Tuesday, May 25, 2004 | 10:52 a.m.
The Hard Rock Hotel, with the help of civil libertarians, is trying to turn its advertising troubles with gaming regulators into a First Amendment fight.
The First Amendment does come into play here. But the state's ability to enforce gaming regulations also is at stake, which is why Gaming Control Board member Bobby Siller said Monday he isn't backing away from his push to punish the Hard Rock.
Last week the Nevada Gaming Commission, which oversees the Control Board, rejected an agreement between the board and the Hard Rock aimed at settling a complaint the board brought against the resort over its edgy advertising campaign.
The Gaming Commission had too many questions about how the agreement would affect future efforts to monitor the resort's advertising. And so now the Hard Rock either has to strike another agreement with the Control Board that is more to the commission's liking or go up against Siller and the attorney general's office at a July 29 public hearing on the allegations in the complaint.
One newspaper ad cited in the complaint satirically backed the heavy use of "prescription stimulants" at the resort, and another suggested in a light-hearted way that "there's always the temptation to cheat" at gambling there. The Hard Rock already has admitted it crossed the line in both ads.
But to Siller, the most significant aspect of the complaint is the allegation that the Hard Rock failed to abide by a 2002 agreement with the board to settle allegations of sexual misconduct at the hotel, which caters to young adults. In that agreement the Hard Rock promised to run future questionable advertising through an in-house compliance committee.
It broke that promise, which is something that strikes at the heart of the board's regulatory authority.
That is why this fight is more than a company's freedom to advertise. This is about the rule of law in Nevada, which is recognized as the model for gaming enforcement around the world.
"It's my position that a lack of following those procedures as outlined in the (2002) stipulation led to the second complaint," Siller said.
In that context it is not surprising to hear that Siller has vowed to seek action against the Hard Rock's license -- limit, suspend or revoke it -- if it runs afoul of gaming regulations a third time.
His critics, mostly Hard Rock allies in the casino industry, have been quick to accuse him of being biased against the Hard Rock.
A more reasoned view, however, would conclude that Siller simply is doing his job as the guardian of the gate.
He's a law enforcement official, after all. When he sees wrongdoing, or the potential for wrongdoing, he's supposed to take steps to correct it -- or at least speak his mind.
"I was clearly articulating my position that continuous violations of regulations should be looked at beyond a fine," Siller said. "I look at the evidence and the facts and do my best to try to do the right thing."
Siller believes he would be derelict in his duties if he didn't put the Hard Rock on notice that, in a privileged industry, the rules are there to be followed.
As Siller asked: "At what point do they get the message?"
archive
