Virtual Legality — Food for Thought
Not to long ago Daniel Linden posted the “Keeping Second Life Safe Together” which set off a howl through out Second Life. My heart was gladdened at the volume of those shouting foul. Many blogs carried posts referencing and commenting on the meaning of Daniel’s post, and many Second Life residents rose up to unite together to get Linden Lab’s attention.
Yesterday I found a comment on one of my several posts — which I started to answer, but decided to bring the whole thought out as a new post. A plea, if you will, to you the readers.
Government is an institution that guarantees that rights are enforced and legally demandable. Its sovereignty dependent on it’s territory (region marked off for administrative or other purposes) or jurisdiction (area within which power can be exercised) .
Let us examine that word sovereignty — it is used as a noun– (a derivative of the word sovereign — {the ancient Greek concept for Sovereign is Basileus (original meaning was chieftain) The first known usage of Basileus is found on the baked clay tablets which date back to the 15th century BC} definition: A nation’s ruler or head of state usually by hereditary right) which makes sovereignty’s definition: Royal authority; the dominion of a monarch.
Today sovereignty is accepted as: the exclusive right to exercise supreme political (e.g. legislative, judicial, and/or executive) authority over a geographic region, group of people, or oneself. A sovereign is the supreme lawmaking authority, subject to no other. wikipedia
It has been suggested to me that cyber-worlds crosses these boundaries by merging such territories. I disagree. I do not believe that territory (region marked off for administrative or other purposes) or jurisdiction (area within which power can be exercised) should overlap. I believe that “the powers that be” would like it to be overlapped because they do not want changes to their power structure.
If the idea of “We the people” actually start heading back to meaning WE THE PEOPLE, it would scare the hell out of “the powers that be” around the world.
Ideally laws are rules which are made by agreement, but we know that is not truly the case. Today in the real world, through lobbies and greed, laws are bought with little or no thought to the good of the mankind, but for the profitability of the corporations or the extremely wealthy. Corporations have no rights! Therefore, the invention of corporate law. “The corporation being an entity bound by rules separate from the individuals that comprise them. Corporate law is what binds rights and their demandability or enforceability.” Ever wondered who came up with that idea?
Oops! I am getting off on a tangent.
In an earlier time, when people formed a belief different from the sovereignty they packed up and moved, or were run out, to a new world where the new beliefs were out of sight and not flaunted in the old sovereignty’s face and the laws were difficult to enforce due to distance.
In the United States, our founders believed so strongly in that very principle that the separation of State and Federal powers was the second most important, and almost a deal breaking aspect of forming the United States of America, and second only to the importance of unity of the states to fight deal with foreign governments.
“I believe the States can best govern our home concerns, and the General Government our foreign ones.” –Thomas Jefferson writing to William Johnson, 1823
Each state was to be allowed to determine its internal affairs and in turn that right passed on down the line to local areas of each state. In theory, this allowed the individuals to find an area where the “laws” (rules by agreement) were within their belief system. This was also a major reason for the rapid expansion of the country.
I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground: That “all powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people.” To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specifically drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition. –Thomas Jefferson: National Bank Opinion, 1791
Often these new ideas were able to grow to the point that they affected how the belief of individuals from the old area viewed them, thus creating some change in the old beliefs.
Virtual worlds create new places for people to go with their ideas and beliefs. With “tools” to separate those areas of belief, there are boundless opportunities for those with differing beliefs to be participate. People offended by those beliefs, when they are found, could simply limit themselves to not enter or even “see” (as in a search results or ability to get to) those areas.
You would think as intelligent people we could respect the desire of people to be different and have their own belief systems, but history says different. There is always someone who wants to control other’s beliefs… regardless of whether they are right or wrong, (and who determines that?) but most often there is the opportunity of profit at the root of those control issues.
On to the issue of governments having jurisdiction because a server is located within the physical area of a sim “land” they claim to “own” control.
Why should any one other that the actual owner of that sophisticated off/on switch have dominion to determine what takes place inside that piece of electronics, which is only the direction signals are being directed. The ideas happenings action is truly taking place inside the minds of those participating viewing the results of those electronic switchings. Since when have we began allow external thought control?
My thought is, as long as due diligence is used to prohibit access to minors, if it can be conceived (even by the most warped mind) it should be allowed in virtual worlds. No matter how popular or disgusting an individual perceives it to be. If there are others around the world Universe with similar ideas — a virtual community will form around those ideas or beliefs; if not eventually it will fade away.
The fact is in a virtual world you can not be forced to do anything. No one can actually be harmed in a virtual world any more than they can be in a movie theater, or by reading a book. Worst case scenario you can always turn off unplug the computer.
The trouble is that governments do not seem to want allow ideas, thoughts, or beliefs to foster which differ from the ones that established them into power. Those ideas may take root and become accepted by their populace and challenge their power structure.
The world could not have reached this enlighten era without civilization coming together and forming groups to protect their beliefs. Where would the world be if that little tea party in Boston had never occurred? I can’t answer that, but I am pretty sure there would be considerably less freedom in the world. The American Revolution has stood as an example of what can happen when colonies of different beliefs come together to stand up against an injustice.
If we allow any belief, idea, or thought to be squashed without it having a chance to take root, grow, mutate, and mature; who knows what advances to society will be missed?
We have the opportunity to be the leading edge of the advancement of society by virtually allowing a nursery for ideas, belief, and thoughts to have a chance to be planted, take root, grow, mutate, mature, and be harvested — judged by society by either being accepted to the point of being adopted into real life or ignored.
June 25th, 2007 • 
Weirdharold • 
comment | June 25, 2007 at 10:19 | individual comment-link
I believe the second par should read this way:
“Cyber-world crosses these boundaries by merging such territories into a new world, a virtual territory. Its boundaries defined only by the extent and reaches of a pulsating sub-atomic connectivity.”
I have since edited it in my other blog. I did not mean the extension of government sovereign power beyond its jurisdiction. What I had in mind was the merger of different sovereignties in a sense that in a democracy sovereignty emanates and resides in the people or what they call in political law “the sovereign will”.
Thank you so much for pointing it out.
comment | June 27, 2007 at 02:19 | individual comment-link
Yes this concept has come up several times in the past decade, but it elides the fact that cyber worlds - whether SecondLife or any other virtual space is hosted on real computer servers in real geographic locations governed by the laws of that geographic location.
It also elides the fact that the participants in these virtual worlds are real people who themselves are governed by the laws of whatever land they live in. Virtual worlds are nothing more or less than open-ended phone calls - which themselves are governed by agreed national and international standards (arranged by Governments and telecommunications companies who are members of the UN International Telecommunications Union (ITU)).
So, while idealistically people can move their avatars around a virtual ’space’ the only real space they take up is the ones and zeros of a computer located in some real place - which is subject to the laws of that land. That way, real pedophiles can still be prosecuted even when they are operating avatars in virtual spaces.
comment | June 27, 2007 at 13:17 | individual comment-link
Dr Everard,
Thank you for stopping by and commenting. For those that don’t know, Dr. Everard is a PhD in International relations and in Cultural Studies and the author of Virtual states: the internet and the boundaries of the nation-state. Teaches hypermedia in the English and Theatre Studies Department at Australian National University. He also works(ed) [not sure which] as a policy analyst at the Australian Department of Defense
I would have like to have read his book before commenting either here or on the blog, but it was written in 1999 and there is nowhere in this little country town where i can run pick up a copy. I guess he is still making enough sales from print on demand hasn’t made those 96 pages available in Ebook form. I am able to find it on Amazon, but if it is written with the same style as SecondLife: Navigating Realities I am not certain I care to order it.
Come on now, honestly, is there really that much difference than a book laying on the ground of that real geographic location? Personally, I say not at all! In actuality, a book stores the thoughts of an individual or individuals in the form of text. The hard drive is made of paper and is read by sight and the mind transforms that into a “graphic” state. The Computer’s (Server and PC) hard drive is a disk which stores a series of 1s and 0s and transforms them into text, and more; providing much more of the individuals thought information to the screen of the reader — who then converts that into more detail through his/her brain filling cognitive details.
Does this mean to you it is perfectly alright for the Australian government to control what people read, believe, think? Are you for the censoring of the type of information available to you, as a resident of Australia, because the politicians or special interest groups think you shouldn’t have access to that information? Even without you acting on that information, not even allowing you to form an intelligent opinion?
“Arranged by Governments and telecommunications companies who are members of the UN International Telecommunications Union.” This make it right? Shouldn’t the sovereignty actually belong to the people? Especially in an area where their actions have no harm on the people around them? With virtual world information as with text from a book — all actual end processing of the information absorbed is done inside of the mind of the person gathering that information; wouldn’t you agree?
Already discussed above.
You mean depending on where they live? No, I guess real pedophiles will commit the act in real life, and in my opinion will have done a horrible unforgivable thing in destroying the innocence of a child.
The question is do we know that allowing these acts in a virtual world, between consenting adults, would not help those with a tendency toward pedophilia control those urges and help them not have to perform the act in real life with a real child.
I believe you yourself have stated that the minds filling in of cognitive details in virtual worlds tends to blur the lines of real and imaginative.
If nothing else — imagine the benefits of being able to study the tendencies of the pedophile in a surrounding where he can act in a more natural way. Do you not think the great academic minds would gain valuable insight into a behavior that has been so difficult to get accurate information about?
Most think the condition is not really treatable, but if it could actually be studied in a “safe” environment with new details and understanding documented… Maybe, just maybe a better “treatment” could be devised.
comment | June 27, 2007 at 19:16 | individual comment-link
yea..it seems governments may at will transgress privacy rights in favor of national security..
would individual rights always yield? matters such as prior censorship still violate rights on due process..notice and hearing..besides you need a court order to justify such means..for admissibility of evidence.
of course the law does not prosecute pedophiles..only acts of pedophilia..
or terrorism for that matter..
comment | July 22, 2007 at 22:25 | individual comment-link
The most logical and realistic conclusion really is that we build a virtual world in a sense we don’t wanna deal with the real world. My next statement would be..should a crime perpetuated in a virtual world be made punishable in the real world? Of course not!That’s the very reason why we created the VR world on the first place. Like war games where there are killings and massacres. they are only meant to be simulations. Therefore, if your not comfy with it. Log-off. Plug-out.
The real world has too many problems in itself that its systems has proved to be ineffective. Why carry that over to the virtual world? That brings us to many hidden agendas which are just beginning to unfold in our time.