Jack Thompson–Down, But Not Quite Out

Posted by Liz Surette on February 4, 2009

Alright, I guess I was wrong when I said Jack Thompson can no longer do any substantial damage. I didn’t anticipate anyone like state legislator Mike Morley (Utah) would still buy into Thompson’s repeatedly failing agenda of trying to destroy the video game industry. GamePolitics reports that Morley will sponsor a video game sales restriction bill written by Thompson, however details regarding the exact language are not yet available.

Thompson himself says:  ”Here’s the bill in Utah: 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(1)”.

Granted, this is not his usual blanket prohibition on selling violent video games to minors. I’ll admit this is a fresh direction for him to take–it seems he’s finally learned that you can only attempt to arbitrarily restrict constitutionally protected speech so many times. If this quote is any indication, the issues will involve false advertising and whether the proposed regulation of commercial speech is permissible. Misleading commercial speech (which would admittedly include advertising a store policy not to sell to minors when the store does not have or enforce such) may be easily regulated, as the government must only show that the regulation advances an important government purpose, and that there is no less restrictive alternative.

Truthfully, it is best if merchants adhere to their own stated policies–that much Thompson and I agree on. Despite the invidious intent behind most if not all of his game industry-related actions, this bill appears at first glance to be a feasible addition to the Truth In Advertising Act should the state legislature find that it serves the Act’s articulated purpose of preventing “deceptive, misleading, and false advertising practices and forms”(2). There’s also the possibility of quibbling about the definition of “adutl-rated” because Thompson usually targets the 17+ “M” rating.

Keep in mind that until the actual language of the bill is published, this is speculation.

1. U.C.A. 1953 section 13-11a-1 through section 13-11a-5 This Utah state statute resembles many other states’ prohibitions on false or misleading advertising. The Act enumerates a list of practices that are considered deceptive trade practices, with most provisions focusing on pricing or quality of goods and services.
2. U.C.A. 1953 section 12-11a-1

Update: Corrected misidentification of the sponsoring legislator as Gayle Ruzicka. The legislator is actually Rep. Mike Morley. Ruzicka is the head of the ultra-conservative Utah Eagle Forum, and is apparently the lobbyist responsible for persuading Morley to introduce Thompson’s bill. Thanks Dennis McCauley for the heads up. -Ed.

Popularity: 6% [?]