Florida judge puts 'Bully' in detention

A Florida judge has ordered the maker of Grand Theft Auto to hand over an unreleased videogame set in a high school, a move that raises questions about the legal protections that games enjoy.

The judge is being asked to grant a partial injunction against sales of the forthcoming Take-Two Interactive Software game, called Bully and set at a fictional private school named Bullworth Academy. Bully is scheduled for release in the US on Tuesday, and on 27 October in the UK, where it has been renamed Canis Canem Edit, the Latin motto of Bullworth (meaning 'Dog Eat Dog').

Ever since a landmark US Supreme Court decision in 1931, the law has said that injunctions placed on material before publication run afoul of constitutional protections of freedom of speech. In a subsequent 1971 ruling, for instance, the justices warned that such an injunction "constitutes an impermissible restraint on First Amendment rights".

But in the Florida lawsuit, an anti-videogame attorney named Jack Thompson is asking for precisely that. He filed a motion on Wednesday asking the court "to grant some relief to stop the witless, crass release of this game in five days."

First Amendment scholars are alarmed at Thompson's request, especially since Miami-Dade County Circuit Court Judge Ronald Friedman has decided to review the game to see how violent it is instead of dismissing the request out of hand.

"If it's not on the market yet, I find it hard to imagine a basis for the pre-publication review of the game," said Robert Corn-Revere, a partner at law firm Davis Wright Tremaine in Washington DC who has argued before the US Supreme Court.

Thompson's lawsuit likens Bully to a "murder simulator", alleging it will teach minors about methods of bullying and school violence. He asks the court to declare the game a "public nuisance".

That echoes the arguments the Supreme Court heard in the 1931 Near vs Minnesota case, in which the justices invalidated a state law (and injunction) regulating "scandalous" news articles as a public nuisance, Corn-Revere said.

"To extend that argument to speech is saying that the speech offends you," he said. "That's not a valid regulation under the First Amendment."

Is Bully even violent?
Take-Two declined to comment. But its Web page for Bully says that players will be able to "stand up to bullies, get picked on by teachers, play pranks, win or lose the girl, and ultimately learn to navigate the obstacles of the worst school around, Bullworth Academy -- a corrupt and crumbling prep school with an uptight facade." (The game will be available for the Sony PlayStation 2 console; the Microsoft Xbox version was cancelled.)

Thompson could not be reached for comment on Thursday. But his legal filings argue that courts should assume the worst of Bully -- which is being published by Take-Two's Rockstar Games subsidiary -- because of the flap over Rockstar's Grand Theft Auto games. In July, the Federal Trade Commission and Take-Two came to a settlement over an investigation of inappropriate sexual content in Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas.

That history, coupled with Take-Two's description of its game, already caused the Miami-Dade School District to pass a resolution condemning Bully, and led Labour MP Keith Vaz to suggest that it be banned. This controversy led to the game's name being changed in the UK to Canis Canem Edit, although it is still widely referred to as Bully.

Some reviewers who were given early copies of Bully, however, have concluded it does the opposite of glorify violence. A preview on Wired News says, "It turns out the game doesn't glorify bullying at all." Instead, the preview says, the player's missions involve defending the helpless.

David Greene, director of the First Amendment Project, likened the current flap, over an unreleased videogame that critics have not even seen, to film review boards. Decades ago, many state laws made it a criminal offence to show a motion picture that had not been submitted to a board for its review.

The Supreme Court struck down those requirements in a 1965 case called Freedman vs Maryland. Maryland's film board "fails to provide adequate safeguards against undue inhibition of protected expression, and this renders the requirement of prior submission of films to the board an invalid previous restraint," the justices concluded.

"It does really hearken back to that," Greene said.

In the current view of the First Amendment's protections, Greene said, "you let the speech out there, and if it causes harm, you then decide whether you can restrict the speech or someone can be compensated for injury. What the First Amendment urges us to avoid is this idea of... saying that something can only be distributed with approval."