In Louisiana, Jack Thompson Bill Gutted By Sponsor, Deferred
In Louisiana, Jack Thompson Bill Gutted By Sponsor, Deferred
May 21, 2009
SB 152, the Louisiana Senate bill drafted by Jack Thompson, underwent a rather odd hearing yesterday before the Senate's Commerce, Consumer Protection and International Affairs Committe.
The bill, similar to one vetoed recently by Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman, would have made the sale of an age-restricted item to a minor a deceptive trade practice with potential civil penalties for the seller. As with his failed Utah legislation, Thompson's Louisiana bill was a roundabout way of legislating the ESRB rating system. Although SB 152 did not mention video games specifically, they were clearly the intended target.
However, at yesterday's hearing, bill sponsor Sen. A.G. Crowe (R, at left) proposed amendments which essentially gutted the measure. Crowe told the committee that he "conferred with industry, with staff and with constitutional attornies" on the changes.
Crowe's amendments, which appeared to perplex his Senate colleagues, turned the focus of the bill from age-rated consumer items to pornography. Crowe noted that the original intent of the measure was to protect children from violent video games, but said that concerns over constitutional issues led him to focus on pornography instead.
The sale of pornography to minors is already illegal, however, leading Sen. Danny Martiny (R) to grill Crowe at length about the bill:
Why? What are we fixing? What we're doing here... is we're taking something that's already criminal and making it a deceptive trade practice...
It's not very clear at all where you're going with this...
Ultimately, Crowe voluntarily deferred the measure; the amendments changing its focus to pornography were not added. SB 152 remains listed with the Louisiana Senate but is not assigned to a committee. For now, at least, it appears sidetracked.
As for Thompson, he did not testify at the hearing, nor was his name mentioned. GamePolitics asked him to comment about SB 152 but the disbarred attorney declined.
A PUBLICATION OF THE ECA
SUBSCRIBE
LOGINGamePolitics ShoutBox
Posted 02/09/10 at 02:50pm
DarkSaber: Whoever told him/her/it that is dumb. They should have done like most companies and made-up some bullshit, yet legal, reason for it not getting the job.
DarkSaber: Whoever told him/her/it that is dumb. They should have done like most companies and made-up some bullshit, yet legal, reason for it not getting the job.
Posted 02/09/10 at 01:16pm
Andrew Eisen: Shouldn't be. Spirit of anti-discrimination laws would seem to include sexual orientation (and eye color). Plus there's always equal protection and such. Never know until you try.
Andrew Eisen: Shouldn't be. Spirit of anti-discrimination laws would seem to include sexual orientation (and eye color). Plus there's always equal protection and such. Never know until you try.
Posted 02/09/10 at 01:10pm
Andrew Eisen: Should have sued (unless that wasn't an option given her financial situation or something). Might have won.
Andrew Eisen: Should have sued (unless that wasn't an option given her financial situation or something). Might have won.
Posted 02/09/10 at 01:00pm
Valdearg: Story about a Male to Female TG who was expressly told she wouldn't be given a job because she was TG. Its not the main point of the story, but explicit, perfectly legal discrimination like this exists.
Valdearg: Story about a Male to Female TG who was expressly told she wouldn't be given a job because she was TG. Its not the main point of the story, but explicit, perfectly legal discrimination like this exists.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:53pm
Valdearg: Lol, I don't know. It may very well be legal to do so. Though that might able to fall under the "race" restriction, depending on how that point is argued.
Valdearg: Lol, I don't know. It may very well be legal to do so. Though that might able to fall under the "race" restriction, depending on how that point is argued.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:51pm
Valdearg: I don't think they do have any legal recourse. I'll have to dig around, but I seriously believe that if the law doesn't specifically mention Sexual Orientation or Gender Identity, they can still be discriminated against in those 29 states.
Valdearg: I don't think they do have any legal recourse. I'll have to dig around, but I seriously believe that if the law doesn't specifically mention Sexual Orientation or Gender Identity, they can still be discriminated against in those 29 states.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:51pm
Andrew Eisen: Eye color isn't covered either but I doubt it would be considered legal to refuse to hire people with green eyes.
Andrew Eisen: Eye color isn't covered either but I doubt it would be considered legal to refuse to hire people with green eyes.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:48pm
Andrew Eisen: My explanation is longer than the Shoutbox will allow. Suffice to say that while those who are discriminated against do have legal recourse, anti-discrimination law should specifically cite sexual orientation so that there’s no question about it.
Andrew Eisen: My explanation is longer than the Shoutbox will allow. Suffice to say that while those who are discriminated against do have legal recourse, anti-discrimination law should specifically cite sexual orientation so that there’s no question about it.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:42pm
Valdearg: "There is no federal law that consistently protects LGBT individuals from employment discrimination; it remains legal in 29 states, and in 38 states to do so based on gender identity or expression." From the Human Rights Campaign.
Valdearg: "There is no federal law that consistently protects LGBT individuals from employment discrimination; it remains legal in 29 states, and in 38 states to do so based on gender identity or expression." From the Human Rights Campaign.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:40pm
Valdearg: @AE: Why don't you think I'm correct? I know Wiki could be flawed, but as far as it says, its up to date as of June 2009.
Valdearg: @AE: Why don't you think I'm correct? I know Wiki could be flawed, but as far as it says, its up to date as of June 2009.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:39pm
Andrew Eisen: I don't think you're right but I really don't know and don't have the time to find out. However things actually are, it's very clear how they actually should be.
Andrew Eisen: I don't think you're right but I really don't know and don't have the time to find out. However things actually are, it's very clear how they actually should be.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:34pm
Valdearg: "just because there's no specific state level protection for it, doesn't make discrimination right or legal." I would disagree. If there's no laws against it, it makes it perfectly legal. It's definitely not right, but perfectly legal to do.
Valdearg: "just because there's no specific state level protection for it, doesn't make discrimination right or legal." I would disagree. If there's no laws against it, it makes it perfectly legal. It's definitely not right, but perfectly legal to do.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:33pm
Valdearg: Meaning in 29 states, private sector discrimination against gays is perfectly legal.. Sickening.
Valdearg: Meaning in 29 states, private sector discrimination against gays is perfectly legal.. Sickening.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:33pm
Valdearg: 19 states have no protections, and another 10 only have protections for public sector jobs.
Valdearg: 19 states have no protections, and another 10 only have protections for public sector jobs.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:32pm
Andrew Eisen: Well, most businesses have equal rights policies in place and just because there's no specific state level protection for it, doesn't make discrimination right or legal. Still, no argument against adding such protections.
Andrew Eisen: Well, most businesses have equal rights policies in place and just because there's no specific state level protection for it, doesn't make discrimination right or legal. Still, no argument against adding such protections.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:28pm
Valdearg: More information. Apparently, it's worse than I actually thought.
Valdearg: More information. Apparently, it's worse than I actually thought.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:28pm
Valdearg: Check the link. Apparently, its more like 20 states that have no protections.
Valdearg: Check the link. Apparently, its more like 20 states that have no protections.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:26pm
Andrew Eisen: In the US? Not that I'm aware of. Sad if true.
Andrew Eisen: In the US? Not that I'm aware of. Sad if true.
Copyright © 2007 ECA. All rights reserved.
Game Politics and Game Politics logo are trademarks of the ECA.
Game Politics and Game Politics logo are trademarks of the ECA.
Comments
As for Thompson, he did not testify at the hearing, nor was his name mentioned. GamePolitics asked him to comment about SB 152 but the disbarred attorney declined
buh? Did some pod people take over JT or something? Jack not run his mouth off, how is that possible?
Yeah, Jack's silence says a mouthful.
Dennis, did he at least call you an idiot or a loser or something when you asked for his comments?
Why? What are we fixing? What we're doing here... is we're taking something that's already criminal and making it a deceptive trade practice...
It's not very clear at all where you're going with this...
lol pwned
http://www.eliteownage.com/nice
Creating new laws to outlaw something that is already illegal is a time honored way to give the voters the impression that you are 'doing something' without actually risking your neck.
A classic example from a little while ago was after the bank failures the fed made a certian type of naked short selling illegal for a certian group of companies... a 'you can not do this with the stock of XYZ for a few months' type measure. With the problem being that the practice was already illegal for ALL stocks. But it made it SOUND like they were doing something against short selling.
lol @ thompson.
Is anyone keeping score?
No but it's a really big number and zero.
Andrew Eisen
Let's just put it this way: If there was a mercy rule, this would have ended long ago.
Geaux Saints, Geaux Tigers, Geaux Hornets, Jack Thompson can geaux chase a chupacabra.
While Jack-O was never mentioned by name, there was a point in Martiny's questioning of Crowe when I suspect that Martiny had Mr. Thompson in mind. It was when Crowe was a a-stuttering and a-spluttering, trying feebly to explain the benefits of SB 152 and Martiny pointedly -- and a bit sharply-- asked him, "On who's behalf are you actually bringing this legislation?"*
___________________
*Paraphrased.
I'm betting turning to to pornography was a way to avoid the constitutional protection of speech that video games recieve by focusing it on something also highly regulated. After that they would just need to get a game defined as ponographic on an individual level. If they could do just one, this would set a precident. Legal persons, any thoughts?
There already are pornographic games, and they're treated as porn.
The Miller test would prevent most (99.99+%) games actually submitted for ESRB and available in stores. The ESRB ones that are possibly porn are already AO and wouldn't be in most stores already.
I mean a mainstream things like GTA4... I'm not saying they are porn, I'm just trying to figure out where they were trying to go with this. No one does something like this accidentally unless they are incompetent.
There's no way that would pass the Miller test. There's not a single mainstream game that comes close, especially when compared to other media. Violence alone has already been explicitly excluded as a criteria.
You forgot one other option - insane.
GTA4 will never pass the Miller Test because it has a real story, thus giving it "literary worth".
That's precisely how Idiot-Jack envisions this "working." The legislation as currently drafted says something about liability for selling a product previously ruled by a court to be obscene. The difficulty in that, however, and that which would render the legislation, if enacted into law, a non-starter with respect to video games, is that the possibliity of having a video game pass the Miller test and be declared obscene is a good as a snowflake's survival chances on a hot summer day.
And this illustrates the problem with people like Jack-O who approach legal issues with all the heart and soul but never with their minds. He honestly believes with all his heart and soul that GTAIV is "obscene." But that doesn't at all mean that a well-reasoned, thoughtful legal analysis involving the application of relevant law to known facts will arrive at the same conclusion. But try telling him that.
He really isn't so crazy... any one of us would fight as hard for something we believe so strongly in. He is just musguided.
Huh?! He's once, twice, three times so crazy.
Yeah, I suppose he is.
Going back to the recent Utah bill, the AG said that he had his team look at GTA IV and came out saying it wasn't obscene.
But, last year we had my investigators with my Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force go through the entire game Grand Theft Auto IV because we’d heard that a lot of people had concerns about pornographic references and so forth and whether it could meet the definition of material harmful to a minor. After they reviewed it with staff prosecutors they determined it wasn’t prosecutable.
http://www.gamepolitics.com/2009/04/01/utah-attorney-general-thompson-br...
E. Zachary Knight
Oklahoma City Chapter of the ECA
http://www.theeca.com/chapters_oklahoma
The "hole" in the Miller test which allows the obscene to pass through is about the same size as the eye of a darning needle. There ain't much of anything which is going to pass Miller.
Thompson must still be in shock over this one if he declined comment.
Well, I guess we'll have to wait and see what happens next with the bill, if Crowe decides to resubmit it or not.
Geaux Saints, Geaux Tigers, Geaux Hornets, Jack Thompson can geaux chase a chupacabra.
Thompson decling to comment? He must have the swine flu or something... I mean when has he ever wanted to decline a chance to toss out his christian beliefs and decry the video game business?
Basically what I gathered is that Crowe handed the bill off to his lawyers and told them to fix it to be constitutional. Making it have nothing to do with the original bill was the only way they could figure out how to do that. I kind of wonder how Crowe ended up as vice chair of this committee, he seems to be a bumbling idiot.
From where I was sitting, his performance yesterday took all the "seems" out of the proposition that he is a bumbling idiot.
"GamePolitics asked him to comment about SB 152 but the disbarred attorney declined."
Translation: He's sitting in the corner, in a curled up ball, sucking his thumb, and pouting.
Nightwng2000
NW2K Software
Nightwng2000 has also updated his MySpace page: http://www.myspace.com/nightwing2000 Nightwng2000 is now admin to the group "Parents For Education, Not Legislation" on MySpace as http://groups.myspace.com/pfenl
I remember the last time John Bruce refused to comment on a story. Minutes later he sent a scathing email to the Utah bill sponser.
When asked for comment by GamePolitics, Thompson said that he hadn't seen Morley's e-mail and "couldn't care less." Within minutes, however, he fired off an e-mail of his own to Utah largely conservative legislators
http://www.gamepolitics.com/2009/04/22/utah-bill-sponsor-apologizes-coll...
E. Zachary Knight
Oklahoma City Chapter of the ECA
http://www.theeca.com/chapters_oklahoma
Thompson might be in the process of giving up. The Supreme Court didn't give him his licence back (despite Jack's promises), and his meltdown over Utah resulted in even more people being aware of his shitty personality- to say nothing of the Eagle Forum. These things might have forced him to reevaluate his life.
I agree. Something about him recently ain't like the Jack-O I know and love. When was his last publicity stunt? His e-mail to Miss Utah warning her not to wear a bikini in Utah? That was months ago. He's never before gone this long without making a complete ass of himself. Something ain't right.
I hope he's okay. Poor little goblin. For sheer entertainment value he'd be damn hard to replace.
Ahhhh nothing like a good "told you so" to Jack. I guess somewhere in his derranged mind he guessed that: "If the first time you don't succeed, try another state". Sadly the plan backfired...again. Poor Jack, this repeated attempt to shoot himself in the foot is just getting tiresome. I almost pity....almost.
Queue the countdown till he sends an angry letter to his "opponent(s)" and "allies" again.
Wow. I wonder if Garnet's writing campaign to inform the people about the bill worked in some way...?
We may never know but this IS good news.
Amy Levandoski
Nice. I have a question though, one about how these reports are covered. Do you /have/ to specifically mention Jack Thompson in the story? The legislators certainly didn't.
Jack is so devoid of power and relevance that the only thing he has going for him is his name. He has only a horrible history attached to it, but you know the old saying about how any publicity is good publicity. So, DON'T SAY HIS NAME! It's the only thing that gives Candlejack Thompson his power!
-------------------------
"They were retarded hairless pink bunnies, all of them. Except Shigeru Myamoto and... well, the good ones were just too /rare/ to be worth bothering about." - Mason Hornblower on the extinction of the human race
"Candlejack Thompson"
Freakazoid FTW... am I right?
Wait, you said CandleJack's name, and yet you w
-----------------------------
"The sun will always rise tomorrow. We can only live for today, and hope more days will come." -Unknown
And shouldn't John Bruce's name be splashed all over this? This was a complete disaster of a legislative proposal. Guess who had the original idea for it. John Bruce. It was his idea and Crowe killed it. It deserves to be connected with John Bruce and he deserves it as well. By exposing John Bruce's weak connections like this, it is becoming more and more apparent that he has no real clout and only those morons who are easily manipulated will ever listen to him again.
I feel sorry for Crowe and the crap that John Bruce is probably sending him, but John Bruce deserves it every time his name is drug through the mud.
E. Zachary Knight
Oklahoma City Chapter of the ECA
http://www.theeca.com/chapters_oklahoma
That I understand. But... well, I'm gonna seem a bit nitpicky here, but I wish people would use his full name instead.
Call him John Bruce Thompson, but not Jack. Save Jack for wisecracks, like my Candlejack one there. John Bruce is a much more effective use of English in news reports because one's full name is their core. Heck, we all learned that as little kids whenever we got into situations like this one:
"Thomas Sawyer!"
Tom knew that when his name was pronounced in full, it meant trouble.
-------------------------
"They were retarded hairless pink bunnies, all of them. Except Shigeru Myamoto and... well, the good ones were just too /rare/ to be worth bothering about." - Mason Hornblower on the extinction of the human race
I know you're being sarcastic and witty, but I gotta say it...
The only thing Jack has is his name? The mere mention of it drains away any serious reception of whatever it's attached to. As soon as people with influence or in government hear it, what immediately follows is a collective groan. That's why all his "partners" in legislation try their best to avoid mentioning him.
It's not very clear at all where you're going with this...
Sums up Jack pretty well!
Well, I guess his hopes that it'd work this time backfired
So in other words, it basically has nothing to do with games anymore, and is so redundant that it has no chance of passing?
---You are likely to be eaten by a Grue.
So... we won? (again?) ;)
The cynical side of videogames (spanish only): http://thelostlevel.blogspot.com/ My DeviantArt Page (aka DeviantCensorship): http://www.darkknightstrikes.deviantart.com/
With a foe like Jack Bruce Thompson, who needs effort?
Whatever happened to his shareholder revolt at Take Two?
I hereby DEMAND that John Bruce Thompson respond to this news by this time tomorrow with more of his inane denials and empty threats. Or else.
Saying that Jack Thompson is impotent is an insult to impotent men everywhere. They've got a whole assortment of drugs that can cure their condition; Jack, however...
jack thompson isnt anything anymore he never was but now he isnt even a lawyer will "GamePolitics.com" PLEASE stop asking him for his worthless comments.
this is how jack news ALLWAYS goes
new load of bull
Jack: your all done for now
*failure*
*jack sends porn and threats*
Jack: ha I wasnt even trying watch out even more
*failure*
Jack: its all lies its a conspiracy
*sends more porn and threats*
how is this news anymore?
Just because someone is an idiot, doesn't mean you should suddenly fully disregard them as reporter. Furthermore, logging his words and his actions allows for evidence to be used against him.
Translation: Jack Thompson, perhaps it is best if you GET A LIFE!!!!
This has been tried before.
This started with JBT trying to get video games declared a dangerous and obscene. I'm actually surprised that he couldn't get a florida court to agree with him. Maybe he just needs a jury to snow.
He can't stop the company from making the games, he can't stop the stores from carrying the games, he can't stop the ESRB from rating the games, he can't stop the parents from buying the games and he can't stop the people from playing the games.
Censorship is not selective. When you make it impossible for 1 person or group to play and enjoy an item you make it impossible for ALL groups to play and enjoy an item.