Utah Newspaper Gives Jack Thompson Ink to Discuss His Mystery Bill

Jack;

So you don't define what is "harmful to minors?"

In other words your supposed bill is NOT "narrowly tailored" as required by Supreme Court precedent.

Does it emply the "least restrictive means" or regulation, as required by Supreme Court precedent.

Does it only target those works that are, "when taken as a whole", without "redeeming social, literacy, political or artistic value". Remember, the work must be taken as a whole, so a 2 minute scene in Mass Effect isn't enough.

Assuming you plan to make an obscenity agument, do the works in question "appeal to the prurient interest in sex?" Again, when taken as a whole.

Finally, how do you plan to deal with the most obvious argument...your supposed bill is extraordinarily vague. Vagueness has long been the death knell for First Amendment legislation, yet here you seem to be touting the vagueness of your bill as the thing that is going to STOP First Amendment challenges.

That's saying you're going to throw gasoline on a fire and saying its a new way of putting it out.

No wonder you got disbarred...you're totally incompetent.

By the way Jack, you have informed your contacts in Utah that you ARE disbarred correct? You are aware that impersonating an attorney is criminal offense and you are aware that you are under a duty under the law to correct any misunderstanding your contacts have that you ARE an attorney.

In other words, if they THINK you're an attorney and you've "neglected" to inform them otherwise...you're on the hook.

''It doesn't define what content is "harmful to minors," so we avoid the phony First Amendment arguments Hollywood loves to make. "

Umm.. wait.. it doesnt define what is harmful to minors?. Then surely this bill is worthless? How can it restrict the sale of something, that it doesnt then actually seek to define? Im confused... Surely this is like sabotaging your own bill...

"The bill simply states: If you promise the public you don't sell adult-rated entertainment to kids, then you had better be telling the truth, because if a parent catches you selling this stuff to his or her kids, then you're guilty of fraud under the Truth in Advertising Law. The Entertainment Software Association bragged this week that it spread $4.2 million around to "lobby" politicians at the federal level, with more spread around to state politicians. ESA wants to make sure entertainment retailers can continue to go behind parents' backs and get at kids. ''

Really? REALLY? well thats interesting.. take a look at this..

http://kotaku.com/5145088/99-percent-of-games-are-advertised-responsibly

here in the uk allegedly 99% of game adverts were found to be totally responsible. Strange that isnt it. Not doing too good a job of selling games to kids are they? (yes i know the UK inst the US, but in dont really see adverts being radically different for games in the US and the UK, tbh most of the time they are the same adverts!) 

Oh and lastly.... how does this bill target 'hollywood' when it stops 'them' selling games to kids. Retailers and 'the games industry/the movie industry' are RADICALLY different people. Who exactly does this bill seek to punish?

You cant punish 'the games industry' (whoever that wierdly broad term actually refers to).

The developer had a contract with the publisher.

The publisher has a contract with a retailer.

The retailer makes a contract to customers (wether that be kids or adults).

So surely the only one that can be fined here is the retailer otherwise it makes absolutely no sense. Its like me buying a frying pan from wallmart, then selling it to a friend, who sells it to another friend, who gives it to another friend, who then hits somebody with it, and then sueing the manufacturer of the frying pan who has absolutely no link to the damage caused.

Oh and lets not forget that with games, after all the flaws ive just pointed out in the logic, there isnt actually any 'proof' (i.e. causal link) between any damage (i.e. killings etc) and the game, as there would be between a frying pan and a killing.

Totally stupid As usual.

ps. Does this bill contain the magic that is going to give JT his law license back. Im still 'waiting to see' like he personally told me on this very site when his disbarrment came up. Because apparently he isnt even going to lose his law license... wait scratch that... isnt going to lose his law license for more than 2 weeks.. wait scratch that.. is going to sue the florida bar for this illegal action and regain his law license.. wait scratch that.. is going to shut down the florida bar entirely.. wait scratch that.. is going to go after 'the games industry' itself to ... gain...back... his... license? wait im confused... what was JTs last innane stupid 'mark my words' statement that hasnt come to light?

I can see him running in two directions with this, since the redefinition of 'material harmful to minors' hasn't worked for him.

1) He likes to say that an 'M' rating is an admission by the video game industry that the material is not appropriate for children and they should therefore be legally held to that.  Probably wouldn't work, as it's still delegating to a non-government authority (the ESRB) the role of determining what is or isn't suitable speech for minors.

2) Most retailers have a stated policy of not selling M-rated games to unaccompanied minors, so he would make it a crime to have such a policy and not comply with it 100%.  May not work because it's compelled speech - you can't force someone to make a statement or to refrain from a statement without a proper reason.  It would also have the unusual side effect that many companies would rather drop the M-rated game policy to prevent them from being liable under the statute, making it even more likely that M-rated games will be sold to minors.

I read that bill and it has nothing to do with video games. It basically is some text changes and clarifications on their current pornography laws.

Of course, the "material harmful to minors" bit might be waht John Bruce is talking about. Unfortunately, the bill does not define harmful to minors. since there is no precedence on that meaning, this bill is unenforcable.

E. Zachary Knight
Oklahoma City Chapter of the ECA
http://www.theeca.com/chapters_oklahoma

"and [the video game] industry is in trouble."

*Yawn*  John Bruce has become very very dull.  John has been making this statement nearly twice a week for years now and has YET to get the industry in "trouble".  I look forward to another John Bruce failure.

-Ultimately what will do in mankind is a person's fear of their own freedom-