When Mr. Bungle first initiated his despicable sexual violation of female avatars on LambdaMoo, little did he know that he would be the catalyst to discourse regarding the boundary between cyber life and real life; at the outset of his cyber rape was the creation of the @boot function (to kick lowlifes off of the server) and a voting system, centered around the implementation of what users specifically wanted to see on LambdaMoo.
The LambdaMoo cyber rape, the first 'rape' in cyber space, has become a hallmark of Internet and new media studies, as it was something wildly offensive and never-before-seen on the world wide web. A decade or so later, and cyber rape and cyber-bullying are now mainstream issues to be dealt with by students of Internet governance; with one of the most recent and tragic events being the suicide of Amanda Todd, compelled by relentless cyber-bullying.
What compels a human being to act in such an anti-social manner? The fault lies with both the tool and the user; the Internet affords us the ability to act as anonymous actors, and the latent, or repressed, fantasies of mankind are allowed space to breathe, develop, and experiment. Academic Martha C Nussbaum states that "the internet is a self-enclosed, self-nourishing world that is remarkably resistant to the reality outside." However, there is a spill-over effect; when media posted online has a real-world consequence (as seen in the suicide of Amanda Todd).
Levmore argues that the Internet is a far less regulated place than any other institution, and that whilst we can physically remove denigrating media in the real world, such items can be hosted online indefinitely. Levmore also argues for the reformation of section 230 of the United States Code, where such reformation would allow content hosts to take down any material deemed inappropriate. However, this then is in tension with the free speech argument of the Internet, that the Internet has been, and should always be, a forum for unfettered expression.
This leads us to the inherent tension on the Internet; the struggle between what it represents and what it allows. If we are to use the Internet as a forum for free speech, ought not all speech be permitted? Who is to judge what is permissible or not, and by what stick would they measure suitability? Who has jurisdiction to prosecute offenders and ought we to create more fora of non-anonymous communication?
The spillover effect of media posted online ( this can be real life details such as home addresses, phone numbers, education details) must not be left out of consideration when lawmakers get around to amending legislature, but the degree to which the offender is penalized might stir up a storm of debate on the very nature and purpose of the internet (as seen when the DMCA is debated).
The LambdaMoo cyber rape, the first 'rape' in cyber space, has become a hallmark of Internet and new media studies, as it was something wildly offensive and never-before-seen on the world wide web. A decade or so later, and cyber rape and cyber-bullying are now mainstream issues to be dealt with by students of Internet governance; with one of the most recent and tragic events being the suicide of Amanda Todd, compelled by relentless cyber-bullying.
What compels a human being to act in such an anti-social manner? The fault lies with both the tool and the user; the Internet affords us the ability to act as anonymous actors, and the latent, or repressed, fantasies of mankind are allowed space to breathe, develop, and experiment. Academic Martha C Nussbaum states that "the internet is a self-enclosed, self-nourishing world that is remarkably resistant to the reality outside." However, there is a spill-over effect; when media posted online has a real-world consequence (as seen in the suicide of Amanda Todd).
Levmore argues that the Internet is a far less regulated place than any other institution, and that whilst we can physically remove denigrating media in the real world, such items can be hosted online indefinitely. Levmore also argues for the reformation of section 230 of the United States Code, where such reformation would allow content hosts to take down any material deemed inappropriate. However, this then is in tension with the free speech argument of the Internet, that the Internet has been, and should always be, a forum for unfettered expression.
This leads us to the inherent tension on the Internet; the struggle between what it represents and what it allows. If we are to use the Internet as a forum for free speech, ought not all speech be permitted? Who is to judge what is permissible or not, and by what stick would they measure suitability? Who has jurisdiction to prosecute offenders and ought we to create more fora of non-anonymous communication?
The spillover effect of media posted online ( this can be real life details such as home addresses, phone numbers, education details) must not be left out of consideration when lawmakers get around to amending legislature, but the degree to which the offender is penalized might stir up a storm of debate on the very nature and purpose of the internet (as seen when the DMCA is debated).
No comments:
Post a Comment