Return of the Flying Penises

 

Somehow I can’t shake that image of Anshe Chung, Second Life real estate mogul, being assaulted by several flying penises out of my mind. Mainly, I think, because it offends me so--as a woman and as a proponent of sexual health and rights. Secondarily though, I’ve been trying to grapple with the situation in terms of the First Amendment: free speech, expression, and the right to assemble.
 
According to Emerson, a critical requirement for speech/expression to fall under the protection of the First Amendment is that it distinguishes itself from action (p.917 sec.4a).
 
Allowing for the fact that this “griefing” was a virtual attack and caused no physical damage to the avatar or its creators, some might be tempted to classify this incident as a protest, a form of expression that should be protected speech.
 
I disagree. Whatever rules virtual communities are someday (in the near future) held accountable to, will most likely (and should) mirror those that govern speech and expression in every day life. Unacceptable behavior, that which is obscene, and/or implies or stimulates actions that would be dangerous, harmful, illegal, or violate the privacy of a person’s physical being in real space, should be held to the same standard in virtual communities as it is in our neighborhoods, towns, and work places. A universal standard is important for several reasons.

1) It would make implementing a system of rights in online public spaces quick, easy, and consistent with the rights our courts currently uphold.

2) Though it is impossible for internet users in online communities to do each other bodily injury by merely ‘expressing themselves,’ physical harm is only a portion of the damage caused by defamation and; therefore obscene and/or harmful actions done online should not be treated as lesser offenses or wrongly protected under the First Amendment.

3)    The freedom to speak in public and air one’s grievances alone or collaboratively is a great right bestowed upon us, but it also carries a great responsibility, accountability. The Fist Amendment is in place to protect constructive dialogue, not degenerative attempts at libel. I’m not proposing that the internet’s anonymous landscape be changed, except in cases where people enter ‘online public forum spaces.’ In these areas, as in real life public spaces, people realize that their speech is open to being viewed/captured by the world and they are subject to the rules that govern the space.

 

And now for a few questions to you all:

I’m curious as to how people think online communities will be regulated in the future, or if they believe online communities can/will be regulated.

In

U.S.

v. American Library Assoc. 2003, the court writes that “the doctrines [rights, like the First Amendment] surrounding traditional public forums may not be extended to situations where such history is lacking.”

What impact do you see this viewpoint having on virtual public forums?       

 

 

 

 

Comments

[tom paine]

Attempts to control the Internet seem misguided to me, since all it will end up doing is limiting free speech to those who live off the grid, such as hackers, who already do as they please. This is a little like making it a crime to eat pie because someone somewhere threw a pie at the president.

[Helen Kelley]

How can hackers' speech be limited if they live "off the grid" and "do as they please" anyway?

Hackers in the shadows aren't the audience I imagine public forum rules to be targeted towards either.

First of all, I'm saying that accountability would only be required in those specific places designated as public forums (not private spaces), for the purpose of encouraging thoughtful speech and expression and preventing harmful or even dangerous actions.
Furthermore public figures, especially government officials, would be less protected from claims of insult and injury than other members of the community--as they already are in real life.
Finally, while I think it's important for laws to evolve with the times, I also think human intent largely remains the same, which is why I hope you can distinguish between the significance of a pie in the face and the federalist papers, common sense, or a burning flag.
Not all speech is worthy of being protected speech.