Louisiana Senate to Consider Jack Thompson Video Game Bill Today

The Louisiana Senate will apparently discuss a Jack Thompson-authored video game bill in a hearing scheduled for later this morning.

The Senate Committee on Commerce, Consumer Protection and International Affairs has SB 152 on its agenda for today.

The measure was proposed by Sen. A.G. Crowe (R) and is similar to the Thompson bill which recently passed the Utah legislature before being vetoed by Gov. Jon Huntsman. Like the Utah bill, SB 152 would hold companies that advertise age restrictions on products guilty of a deceptive trade practice if the product is then sold to someone underage.

While video games are not specified in the measure, they were clearly Thompson’s intended target in crafting the legislation.

A review of SB 152 indicates that it goes a step beyond the Utah bill by also holding retailers guilty of a deceptive trade practice for selling a product labeled with an age restriction (for instance, an M-rated game) to someone underage. This section seems to be very close to the type of content-based sales restriction which federal courts have consistently found unconstitutional.

In addition, the bill requires retailers to check the I.D. of buyers and to post signage indicating that I.D. will be checked.

GamePolitics has left messages for Sen. Crowe to inquire about the bill. So far, he has not returned our calls. We asked Thompson last night whether he would be testifying on behalf of SB 152 today. He told us it was uncertain whether the hearing would go forward today. However, we reached a staffer in Crowe’s office this morning who told us the hearing would take place.

UPDATE: The committe is webcasting its hearing now. Click here for the committee list. Click on the TV icon to the right of the Committee on Commerce, Consumer Protection and International Affairs to watch the hearing. The committe is now discussing SB 29. As I write this the Thompson bill is fifth in line for consideration.

UPDATE 2: We had to wait until the very end of the committee hearing to learn that Sen. Crowe has deferred the SB 152 hearing until next week. Join us then…

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


  1. Shadow D. Darkman says:

    Holy shit! Deja vu!


    "The sun will always rise tomorrow. We can only live for today, and hope more days will come." -Unknown

  2. Shadow D. Darkman says:

    Maybe http://www.godhatesjackthompson.com to parody Fred Phelps’ hatred of things that conflict with his religious beliefs.

    Just a thought.


    "The sun will always rise tomorrow. We can only live for today, and hope more days will come." -Unknown

  3. Adamas Draconis says:

    heh at least he won’t try it here in Alabama after that judge kicked him off. If he does I see a trip to Montgomery in the future….

    Hunting the shadows of the troubled dreams.

  4. TBoneTony says:

    Another bill that would pass on lies and slander about the content in Videogames,

    another bill to get the support from politicians and family groups,

    another bill that would get challenged

    another bill that would be deemed unconstitutional

    another epic fail for Jack

    another senario of people’s heads exploding on talk-back radio shows that the baby boomer generation have to deal with

    another mess that the Videogame industry does not really want or need at a time of global resession

    another few politicians that would lose votes from people who play Videogames from Gen X and Gen Y gamers.

    another couple of politicians who can’t understand the real point of the 1st Admendment.

    And overall, another bill that would cost US tax payers hundereds and thousands of dollars. And it is all one man’s fault.


  5. hellfire7885 says:

    Only way he’d find out is he’d be having his little stake-outs all over the state, trolling for violations.

  6. GoodRobotUs says:

    The thing is, that cannot be applied through force of law, it’s using a third party system, the ESRB as a legally enforceable rating.

    Most stores do uphold their own selling policies a lot of the time, yes, mistakes are made, and you get bad apples, there are Politicians who have been known to be alcoholic, does this mean we should pass a law that any Politician who is found to be drunk at any stage of their life should lose their job? George Bush wouldn’t have got far for a start.

    That’s the danger, it stereotypes all retailers as equal to the worst of them, typical behaviour for Thompson, he’s been taking that blinkered attitude with just about anything that opposes him, and yet somehow manages to actually adopt the very traits he claims to hate so much, insults, threats, spamming, sending porn via Email, all the very things he berates gamers for doing to him are things that he specialises in doing to other people.

    Make the policy force of law and, with a voluntary system such as the ESRB, which, despite Thompsons’ repeated claims to the contrary, can be opted out of, in this financial climate, which do you think most corporate entities would choose?

    Personally, I think it would have been quite amusing if the law HAD been passed in Utah, simply to watch retailers drop out of the system with Thompson running round flailing his arms shouting ‘But you can’t, you’re not allowed! I SAID SO!!’ and then have to explain to the legislature how he’s completely screwed the rating system in Utah. It would have been hilarious!

  7. cmpLtNOOb says:

    I have a question about all these bills that Thompson or anyone else tries to pass.

    What would be the constitutional issues with a bill that simply:

    -requires all retailers to check IDs for products that are rated-R or M in all cases, and then

    -fines them or requires them to deal with it at the employee level if they are found to have not abided by the bill, so that they stop just not caring about checking and know it will affect them?

    All the other bills we keep seeing have these other things that make them not right and we complain, but what about one that simply holds the retailers to following their own policies about ID checking. 

  8. Rodrigo Ybáñez García says:

    Somebody can start an anti-Jack Thompson campaing with a webpage or a simple blog and send newsletters to the goverment.

    It could be like:





    But seriously, somebody needs to "blow the whistle" about this douche…



    The cynical side of videogames (spanish only): http://thelostlevel.blogspot.com/ My DeviantArt Page (aka DeviantCensorship): http://www.darkknightstrikes.deviantart.com/

  9. hellfire7885 says:

    That 91k = Homes that won’t be built for families that need it, cours,e Thompson doesn’t care as he has a home to go back to.

  10. JDKJ says:

    When will it dawn on Jack-O that the ESRB’s rating scheme is purely voluntary? Oh, sometime in the year Two-Thousand-and-Never, I’d imagine. 

  11. gamegod25 says:

    Politicians just never learn, do they? This bill will get struck down like all the others have, and will only waste time and money that could have been spent on things that would actually help this country.

    As a wise old Observer once said, to constantly repeat the same action and expect a variant reaction is surely a sign of madness.

  12. E. Zachary Knight says:

    It all depends. Do you want your game on one of the major consoles? Do you want your game sold in brick and mortar stores? If you answered yes to either of those questions, it becomes a requirement due to their policies. Stores will not sell games that do not have a rating (which is a bit hypocritical considering they have no problem selling movies that do not have ratings) and the major consoles will not license your game without a rating.

    Other than feel free to release as many unrated games for the PC through digital distribution as you want.

    E. Zachary Knight
    Oklahoma City Chapter of the ECA

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

  13. E. Zachary Knight says:

    Don’t worry about studies. Just focus on court precedent. Get the judges ruling from the last LA bill and other rulings from around the country. Also get some dirt from the Utah fiasco.

    Studies can be twisted to suit their needs, but court precedence is a hard thing to twist.

    E. Zachary Knight
    Oklahoma City Chapter of the ECA

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

  14. hellfire7885 says:

    I’m surprised THompson said it was uncertain, he’s usually more confident than that, while adding in that lives are at stake if his law doesn’t pass

  15. Icehawk says:

    Um Zippy my friend might I submit that you are living in lala land again.  When did Goverment and reality ever have much to do with each other?  

    It is not reality we are dealing with here but jackies ability to prey on fears (save the kiddies).  To paint a horrid target that effects said politicos on a personal level (most have families) then giving them a target to relieve their fears, games. 

    Guess you could say that jackie has become a fair to good lobbyist, if only against a games and the idea therein. 

  16. GoodRobotUs says:

    When will it sink through Thompsons’ incredibly dense skull that ESRB ratings are voluntary advisory values, not compulsory safety advice? They are designed to advise the parents on the suitability of the game compared to the age of their child, not warn them of danger should the product be used by someone younger than the recommended age.

    It’s always amusing to watch Thompson flail around like a demented seagull with a bloodlust, but it never ceases to amaze me how ignorant politicians who ‘supposedly’ have their finger on the pulse of public opinion, continually fail to realise just how much of a smoke and mirrors merchant Thompson is, despite him being proved as such only a few weeks prior. As Zippy states, makes you wonder whether they really have the faintest clue regarding reality and are seriously behind step when it comes to keeping tabs on the company they choose to keep.

    You would have thought with recent incidents of politicians getting into trouble for being associated with dodgy or discredited individuals, that they would have learned their lesson by now, instead, Crowe stands a chance of simply pouring more taxpayer money down the drain when the taxpayers themselves have precious little to spare. Not the wisest political choice to make in this day and age.

  17. HarmlessBunny says:

    I really hope they do their homework as well, EZK.

    Though said I don’t believe too many of them do. Utah obviously did not and perhaps only now they wished they really did.

    Yeah looking at this new ‘bill’ it is a full on attack on the 1st Ammendment (I am Canadian and that is pretty much clear as day :P). I’m surprised Jack actually has a willing sponsor. Especially after the last disaster bill he tried to launch during the Katrina days.

    Thankfully Utah is in fresh memory and some word of what had occured there may filter down and help strike this law dead. Otherwise I have a feeling this is going to be a rinse and repeat scenario, complete with Jack name calling and provoking his ‘opponents’ on this bill (ah who am I kidding…he’ll do that regardless).

    My faith in politicians in general will be renewed if they actually take the time and review this bill and the man who authored it.

  18. MartyB says:

     This is where parents come in…  but I guess that would also abolish the stores voluntary ID checks and it becomes a free for all.   It would become all or nothing, instead of the middle ground we’re standing on today. 

  19. DarkSaber says:

    Problem is, try definng ‘mature’ without the arbitrary age slapped on it. Some people are mature for their age at 15, some are never mature.


    I LIKE the fence. I get 2 groups to laugh at then.

  20. stinky42 says:

    Huzzah then.  Anything particular people think I should mention while there?  I’ll probably use my resources as a psychology grad student to read through the relevant studies.  Anybody remember who conducted the various studies that are always cited to support these laws?  It makes it a lot easier to find the full text on PsycInfo if I have that.

  21. ZippyDSMlee says:

    Just how long dose it take for the real world to hit goverment?

    The man has been discredited and yet they are listening to him…


    I am a criminal because I purchase media,I am a criminal because I use media, I am a criminal because I chose to own media..We shall remain criminals until Corporate stay’s outside our bedrooms..


  22. MartyB says:

     Does games really NEED to get an ESRB rating, or they’re adding it voluntarly.

    If ratings are getting too much trouble, i could see them droping it, or why not just modify the descriptions to excludes the age, just keep the M for Mature or E for everyone etc, but not include the age group.  that way they can’t say it’s for 18+, since it’s for mature ppl.

    the Law would be worthless, well in games anyways. since they’re no age restrictions.

  23. Coach says:

    I thought this was unconstitutional anyway as if gives a non-governmental group (the ESRB) domain over what what would be a legally binding restriction.  Is that not true?  How can they think ESRB ratings could be legally binding?

  24. hellfire7885 says:

    Well, since Thompson didn’t lose his home to a hurricane, and diverting tax money from helping other people get their homes back deson’t effect him personally, he doesn’t have a problem with it. Odd since when a hurricane was possibly going to ravage his home he demanded GP report it.


    And what is there to even consider here? That the bill came from a crakcpot who essentially wasted over 100k trying to get a state to join his moral crusade?

  25. gamadaya says:

    There needs to be a Jack Thompson awareness campaign. Seriously, are we just going to have this guy hop from state to state with this bill?


    Believe in something! Even if it’s wrong, believe in it! -Glenn Beck

  26. magic_taco says:

    Heard what happened, Im hoping the louisiana senate learned from their past mistake over thier last bill involving JT (But i think not), Veto it and declare it unworthy, Even though i dont live in that state, It’s likely we may have to fight the bill, Since hearing this and concerning katrina survivors, This is a waste…When people who lost their homes, their livelyhood and such need the money more than this piece of toliet paper.

    Consider JT will never learn from his mistake (and glad he wont), This bill was just as worthless as HB353 (Thank god huntsman did the right thing.).

    But far as im concerned…Are we still going to plan to fight this bill head on like ESA/MPAA and ERSB did for HB353

    Cause were (Or me) not even sure if this bill passes the senate majority vote.



  27. BearDogg-X says:

    It’s Senate.


    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)

  28. Alex says:

    If he came here (I live in SC) I’m not sure if I would bash my head against my desk or cheer at the inevitable entertainment.

    Probably both.

    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.

  29. chadachada321 says:

    House or Senate though?

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

  30. yjaved says:

    You should be able to.   On the Louisiana Legislature website, I went to the "How do I?" section, and it explains that past house videos can be accessed at this link.


    Look for the month of May in 2009, and look for a video by Commerce, Consumer Protection, and International Affairs

    The video of the hearing should posted up in a few hours.

  31. stinky42 says:

    I wish I’d heard about this earlier so I could get out there.  If they don’t get to the bill today I’ll definitely head over when they resume considering it.  I’m guessing my main argument against it will be that they are wasting the taxpayers’ money on a bill that is so obviously unconstitutional.  Then again most of them probably already know that.

  32. kit_mythie says:

    The fat man jokes ran rampant during consideration of SB 299 (I caught something about treadmills and the Fat Man Obesity Union or some such).  I almost wonder if they’re stalling on considering SB 152.

  33. zel says:

    ya I can’t get audio or video to work either, i wanted some comedic relief during my lunch, ohh well 😛


    I am a signature virus, please copy and paste me into your signature to help me propagate.

  34. kit_mythie says:

    They’re finishing up with SB 299 (Healthy Foods Act)…and they moved on to SB 211.

    Oh boy. I thought I heard someone say "SB 152" while they were playing musical chairs.

  35. jccalhoun says:

    Jacko is running out of states.  They need not only be conservative but they also need to be his kind of religous moral-police kind of conservative.  I can think of places like Montana or Nebraska that seem pretty conservative but they seem more libertarian to me.  Perhaps South Carolina?




  36. Icehawk says:

    After he fails in Lousiana I wonder where he will head next.  Should not be that hard to pin down really, just find the next republician (conservative) controlled state.  jackie and his (control freak) bills do not go over very well with liberals or those in their right mind. 

    Still I am sure the little train that (almost) could named jackie has not been stopped yet.  Pity.  

  37. sortableturnip says:

    Can’t get in on audio or video, keeps giving me an unable to locate server error… 🙁

  38. black manta says:

    Between what happened in Utah and what happened in LA earlier, and considering that it’s even more blatant in its First Amendment violations than Jack’s last bill, expect this one to get shot down in flames.

  39. E. Zachary Knight says:

    I said it before and I will say it again:

    Utah was an example of John Bruce trying to skirt the First Ammendment. This bill is John Bruce attacking it head on.

    I really hope that these guys have not forgotten the spanking they received over their last bill or the 9 Federal Court Precendent setting rulings on similar legislation, nor Utah’s recent dealing.

    I really hope that these guys do their research and can it now.

    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. mdo7 says:


    Once again, Jack is totally repeating his failure.  Time for all the anti-censorship and game biz to protest this bill.  When will Jack learn they can’t pass the bill because of something called "the 1st amendment" and also something called "studies that prove video game are not the cause of school shooting" 





  41. Wraith108 says:

    Just don’t chase him over here when he’s done. Keith Vaz is quite enough thanks.

  42. Ambiguous says:

    They’re pretty good about hiding behind things, and using grenades to flush you out of hiding yourself.  Also, if they have a rocket launcher better be dang careful, they lines those shots up pretty quickly and accurately.  Ridiculously easy to die from one of those.

  43. GoodRobotUs says:

    I’m not even certain you can enforce a recommendation under law, seems a complete contradiction to me, it’s like saying that not eating food according to the serving suggestion could be punishable by law, or not going to church should be punishable by law, a recommendation is not a command, it is advice, and advice is to be taken or left, if someone starts using law to enforce recommendations then that is the first step on an extremely slippery slope, next thing you know, any little thing that government would ‘like’ you to do would become open to the same kind of reasoning.

    The most dangerous words in the English language are ‘For your own good’, because they assume that the person doing the dictating has more knowledge of what is ‘good’ for everyone than the person being dictated to. Thompson has that kind of arrogance, we all know that, I’m a 37-year old, married man, I don’t need some burnt-out has-been disgraced lawyer dictating to me what I can and cannot have in my house.

    Thompson’s made his true goal obvious on several occasions, even going so far as to write to Obama and try to co-erce him to ban ALL games, he threatened to do the same thing in Utah, so there can be little doubting where Thompson’s real goals are, I don’t know whether he is too monumentally stupid to realise what is wrong with his law, or too monumentally stupid to realise that everyone can see what he’s trying to do with the wording, just trying to decide whether the choice of words is deliberate or accidental.

    Ah well, I suppose in the end it all adds up to Monumentally Stupid…

  44. Mattie says:

    I’ll keep that in mind. Is the AI as difficult in the second one like they were in the 1st? I like a challenge!

  45. JustChris says:

    Since ESRB ratings are suggestions rather than restrictions, then that means the burden of responsibility goes back to the retailers who use the ratings to back their business policy of disallowing sales of certain games to certain age groups. And unlike ESRB ratings, policies are usually enforced, not suggested. So the bill seems to have the same old effect again, despite an attempt to divert the responsibility to different groups.


  46. Monte says:

    If i recall, that Photo comes from Jack’s LAST attempt to pass legislation through lousianna… sitting next to him was the senetor (Ray burrel? or something like that) who was the sponser that time. He was put under the belief that flash games like "border control" must be resticted, which showed how horribly uniformed he was as he did not know that as a non-mainstream online flash game, no legislation would get rid of it…

    Jack told his usual lies, The bill passed with no problem, got signed into law, was challenged in court, Things start to look bleak, Jack acts like a twat to the people on his side for not doing things his way, then claims he is withholding "evidence" because he was being made the center of attention, Bill fails, and Jack blames everyone else for it’s failure…

  47. Icehawk says:

    jackie and crew did a pretty good job of trying to close any loopholes that were in HB353. 

    The problem is that in trying to close such holes this bill steps aawwwaayyy past the point of being constituational. 

    btw where did the picture come from for this article.  I have not seen it before I am pretty sure that is the same GTA he has been trying to use a hammer.. I find myself wondering just how fond of it he has gotten.  Did he buy a case of them?

  48. Mattie says:

    Retailers don’t do what Jack is alleging. I’m 20 years old and bought FEAR 2 last night and I got carded.

  49. Monte says:

    Ya my bad, seems the bill does say restrictions OR recommendations…


    Though still… the utah bill was possibly passable but really rather toothless, while his new bill is just blatantly unconstitutional

  50. chadachada321 says:

    Oh wow. So this law is 100% toothless. Shit. We don’t even need to fight it, because your last point makes the entire law worthless.

    EDIT: Cancel that, looked at the below comments


    I’d still fight it because I believe all unconstitutional law should be rid of, and we should figure out some way to hold legislators liable for wasting tax dollars passing something that is knowingly and blatantly unconstitutional and is done to try and make themselves look better.

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

  51. Monte says:

    Ya, the law they tried to pass in Utah was actually pretty close to being constitutional in my opinion… it basically said "if you advertise your policy, then it’s deceptive practice not to follow that policy" which does sound like the gist of "truth in advertising"… grant it, the law still had it’s problems, but it had some potential to pass… however one of the problems with the law as far as game regulation goes was the fact that the law was rather toothless due to the fact that all retailers needed to do was NOT advertise their age restriction policy… if they ever mentioned such a policy all they would need to do is be vague about it like saying "we TRY not to avoid selling M-rated games to minors" or "we do our best not to sell these games to minors"… by being vague they can say they never promised not to sell the games to minors… not to mention another potential problem is that i think "truth in advertising" relies a lot on intent; if you intended to decieve the consumer then it’s false advertising, but if you did not have the intent and it was more like a mistake or accident, then it’s not considered false…


    Jack however wanted the bill to have some teeth to it and in doing so has set himself up for a fall in court. I mean looking at some of the pieces people are quoting it does not look like a retailer even needs to advertise the policy anymore… the bill says out right that it would be "deceptive practise to sell age restricted games to minors"… and even if that wasn’t in there, parts of the bill seem to say "if you advertise that you have a ‘no sell age restricted games to minors’ policy then you MUST follow it… oh and ALL retailers must advertise that they have such a policy"… Essentially, they are forcing the retailers to advertise their policy and then saying that it would be illegal for them not to follow it… it’s like somekind of legal trap set up in a sad attempt to get around consititutional law

    Hell, when fighting the law, one of the things i would point out is that the ESRB ratings are defined as age RECOMMENDATIONS and not age RESTRICTIONS… and thus they should not even fall under this law as it is worded

    Really, all in all, Jack ruined any potential his bill had and crafted yet another bill that will get torn apart by the courts. As Yahtzee might put it, Jack took "one step to the side, and one step back into a ditch full of used surgical equipment."

  52. Vake Xeacons says:

    So this one is more than just a "Truth In Advertising" law.

    It hold retailers accountable for false advertising (like saying "No M’s to Kids" then turn around and do it).

    Then it says even if they don’t advertise the policy, they can still get in trouble for selling a game to someone underage.

    That goes for T, E+10, and even E (6+) rated games. If Gamestop sells and E+10 game to a nine-year-old, they’re in trouble.

  53. GoodRobotUs says:

    True, but the Halo 3 thing was just an attention grabber, it was making headlines and he wasn’t, that must have really stuck in his craw….

  54. Mysticgamer says:

    Are you kidding? I check this site everyday just to see what danger Jackman gets himself into and how he’ll make it even worse!

  55. zel says:

    Bwaaaahaahhahahaha, man i’ve never found politics so fascinating 😛 how about you guys?


    I am a signature virus, please copy and paste me into your signature to help me propagate.

  56. GoodRobotUs says:

    They would probably find common ground over Homosexuality though, both have the attitude of an SS-Officer with regards to things that are ‘different’.

  57. Mattie says:

    They’re both intolerant idiots who don’t listen to anyone opinions but thwir own. Not like they’d actually talk about anything.

  58. chadachada321 says:

    JT did look at gay porn (to send it to the county judge)…so to Phelps JT would be a sinner…

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

  59. Shadow D. Darkman says:

    If Jack goes to Kansas, I want to see him debate Fred Phelps.

    Phelps makes Jack look tame, though according to a guy I know, who will only be addressed under the name "Titan Kougen", Jack IS tame. Anyone wanna call bullshit? I warn you, Titan, age 15 or so, is a critic of GP, and probably won’t care about what you guys say about him.


    "The sun will always rise tomorrow. We can only live for today, and hope more days will come." -Unknown

  60. Alevan says:

    Not a problem. I’m just getting tired of ignoring this person who is obviously taking advantage of the system and people’s fears. I can’t do much but if I can tell the right people, who can then get others to say NO to Jack Thompson then it is all I can do. There isn’t much one person can do, but I’ve never felt so passionate about speaking up against this guy.

    … and I don’t have a fax machine so I’m safe! (had to say it)

    Amy Levandoski

  61. Sukasa says:

    The problem is that when you get down to it, poliitcans and those who work for them(assistants, etc) don’t do enough research.  All Jack has to do is lay down the "family" or "it’s for the children" cards, and instantly gets a poliitican interested who is going for re-election and trying to get the "family" vote.  They don’t look to see what Jack’s record is or the really psychotic stuff he has done.  Even if the bill fails, they can show the "family" voters that the politican was trying to look after them.  Which is why I don’t care much for either Repub. or Dems.  Both want big goverment, its just different versions of it.  Personally, if you don’t live in the state or have some store/business there, you should have little say in getting a bill passed in said state.  You can come to be a witness to give "advice" on the stand, and you should be able to challenge said witness to the claims he/she makes. 

    Something I don’t understand is the majority of all M plus games, etc that get in kids hands are bought by the parents.  So, age restrictions/checks aren’t going to mean much, especially if by the way Jack is writing some of these crazy laws will apply to everything.  I work retail part time, and I can imagine the horror of pretty much having to card everyone in the store.  "I’m sorry sir, I know you look years older then that "teen" rated item, but I still have to card you."  Lets face it most pre 15 and 16 year olds aren’t going to be walking around with state issued ID cards.  I know I didnt until I was 17.  So even if Jack gets his crazy laws to pass Constitutionally, it pretty much wont change anything.  Even if kids(pre 16) are getting M games, how are they getting the money? I can understand if a 16-17 year old, who has a part time job, has some extra spending money and drives over to a store.  However, if a 10 yr old came up to me with a 365 positions for every day, I would likely be asking where his parents are lol.

  62. Monte says:

    Ya not sure why he hasn’t tried to pass legislation in floridia… part of it could be ihs little "the flordia bar is out to get me" conspiracy… though that didn’t stop him from trying to get rid of Bully. It is possible that Jacks antics have become loud enough that their is not a state sentor in florida willing to sponser anything he writes… though that’s a bit of a long shot as politicians seem to be blind to Jack’s antics… seriously, with the way Jack acted in Lousiana last time, i figured he had burned his bridges.

    Another possiblty that sorta goes along similar lines of the floridia bar conspiracy is that Jack hates liberals and "activist" judges and thus actually recognizes that he might have trouble getting the law passed in Florida as it is a swing state… as such he goes to more religious conservative red states where he thinks the people would be more willing to pass his bill… use those states to create a precedent and then move on to other states using the previous state as "evidence" of it’s consitutionality in order to shut up the "activists" judges

  63. Zerodash says:

    He tried to get Bully and Halo 3 banned in Florida as public nuciances (sp?). His immature behavior over the Bully case was a big part of his permanent disbarment. 

    His reputation amongst the legal community in Florida is such a joke that any laws he might attempt to push through would be ignored.

  64. cppcrusader says:

    He was involved in attempts down here in one way or another, but I can’t remember if any of his actual authored bills were attempted here or not.  The main reason he has to go out of state to do this is the fact that his antics that lead to his disbarment stepped on too many toes and destroyed any of his political clout.

  65. tony selby says:

    Does anybody else find it hilarious that he attempts to get these laws passed in every state except for the one he calls home, please correct me if I’m wrong, but he’s never attempted to get a legislation passed in Florida has he?

  66. chadachada321 says:

    *Phew* good thing I read the comments posted before I started a three-page reply to this. Lol.

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

  67. Defenestrator says:

    Because it gives a voluntary ratings system (which the MPAA and ESRB are) the force of law, which is unconstitutional under the 5th and 14th Amendments.

    Because courts have already ruled that people under the age of 18 can not be restricted from content (not inclusive of "obscene" content under Miller v. California) found objectionable.  Yes, people under 18 have First Amendment rights.

    Because they can’t demonstrate actual harm from all of those "scientific studies" that Jack keeps inventing.  You can’t restrict speech without "imminent harm" being proved under the First Amendment.

    Because compelled speech also violates the First Amendment.

    And also because it would unfairly restrict a person without proper ID from buying a game like Monopoly, which has an age recommendation on it.  (Not a violation of the Constitution, per se, but is just retarded.)


  68. dan888 says:

    "A. It shall be an unfair or deceptive trade practice for any retail business to sell or distribute any goods or services which are labeled with an age restriction or recommendation on the packaging to any person who is under the restricted or recommended age."


    I do not see how this would not be unconstitutional, unlike Utah, where it was if they advertise they don’t, then they are responsible.  However, in this case, they are responsible for enforcing private age ratings regardless of if they advertise they do or not.  As worded it would probably apply to MPAA age guidelines in theaters as well, since they are services from a retail establishment for recommended ages, and it doesn’t have any "parents can overrule" such rule.  This would also apply to T-rated games for under 13, not just M rated games (and also PG13 rated movies).  There are many other unintended consiquences with how this is worded, and it is a good deal worse then his Utah proposal.

    EZK: Edited to add the not in "not unconstitutional as a clarification made by dan888 further down.

  69. dan888 says:

    This law says that, I would never though.  As said above, I forgot a single word (the word ‘NOT’) in my first statement.

  70. MartyB says:

    What’s wrong with ppl, why do they keep going to Thompson for legal advice and write bills, when he got disbared.  If i were a lawyer or politian, I would treat disbarred attoneys as lepers… 

    I just don’t get it

  71. DeepThorn says:

    Seconded, I am curious on how this will go.

    "SB 152 would hold companies that advertise age restrictions on products guilty of a deceptive trade practice if the product is then sold to someone underage."

    I am guessing with the above quote Thompson is aiming at the developers/publishers, but they have no control over who actually buys the game, the retailers do.  So all in all, the developers/publishers are free to do what they want, because they are not responsible for the retailers actions.

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

  72. sortableturnip says:

    This should be interesting…Is there anyone in the area that could go watch the proceedings?


  73. dan888 says:

    Damn, I made a huge mistake, I forgot a word


    "I do not see how this would be unconstitutional"


    I meant to say I do not see how this would NOT be unconstitutional.

  74. 1AgainstTheWorld says:

    That is awesome, Amy.  Thanks for the effort, and thank your friend too.  Hope it helps.  Yeah, going as low as he possibly can is pretty much Jack’s modus operandi.

  75. Alevan says:

    I hope my friend’s efforts, Garnet, weren’t in vain. When I heard GP report this I had told her about it since, few days before, she told us how JT got a bill passed during the troubling times of Katrina and no one knew of it since people were too busy saving lives. She’s despised him for taking advantage of the people in Louisiana, and how one of her friends were needlessly effected over said bill.

    When I told her, she got right on the phone. With her job, she knows a lot of people who were fed up with JT. They did a letter writing/phone campaign about Jack Thompson and how they do not want him writing any more laws into their state… oh, and what kind of person he is. Hopefully, they listened but chances are, they probably didn’t.

    I’m keeping my fingers crossed that they do not give this bill the light of day.

    Amy Levandoski

  76. cppcrusader says:

    I’m surprised they even let this bill get this far.  You’d think that the politicians would remember the fact that had to pay a hefty legal bill shortly after Katrina because of his last bill he got pushed through there and that this one wouldn’t even be able to get a sponsor.

    No, wait.  You know I’m more surprised by?  The fact that so many states are willing to waste time on legislation being pushed by someone that isn’t even a resident of that state.

  77. Keith K says:

    Sigh… Do they never learn? How many black marks does a lawyer need before they’re just too slimey even for a lawyer?

    47 more states and Canada is in trouble.

Comments are closed.