Pete-

The more I discuss this the more I'm tempted to give the local branch of the ACLU a call and see what they think of the fact that Gaming regularly rejects chips simply because they object to the content. Honestly, I think the closest case on point is Kingsley vs Regents, in which New York law reqired that a commission review and approve all motion pictures before they could be released. They refused to approve "Lady' Chatterly's Lover" because it encouraged immorality. The Supreme Court ruled that they did not have the right to do so.

This seems to be the same thing -- a state agency that refuses to allow artistic expression, within a business context, among other reasons because they find it morally questionable. I just don't see it holding up.

The only arguable state interest that is served by this regualtion is to preserve the image of the gaming industry. As you know, that's the same reasons bar associations once prohibited lawers advertising on television, and the Supreme COurt ruled they couldn't enforce such a prohibition.