From: minotaur@labyrnth.via.mind.org (The Minotaur)
Newsgroups: alt.sex,alt.cyberpunk,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Photo of minor, etc./Virtual Ethics
Date: 7 Apr 92 03:59:27 GMT
Organization: Celtic Software Systems, Decatur, GA

jessec@yang.earlham.edu writes:

> In article <JFRkiB1w164w@labyrnth.via.mind.org>, minotaur@labyrnth.via.mind.o
> > jessec@yang.earlham.edu writes:
> > 
> >> 
> >>    If it boils down to the question:
> >> 
> >>    Is one responsible for one's actions within or with respect to virtual 
> >> environments/persons/objects with no consequences in the "real world"?
> >> 
> >> then my answer is probably, no, you're not.  Not in a strict legal sense.
> >> And if you take that view, then the possibility opens up of something one 
> >> might call virtual amorality.  Say I've been annoyed by this person in my 
> >> neighborhood.  I have to live with him, and I have to live with the 
> >> consequences of my actions towards him in the real world, but I feel like 
> >> some demonstration of anger.  So I pop into a virtual construct, insert 
> >> Mr. Neighbor, and enact a gory murder.  Then pop out, catharsis enacted, 
> >> and go on with my business, a load lifted from my mind.  Is this okay and 
> >> hunky-dory?
> > 
> > Some religions and moral frameworks consider the _thought_ of a sin or
> > amoral act equivalent to the sin or amoral act itself.
> 
>    Oh, hell, I don't think *that*!  Didn't mean to imply such, either.  I 
> thought I said something in there about considering dreams as a separate 
> category, for instance.  I mean, not that there's *no* division between 
> thought and action... but it's not always a *long* distance.  Sheesh.  One 
> of those fuzzy-boundary things. 
> 
> > The bruiser:  Is intent alone enough to convict?
> 
>    On a legal level, thoughts should be sacrosanct.  My opinion.
> 
> > [rest of though-provoking article deleted]
> 
>    Thanks.  Yours too.
> 
> 
>      --Jesse.

Oops!  Sorry, didn't mean to offend.  The "thought-provoking article" was
intended to indicate that I found the article worthy of reflection.

I agree, it's a "fuzzy-boundary" situation.  Perhaps "virtual crime" 
would be a crime only in the VR setting.  Once caught by others who 
decide to be v.r.police, they would be tried in v.r.court and sentenced 
to v.r.prison.  No physical incarceration, nor even publicity, would 
happen.  Whenever the v.r.criminal plugged into the v.r.net, they would 
be instantly dropped into v.r.jail.

[the above paragraph is done somewhat tongue-in-cheek, please don't take 
it _too_seriously, just think about it...]

Thoughts should, and indeed, _are_ sacrosanct.  Robert Heinlein once put 
it extremely well in _Starship_Troopers_ when he explained about
"inalienable rights."  Life:  the ocean doesn't care about your right to 
life when it drowns you.  Liberty:  a cave doesn't care about your right 
to freedom when it falls down around you and traps you.  Pursuit of 
Happiness:  I can beat you, I can imprison you, I can torture you with 
bamboo under your fingernails, I can kill you.  I _cannot_ stop you from 
pursuing happiness.  It's utterly impossible.  As long as you have 
consciousness and a will to do so, you can pursue happiness until you're 
dead.  I may think anything I like and nobody has the power, much less 
the right, to stop me from doing so.

--John K.
---

===========================================================================
minotaur@labyrnth.via.mind.org| "Alia jacta est."
kemker.john@atlanta.va.gov    | (The die is cast.)
kemkerj@under.mind.org        | --Julius Caesar
Newsgroups: alt.cyberpunk