"Machiavelli": the video game
Question: What do Rep. Mike Morley, the Eagle Forum's Gayle Ruzicka and Lt. Gov. Gary Herbert have in common?Answer: They are in cahoots with a disbarred Florida lawyer to pass a law regulating violent video games.
Morely, who represents Spanish Fork, has introduced HB353 that would allow stores to be sued if they sold adult video games to kids after advertising they have a policy to check ages. Although bills to regulate violent video games have failed in the Legislature before because of Freedom of Speech concerns, Morley's bill is so innocuous (and probably ineffective) that it might pass.
But the interesting part is the backstory of how the bill was created. Dennis McCauley, editor of GamePolitics.com interviewed Morley about the bill. I encourage you to read the transcript of the interview here.
Until late in McCauley's blog item, you think Morley might have had something to do with writing his bill. But when McCauley asks how much input anti-video game zealot and disbarred attorney Jack Thompson, above, had to do with in the legislation, Morely says Thompson was not deeply involved.
When Thompson learns Morley isn't giving him due credit, he threatens McCauley with libel and forces Morley into another interview. Morley promptly gives Thompson credit, telling McCauley:
In speaking with Gayle Ruzicka from Eagle Forum, she indicated that Jack has been involved in the concept and involved in meeting with the Lt. Governor, has been here to Utah. I was not in Utah when he came, but he met with the Lt. Governor, met with some of the legislative staff. And at least the concept of what we’re working on apparently originated with him.The Attorney General, of course, would vet such legislation, but what would Lt. Gov. (and as-yet unannounced gubernatorial candidate) Gary Herbert have to do with video game regulation?
Of course, AG Mark Shurtleff has shown little enthusiasm for Thompson and his video violence bills in the past, leading Thompson to call for Shurtleff's impeachment.
5 Comments:
So THAT's what a washed up, disbarred, lawyer does. He comes to Utah to try to peddle his snake oil.
Despite the claims that this will only impact games, it doesn't say that in the proposed law. It could be used against the people with the "We Card" notices up, since they are advertising they card anyone under 27, and then used against them if they sell alcohol or tobacco without carding at 27.
it's also meant to apply equally to rated R movies and music with explicit lyrics. My opinion is that retailers should basically let the legislature hang themselves by stating they will no longer guarantee the age of anyone because it opens them to too much liability. Keep in mind, according to the bill if you card someone and they give you a fake ID you are still on the hook if the parents decide to sue.
I'm not so sure, Elsimer. Unless the version of the bill I read was written after your comment, the Truth In Advertising Act that the HB 353 is amending says:
"A person does not commit deceptive trade practices under Subsection (1)(u) if : ... (B) the buyer intentionally misrepresented the buyer's age to the person at the time good or service was provided."
one of the amendments that makes the bill even more toothless than it was actually. With all the amendments, the only problem I have with the bill is that lawmakers are misrepresenting it by saying it will only apply to video games. Well, that and wasting time with this crap but I'm beginning to think the less the legislature screws up the better.
Post a Comment
<< Home