They're Baaack - Next Round of Subpoenas Targets Esquire

[The Dude]

They're Baaack - Next Round of Subpoenas Targets Esquire
by Kevin Smith

Any thoughts that the interactive gambling industry's advertising dilemma was nearing an end were debunked this week by news of subpoenas handed out on April 12 to Esquire magazine publisher Kevin O'Malley and nearly a dozen members of the magazine's staff.

The recent action, brought to light Wednesday by a New York Post article, is related to the magazine's April issue, which features an eight-page insert billed as the "Gentleman's Guide to Poker" and sponsored by BoDog Poker. The insert includes BoDog CEO Calvin Ayre's photo and his tips for playing Texas Hold 'Em online, along with several references to the BoDog Poker URL and images from the site. It also includes a greeting from Ayre, who invites readers to "join me online at the tables and see why the world is playing poker at Bodog.com," and the disclaimer: "Void where prohibited by law. Fully licensed in Costa Rica."

Full report here:
Link Removed (invalid URL)

 

[dominique]

I don't see how they have a legal foot to stand on.

 

[jerryg]

Aiding and Abetting? I just don't see it.

From FindLaw...

A criminal charge of aiding and abetting or accessory can usually be brought against anyone who helps in the commission of a crime, though legal distinctions vary by state. A person charged with aiding and abetting or accessory is usually not present when the crime itself is committed, but he or she has knowledge of the crime before or after the fact, and may assist in its commission through advice, actions, or financial support. Depending on the level of involvement, the offender's participation in the crime may rise to the level of conspiracy.

I just don't see them being able to prove that over a magazine ad. They would have to first prove that BoDog was in violation of the law, then prove that the magazine was aware of a crime being committed and opted to help anyway. I'm not sure they can prove either, but the second is almost impossible to prove unless you have hard evidence (tape recordings, memos, etc), which you just aren't going to have unless someone is truly aiding and abetting criminal activity (not the case here).

The article also said that carrying the ads is in violation of the "Interstate Telephone Act of 1964". It's hard to imagine how a magazine ad is in violation of any telecommunications law. Impossible for me to say though, as I could find no such listing in legal archives or even at house.gov. Maybe it is a phantom law that only exists in intimidation letters. If someone can find a link to the text of this act, I would like to be able to read it.

 

[mary]

Stretching a bit here...some magazines are printed in different plants in different parts of the country. I suppose if the layout of the offending ads were to be transmitted over the Internet via phone lines...

That's the best I can do.

We call that "putting seatbelts on the Enterprise" around here. Like, "Why don't they have seatbelts on the Enterprise? You can see people getting hurled around." so then we make up reasons why they don't have seatbelts on the Enterprise.

 

[winbig]

I say if they can allow tobacco companies to advertise in print media, why not casinos? Cigarettes kill, casinos don't.


[edit]

PS: I love your enterprise analogy....very fitting