Utah Legislator Will Sponsor Jack Thompson Video Game Bill

The Salt Lake Tribune has confirmed that a Republican state legislator will introduce a video game bill crafted by Jack Thompson.

Trib reporter Glen Warchol tracked the story down this afternoon at the State Capitol in Salt Lake City. As GamePolitics recently predicted, Gayle Ruzicka, a Thompson ally and head of the ultra-conservative Utah Eagle Forum, found a legislator to propose the disbarred attorney’s bill.

Warchol writes:

Eagle Forum President Gayle Ruzicka is remote controlling Rep. Mike Morley [left] to introduce yet another bill to regulate those cop-killing video games…

Morley is picking up where other lawmakers have failed. (Yes, I checked and his pupils appear to be dilating properly…)  Florida-based wingnut crusader and disbarred lawyer Jack Thompson apparently has roughed out the bill for Gayle…

I talked to Attorney General Mark Shurtleff [who] says he has been told the bill will be completely different from earlier versions, but "They keep changing the language." He says the evidence that Thompson keeps quoting hasn’t stood up in court. Looks like Thompson will have to call for Shurtleff’s impeachment again.

GP: In 2007 Thompson demanded the impeachment of Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff after the A.G. suggested that a video game bill proposed by the anti-game activist was unconstitutional.

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on RedditEmail this to someone


  1. HilaryDuffGta says:

    Wow another Bill that will get shot down within a minute..Poor Jack always thinks that any bill that goes thru is "Bulletproof" When will morons like him Learn?

  2. magic_taco says:

    Yeah, But im thinking most of his hypocritical and stupid actions have been nothing more than simple and cheap "get rich quick" scheme.

  3. hellfire7885 says:

    That’s what he’s been wanting for years, for the floodgates to just open and never shut.

    If I remember right, he has tried, and obviously failed, so bring mass lawsuits against Take Two under soem technicality.

  4. sqlrob says:

    Those don’t have a chance of working, violence has already been explicitly excluded from obscenity.


  5. Zerodash says:

    My money says that this bill is, in Thompson’s mind, just a vehicle to open up endless, devastating lawsuits against games publishers.  He has stated many times (when he was still a lawyer) that his plan was to sue M-rated game publishers until it became economically impractical for those games to even be made. 

    Jack thinks that an M rating means an "admission of guilt" to the game being harmful.  Hence, this law is intended to use this as a means of suing the industry based on fraud. 

    Fortunately, his track record is pathetic and, given how poorly written (spelling, structure, and grammer) his court filings are, this bill will be as impotent as he is…figuratively speaking.


    Why can’t the far-right Christian zealots just choose to avoid videogames (and encourage their "flocks" to do the same) instead of trying to take them away from everyone? 

  6. Benji says:

    A big issue I can see being raised with this – what exactly counts as a binding agreement between entertainment vendors and consumers.  It can at least be argued that a store stating that it won’t sell M-rated games to minors is not a binding contract and failing to adhere to it is not actionable.

    The situation reminds me of the Pearson case – the guy who sued his dry cleaners for $65 million because they lost his pants.  Most of that amount comes from what he called ‘false advertising’ which was a ‘deceptive trade practice.’  The deceptive trade practice was that they had a ‘Satisfaction Guaranteed’ sign in their window but that he was unsatisfied with his service, and that the dry cleaners were therefor committing false advertising, punishable by fines of many thousands of dollars for every day of the three years in which the sign stood there.  Of course, the suit eventually got thrown out and Pearson became somewhat of a laughingstock.

  7. Chuma says:

    "In all honesty it is really the idiot fringe of both sides that try to protect the children"

    Never were truer words spoken.  They are both as bad as one another coming from opposite angles.

  8. BrandonL337 says:

    In all honesty it is really the idiot fringe of both sides that try to protect the children Supreme court justices both liberal and conservative know the constitution and what is legally allowable, hell they might be waiting for this bill to come to them so that they can strike it down.

    There have always been motherf*ckers, there will always be motherf*ckers, but what we can’t do is let them control our motherf*cking lives. -John Oliver, December 1st, 2008

  9. Redertainment says:

    I wonder who else is sponsoring this bill.  If Chris Buttars gets added on, this will cement this bill as one only crackpots support. 

    Don’t know who Buttars is?  Look him up, you will see your representatives in a different light.


    Hunter Red

    Utah Resident

  10. gamegod25 says:

    No matter how much they change the language it won’t change the fact that it will either be comepletly toothless or struck down as unconstitutional. It’s sad that politicians haven’t learned that these bills are just a waste of time and money. And that people are still listening to that walking punch line only lowers my faith in humanity another couple notches.

  11. illspirit says:

    It’s going to be hilarious when an anti-game law finally makes it to and is struck down by the Supreme Court. Assuming something gets cert before new Justices are nominated, my prediction is that the "right wing nuts" (plus Kennedy) will be the ones who kill it. Well, Scalia and/or Ginsburg might flip, but otherwise it will probably be the so-called liberals up there who "think of the children."

    I don’t know which would be funnier though. The collective head explosion from the "left" as they watch "their side" vote against the Constitution. Or the self-righteous rage from Thompson and the authoritarian "right" when they can’t say it’s a liberal conspiracy or whatever anymore.

    Either way, perceptions of political reality would be shattered.

  12. tony selby says:

    Actually the first hurdle for Jacks bill is the "Adult rated Game" portion, because if you don’t define what an adult rated game is, you can’t enforce this law, if you define adult rated games based upon the third party rating systems you are giving power of law to the ratings boards and eliminating due process (this is why you can’t legally enforce theatres to not sell R-rated tickets to 13 year olds)

    If you define adult rated games as those classified as obscene, then the bill is completly unnecesary as it’s already illegal to sell obscene material to a minor.

    Essentualy the only peices of legislation that have even a chance of working are those that attempt to classify extreme violence as obscene, the problem they have is determining the language that carefully defines what is obscene and what isn’t and the ability to make a clear distinction

  13. ZippyDSMlee says:

    Tenure makes people belive thier own smoke, as for left/right wing, I call them wiggers… migh as well all be part of the wig party.


    Gore,Violence,Sexauilty,Fear,Emotion these are but modes of transportation of story and thought, to take them from society you create a society of children and nannys, since adults are not required.


  14. chadachada321 says:

    Like the left wing nuts do? Or anyone these days, for that matter…

    My own teacher, teaching a class called "Practical Law," thought that the ESRB ratings on games were legally-binding…

    -If an apple a day keeps the doctor away….what happens when a doctor eats an apple?-

  15. TBoneTony says:

    They got the Cop Killing games part of it ABSOLUTELY WRONG!!!!

    I now stand as my opinion saying that these nuts have never even bothered to play GTA or any other videogame. Perhaps they can’t even turn on a PS2 or an XBox 360 to find out.

    Oh and by changing the language, the legislation will never pass the court because it is made be right wing nuts who barely even understand the constitution.

    More money wasted by stupid people who all of them should be thrown out of power.

  16. DeepThorn says:

    Blackmail works too…  I wouldnt imagine it would be hard to catch one of these flunkies cheating on their wives or something. 

    Of course you can say, "This will guarantee votes in the next election because people will feel like you are looking out for their best interests.  See look at these statistics I pulled out of my ass."

    Nido Web Flash Tutorials AS2 and AS3 Tutorials for anyone interested.
    How to set Xbox 360 Parental Controls

  17. ZippyDSMlee says:

    This wont wont you have to start a reasonable argument first and bump it up throughout government, but in the end the core question remains why do we have to nanny ourselves so much?

    We are either capable of thought and action based on our individuality  or we are sheep who require no freedoms or rights..


    Gore,Violence,Sexauilty,Fear,Emotion these are but modes of transportation of story and thought, to take them from society you create a society of children and nannys, since adults are not required.


  18. Truec says:

    Doesn’t Thompson have trouble understanding the concept that the retailers aren’t part of the games industry?  Ergo, his intention is probably to claim the industry as a whole (as he sees it) is committing fraud.

  19. Neeneko says:

    I almost hope it passes.  Talk about giving one enough rope to hang yourself.  Could you imagine what one could do with such a broad anti-fraud bill?  No one would be safe.

    Crow, JT himself could be vulnerable.

  20. hellfire7885 says:

    That man’s career is going to become a living hell when this fails to pass, as it will he his fault and he will be Thompson’s new harassment target.

  21. illspirit says:


    Furthermore, all a retailer would have to do is stick a disclaimer by the register (or on their website) stating that the consumer is responsible for selecting age appropriate content and that the store isn’t liable for offending anybody’s precious snowflakes.

    Or, they could just quit carding altogether to avoid any potential hassle. Someone should really remind Thompson about the Law of Unintended Consequences.

  22. TK n Happy Ness says:

    Jack says what now?

    When Jack Thompson runs his mouth, does anyone really care what he has to say anymore?

  23. Craig R. says:

    Well, we now know the identify of at least one legislature in Utah who needs a room with rubber wallpaper.

  24. Adrian Lopez says:

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

    I’m not sure why you’d need a new law if this truly constitutes fraud, but the biggest problem I see with the above is the question of what exactly constitutes a "promise" that you "don’t sell adult-rated entertainment to kids". I imagine Jack Thompson thinks the mere act of selling video games with ratings on them constitutes such a promise, which is of course patently ridiculous. Likewise, a statement that "you must be at least X years of age to purchase this game" doesn’t constitute a promise, as it refers to the purchaser’s responsibilities rather than the retailer’s.

    The only way I could see this working is if the store explicitly states that it cards all those who purchase games with particular ratings and then consistently fails to do so as a matter of internal policy. After all, fraud implies intent to defraud, so an employee failing to follow company policy wouldn’t be enough.

  25. Cavalier says:

    The trick is to tell them what they want to hear, then propose something that looks legal if you spin it, while they’re viewing it in bad light with beer goggles.  After all, you don’t have to take the heat when the bill you’re proposing goes down in flames as a giant taxpayer boondoggle.

  26. sortableturnip says:

    He has already posted 2 letters in the comments section of that article addressed to the Attorney General Mark Shurtleff regarding the bill

  27. BrandonL337 says:

    Torture and spying on the American public is fascism, doesn’t have anything to do with their political affiliation.

    no one called the outgoing administration nazis; how could they considering the administrations unthinking support for Isreal

    Bush is a redneck

    Biggoted religious zealots, only really applies to the Fundimentalist Christian arm of the party however, I should point out that one of the contenders for the recent RNC chairmanship distributed CD’s with the song Barack the Magic Negro and The Star Spanglish Banner.  There were two Republican candidates for different senate seats, one belonged to an all-white country club and one was a member of the klan.  I don’t remember their names and i’ll post a reply if i find them 

    There have always been motherf*ckers, there will always be motherf*ckers, but what we can’t do is let them control our motherf*cking lives. -John Oliver, December 1st, 2008

  28. Chaltab says:

    Uh… what? 

    So the past eight years wherein conservatives were called facist, Nazi, redneck, biggoted religious zealots were all in my imagination?

    Name calling isn’t exclusive to one side.

  29. Leet Gamer Jargon says:

    Yeah, but you’re looking at it in terms of citizenship. Perfectly acceptable, but not really what I was getting at.

    When chada said something about "real" Americans, I think he meant those who fit into the little conservative spectrum. The stereotypical "fine, upstanding young American"; you know, the straight white God-fearing family with two kids, a dog, and a two-story in the suburbs: the b.s. representation of a "normal" nuclear family spawned in the 1950’s.

    If someone else who deviated from that spectrum (for example, a gay black man in a healthy relationship with an Asian man, living with an adopted Hispanic child, two cats, and a bisexual female whose already had two abortions, in an apartment in San Francisco [just to push the envelope]) were examined through the same spectrum, they might be considered "vile, godless, amoral" and all other manner of bigoted speech conservatives can think of. It wouldn’t matter if the family previously described were all American citizens: they’re still not "real" Americans.

    But I can see where you’re coming from. I should’ve made my point a bit clearer, and I apologize for not doing so.


    Game on, brothers and sisters.

  30. BrandonL337 says:

    Judging by the fact that "Real Americans" is a term invented by the GOP to appeal to their base then that would mean that "Real Americans" are the Right-Wing base IE, rednecks

    There have always been motherf*ckers, there will always be motherf*ckers, but what we can’t do is let them control our motherf*cking lives. -John Oliver, December 1st, 2008

  31. BrandonL337 says:

    At least "Liberal Retards" know how to be respectful, seriously every time I hear one of you conservatives talk about liberals it’s some Ann coulter/Rush Limbauge/Sean Hannity bullshit that has no basis in facts.  Liberals say that Conservatives are wrong, Conservatives say that Liberals are God-hating, unAmerican, Socialist, Communist, Terrorists

    There have always been motherf*ckers, there will always be motherf*ckers, but what we can’t do is let them control our motherf*cking lives. -John Oliver, December 1st, 2008

  32. Father Time says:

    What makes someone a real American? Well let’s see what happens when we change the nationality.

    What makes someone a real Italian?

    It’s either someone who was born and/or raised in Italy

    or someone who has Italian blood.

    Also if someone immigrated to Italy and then spent a siginificant amount of time (several years, decades maybe) then eventually they’d be considered a real Italian.

    Same applies to the U.S. imo


    Debates are like merry go rounds. Two people take their positions then they go through the same points over and over and over again. Then when it’s over they have the same positions they started in.

  33. Leet Gamer Jargon says:

    No offense, but my money’s on f**kin’ noone. To me, there are no "real" Americans: to classify someone as a "real" American is to measure them in one’s own personal moral/value spectrum. If that person fulfills the requirements needed while being examined through said spectrum, they are considered as a "real" American; anyone who does not meet those requirements are not "real" Americans, even though they are every bit as real as an American as anyone else.

    It’s basically how JT was able to get his Freedom Award: because he was a "real" American. And you, I, and everyone else on this site spawned from the Devil’s arse are dirty immigrant clowns and French child molesters. /sarcasm


    Game on, brothers and sisters.

  34. Baruch_S says:

    My money is on the libertarians. They’re the only ones who don’t want to either force morals on the populace or forcibly make everyone equal. Libertarians want the government to treat you like an adult and let you suffer the consequences of your own actions without having daddy government tell you what to do while mommy government cleans up your mistakes.

  35. Leet Gamer Jargon says:

    …"Liberal retards"? Isn’t Thompson proposing the bill in one of the most predominately conservative states in America?

    And wasn’t it the conservatives who screwed America over in the past eight years?

    Oh, but it’s the liberals who are the retards. Makes perfect sense…

    So, please, good chada, tell me: who exactly are the "real" Americans?


    Game on, brothers and sisters.

  36. chadachada321 says:

    Lol, the ones that aren’t are liberal retards that want to try and make everyone happy and provide for the people that try the least.

    Then there are the very few actual Americans left…


    -If an apple a day keeps the doctor away….what happens when a doctor eats an apple?-

  37. Chaltab says:

    But Sherman’s march 1)took place nowhere near Utah, and 2) had nothing to do with Christianity. The comment made absolutely no sense no matter how you slice it.

  38. BrandonL337 says:

    Technically Georgia is a part of the bible belt and so is Utah

    There have always been motherf*ckers, there will always be motherf*ckers, but what we can’t do is let them control our motherf*cking lives. -John Oliver, December 1st, 2008

  39. JC says:

    Ugh, the terrain wouldn’t allow for a day’s drive to work, I’m roughly 1k miles away from the city.

    Driving long distances for hours bores the hell out of me, and I don’t drive like you 😛

  40. Baruch_S says:

    Well, they would be constitutional if Jack could convince people that games are basically like porn…

  41. sqlrob says:

    He’s claimed every single one is consitutional. The LA one was "constitutionally bulletproof".

    The judge slammed it short of laughing right in his face, and since I didn’t watch the proceedings, he may have done that as well.


  42. Alex says:

    Didn’t he say the one in Louisiana a few years back would be "constitutional" too?

    I’m not under the affluence of incohol as some thinkle peep I am. I’m not half as thunk as you might drink. I fool so feelish I don’t know who is me, and the drunker I stand here, the longer I get.

  43. sqlrob says:

    It is. I guarantee that anything Thompson had a hand in will be. He is constitutionally (pun intended) unable to see the problems with what he proposes. He’s always right.



  44. Chaltab says:

    This one probably won’t be unconstitutional.

    Just a massive redundant waste of taxpayer dollars. -_-

  45. Neeneko says:

    His dibarment plays well into the image of the poor persecuted Christian and thus he can invalidate any critism against him as ‘crazy leftists’ or such.

  46. Dan says:

    It’s not called the bible belt (or book of mormon belt) for nothing.

    General Sherman should have done a better job burning them out.

    (I don’t dislike Christains, just the overzealous ones)

    —— Ago. Perceptum. Teneo.

  47. Chaltab says:

    How does Jack get these guys on his side after his disbarment? You’d think all the abuses he propogated when he was an Attorney would make any politician warry of allying himself with the nutter.

  48. Icehawk says:

    I am curious… um can even jackie think he has not made enemies in Utah?  Is he bravely walking into the lions den or just to stupid/arrogant to know better?   Tis almost amusing (irony) that he choses to waste his time in this manner as any bill with his name attached to it (and he cannot let go of his ego long enough not to have his name on it) is all but doomed to fail if only for that fact. 

    Ah well.  I find I miss the simple pleasures like being called a "pixelante". 


  49. DorkmasterFlek says:

    Well, I’m pretty sure I already saw this movie, but it looks entertaining so I’ll watch it once more.

    *runs off to get some popcorn*

  50. Cavalier says:

    They’d actually be better off with the cow army guy, whether he had it or no, as he wouldn’t have been so Very Thoroughly Discredited already.

  51. Austin_Lewis says:

    So, he wasn’t lying for once?  MY GOD, that’s astounding!

    Still, this’ll be fun to watch.  Anyone want to roadtrip to the debate?  We can ride in my RV, it’ll be tons of fun.

  52. sqlrob says:

    I don’t want it to die, I want it to pass.

    Then I can’t wait to see the fit he throws when it gets declared unconstitutional yet again.

  53. BearDogg-X says:

    So Thompson found another patsy without much intelligence going for him.

    If they keep changing the language of the bill as the attorney general puts it, then it’s going to fail to even get out of committee.

    Geaux Saints, Geaux Tigers, Geaux Hornets, Jack Thompson can geaux chase a chupacabra.

    Proud supporter of the New Orleans Saints, LSU, 1st Amendment; Real American; Hound of Justice; Even through the darkest days, this fire burns always

    Saints(3-4), LSU(7-0)

Comments are closed.