CONTINUED:
Florida judge puts 'Bully' in detention

Struck down
Other courts that have recently considered state and municipal restrictions on videogames have taken a dim view of those restrictive laws.

Probably the most influential opinion was written by libertarian-leaning judge Richard Posner of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, which struck down an Indianapolis law restricting minors' access to arcade games that might appeal to a "morbid" interest in violence.

"The common sense reaction to the Indianapolis ordinance could be overcome by social scientific evidence, but has not been," Posner wrote in 2001. "The ordinance curtails freedom of expression significantly and, on this record, without any offsetting justification."

Since then, other courts have struck down related anti-gaming laws by adopting similar logic: unless social science research can prove the games are actually harmful, the First Amendment's freedom of expression wins.

Missouri's St. Louis County enacted a law prohibiting anyone from selling, renting or making available "graphically violent" videogames to minors without a parent's or guardian's consent. But the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that "before the county may constitutionally restrict the speech at issue here, the county must come forward with empirical support for its belief that 'violent' videogames cause psychological harm to minors."

And in 2004, federal district judge in Washington state tossed out a law penalising the distribution of games to minors in which harm may come to a "public law enforcement officer". The state of the research did not justify the ban, US District Judge Robert Lasnik ruled.

As for Bully, US retailers Wal-Mart and GameStop have also been named as defendants in the Florida lawsuit, filed in the 11th judicial circuit. A ruling regarding an injunction to halt sales of Bully is expected at any time.