mjh I'm not a lawyer, but it seems that it shouldn't matter. The courts have to determine which laws are more applicable in the case of a conflict. And IMO, International law should always supercede domestic law.
The courts have all but said with the Yahoo ruling that in the case of the internet, the only laws that are relevant are those that take place in the country where the website is located. And in the case of JC, the website is in Antigua so he should have been bound by Antiguan law, NOT U.S. law and the wire act should never have been considered.
No doubt some will argue that this being the case, what is stopping someone from shipping cocaine from Amsterdam to the U.S. and claiming that the U.S. has no jurisdiction because the transaction was made on an Amsterdam based website - a country where selling drugs is not illegal. The answer of course is that they don't have jurisdiction as far as the transaction goes. But once the physical product reaches the United States, then U.S. law would apply and the junkie can be arrested for possession of an illegal substance.
In the case of the Yahoo Auction it is not up to Yahoo to block the selling of the nazi paraphenalia (that isn't their concern). But it is up to the French public to respect the French laws. So if there is a law that states that posessing nazi parpahenalia is illegal in France then whoever buys this product should be arrested for posessing it once the product physically enters France.
It seems to me in the case of internet betting that the government's only recourse should be against the U.S. bettors, NOT the owner of an Antiguan bookmaking operation that is operating legally according to the laws of Antigua. But if the government is going to go after the bettors, they had better find a different law than the wire act, because that doesn't deal with the placing of bets, only with the bookmaking.  |