Without reading all the statements (so this seems a bit redundant) this seems like it's business as usual for the players involved. Basically it seems like the same insanity except reversing the wording. Rather than basing things in terms of being "harmful to minors" it exists to use equally broad strokes to what constitutes "adult content". This would in effect override most of the existing laws because it would empower people, irregardless of rating to file lawsuits for false advertising to any game that they want to claim has something too adult in it, without any specific standards being specified. Allowing for totally seperate standards to spin off from this law through precedent, contrary to what is already in existance as rating.
So basically if he passed this, some dude could go out and buy say a "T" rated game with some pretty subtantial violence, probably some T&A and innuendo, and perhaps a bit of general political/social commentary of whatever sort, claim that labeling this game as for "Teens" is wrong due to all that adult content. Taken before local and state courts in places like Utah victories could in theory be won on such grounds to form a body of precedent to advance on more entrenched standards.
Basically, for all comments about him, he IS smart enough to realize that he doesn't have a leg to stand on, and he is trying to get something vague enough for him to work with established somewhere, so he can try and build from that base.
I'm not saying this will work, or even could work if he succeeded, but I think it's pretty clear what he's trying to do. It's a bit more than reaffirming existing laws, it seems to be all about inserting specific wording into law that would open a potential for him to act again with a veneer of legitimacy.
