By Mr W - 3 Jan 24 4:26 PM
It'll be interesting how this 'avatar virtual assault' story unfolds.
Is it Cat A image offence? Pseudo image offence (whatever that means)? Is it communication with a child offence? Malicious communication offence? Is it even an offence at all?
Lots of jokes about stealing cars on GTA asking if they'll get arrested which are quite funny. But I guess the difference is there was someone 'live' at the other end of the game, who I presume made the complaint.
|
By khafka - 3 Jan 24 7:12 PM
+xIt'll be interesting how this ' avatar virtual assault' story unfolds. Is it Cat A image offence? Pseudo image offence (whatever that means)? Is it communication with a child offence? Malicious communication offence? Is it even an offence at all? Lots of jokes about stealing cars on GTA asking if they'll get arrested which are quite funny. But I guess the difference is there was someone 'live' at the other end of the game, who I presume made the complaint.
I was thinking about this the other day when I was reading about it. Definitely interesting from a legal point of view as it's much uncharted waters at the moment. If you're going with the "live" person on the other end then if I shoot you on Call of Duty am I guilty of murder?
|
By punter99 - 4 Jan 24 10:18 AM
I would guess that it currently comes under computer misuse, or malicious communications, in the same way that sending a nasty message can cause psychological harm to someone. It probably would come under sexual communication with a child, if they said something sexual too.
There was no physical contact, so inventing a new law to make 'physical' contact in the metaverse illegal, as has been suggested, seems pointless to me. It's really a form of harassment, which is already covered in the law. As for the other questions, about whether actions taken in COD or GTA could become illegal, that would depend on how the 'victim' has been harmed. Did the person who was 'killed' suffer psychological harm as a result? Did the person whose car was 'stolen' suffer any financial loss?
If it were possible to quantify the damage, then maybe you could make a claim against another player. I wonder if anyone has ever claimed for being verbally harassed by another online player? If that claim were successful, it would be the most likely starting point for other claims of harassment in the online world.
|
By punter99 - 1 Apr 23 10:57 AM
The latest in a long line of hysterical over reactions about child safety, was this story from America, about parents protesting that their kids had been shown a picture of Michelangelo's David, which was "pornographic".
This is exactly what was predicted in an episode of the Simpsons, many years ago. But it comes after a lot of recent controversy about sex education in schools. A Tory MP claimed, that children were being taught how to strangle their partners safely. This is made up nonsense, but many parents will believe it.
The reality is that children and parents face a very real danger from their mobile phones every single day, thanks to our crazy laws around illegal images. On another forum I read this:
'We had the police at the house to speak to my 13yo son. His crime was that other kids were sending a picture...of a girl from another school. On receiving it himself he felt bad for the girl and contacted her to warn her, she asked what image it was, so he sent it to her and then deleted it. She went on to thank him for thinking of her and kindly letting her know.
In any other world you would of thought the police knocked on our door to commend my son for such a kind gesture and doing the right thing !!!
No. he had my 13yo son in absolute tears as he was informed he was guilty of distributing an Indecent Image of a Child and that he would have to attend an awareness course at the police station and that it would be on his record (although they would put a note on to say he did it with good intentions).'
So young people and their parents risk being criminalised, while the imaginary threats, from porn, that isn't porn at all, are sensationalised by the press. What a world!
|
By JASB - 6 Feb 24 2:36 PM
Hi
Slightly different but I read that an expert has called for those under 16 yr olds playing contact sport be classed as an "abused child"!
As has been said many times "every voice has its own agenda" - its just seeing past the "hysteria" to see what it is.
|
|