Sneak a Peek at Jack Thompson’s Utah Game Legislation

"Advertises that a good or service will not be sold to a certain age group when it is."

That single phrase is the essence of the much-talked about Jack Thompson video game legislation currently under consideration in Utah.

Thompson has forwarded GamePolitics a draft of the measure, dated January 27th. As previously reported, Rep. Mike Morley (R) will sponsor the bill in the legislature (although, based on recent local news reports, Morley doesn’t sound especially enthusiastic about the prospect).

Thompson’s proposal seeks to amend Utah’s existing Truth in Advertising law. If it is successful, game retailers who advertise that they don’t sell M-rated games to underage buyers would be at risk if they did.

Although Thompson often complains that online retailers don’t properly age-gate video game buyers, the current language of the proposal does not address Internet sales.

Document Dump: Grab a copy of the draft legislation here.

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


  1. 0
    tollwutig says:

    I posted something similar in the other thread but it is worth rewording and more appropriate here. 

    First let’s think how Jack thinks,  everyone please forcefully strike your skulls with a large blunt object for this exercise.  

    Now we enter into Jacks delusional world.  The ESRB rating label on the box according to Jack constitutes an advertisement of an age restriction to the sell of said product.  Thus it doesn’t matter if the retailer actually advertises that they card, because they are displaying the ESRB rating label which per Jack constitutes an advertisement not to sell said product to anyone under 17.

    This is the basis of Jack’s assumption which he hopes to convince a judge if this were to become law.  That putting an ESRB rating on the box is advertising that the someone under 17 can’t buy the game.   Of course this is easily gotten around…


    There are two simple ways to deal with this:

    -First the retailer would just need to put up a sign that states:

    "We do not enforce ESRB or MPAA ratings pursuant to Utah state code XXXXXXX" 

    This would state clearly that the store does not enforce any ratings system which is what Jack is after.  IF this bill were to pass, then he would then launch a lawsuit against the ESRB and a Retailer, stating that the ESRB rating advertises in and of itself is a commitment to not sell M games to minors, regardless of store policy. 

    –The other easy method would be to simply cover up the ESRB ratings on the packaging themselves.  A sticker that states the below would suffice and be hilarious.

    "Pursuant of Utah State Code XXXXX.XX we cannot advertise the ESRB rating of this game as it may or may not constitute a promise not to sell this product to minors. Since this store makes no such promise it cannot display such advertisment."

  2. 0
    Mauler says:

    Here is what you do.  Google for utah truth in advertising.  Click on the first link.  Open up 13-11a-3.  Scroll down to where item U would be, add in the text written in red, and you have it.  Well, they moved the "or" down to the T section but that is it.  That is the only change made.   As I said, the bigger impact will be on the "We Card" program to prevent underage tobacco and alcohol since they are actually advertising that they aren’t going to sell certain products to certain age groups.

    You would expect that there would be some fancy lawyering in there or something to make this bulletproof or somehow bring Take Two or Rock Star to their knees.  But it’s nothing.  I’m half tempted to contact the "We Card" folks about the damage that Utah and Thompson are going to cause them.  Someone could get sued for trying but failing to do the right thing just because they said they were going to try to do the right thing.  It’s all rather silly.

  3. 0
    Shadow D. Darkman says:

    Still, I want to see it with my own 2 eyes, and the site that GP has linked to is blocked on this laptop.


    "Game on, brothers and sisters." -Leet Gamer Jargon

  4. 0
    Father Time says:

    Because he can. The real question is why do people sing a song about it?


    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.

  5. 0
    BearDogg-X says:

    If Jackie cracks corn and nobody cares, why does he keep doing it?

    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)

  6. 0
    Leet Gamer Jargon says:

    *loud gasp* That’s it!! Jack Thompson is with a bizarro-game-industry that tries to hypnotize kids into becoming homicidal maniacs, thereby perpetuating the myth of violent video games controlling our kids, so he can get rich off of the coverage.

    After he gets rich, he’ll begin construction on a gigantic space station, with ray guns that fire corn meal and ricotta cheese. He’ll construct a cannon that anthropomorphizes all the animals on the planet. Once the animals enslave the human race, Jack Thompson (with his new sensuous lover, Zedara the giraffe-oid) will have an iron grip on the world’s trachea, utilizing his psychotic gamer children and anthro-animals as a giant army, forcing every human to work in the tapioca mines.

    And here’s where things get really weird…


    Game on, brothers and sisters.

  7. 0
    Leet Gamer Jargon says:

    He is truly a pathetic waste of carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen, isn’t he?

    After reading your comment, it dawned on me: he’s tried to take one giant leap forward, but is so backwards-ass, he took a giant leap back. Instead of holding retailers accountable, he’s done them a great service and got rid of the need for them to include personal responsibility in their practices.

    Great job, Thompson, you idiot. Just a crackerjack job.

    Game on, brothers and sisters.

  8. 0
    Chuma says:

    "Actually, it only took about 30 minutes and was being done while I was waiting on something else.

    So it was actually just filler time used.  :)"


    That is probably the same conditions that this bill was drafted.

  9. 0
    Shadow D. Darkman says:

    You forgot Steps 5 and 6.

    5. ????

    6. PROFIT!

    Now you can post the result. 


    "Game on, brothers and sisters." -Leet Gamer Jargon

  10. 0
    Shadow D. Darkman says:

    They fail to realize the kids are growing up faster than before. A 13-year-old kid I’m friends with isn’t afraid to drop the F-bomb, unless he’s in an environment that demands the avoidance of such language.


    "Game on, brothers and sisters." -Leet Gamer Jargon

  11. 0
    Mauler says:

    Don’t bother.  It’s the existing fraud act with the addition of the statement in red at the top of the article.   As written, it would also impact the "We Card" program depending on what someone calls advertising.

  12. 0
    Ryno says:

    This is what I was thinking also. Too bad I waited until after work to post.

    I’m also wondering if, as someone else said in the previous article, that Jack wants to use this as a way to get more kids to buy violent games. Then when the kids go on mass killing sprees he can sue T2 into the ground. The fact that the number spree killings/mass murders that were committed by gamers can be counted on one hand has no place in Jack’s world, so it makes perfect sense to him.

  13. 0
    tony selby says:

    thats part of Jacks evil plan, see if the stores sell more M rated games to under aged buyers then the video game success rate will drop below the 90% that it’s at the next time the FTC does it’s report.

    Jack will then use that drop in success rate to claim that the industry is not capable of policing itself and state that the government must step in to regulate these game.

    It’s all really transparent when you think like a conspiricy theorist like Jack is.

  14. 0
    GoodRobotUs says:

    Also, any law that is attempted to be passed to make them put those signs back up will be, by definition, compelled speech, and possibly an attempt at entrapment as well.

  15. 0
    Miang says:

    He used to make me laugh, but now its always the same. In fact its been the same for years now.

    But then I was going on a only a few hours sleep when I made that comment which may have something to do with how tired it made me feel.

    This whole legislation is silly. Thompson doesn’t surprise me and the politicians shouldn’t either but come on already. How desperate are these people to look like they are "protecting the children" ? 

    It’s exhaustingly pathetic.

  16. 0
    Father Time says:

    30 minutes is still too long considering this bill is way more tame than others and doesn’t single out games.


    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.

  17. 0
    Father Time says:

    I’m not sure how this fits in with his whole bring violent video game makers to their knees objective.

    The only logical reasoning I can think of is that he thinks the violent game makers make a lot of profit selling these games to kids without parents consent. The average age of gamer is 30 something according to the ESA but one could argue they’re a biased source.

    But even ignoring that I still think the potential loss will only be insignificant.

    Anyway this bill is essentially a false advertising bill, hardly a step on the dreaded slippery slope and barely precedent for the other failed bills so if JT’s angle is baby steps towards a ban on selling bad games to kids then I don’t think this will help much.

    He’s right though this bill probably is constitutionally bulletproof. But if only he mentioned this bill is drastically different than ones he made before.

    And he was kind enough to not single out games (or perhaps that wasn’t JT’s doing).


    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.

  18. 0
    Larington says:

    My feeling is this is liable to backfire quite badly. A store is effectively advertising that it won’t sell to youngsters by having a sign on the wall or ’til or whatever with the usual fluff about how staff have to ask for age. The moment those signs are inevitably taken down, staff may be less prone to asking ID due to the out-of-sight-out-of-mind principle, unless its a message displayed as part of the ’til software that is therefor not a display attempt to customers.

  19. 0
    CrimsonCrane says:

    This reminds me of Kung Pow: Enter the Fist.


    Law School Professor: Don’t mind Jack, we’ve trained him wrong, as a joke.

    Jack: Hi ya! If you have a video game company, I’ll sue it!

  20. 0
    Zero Beat says:

    In the United States, there is no legal liability for selling m-rated games to minors.  There is legal liability in the EU, Australia and elsewhere, but not in the United States.  In the United States, you can only be punished if you sell alcohol, tobacco, porn, and maybe weapons to minors.


    "That’s not ironic. That’s justice."

  21. 0
    Oz says:

    Supprised its not posted/tagged under "Jack Thompson"

    This piece of work done by "Wacko Jacko" seems to be very irrelivent and hardly the doom and gloom he promised the video game industry

  22. 0
    Arell says:

    Step 1:  Pass this bill, fining stores for not following through on their age-gate policies.

    Step 2:  Stores abandon their age-gate policies.

    Step 3:  Utah and/or JT try to pass a bill that forces stores to age-gate.

    Step 4:  Such a bill is deemed unconstitutional, just like every other bill like it (there is legal precidnece).

    Result:  JT successfully opens up all game sales (up to M, AO isn’t carried in stores) to minors.  His life-long dream of deregulating the gaming industry is achieved.

    Wait…. what?

  23. 0
    Inimical says:

    They are in some places, though. Not sure what it’s like for Utah but if other people will adopt this (which I’m sure is Jack Thompson’s aim), it’s useless in places that are liable for selling M-rated games to minors.


    *it’s okay, I spelt "selling" as "seeling" the first time I wrote this out.

  24. 0
    Kamelmann says:

    If I understood this right.. it means more kids could potentially get these ”violent and evil” (LOL WHAT) video games by stores not really trying/not trying at all to enforce the age limits to skip round this bill.. irregardless of the parents buying it for the majority of them.. erm..

    Isnt kids getting a hold of games what Jack was trying to stop.. 0_o

    Please correct me if I completely misunderstood.. i’m a chemist not a lawyer.. xD

    edit: sniped curse you mysterious poster above me! *shakes fist*

  25. 0
    GoodRobotUs says:

    So basically, in order to protect their own interests, these shops will have to drop their voluntary systems, and make it easier for young people to get higher rated games?


    Way to go Jack, what a smart manoeuvre!

  26. 0
    Andrew Eisen says:

    Let me preface my comment by saying that I know precious little about truth in advertising law.  I’m pretty busy with freelance work right now and don’t have the time to research it.

    That said, does store policy actually count as an advertisement?  I’ve never seen a retailer actually advertise the "no M games to minors" policy in a commercial or print ad.  Sure it’s usually buried somewhere on their websites but I wouldn’t consider it advertised.

    Furthermore, I can see a lot of retailers simply dropping the policy in order to protect themselves from lawsuits in the event that some dipstick cashier sells Halo 3 to a sixteen-year-old.


    Andrew Eisen

  27. 0
    Austin_Lewis says:

    This could be his way of beginning something far more sinister.  If this legislation, idiotic as it is, were to impose fines for failure to live up to what they said (not selling M games to underage kids), its likely that not many stores would adopt it.  Mom and Pop stores wouldn’t, and neither would Bestbuy, gamestop, walmart, etc.  Not when theres a few hundred or thousand dollar fine each time their employees don’t do their job right.  Step two would be for him to say that there need to be laws restricting sales because stores no longer restrict game sales on basis of age.


  28. 0
    Yuuri says:

    There currently is no law stating stores cannot sell M rated games to minors, as it is illegal to make a law using a private intety’s rating system. So there is no liability for selling M games to minors. Unlike for tobbaco or alcohal.


    *no i can’t spell today…

  29. 0
    Shadow D. Darkman says:

    Can we get the legislation copy from anywhere else? libsyn is blocked on this laptop.


    "Game on, brothers and sisters." -Leet Gamer Jargon

  30. 0
    MartyB says:

     Dude… you spent WAY too much time on this…


    he’s not worth the effort, just laught at him when he does something stupid and move on.

    Stop beating a dead horse… this one bled dry a long time ago

  31. 0
    nightwng2000 says:

    Posted this to my MySpace and Facebook.  Why post it here?  Just ‘cuz.  So there!  😛  :)

    Thank You Very Much Traitor John Bruce "Jack" Thompson!

     And why, pray tell, would I thank the Traitor John Bruce “Jack” Thompson? 

    An individual who has sought to create a Theological Dictatorship to replace the US government? 

    An individual who is known for making false and fraudulent claims to government agencies (such as falsely claiming that the video game “Bully” contained “gay sex”, when in fact, it contains NO SEX whatsoever? 

    An individual who actually put a kid playing a violent video game as being worse than that same kid having be verbally, mentally, physically, and nearly sexually abused (see the Cody Posey case, research begins at Wikipedia)? 

    An individual who actually calls people “fascists” if they don’t give in to his demands to be allowed to speak whatever he wants wherever he wants, then turns around and publicly states that he would support the legalized execution of those who verbally (even in writing) oppose his views?

    An individual who want his specific religious beliefs to hold sway in court rooms, thereby violating the First Amendment, making him a Traitor to the US, the citizens of the US, and the US Constitution?

    Why thank such an individual such as this and guilty of far more?


    We individuals and Parents make our own decisions as to what is or is not appropriate for ourselves and our children.  We use a great many resources to make decisions and make them intelligently and informed.

    Whether it be the voluntary various rating systems of video/computer games, TV shows, Movies, or other media formats or the various consumer information sites where consumers can share their information about particular products, services, or other material, we have a great deal of information available to us.

    Some companies and businesses have decided to use this information to set policies as to who they will or will not provide products or services to.  As with the rating systems, the companies and businesses are not dictating to individuals or Parents what is or is not appropriate for them.  They merely say “we are leaving it up to you, the adult (and yes, it sucks to be a kid) to make the decisions that are appropriate for you and/or your children”.

    Sometimes, these choices of policies are a little annoying, such as a business placing material in a case or behind the register.  More often than not, this is for security reasons.  Still, if you’re nearsighted like me, you either get a bopped head trying to get close enough to see or you have to annoy some service person asking them to provide information as to what they have in the places you can’t see.

    There have been many individuals, organizations, and/or government officials who want to go even further and legislate what material is or is not appropriate for you or for you child.  They base these desires, at the very core, on personal, religious, and/or political preferences or opinions, which can, in fact, vary from individual to individual.  But from their viewpoint, their’s is the superior.  The superior “morality”, the superior opinion, the superior everything.  To that end, they’ve used every excuse to justify their desire to legislate THEIR way of things.  Using poorly researched studies, making up claims of studies, outright lying about studies, making false claims about various incidents and claiming links that don’t exist (famously known as “scapegoat”), and even using religious scripture to justify dictating their version of “morality” and beliefs on others.  (Note that there is a definite difference between “dictating” and “offering an opinion that may or may not be agreed with and may even be willingly opposed and ignored”.)

    Numerous attempts over the decades have failed to pass legal review to dictate what is or is not appropriate for individuals or Parents.  Some general legislation has succeeded, supposedly focused on select types of material.  Legislating “community standards” and “adult material” passed long ago, but in recent decades, has been used just by evoking “violating community standards” to affect lesser material, sometimes successfully, sometimes not.

    One such individual who has sought to dictate their beliefs, religious and otherwise, has be John Bruce “Jack” Thompson.  There is a great deal of research one can do in regards to this individual.  Wikipedia and wikiquotes, as well as and are sites that have had dealings and have information for you to research.   And, obviously, Google is a useful research tool.

    This individual has routinely lied to and misinformed a great many organizations and government officials, if you have done thorough research as noted above.  He has attempted to lead various states and their governments into creating legislation to dictate what is or is not appropriate for individuals and/or their children.

    While he crows about some successes and brags about several TV interviews (including FOX News having run to him the moment some tragedy, such as a school shooting, occurs and calling him a “school shooting expert” or “First Amendment expert”, and blaming a variety of media, such as video games, for every act under the Sun, he still has a number of failures, including eventually failed state legislation which is defeated in courts, despite his claim the legislations are “bulletproof”.

    After having been disbarred in Florida last year, and even before then, he has tried every claim of conspiracy theory possible.  All the media he doesn’t like, whether video games, TV shows, movies, music, or even newspapers that don’t support his arguments, are members of the “porn industry”.  And, apparently, they’re all out to get him.  No matter his own actions in court when he was an attorney, it’s everyone else’s fault.  And they are all out to get him.

    Once again, he is attempting to court the favors of politicians, this time in Utah, through a known religious political hate group called the Utah Eagles Forum.  Having failed numerous times to claim that everything he doesn’t like and approve of is “harmful to minors”, he’s now trying another attempt at circumventing the First Amendment (isn’t that another act of subversion to the US Constitution?).

    Instead of, supposedly, focusing on the “harm to minors” angle, which he now claims is “unconstitutional” (but until recently claimed was a “bulletproof” method of creating legislation, he’s attempting to add to Utah’s Truth In Advertising law.  Now, he wants it to state that if a business advertises that they have policies to sell anything to individuals of only certain ages, that if the policy is violated, the business can be fined.

    Well, we were rather pleased that the businesses cared enough to leave it to us, the individuals and Parents (still sucks to be a kid) as to what is or is not appropriate for ourselves and our children.

    Except that, now, even according to the sponsor of the bill, this bill will be among other “pointless bills” that may pass, and, moreover, actually have one major loophole:

    To avoid problems with this bill, the businesses can just drop the policy altogether.

    And the Traitor John Bruce wants this law to go into effect so that other states can follow in its footsteps.

    Thanks Traitor John Bruce, you’ve just put your own desires, that of being able to sue businesses just so you can make a buck instead of getting a REAL job, you lazy bum, at the cost of potentially causing businesses to drop these policies.

    All because you want to do a jig and throw a little bragging time “Ha ha!  I got a bill passes!  Ha ha!” and maybe do another claim that the “porn industry” is trying to “mentally molest” kids with games like GTA or Bully.  Even at the cost of more kids being able to buy M rated games or R/NC-17 rated movies.

    This reminds me of how the Traitor John Bruce wanted to help a rapist (Richard Gorman) get off on a technicality because in some way, the technicality might lead him to get his license to practice law back. has a great many articles about the Utah bill.

    Also, for information about the sales of rated material to kids and the FTC’s secret shopper studies over the last few years, beginning in 2000, see .  You’ll notice that since 2000, many retailers have actually improved their compliance with their own policies when it came to video game sales and M rated games.  When it came to other material, such as movies, retailers were far less compliant with their own policies.  The Traitor John Bruce, of course, only pulls out reference to the last study and makes it sound like the end of the world.  But looking at all the studies since 2000 shows a far different story.

    Remember, the rating systems aren’t there as marketing tools or designed specifically for retailers to use.  They are their for individuals and Parents to use as resources to make intelligent, informed decisions.  Nor are they designed to be used as the sole resource.  They don’t need to be.  But as a resource, they do their job quite well.

    As always, there are many other sources to research and I always recommend you do thorough research, not just from my point of view or just the opposing side, but ALL possible resources.

    And  you minors remember to blow a kiss to the Traitor John Bruce.  When his bill passes, you can thank him deeply for encouraging businesses to remove their age limit policies.




    NW2K Software

    Nightwng2000 has also updated his MySpace page: Nightwng2000 is now admin to the group "Parents For Education, Not Legislation" on MySpace as

  32. 0
    nightwng2000 says:

    I’d rather see the senator’s copy.  At least then, we/d get the a more realistic copy.  The Traitor John Bruce is well known for telling only partial truths or just outright lying.  What you received probably isn’t the WHOLE Truth.


    NW2K Software

    Nightwng2000 has also updated his MySpace page: Nightwng2000 is now admin to the group "Parents For Education, Not Legislation" on MySpace as

  33. 0
    strathmeyer says:

    Don’t you guys get it? This is all part of Jack Thompson’s master plan. He’s made some genious moves in the past, so it’s clear that this has some deeper, more cerebral meaning. Could it be that they’re trying to get retailers to not advertise age restrictions? Then this would then be blamed on the producers of these age restriced games, leading to a much larger class action lawsuit?

  34. 0
    Shadow D. Darkman says:

    Really? He makes me laugh. I wish he’d come back already.


    "Game on, brothers and sisters." -Leet Gamer Jargon

  35. 0
    hellfire7885 says:

    I’m beginnign to think that’s exactly what Thompson wants. He wants the kiddies to get the game,s then go on homicidal rampages and for the blamefest t ocontinue so he can say he was right


  36. 0
    Baruch_S says:

    Well, it looks constitutionally sound. It’s also completely worthless and possibly counter-productive to keeping M-rated games away from minors, but at least it’s constitutionally sound.

  37. 0
    NovaBlack says:

    ” If it is successful, game retailers who advertise that they don’t sell M-rated games to underage buyers would be at risk if they did.”


    um so wont the easy option be to y’know.. just save the time and effort that is already spent on training staff to ID customers, and ensure games are not sold to those underage, which would get them fined by.. y’know.. NOT training staff to card, and NOT enforcing such a policy?

    meaning.. um.. no… carding…

    meaning game retailers, which currently have a massively successful rate at refusing service to underage customers, would actually just not bother, because it means they risk getting fined. And when politicians / thompson complain that these stores now sell to underage kids, the stores can turn around and say, ”yeah we totally did, but then for some insane reason you started fining us for doing a good job, and the only way to avoid the fine was to do a bad job, yeh, your an asshat”


  38. 0
    Inimical says:

    Aren’t retailers already liable if they sell a product to underage kids? This is just making them liable for selling product when they say they won’t. I have yet to see any store advertise that they don’t sell to underage people. It says that they ID, but really that’s all they would have to do even for this Bill. The fact that it’s Jack Thompson aside, it’s pretty useless and seems to just add more redundancy to the legal system.

  39. 0
    E. Zachary Knight says:

    I hope John Bruce relishes this "victory" He has successfully made it possible for retailers to drop their policy of carding for M rated games.

    I hope he realizes that is it unconstitutional to hold retailers accountable for past transgressions of this new law, because he will never see a successful application of this law if it gets passed.

    I do see that he avoided the "false first amendment" problems of other bills. But in doing so, he has done absolutely nothing to further his agenda.

    In effect, instead of testing the boundaries of constitutionality, he has completely gone the opposite direction.

    E. Zachary Knight
    Oklahoma City Chapter of the ECA

    E. Zachary Knight
    Divine Knight Gaming
    Oklahoma Game Development
    Rusty Outlook
    Random Tower
    My Patreon

  40. 0
    Shoehorn Oplenty says:

    It’s an insignificant addition to the current laws, and is made redundant by all stores which make promises by another insignificant addition to their words.

    Current promise: "We do not sell M rated games to underage kids."

    New promise which makes the law mean diddly-squat: "We TRY to ensure that M rated games are not purchased by underage kids"

    With this new promise, the store doesn’t lose any of the good intentions toward carding people, but gives them an escape clause.

    "Well shucks, we TRY our darndest, but sometimes a kid with a fake ID, or a kid who just looks older than his age slips through. We do our best for you guys, but nobody’s perfect."

    Have they broken their promise? No. They tried their best, and that is all the promise to do. They never promised to succeed 100%, only to make an effort to do so.

  41. 0
    sortableturnip says:

    That one line?   That is way too broad to be of any consequence…also video games are not being advertised that they are only being sold to a certain age group…the ratings are only there to educate parents about what is in the game…

    He is such a moron…

  42. 0
    JustChris says:

    Another bill meant to limit access to forms of entertainment, but written in a backwards manner which actually creates an unintended effect, or sometimes the OPPOSITE of what the bill intended to do…this sounds a lot like one section of the 1996 Telecom Act.


  43. 0
    Mirrikat says:

     This law would only affect Walmart, Bestbuy, EBGames ect… IT wouldnt’ effect the privately owned individual game trade/sell stores that are usually the ones that sell without caring about age.

    So once again this is a waste of time aimed at the wrong group of people.

    But it looks pretty sound, and I dont see anything in the constitution about preventing "False Advertisement"

  44. 0
    Rabidkeebler says:

    Lol that was what I was thinking.  All you have to do is not gurantee.  You can say you try, or that you have the highest success rate.  But as long as you don’t promess, then you aren’t giving out false advertising.


    Foaming at the mouth

  45. 0
    Chuma says:

    Theres a good reason for him not going for internet sales; despite all his bluster, he knows that the FTC and other bodies acknowledge that credit cards are a suitable means of testing for age and it would be rejected out of hand.

    Is it me or does this whole bill look like weak as hell?  All the retailers have to do is revoke the assurances of age testing and carry on as normal.  As long as they don’t advertise the fact that they challenge people under 17 then they could keep doing so.  Effectively all that this would do is remove the ability for walmart and others to claim that they do such things 100% of the time.

    Actually, if they advertised that "from time to time we will challenge you for proof of age" then that too would mean the law is unenforcable as you haven’t claimed to do it all the time.  The more I think about it, the more laughable this law actually is.

  46. 0
    Leet Gamer Jargon says:

    Is he still penning articles for Human Events? Cuz the last time I saw the site, there were a whole manner of articles, but none with his name on it. I tried looking through the archives, but it only showed the newest article. Anyone got the 411 on his situation regarding Human Events?


    Game on, brothers and sisters.

  47. 0
    Zerodash says:

    I’m amazed Jack has time for all this.  He is a busy man.

    Isn’t Jack supposed to be leading a shareholder revolt against Take Two?  Isn’t he busy destroying the Florida Bar?  Shutting down Kotaku?  Jailing Rumpole (sp?)?  Dismantling JAABlog?  Destroying Gamepolitics?  Filing a RICO suit against the ESA?   Suing EZK?  Writing for Human Events (been over a month)?  Disbarring Norm Kent?  Getting Dava Tunis removed from the bench?

  48. 0
    Father Time says:

    I think it’s still a draft.


    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.

  49. 0
    Redertainment says:

    I remember reading a report that Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff felt uncomfortable making a public comment about this bill because they kept on changing the language of it and he felt he was not getting a final copy.  Is the PDF that was linked here the final copy?

  50. 0
    Freyar says:

    Can we let Jack win a game of Wii Bowling? Maybe then he’ll stop sticking his nose in my State’s business.

    There is a limit for both politicians against video games, and video games against politicians.

  51. 0
    LujanD says:

    These lame attempts by Thompson sort of remind me of a Family Guy episode.




    Peter: “First, I will return Joe’s pool.”


    Joe: “Oh, you got that right!”


    Peter: “But in exchange, I demand access to it on alternate weekends.”


    Joe: “No.”


    Peter: “I also demand to remain my own independent nation.”


    Adam West: “Absolutely not.”


    Peter: “Well, then how about you just give me your pen?”


    Adam West: “You mean this cheap little pen we have millions of back at the office?”


    Peter: “Yeah.”


    Adam West: “No.”


    Peter: “Aww man, so after all of this I end up with nothing?




    He’s really getting desperate to win at least once after all this time…

  52. 0
    hellfire7885 says:

    Heh, all he wants with this latest piece of toilet paper is for the floodgates to open. And you know he’ll lead the charge, but the retaielrs won’t be sued, oh no, he’ll go for Take Two as he always does, even though as soon as the truck leaves the distribution plant their part is over.

  53. 0
    HarmlessBunny says:

    My god Jack… bulletproof my ass….this legislation is an utter piece of shit. I mean I have terrible bills pass, but this is ridiculously paper thin :)  Go back to law-school, you may need it!

  54. 0
    GTCv Deimos says:

    Is it just me, or is JT aiming lower? First he’s trying to take down shock jocks, senators, and corporations…

    and now… this? Oh well… with his track record, he needs a victory… no matter how small and insignificant.

Leave a Reply