and more about regulation of trade.

While it might be argued that online casinos are advocating for gambling and that is protected speech, what the states appear to be attempting is to regulate online gaming, not prevent its promotion. (That is to say, if you want to encourage people to undertake legal gambling, presumably outside the state, then the government has no interest in preventing you from doing so.) Unlike casinos, which by definition must operate in one state or another (even if the operator is a chain based in a different state), online gaming has no easily defined place of operation. It can be argued that the gambling takes place in the state where the customer accesses the site, it can be argued that it takes place in the state where the company's servers are located, and it can be argued that it takes place in the state where the company undertakes its operations. In reality, it is probably all three, but insomuch as a transaction of this nature requires a meeting of the minds to exchange consideration, it at a minimum takes place in both the state where the customer is located and the state where the company is located. As the whole point behind the exercise is that it is illegal to operate a casino, online or otherwise, in these states, then by definition there must be at least two states involved. Business that takes place across state lines is referred to as interstate commerce, and the Constitution specifically prohibits the states from regulating it — it is the exclusive purview of Congress, and by extension, the federal government.

My expectation is that if and when the matter arises in federal court, the argument will be that these states are attempting to regulate interstate commerce in violation of the commerce clause. The courts have historically been extremely broad in their application of the commerce clause, in some cases even allowing the regulation of non-commercial activities undertaken by private individuals in a single state. I suspect that once the issue is raised, the courts will quickly determine that these states have no power to regulate business that originates in another state, even if it is accessed within the state, and will enjoin them from further regulation. The larger matter of internet censorship probably won't end there — it is human nature to see how far the boundaries can be pushed — but this specific example of it, I think, will disappear quite quickly.

Justin Ryan is the News Editor for Linux Journal.
Look for him in the #linuxjournal IRC channel.