It sounds like a Star Trek movie, but it's actually from a BusinessWeek debate sub-titled "The U.S. should heed the wrath of the World Trade Organization by making betting games legal on the Web. Pro or con?"
For the "pro" side was Martin Owens. Here's an excerpt:
It remains too early to tell how much this untenable war against Internet gaming will cost the U.S. in trade flows, innovation, and moral authority. But it is perfectly clear that it is time for America to stop pretending that the rule of law is a one-way street.
On the "con" side was Guy Clark. An excerpt:
The U.S. government’s obligation to protect its citizens from a toxic, addictive product exceeds its responsibility to please the gnomes at the WTO.
...
The WTO ruling claims foreign interests should have access to all American homes, because some states allow people to bet on horse races via the Internet. That makes as much sense as allowing foreign heroin and cocaine producers to offer drugs over the Internet simply because some pharmacies sell codeine cough syrup. Considering the implications for the U.S., this is not a slippery slope; it is a cliff.
I checked out the comments on the debate, and it seems to be running 6 to 5 in favor of the "pro" side, for whatever that's worth. Some sample quotes:
"We signed the WTO treaty and ratified it so it is the law of the United States. By not abiding by the legal rulings of the WTO, we are no better than a run-of-the-mill bandit."
"allowing WTO authority in this argument overrides all states' rights."
It makes me a little nervous to have the WTO dealing with such a contentious issue, but I think ultimately it is for the good to have the issues out there in the public debate.