Steal This Title
Wednesday, June 01, 2005
The Internet: Part 2
Is the free expression supplied by the internet being suppressed by outer world values and jurisdictions?
Two examples are brought to my mind that seem to raise issues concerning the development of the internal cyber world. They are as follows: the cyber rape that took place within a virtual neighbourhood, and the banning of specific websites on the basis of national jurisdiciton.
Firstly, cyber rape. Let me say on record that I personally do not condone rape in any fashion whatsoever. Consensual activities are a much better way to go, and lets face it - more fun! Anyways, for anyone who is not aware of this event i will quickly fill in an outline. In a cyber gathering, virtual chatroom, where participants have avatars in which they are representative of their respective selves (or perhaps they are new selves completely), these persons gather and relate to one another more or less in the same fashion that people are accustomed to within physical reality. Well on one fateful day, the exact date eludes me now ( i should go and find a website that has information on this..get back to you on that one), an avatar experienced cyber rape, where another avatar forced sexual activies upon a non-consenting avatar; the 'real' person sitting in front of a computer used overiding computing commands within the framework of the cyber society to enact the rape.
- Right surely you have the idea now yes? -
OK OK. Well the issue brought up here is that immediately the victim of the rape set about suing, pressing legal charges against, the felon within the 'real' world. Now here is what i find really wrong. The internet has so evolved, and is considered by such users aforementioned, to be a world in and unto itself with its own sovereignty. In some unique epochs of the internet there are defined constitutions, laws, and in principle police like avatars. How is it that such a case of cyber rape be judged in another world? Let's take a step back here. Within the United States of America different States have different laws, and that a crime committed in one state may be common practice in another. On a larger scale, the earth consists of sovereign nations all of which have their own civil liberties, laws, and forms of governing power. On this planet most people respect the sovereignty of nations and allow the laws and rights of the respective citizens to be carried out as status qou. (let us for the sake of argument deem anyone who invades another sovereign nation as exactly that - an agressor/invader). So an action that takes place in no discernable location that has an immediate location within the physical realm falls under no jurisdiction at all within any soveriegn nation. It just so happens that the two people involved within the aforementioned example resides in the USA; and this actually _in the real world_ goes into the local courts of the victim's state. However, in a hypothetical, these two people where physically located in two separate nations. Would such a case be carried into an international courts tribunal, or would the criminal be expedited for his/her crime(s)? The questions sems to hint at rather absurd answers. In all seriousness the criminal was not the person behind the computer but rather the avatar within the cyber-universe - this is where the crime was committed, and evidently where the legal jurisdiction lies. In what ways are individual freedoms protected within the cyber world, and what is the jurisdiction of the 'real world'?
In the second instance of outside world forces having a controlling influence upon the cyber-universe is that of censorship. Let's not be coy about this and limit the argument merely to such "Undemocratic" and "Inequal" Nation States such as China and the Middle East. For Example to is a criminal offence to view and/or host National Socialist German Worker's Party (NAZI/NSDAP0 related material within the land borders of France. One can empathise with the situation and understand the logic that is used in the justification for such censorship. Nevertheless this banning of information, regardless of people's senses, does not make clear and reaonable sense. The onus for the use and distribution of appropriate materials and information should ultimately be held within the responsibility of the autonomous individual citizen. That is to say that the individual is held responsible for his actions, independant from a blanket order/jurisdiction, in whichever world the individual intends to participate. The freedom to obtain knowledge and understanding is one that can be easily argued for and understood as a basic human necessity. This is not to say that one should support the NAZI party per se, but it is reasonable to wish for the ability to learn and understand as much about NAZI politics as it is to understand democratic processes. It seems in this scenario that the Police State nature of NAZI politics is being used in a democratic method in order to ban the dispersion of information of the aforementioned subject. A comical irony within the situation itself - something most western citizens would relate to countries such as Chine for their image of being a repressive Police State with blanket all-binding laws, which appear to be undemocratic and contradictory to the expansion of open minds and open resources.
The internet, in its unique position has the ability to circumvent the sustained power structures that have a firm grip on the subject reality in which the human form was born. The dissolution of tangible barriers, language, and forms of negative discrimination allow the users of the internet to interact and participate within a society that not only is self sustaining but also self perpetuating and forever absorbing new and more immediate ideas, concepts, infrastructure, experiences, technology and social values. In the long term, with the destruction of reality bound metaphor and discriminate language, the space that is known as the internet will evolve well beyond our currently existing 'real' world societies and will continue to evolve at such a rate that future generations may know nothing but the freedom of cyberspace. ¶ 6:31 pm 3 Comments
Two examples are brought to my mind that seem to raise issues concerning the development of the internal cyber world. They are as follows: the cyber rape that took place within a virtual neighbourhood, and the banning of specific websites on the basis of national jurisdiciton.
Firstly, cyber rape. Let me say on record that I personally do not condone rape in any fashion whatsoever. Consensual activities are a much better way to go, and lets face it - more fun! Anyways, for anyone who is not aware of this event i will quickly fill in an outline. In a cyber gathering, virtual chatroom, where participants have avatars in which they are representative of their respective selves (or perhaps they are new selves completely), these persons gather and relate to one another more or less in the same fashion that people are accustomed to within physical reality. Well on one fateful day, the exact date eludes me now ( i should go and find a website that has information on this..get back to you on that one), an avatar experienced cyber rape, where another avatar forced sexual activies upon a non-consenting avatar; the 'real' person sitting in front of a computer used overiding computing commands within the framework of the cyber society to enact the rape.
- Right surely you have the idea now yes? -
OK OK. Well the issue brought up here is that immediately the victim of the rape set about suing, pressing legal charges against, the felon within the 'real' world. Now here is what i find really wrong. The internet has so evolved, and is considered by such users aforementioned, to be a world in and unto itself with its own sovereignty. In some unique epochs of the internet there are defined constitutions, laws, and in principle police like avatars. How is it that such a case of cyber rape be judged in another world? Let's take a step back here. Within the United States of America different States have different laws, and that a crime committed in one state may be common practice in another. On a larger scale, the earth consists of sovereign nations all of which have their own civil liberties, laws, and forms of governing power. On this planet most people respect the sovereignty of nations and allow the laws and rights of the respective citizens to be carried out as status qou. (let us for the sake of argument deem anyone who invades another sovereign nation as exactly that - an agressor/invader). So an action that takes place in no discernable location that has an immediate location within the physical realm falls under no jurisdiction at all within any soveriegn nation. It just so happens that the two people involved within the aforementioned example resides in the USA; and this actually _in the real world_ goes into the local courts of the victim's state. However, in a hypothetical, these two people where physically located in two separate nations. Would such a case be carried into an international courts tribunal, or would the criminal be expedited for his/her crime(s)? The questions sems to hint at rather absurd answers. In all seriousness the criminal was not the person behind the computer but rather the avatar within the cyber-universe - this is where the crime was committed, and evidently where the legal jurisdiction lies. In what ways are individual freedoms protected within the cyber world, and what is the jurisdiction of the 'real world'?
In the second instance of outside world forces having a controlling influence upon the cyber-universe is that of censorship. Let's not be coy about this and limit the argument merely to such "Undemocratic" and "Inequal" Nation States such as China and the Middle East. For Example to is a criminal offence to view and/or host National Socialist German Worker's Party (NAZI/NSDAP0 related material within the land borders of France. One can empathise with the situation and understand the logic that is used in the justification for such censorship. Nevertheless this banning of information, regardless of people's senses, does not make clear and reaonable sense. The onus for the use and distribution of appropriate materials and information should ultimately be held within the responsibility of the autonomous individual citizen. That is to say that the individual is held responsible for his actions, independant from a blanket order/jurisdiction, in whichever world the individual intends to participate. The freedom to obtain knowledge and understanding is one that can be easily argued for and understood as a basic human necessity. This is not to say that one should support the NAZI party per se, but it is reasonable to wish for the ability to learn and understand as much about NAZI politics as it is to understand democratic processes. It seems in this scenario that the Police State nature of NAZI politics is being used in a democratic method in order to ban the dispersion of information of the aforementioned subject. A comical irony within the situation itself - something most western citizens would relate to countries such as Chine for their image of being a repressive Police State with blanket all-binding laws, which appear to be undemocratic and contradictory to the expansion of open minds and open resources.
The internet, in its unique position has the ability to circumvent the sustained power structures that have a firm grip on the subject reality in which the human form was born. The dissolution of tangible barriers, language, and forms of negative discrimination allow the users of the internet to interact and participate within a society that not only is self sustaining but also self perpetuating and forever absorbing new and more immediate ideas, concepts, infrastructure, experiences, technology and social values. In the long term, with the destruction of reality bound metaphor and discriminate language, the space that is known as the internet will evolve well beyond our currently existing 'real' world societies and will continue to evolve at such a rate that future generations may know nothing but the freedom of cyberspace. ¶ 6:31 pm 3 Comments