Blurred Distinctions

Yesterday afternoon I stumbled into a conversation that forced me to think harder about the issues presented in "A Rape in Cyberspace", not as abstract, distanced phenomena but as legitimate questions of responsibility and perversion that penetrate even to levels of Internet and media usage that are becoming near-universal. I grew up in a household where video games were strictly prohibited, a situation that for me was never very problematic; I found plenty to occupy me otherwise, and I had a legitimate excuse for coming in last at every social gathering where games like "Halo" were the main event. While I enjoyed myself, I always maintained a little bit of skepticism for some of the more indulgent uses of the medium. Yesterday, a friend was discussing her experiences playing Grand Theft Auto for the first time while home for Thanksgiving, and I took the opportunity to jokingly chide her for enjoying such a fantastically violent game. "Come on," she said in retort, "it's perfectly fine to kill people in a video game! Everyone knows it isn't real." "A Rape in Cyberspace" still fresh in my mind, I wanted to ask how she would feel about a video game involving rape instead of murder. If you know it's not real, is it still okay? Is one crime less socially acceptable or more disturbing to imagine than the other? While I didn't say these things, I can imagine she would have, like me and I hope, most people I know, been averse to such a game - it just doesn't seem right. Yet it is undeniable that in today's gaming medium, games where killing the opponent(s) is the central goal make up a large percentage of the output. It seems that society has, at least in terms of gaming, loosened the taboo on socially sanctioned electronic depravity in a very specific way limited exclusively to the act of taking a life.

Of course, the world of a game is not necessarily equivalent to a world such as that of LamdaMOO in every way; in their embracing of the Internet and networking in ways gaming has just begun to explore, networks such as Lambda fundamentally imply a much more passionate personal investment. You don't play your avatar, you are your avatar; the objects of your interaction are not computer generated, but real people. But similar questions emerge: is this space one where it is acceptable to act out fantasies inappropriate for the "real" world, or is it a place real in its own right, where your actions resonate just as they would in the physical world? Are disturbing digital romps such as that of Mr_Bungle actually a boon to physical society, as some have argued, allowing sociopaths to excise their cruel tendencies in a space where tangible harm is minimized, or does accepting this sort of behavior online create a dangerous precedent? If people can become so invested into these virtual worlds as to experience powerful emotions related to their interactions there, we must remember the blurring of boundaries can be just as easily turned in the other direction. Yet in condemning the use of Internet space as an outlet for depravity, we must take a hard look at ourselves as well. Who among us has not once taken pride in a bloody video-game victory or something comparable, seemingly safe within the realm of imagination and unreality? It's certain the act of killing in a video game is not comparable to Mr_Bungle's voodoo doll crimes in LambdaMOO, but the question of why is much less clear, and should give us pause.

The strict rules in the community of LambdaMOO established after the events described in "A Rape in Cyberspace" will ensure behavior of this type is punished in the future, much as law does in the physical space of a nation. But if we agree that virtual depravity towards others is wrong, would we even be able to prevent it in the larger public space of the Internet in general? What Mr_Bungle did, when stripped of all emotion, involved typing in a series of commands and sentences. Were these acts attributed to his avatar and others truly actions, or do they merely constitute speech, protected under our Constitution and those of other nations? It seems that given the reality of the LambdaMOO world to its devoted users, and the genuine shock and horror at these sentences Mr_Bungle created, they are actions with legitimate consequences, and should ideally be treated as such. The distinction between speech and action in a space as blurry as the Internet, though, is one that may prove difficult to define in the coming years; what is certain is that it will be an issue for both theorists and lawmakers, of the digital and physical varieties alike.