In a popular Internet role-playing game called Second Life, people can create a virtual identity for themselves, choosing such things as their age, sex and appearance. These virtual characters then do things that people in the real world do, such as having sex. Depending on your preferences, you can have sex with someone who is older or younger than you -- perhaps much older or younger. In fact, if your virtual character is an adult, you can have sex with a virtual character who is a child.
If you did that in the real world, most of us would agree that you did something seriously wrong. But is it seriously wrong to have virtual sex with a virtual child?
Some Second Life players say that it is, and have vowed to expose those who do it. Meanwhile, the manufacturers, Linden Labs, have said they will modify the game to prevent virtual children from having sex. German prosecutors have also become involved, although their concern appears to be the use of the game to spread child pornography, rather than whether people have virtual sex with virtual children.
Laws against child pornography in other countries may also have the effect of prohibiting games that permit virtual sex with virtual children. In Australia, Connor O'Brien, chair of the criminal law section of the Law Institute of Victoria, recently told Melbourne newspaper the Age that he thought the manufacturer of Second Life could be prosecuted for publishing images of children in a sexual context.
The law is on solid ground when it protects children from being exploited for sexual purposes. It becomes much more dubious when it interferes with sexual acts between consenting adults.
What adults choose to do in the bedroom, many thoughtful people believe, is their own business, and the state ought not to pry into it.
If you get aroused by having your adult partner dress up as a schoolchild before you have sex, and he or she is happy to enter into that fantasy, your behavior may be abhorrent to most people, but as long as it is done in private, few would think that it makes you a criminal.
Nor should it make any difference if you invite a few adult friends over, and in the privacy of your own home they all choose to take part in a larger-scale sexual fantasy of the same kind. Are computers linked via the Internet -- again, assuming that only consenting adults are involved -- so different from a group fantasy of this kind?
When someone proposes making something a criminal offense, we should always ask: who is harmed? If it can be shown that the opportunity to act out a fantasy by having virtual sex with a virtual child makes people more likely to engage in real pedophilia, then real children will be harmed, and the case for prohibiting virtual pedophilia becomes stronger.
But looking at the question raises another, and perhaps more significant, issue about virtual activities -- video game violence.
Those who play violent video games are often at an impressionable age. Doom, a popular violent videogame, was a favorite of Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, the teenage Columbine High School murderers.
In a chilling videotape they made before the massacre, Harris said: "It's going to be like fucking Doom ? That fucking shotgun [he kisses his gun] is straight out of Doom."
There are other cases in which aficionados of violent videogames have become killers, but they do not prove cause and effect. More weight, however, should be given to the growing number of scientific studies, both in the laboratory and in the field, of the effect of such games.
In Violent Video Game Effects on Children and Adults, Craig Anderson, Douglas Gentile and Katherine Buckley of the department of psychology at Iowa State University, draw these studies together to argue that violent video games increase aggressive behavior.
If criminal prosecution is too blunt an instrument to use against violent video games, there is a case for awarding damages to the victims, or the families of victims, of violent crimes committed by people who play violent video games.
To date, such lawsuits have been dismissed, at least in part on the grounds that the manufacturers could not foresee that their products would cause people to commit crimes. But the evidence that Anderson, Gentile and Buckley provide has weakened that defense.
Andre Peschke, editor-in-chief of www.krawall.de, one of Germany's leading online computer and video game magazines, informs me that in 10 years in the video game industry he has never seen any serious debate within the industry on the ethics of producing violent games. The manufacturers fall back on the simplistic assertion that there is no scientific proof that violent video games lead to violent acts. But sometimes we cannot wait for proof.
This seems to be one of those cases -- the risks are great, and outweigh whatever benefits violent video games may have. The evidence may not be conclusive, but it is too strong to be ignored any longer.
The burst of publicity about virtual pedophilia in Second Life may have focused on the wrong target. Video games are properly subject to legal controls, not when they enable people to do things that, if real, would be crimes, but when there is evidence on the basis of which we can reasonably conclude that they are likely to increase serious crime in the real world.
At present, the evidence for that is stronger for games involving violence than it is for virtual realities that permit pedophilia.
Peter Singer is professor of bioethics at Princeton University and laureate professor at the University of Melbourne.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
During the US-India Strategic Partnership Forum’s third leadership summit on Aug. 31, US Deputy Secretary of State Stephen Biegun said that the US wants to partner with the other members of the Quadrilaterial Security Dialogue — Australia, India and Japan — to establish an organization similar to NATO, to “respond to ... any potential challenge from China.” He said that the US’ purpose is to work with these nations and other countries in the Indo-Pacific region to “create a critical mass around the shared values and interest of those parties,” and possibly attract more countries to establish an alliance comparable to
On August 24, 2020, the US Secretary of Defense, Mark Esper, made an important statement: “The Pentagon is Prepared for China.” Going forward, how might the Department of Defense team up with Taiwan to make itself even more prepared? No American wants to deter the next war by a paper-thin margin, and no one appreciates the value of strategic overmatch more than the war planners at the Pentagon. When the stakes are this high, you can bet they want to be super ready. In recent months, we have witnessed a veritable flood of high-level statements from US government leaders on
Over the past year, the world has observed what many of us in the US Congress have warned about for years: The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is an unreliable partner intent on chasing its ambitions to be the world’s superpower at the expense of its people, its partners and the international community at large. In December last year, the CCP had evidence that a new strain of the coronavirus was infecting and killing Chinese citizens at an alarming rate. Their response was to censor medical professionals and lie to their own people out of fear of tarnishing China’s global image, and
China has long sought shortcuts to developing semiconductor technologies and local supply chains by poaching engineers and experts from Taiwan and other nations. It is also suspected of stealing trade secrets from Taiwanese and US firms to fulfill its ambition of becoming a major player in the global semiconductor industry in the next decade. However, it takes more than just money and talent to build a semiconductor supply chain like the one which Taiwan and the US started to cultivate more than 30 years ago. Amid rising trade and technology tensions between the world’s two biggest economies, Beijing has become