Found this article through PHX Corp's post on the shoutbox. Though it was interesting.
[URL=http://gameinformer.com/blogs/members/b/ejronin_blog1/archive/2010/07/15/a-whole-in-the-argument-what-jeff-green-is-missing.aspx#addcomment]
What Jeff Green is Missing (or, Potentially Legally Affected Citizen Calls EA's Jeff Green a Hypocrite Too)[/URL]

I hate to sound like a devil's advocate, but Shawn Gordon's article does make a convincing point that this bill may not result in the disastrous scenario of a chilling effect that we fear it will; that it won't stifle creativity and would only serve as a check against potentially unethical business practices.

I would however, point out a couple of errors. First, regardless of his statements to the contrary, this bill would still give a voluntary ratings system the force of law. Second, he mentions that Jack Thompson tried to legislate against games on the basis of content. That's not entirely true. He has also championed legislation similar to that of California's. Hell, on his recent radio interview he openly supported it. Gordon's argument that video games are exempt from First Amendment protection is not that much different than JT's, when JT was in LA, held up a copy of GTA San Andreas and said, "This is not art. This is a device." I tired to comment, but it seems that the comments have been disabled. Still, anyone else have their thoughts on this.