Online gambling supporters are outraged that the U.S. government is cracking down on the promotion of online gambling:
The sad thing is, none of these media giants have the guts to challenge the Justice Department on this. What about First Amendment protection here?
I don't have a law degree, and I'm willing to be persuaded about the First Amendment implications of online gambling, but I don't see the word "gambling" anywhere in the First Amendment (or, for that matter, the word "pr0nography"):
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
I bring up pr0nography because people say, "First they came after Larry Flynt, but I didn't say anything because I didn't publish a sleasy, degrading rag. Then they came after online gambling advertisers, but I didn't say anything because I wasn't trying to get people hooked on an activity that could ruin their lives. Then they came after politically incorrect opinion writers, and there was no one left to protest."
Oregon has, I'm told, one of the most liberal pr0nography situations in the United States. Pr0nography marts scattered across town; no state law preventing "exotic gift" shops from opening next door to churches and schools; a justice system that will protect the sleasy magazine at every turn.
BUT when it comes to a young man suggesting that accused criminals may not be the best representatives of the black community, he gets fired--and from a state university newspaper.
So the ACLU speaks up for the sleasy magazine publisher, but there's still no one to speak for the politically incorrect opinion writer, who is exactly what the First Amendment writers were trying to protect.