Hacker News

points by petcat 5 days ago | 0 comments

> should be in prison for promoting illegal gambling

The problem lies in the legal gray area of what constitutes gambling, and therefore "illegal" gambling. That's what the courts have to decide.

I think most people would say this is gambling. But our legal system has to rule on that before we can start putting people in jail for it.

[–] betterunix2 5 days ago

If it is not gambling then it amounts to an unregulated futures market, which is also illegal. There is no way around this for Kalshi/Polymarket, they have broken the law and the only question is which law was broken.

[–] petcat 5 days ago

Right, but the point is that we don't just go from popular outrage about a shady business model to "straight to prison". The courts have to untangle the legalities of the shady business model before we can even determine what the charges would be. And that's what they're doing.

[–] tfrancisl 5 days ago

> Right, but the point is that we don't just go from popular outrage about a shady business model to "straight to prison".

We should! Finally incentivize rich people to not screw over the rest of society for a quick buck.

[–] tt24 5 days ago

I’m glad that people who share your point of view do not have power in the United States.

[–] tfrancisl 5 days ago

People who believe in justice and democracy, or what? We need to hold people accountable for their crimes. Fines and other slaps on the wrist let big tobacco, big ultraprocessed food, and now big gambling to take advantage. What would you do? Wait for the courts? Wait for the corrupt legislature?

[–] betterunix2 5 days ago

Read about the "rule of law," one of the foundational concepts of the US and basically any democracy, as well as most successful monarchies and other forms of government.

Yes, we wait for the courts or the legislature rather than resorting to mob justice. There are good reasons for it. The most obvious is to ensure that the corrupt politicians do not use the power of the state to arbitrarily oppress and persecute people. Another is to ensure that there is no doubt about guilt when we convict someone, and to avoid arguments about the penalties being arbitrary and unfair.

Really though, establishing courts to deal with accusations of people breaking the law is something most societies converge on at some point. "Joe was only ordered to spend 5 years working the fields, so why should Jim be executed for doing the same thing????" amounts to a rudimentary form of judicial law -- pointing to a precedent from a previous case to argue the current case.

[–] tt24 5 days ago

> Wait for the courts?

Yes. This is what we do in the United States and most of Western Europe. This is how countries like this function

[–] tfrancisl 5 days ago

I would rather we have plain language legislation than playing this dumb waiting game of "well, I felt like interpreting these 20 laws and 16 cases this way today, and my successors will overturn this with the flick of a pen". It doesnt help that our legislature, and even many of our jurists, are bought out ever since the Citizens United decision.

[–] hvb2 5 days ago

You're missing the point. Popular outrage and a crime are not the same thing.

Until a judge says it's a crime, it isn't. Innocent until proven guilty etc

[–] tfrancisl 5 days ago

What is a democracy if not a reflection of the populace? Obviously there'd be trials, the constitution says as much.

[–] whimsicalism 5 days ago

? But Kalshi is regulated by the CFTC

[–] lotsofpulp 5 days ago

The federal government has claimed Kalshi is a regulated futures market.

https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/9281-26

[–] betterunix2 5 days ago

That is the federal government asserting that Kalshi is subject to federal regulation by the CFTC and not state regulation. It is not an assertion that Kalshi is actually in compliance with futures market regulations, nor is it an assertion that the contracts offered by Kalshi are actually legal (there are explicitly illegal futures contracts).

[–] qurren 5 days ago

Why is betting on risky 0DTE stock options legal in Utah but sports not legal?

Why are casinos operated by Native Americans legal but casinos operated by black people illegal?

I don't think "illegal gambling" is illegal for the reasons you want it to be illegal.

[–] hvb2 5 days ago

> Why are casinos operated by Native Americans legal but casinos operated by black people illegal?

You might want to look up what the reservations are, legally speaking

[–] jjuel 5 days ago

Casinos of all kinds are banned in Utah.

[–] Zigurd 5 days ago

The reason we have judges is that a thing that's 80% sports betting and 20% prediction market is still an online casino.

[–] freejazz 5 days ago

This would be a great post for Kalshi's lawyers to make. Hard to believe it though. To be clear it is a not a fundamental proposition of the legal system that every illegal activity be tested before it "actually" becomes illegal. It is a business' obligation to not violate the law, not the other way around.

[–] petcat 5 days ago

I'm not going to argue the merits of their business model. But the fact that numerous lawsuits have had mixed rulings indicates that there is at least some legal gray area here.

But if you know better then maybe you should just decree from the courtroom in your house and send your ruling to the AGs of all 50 states.

[–] freejazz 5 days ago

I don't think there are "numerous lawsuits" which have had "mixed rulings" it's really only a subset of the cases that have had anything remotely construable as positive to these companies. And again, that doesn't excuse their behavior. Bold of you to point to one court saying "I'm not sure" when the vast majorities of the others have said "this is perfectly clear, and here's why the other court is wrong"

Like, do you have any actual argument as to why it's not gambling, or are you just going to hang it on this plausible deniability? It's not like they knew the 3rd circuit would decide in their favor anyway, so I don't really think your point is the slam dunk you're acting like it is. They knowingly engaged in activities that most states consider to be gambling. They aren't even really denying that. They are just saying it falls under federal regulation, but the argument for that is so shockingly poor, it's hard to imagine how the 3rd circuit's decision could stand, but its only on a preliminary injunction anyway, so it's still not quite a merits decision. The third circuit said that by its own logic, Congress must weigh in on whether or not "bingo" is a swap regulated by the CFTC. If you can't understand how facially stupid that is, I don't know what to say.

[–] petcat 5 days ago

Apparently having a legal discussion that requires nuance is impossible in this forum.

Yes I think what they are doing is illegal and they should not be permitted to operate outside the gaming regulations of individual states.

But it doesn't matter what I think. I was trying to have a conversation about the gray areas and why we don't just send people straight to jail for trying out a new, novel, (and potentially illegal), business model.

The courts are figuring it out.

[–] tfrancisl 5 days ago

The point of my original post, which I think the one youre responding to aligns with, is that we shouldn't have to "wait for the courts to figure it out." Illegal things should be illegal as a matter of the written law, not dicta from jurists. To do that we need legislators that will write narrow laws not influenced by the industry they are regulating, not tied to a poison pill budget proposal, etc...

[–] Dylan16807 5 days ago

Nobody is stopping nuance. But small enough gray areas don't excuse going hog-wild and courts seem to think this gray area is not very big.

[–] freejazz 4 days ago

Weird how your response to me asking you if there was an argument with actual merit is to decry my inability to engage in nuance in a legal discussion (ps I'm an attorney)... Also, it's worth pointing out that it seems like you completely made up the vast majority of your previous post. I guess that's just "nuance?"

>I was trying to have a conversation about the gray areas and why we don't just send people straight to jail for trying out a new, novel, (and potentially illegal), business model.

Actually we do. If a court finds your activity was illegal, you get the according punishment. The court doesn't say "oh gee golly, you're guilty but we'll let you off for this one because who could see it coming!"

>The courts are figuring it out.

The courts figured it out. It does not matter in Utah state court, what the 3rd circuit thinks. It is not binding precedent in Utah state courts.