Slashdot Mirror
Examining Virtual Crimes
GamePolitics has an article about a research paper issued by the AU government's Institute of Criminology titled "Crime Risks of Three-Dimensional Virtual Environments." The paper discusses the legal questions raised by game worlds and avatars, ranging from regulation of in-game currency to a report of virtual rape.
"A person controlling an avatar that is unexpectedly raped or assaulted might experience the physical reaction of 'freezing,' or the associated shock, distrust and loss of confidence in using [3D virtual environments]. While civil redress for psychological harm is conceivable, the 'disembodied' character of such an incident would invariably bar liability for any crime against the person. However, Australian federal criminal law imposes a maximum penalty of three years imprisonment for using an internet carriage service to 'menace, harass or cause offence' to another user. Further, US and Australian laws ban simulated or actual depictions of child abuse and pornography. Therefore, any representations of child avatars involved in virtual sexual activity, torture or physical abuse are prohibited, regardless of whether the real-world user is an adult or child."
Tea Bagging in a FPS could get u 3 years?
I find it dumb, immature, and annoying, but like most times someone says "There ought to be a law", there ought not to be.
What game engine supports rape? World of Sex Crimes? Everrape?
So I guess GTA (from original on up) should cause you to have to do time for grand theft of an automobile, drug dealing and cop killing? Absolute balderdash.
"There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)
Really? Every time I think we have rock bottom with the sheer scope of fucking mentally challenged concepts in government, they continue to amaze me with how much deeper than can go.
Reminds me of Eddie Murphy in the Golden Child when he flips a coin down into the darkness. "Hey! They're ain't no ground here".
It's fucking virtual with real world consequences.
Well then I want to prosecute those douchebag lawmakers. They virtually "blew my mind" on the Internet. Where's my commercial saying I got a 1 million dollars?
Can you show me on this doll where he said that he was touching your avatar?
In other news properties in the game of monopoly are to be rent controlled.
Infractions shall be a matter for civil court and anyone who actually does manage to build a monopoly shall be subject to unfair trading practices legislation.
I agree - and it's an insult to people who have experience such horrific crimes.
A virtual crime is a crime that happens in a virtual envirnoment - e.g., fraud. Things like harrassment can also constitute crimes, but the crime is still harrassment, and not "rape". This is nothing new - did people refer to dodgy phone callers as "virtual rapists"?
A depiction of a crime is not a virtual crime. By that logic, films show "virtual murders", and when they media report on crimes, they should also be guilty of committing virtual crimes. It is depressing to see the media and politicians conflate depictions of crimes (which should be legal), with crimes that occur in a virtual environment (which is what "virtual crime" implies).
And when the media report on virtual crimes, I guess they must be guilty of a virtual virtual crime...
If I was a politician I'd do the exact opposite, and work to eliminate bad laws and then brag about it: "Good news! The law that would have arrested you for kissing a black person (or vice-versa white person) no longer exists. I killed it." Or: "You can put $100 more in your bank account this year. The War of 1898 tax has finally been repealed." Or: "You no longer need fear being arrested because you grow a natural plant in your backyard. The marijuana prohibition has been lifted, although it will still be regulated as a drug. Next step: Amend the Constitution to give the Tenth Amendment some teeth, so the States can enforce it."
Basically I'd be like Thomas Jefferson. (Or in modern terms: Ron Paul.)
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
What about murder or theft?
Well, virtual currency is considered equal to real currency in South Korea, and a man was arrested for virtual robbery in Britain. A Dutch Court punished a couple of teenage thieves as well. If I dug deeper I'm sure I could find more stories.
On a WoW server, a group of mates and myself played highwaymen. One of us would be a scantily clad Dranei, and the others would be hidden near by. Stand and deliver! d:
Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
Uh, not quite. See Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. 234 (2002).
Yes, quite. See "PROTECT Act" (2003): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PROTECT_Act_of_2003 The short version is obscenity can, as always, be prosecuted, and the PROTECT Act remedied the missing element in CPPA, which was the law struck down in Ashcroft, thus once again allowing the prosecution of virtual child pornography found to be obscene.
ABSURDITY, n.: A statement or belief manifestly inconsistent with one's own opinion.
That's what I meant by "not quite." The law they passed afterward contains the "lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value" phrase oft found in obscenity laws, which makes it almost impossible to prosecute someone.
Liberty in your lifetime