Democracy in Peril

By Steve Sebelius

HARD ROCK VS. SILLER: Public reaction to the state Gaming Control Board's case against the Hard Rock doesn't give the few First Amendment absolutists among us much cause for hope. Mostly, it goes like this: Why defend the rights of those billboard smut-peddlers?

Why indeed.

Many people don't realize that the Hard Rock's billboards--as well as a couple of ads placed in the Las Vegas Weekly--don't even approach the legal definition of obscenity. The only charge is they might violate gaming industry regulations.

But that's also a moot point: As Allen Lichtenstein and Gary Peck of the American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada point out, truthful advertising of a legal business cannot be curtailed, even by regulators of a privileged license, such as the Gaming Control Board.

In a stand-up court fight, the Hard Rock would undoubtedly win. So why not fight? It's called losing by winning: Why create problems with the folks who can cause you problems down the road?

And that is what is at the heart of this case. A Hard Rock attorney said as much when he told the Gaming Commission he was trying to buy his peace with the Control Board through a $300,000 fine and a settlement. That agreement was ultimately rejected, and the commission will now hold a full hearing on the case.

That hearing should demonstrate that what the Hard Rock has really done is get on the bad side of Gaming Control Board member Bobby Siller, the former special agent in charge of the Las Vegas FBI office. Siller refused to sign the settlement, telling Las Vegas Sun columnist Jeff German that he has no respect for Hard Rock President Kevin Kelley, who made things difficult in negotiations.

There you have it, folks: Contempt of cop.

It's not just us wild-eyed liberals who see things that way, either. After a Siller letter was read into the commission's record, a letter that promised "discipline" against the Hard Rock's gaming license with any further "violations," Gaming Commissioner Augie Gurrola said he found the line threatening. And that's just how Siller meant it. It's not the first run-in between Siller and the Hard Rock. He was the commissioner who pushed for fines after he alleged there was inappropriate sexual activity going on inside the hotel's dance club, among other problems. A 2002 settlement in that case carried a $100,000 fine.

Some say Siller is no different from a judge who warns a probationer that another violation will land him in jail. But the truth is, he's more like a prison guard, intent on using his authority to punish a rebellious prisoner who has flouted his authority. If the other inmates see that, they might stand up and fight, too. And then we'd have ourselves a riot.

So, using the power of the Gaming Control Board, Siller and his fellow board members will try to force the issue, hoping other casinos decide it's better to buy their peace than fight The Man. Here's hoping they're wrong.