FBI 'probes Second Life gambling'

This is very inaccurate Colette. First of all, the law has already been passed in the USA in 1970. The ruling is to decide if simulated casinos in SL fall under the jurisdiction of that law.

ok lets say they determine it is illegal because of the exchange of linends for real money

doesnt anyone else see lindens deciding to make it against the TOS to buy or sell lindens
which then would cover thier liability.

just a thought

Actually, there are instances of laws applying retroactively - lots of them.

The 'death tax' implemented in the early 1990's being one instance, in the United States.

Doubly comical because not only was it retroactive, you didn't even have to be alive to be in violation.

All we know is that there isn't a precedent established yet.

Once it's established, we'll find out how innocent or guilty everyone else is.

If you couldn't be prosecuted under a law without a test case, then there would be no way to prosecute test cases which would make new laws kind of pointless.
All it takes is for a judge to decide that the case has merit for you to find yourself in court as the test case.

Actually yes you can be prosecuted under laws that aren't clear and it is up to the courts to decide if you are guilty or not under that law. That would be the test case. It has happened many time before.

*EDIT* and a reason why vague laws are not good in the first place.

*Must comprehend what he is reading before he attempts to comment*

Thats probably not including profits the casino owners reinvest inworld. As you said those classifieds are expensive...

I know, that is the point I was trying to make.

If you couldn't be prosecuted because nobody had been prosecuted before you, then nobody could ever be prosecuted, which is obviously not the case
It was in response to:

No sys, thats not what was being said here. What Colette was referring to was an Ex Post Facto Law which is a law passed after the occurance of a fact or commission of an act, which retrospectively changes the legal consequences of or relations of such fact or deed. Article 1 section 9 (Cl.13) and Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution prohibit both Congress and the states from passing any Ex Post Facto Laws.

An "ex post facto Law" is defined as a law which provides for the infliction of punishment upon a person for an act done which, when it was commited, was innocent; a law which aggravates a crime or makes it greater than when it was commited; a law that changes the punishment or inflicts a greater punishment than the law annexed to the crime when when it was commited; a law that changes the rules of evidence and recieves less or different testimony than was required at the time of the commision of the offense in order to convict the offender; a law which, assuming to regulate civil rights and remedies only, in effect imposes a penalty or deprivation of a right which, when done, was lawful; a law which deprives persons accused of crime of some lawful protection to which they have become entitled, such as the protection of a former conviction or aquittal, or of the proclemation of amnesty; every law which, in relation to the offense or its consequences, alters the situation of a person to his disadvantage.

And that has been dodged and wriggled around and basically ignored in spirit just like most other things. If nobody's noticed, the US Constitution hasn't exactly been respected lately.

If you are going to rely on a constitutional challenge to say that no, this is a 'new area' of law and not simply another precedent regarding existing law, good luck.

In the meantime, you are going to face whatever criminal or civil charges you get slapped with.

First opf all I would have to have been acting outside of the law on unlawful gambling which in 1970 when written im sorry to say was written without the internet in mind. In addition to that, if they can find any reason to why that law applies then they would have to answer the question that gets raised from it which would be why do we need the 2006 law if the 1970 law already applies.

Second, I am not hiding behind the constitution. It seems to me that you do not have a clear perspective of how laws are created. There has never been a ex pst facto law created becasue of the constitution and thier never will be.

FUrther more, this is an investigation into LL and not any one of the casino owners. LL will get prosecuted on this if the law applies. They understand this very well which is why they "chose" to contact the FBI to investigae the legality behind virtual gambling

I wasn't talking about them creating a law then applying it retroactively to everyone who had ever had anything to do with online gambling

I was refering specifically to this:

The logic there seems to be that you cannot be prosecuted until a precedent has been set.
If that is what you are saying, then it would be a catch 22. You wouldn't be able to prosecute somebody until a precedent had been set, and you can't set a precedent until you prosecute somebody.
As we all know though, people are prosecuted under new laws, so that is definately not the case.

You are correct, people are prosecuted under new laws.... however that is if they fail to cease and desist. They can not be prosecuted Ex Post Facto period. Now as far as laws being retroactive, well the only way you can be prosecuted like that is if the law shows that you were acting against the law before the law was written. In this case, not even the US gov has a clear idea as to how or if the existing laws apply to virtual gambling. If they do not know, they can not expect us to know either which would be arguable that if not even the US gov could define the application of the law at that pont in time then how is it possible that we were acting outside of the law. It is highley likely that the existing laws do not apply to the casino owners in SL anyway. If they apply at all it would be geared towards LL as they are very well aware.

Like I stated, the 1970 Law is the only law I can see that would have any possible application to the actual casinos in SL. however, it is unclear at this point if that law is even applicable since as we all know was written without the internet in mind. The 2006 unlawful interent gambling act is geared to go after companies that process payments. Since not one single casino in SL actually process any sort of payment or what is defined as payment then they can not be prosecuted under that law. This would mean that the SL casinos have been acting within the limits of law and anything thereafter would be ex post facto law.

However if the 1970 law is found applicalbe to SL casinos than this raises a grave question, why would we need the 2006 law if the 1970 law already covered this? Most likely if the 1970 law applied at all then the 2006 law would not have needed to be written. But it was, and because internet gambling is so unclearly defined in the scope of law they could not directly outlaw it so that is why they wrote the language to apply to something they know could be regulated and that was any legal form of payment of which is neccesary for an online casino to accept.

And why - Legally - does that stop them from prosecuting people under a pre-existing statute even under a new ruling?

Ex Post facto applies to new laws. It doesnt apply to new rulings/interpretations of laws becuase the Judicial branch isnt supposed to legislate.

Convention may be they dont prosecute.

But Legally what prevents them? If the law was on the books and its broken, Than that person is at risk. A legal ruling does not change the law. It cant -it can only change whether Law Enforcement thinks they can get a conviction to stick.

To say people are probably safe becuase they will probably get a warning? Okay.

To say the government WILL let everyone off the hook as long as they cease and desist. There is not a requirement for them to do so.

Unless someones changed the consititution while I wasnt looking - The Feds and Federal Judges dont write the laws.

The courts have ruled Ex post facto only Applies to criminal law.

Scary.

I doubt the government will lose sleep if they have two laws that apply. Prosecuters will simply pick which law they have the best chance of getting a conviction on on a case by case basis.

If you think these two laws corner the market on redundant laws in the US ..



LOL

I for one am SO glad that we get the Goverment into this! We need MORE Goverment Intervention & Meddling.

I think next they should consider Griefing as a form of online terrorism and Bush should send in a couple thousand virtual troops. Then maybe we can add some property taxes? Maybe sales tax? We could get the IRS to add an actual line to the 1040s called "Virtual Income Received" and "Virtual Income Converted".



Hey? Just thought of something: If someone went to trial for running an online casino in SL, by law you get a jury of Peers. So um, by "peers" I would assume 12 Second Life Players. Maybe toss in a WoW player just to make it interesting.

And A few TSO.......heheh go good measure

Ex post facto is moot. If you are violating a law the minute after it is passed, you are violating the law. The fact that you are undertaking the same activity as you did before the passage of the law does not make your activity after the law exempt from prosecution.

And judicial interpretations of existing law are not new law. The U.S. Supreme Court has always been very clear that it cannot make law, but only apply existing law. It may not look that way practically, but that's their story and they have always stuck to it.

Colette would have received an A in Constitutional Law.

So the casino owners will have been breaking the law in the past, if the courts interpret SL gambling as gambling sometime in the future?

If a pre-existing law is ruled or interpreted to include SL gambling - then yes everyone who broke the law since the law was passed within any statute of limitations would be at risk.

For example JK mentions a law from 1970. (assuming for a moment- no statute of limitations) Anyone who has violated that law since 1970 would be prosecuatable under it. Even if it was never interpreted as being applicable until this year.

This would not violate Ex Post Facto - becuase the law was already existing. This is one reason why strict legal interpretation Judges are favored by many.

Now it could very well be as a practical matter the Feds dont normally go after people who were in violation before a ruling "Changed things" but they technically could.

How that affects SL gambling?, Im not sure. I think Federal Prosecutors often (UNOFFICALLY OF COURSE) decide to try cases based on a cost of prosecution vs. Number of convictions /High Profile/High Attention of the people who are at risk.

In other words they will prosecute gambling in SL if they think they will win, and if they come out looking good and its worth it money-wise to them

In my opinion.

Quod Erat Demonstratum.

Second Life casino owners are about the 'easiest pickings' anyone could ever prosecute.

- A subpoena to our service provider re: real names, transaction records
- a subpoena to Paypal re: transaction records, bank accounts
- maybe three minutes of machanima filming in a virtual casino

...and all you need is a no-nonsense judge who realises (just like all the casino patrons do) that this is just ordinary unregulated gambling, pure and simple.



I think a diligent law school graduate on his first case could pull this off, depending on how net-savvy the judge was. If the judge ever played Second Life, the casino owners are toast.

Guaranteed great press for the FBI, it will splash all over the media, and send 97% of the rest scurrying for cover.

Anyone really think the FBI would pass on such cheap, easy press?

The government may be keeping an eye on things, but unless a substantial amount of money is involved, I doubt anything will happen (prosecution wise)... UNLESS they are looking to set an example. Then they're screwed.

My $.015 L

Lol a whole page or two of this thread disapeared..