Putting Jack back in his box
UPDATE . . . (How could it be over?)In what we had hoped was the final edition of the Legislature's Crazy Game Law series, Rep. Mike Morley (heads up high, Springville voters!) apologized to fellow Legislators for unleashing Jack Thompson upon them.
Thompson is the anti-violent video game crusader who, at the invitation of Eagle Forum President Gayle Ruzicka, wrote a bill that was pre-approved by Lt. Gov. Gary Herbert and carried by Morley. The Legislature passed it with little debate — what's not to like about a bill that monkeys with advertising law and probably violates freedom of speech protections?
The governor vetoed the bill, triggering the inevitable and spectacular tantrum from Thompson who was disbarred in Florida for similar antics there. Thompson demanded his puppets override the governor's veto. To make sure they were paying attention to his emails, he attached animated videos of strippers lifted from Grand Theft Auto IV (used without permission, no doubt).
That was a step too far. Senate President Mike Waddoups, after closely scrutinizing the couch-dancing sequences, threatened legal action against Thompson. Now, Morley, who was little more than Ruzicka and Thompson's pathetic tool through the whole mess, is apologizing:
I want to make it clear that I had no previous knowledge of his intention to send the images, and I apologize to each of you who received his e-mail and were offended as I was. Mr. Thompson is a national advocate for this cause, but he doesn't speak for me nor do I condone or appreciate his actions nor some of his tactics.UPDATE: GamePolitics reports that Thompson is unrepentant and sent yet another email to Utah's lawmakers.
I understand that Mike Morley apologized to you all for the shocking image I sent you of two women in bikinis in a strip club. Sorry, Utahns, but you can see that on a beach. To see more explicit material as to what is in the GTA IV game, you had to click on the two links I provided, and that was your choice. I warned you what you would see if you chose to do so.
Mike Morley's apology is ridiculous. I didn't scandalous [sic] anyone with an image of two clad women. What is really going on here is that I upset the Republican club that runs Utah, and those in that club are seizing upon this harmless image as a ruse to scold the outsider who unfortunately showed that some in Utah aren't serious about protecting children. Your Governor isn't serious, and we sure as heck know your AG [Mark Shurtleff] is not. Heck, he takes money from the video game industry to say how well the ratings are working... Incredible.
The only apology that is owed is by each of you for not insisting upon an override session [of Gov. Huntsman's HB 353 veto]... Your family values stance is a sham.
7 Comments:
Glen your comment about this law violating free speech is not based on law. Commercial speech is not held, by the Supreme Court at least, in the same regard as political speech. This law would more than stand up to a legal test.
Now, that being said, is it a good law? In another form, possibly.
Is Thompson an idiot? Seems that way.
This is a bit off the subject, but why is it that the leaders of the Eagle Forum in the various states are mostly women?
This is not a comment on the competence of women, but just a question. Is there something about the Eagle Forum's mission or message that makes them more appealing to women? Follow the link and see for yourself: http://www.eagleforum.org/misc/states/states.html
There are plenty of men behind the Eagle Forum. But like most men who cling to their patriarchal power, they are more than happy to have women do the work for them. That way they accomplish their goals while--big surprise--women do their dirty work in politics and the world in general for free.
It is because of the wacko Phyllis Schafly, Anonymous #2.
This post has been removed by the author.
What is really going on here is that I upset the Republican club that runs Utah, and those in that club are seizing upon this harmless image as a ruse to scold the outsider who unfortunately showed that some in Utah aren't serious about protecting children.
Really Mr. Thompson, if the image is harmless, then why do we need to protect our children from it.
"Pre-Approved by Lt.Gov. Herbert" ????? Since when? Since WHEN did Jack Thompson get "pre-approval" by Gary Herbert to introduce 'his bill?'
Where do you get this from, Glen? Seriously. This is the 4th or 5th time that you've attributed the Lt.Gov.'s name to this bill without ever sourcing it.
Is it because your "source" is Mr. Thompson? Come on, man - try to have at least SOME journalistic integrity on this issue.
Post a Comment
<< Home