Virtual Rape or Rape in Virtual Reality?

[glasgowcyclist]

How can someone fear the immediate use of unlawful violence when "assailant" is not present and query even whether they ( the alleged assailant( "exist"


Look at the definition in English law of assault

"
An assault is any act (and not mere omission to act) by which a person intentionally or recklessly causes another to suffer or apprehend immediate unlawful violence."

Does apprehend in “… to suffer or apprehend…” not give some leeway for arguing that it meets the definition? To apprehend something is to perceive that it is about to happen. Being absorbed in a virtual reality situation could give the victim the perception, even mistakenly, that she is about to be assaulted. Does English law go on to define apprehension of assault or is it silent on that?

I don’t think in Scots law it would be entertained at all. As far as I recall the definition for assault was: “Any attack directed to take effect physically on the person of another, whether or not actual injury is inflicted.”

To me that doesn’t allow for the inclusion of any perception that an assault is about to take place. That’s an old definition though and things may have moved on.

 

[Craig the cyclist]

The 'assailant' doesn't exist, nor does the 'victim', nor does the place that all this is not taking place in.

So if none of the parties exist, and they aren't anywhere for the assault to happen, then no offence has taken place. If we say otherwise, then surely we are a moment away from being sanctioned for our thoughts that we keep entirely in our heads, and even that someone may take offence to a thought they have in their head about a perception towards you, when you are hundreds of miles from them.

Virtual
2.
COMPUTING
not physically existing as such but made by software to appear to do so

 

[mudsticks]

Does apprehend in “… to suffer or apprehend…” not give some leeway for arguing that it meets the definition? To apprehend something is to perceive that it is about to happen. Being absorbed in a virtual reality situation could give the victim the perception, even mistakenly, that she is about to be assaulted. Does English law go on to define apprehension of assault or is it silent on that?

I don’t think in Scots law it would be entertained at all. As far as I recall the definition for assault was: “Any attack directed to take effect physically on the person of another, whether or not actual injury is inflicted.”

To me that doesn’t allow for the inclusion of any perception that an assault is about to take place. That’s an old definition though and things may have moved on.

Hate speech might have some significance in all this here, I dont know, I can't imagine anything like this actually being prosecuted in reality.

Why though does anyone feel the need to mimic, raping some one in a game like this , what's the motivation.??

Who built in the facility to even do (or mimic doing) that .

Shouldn't the creators / facilitators of games such as this have some way of banning or blocking players who overstep the 'rules'.??

There's been some moves to try to get street harassment, and misogynistic speech classified as hate crime of late,.

To not much avail atm, unsurprisingly.

If that can't happen in real life, then pretty faint hope online..

 

[Craig the cyclist]

Why though does anyone feel the need to mimic, raping some one in a game like this , what's the motivation.??

Who built in the facility to even do (or mimic doing) that .

But do we even know if that functionality is built in to the system, you have made quite a leap there. The original article mentions nothing like that.....

"but there are two male avatars in the room, one of whom is observing while the other appears very close to her. The pair make lewd comments and share a virtual bottle of drink."

Indeed the article even says that it isn't possible....

"Personal Boundary prevents avatars from coming within a set distance of each other, making it easier to avoid these unwanted interactions.
It stops others "invading your avatar's personal space", said Meta.
"If someone tries to enter your Personal Boundary, the system will halt their forward movement as they reach the boundary."
According to Meta, the default Personal Boundary setting is roughly 4ft (1.2m) virtual distance between your avatar and those of anyone not on your friends list."

So the answer is that no-one built that in, in fact exactly the opposite, they built in that you can't do it.

 

[spen666]

Hate speech might have some significance in all this here, I dont know, I can't imagine anything like this actually being prosecuted in reality.

Why though does anyone feel the need to mimic, raping some one in a game like this , what's the motivation.??

Who built in the facility to even do (or mimic doing) that .

Shouldn't the creators / facilitators of games such as this have some way of banning or blocking players who overstep the 'rules'.??

There's been some moves to try to get street harassment, and misogynistic speech classified as hate crime of late,.

To not much avail atm, unsurprisingly.

If that can't happen in real life, then pretty faint hope online..

The offence of harassment is made out in my view on this scenario.

It cannot be an assault or battery as there is no possibility of immediate unlawful violence
you use the term hate speech, which is similar concept ie it can be committed virtually - If I post an anti semitic post from my laptop here in the Cayman Islands, I am guilty of an offence when you read it in the UK ( getting me before an English court is a practical matter)

Similarly, harassment offences can occur without parties being present. Again, if I bombard you with posts it could be harassment

The physical offences, eg battery, assault, rape etc are not made out, but there are other offences that cover the behaviour.


it may all seem a little bit silly discussing it now, but this will be an area of law that develops with the growth of the metaverse

 

[mudsticks]

The offence of harassment is made out in my view on this scenario.

It cannot be an assault or battery as there is no possibility of immediate unlawful violence
you use the term hate speech, which is similar concept ie it can be committed virtually - If I post an anti semitic post from my laptop here in the Cayman Islands, I am guilty of an offence when you read it in the UK ( getting me before an English court is a practical matter)

Similarly, harassment offences can occur without parties being present. Again, if I bombard you with posts it could be harassment

The physical offences, eg battery, assault, rape etc are not made out, but there are other offences that cover the behaviour.


it may all seem a little bit silly discussing it now, but this will be an area of law that develops with the growth of the metaverse

I'd agree, the laws surrounding all this will probs have to evolve to keep up with online developments .

ATM there is a lot of horrible harassment that is restricting full participation by those less able to stick up for themselves, or already more vulnerable.

If the virtual world is to be held as a fullyparticipatory space, then things need to change.

Whether this happens through regulation for commercial reasons, or some kind of global policing, I don't know..

 

[glasgowcyclist]

Indeed the article even says that it isn't possible....

"Personal Boundary prevents avatars from coming within a set distance of each other, making it easier to avoid these unwanted interactions.
It stops others "invading your avatar's personal space", said Meta.
"If someone tries to enter your Personal Boundary, the system will halt their forward movement as they reach the boundary."
According to Meta, the default Personal Boundary setting is roughly 4ft (1.2m) virtual distance between your avatar and those of anyone not on your friends list."

So the answer is that no-one built that in, in fact exactly the opposite, they built in that you can't do it.

The article suggests that it is possible, by disabling the personal boundary feature:

According to SumOfUs, the researcher was "encouraged" to disable the Personal Boundary feature.​

 

[Deleted member 28]

I'm sure there are. The post you were laughing at was not one of them.

And this is important to you because?

 

[Craig the cyclist]

The article suggests that it is possible, by disabling the personal boundary feature:

According to SumOfUs, the researcher was "encouraged" to disable the Personal Boundary feature.​

But it isn't possible to invade someones personal space just by being in a virtual room with them?

 

[glasgowcyclist]

But it isn't possible to invade someones personal space just by being in a virtual room with them?

Then why would they have a personal boundary protection feature?

 

[Craig the cyclist]

Then why would they have a personal boundary protection feature?

To stop someone invading your personal space unless you let them.

Just being in the room does not mean you can invade someones personal space, you have to let them in.

 

[glasgowcyclist]

To stop someone invading your personal space unless you let them.

Just being in the room does not mean you can invade someones personal space, you have to let them in.

Indeed, so it is possible to invade someone’s personal space in that virtual environment.

 

[presta]

Are people who play war games going to get prosecuted for murder, too?

 

[All uphill]

There is another legal angle to this.

If I punch you on the nose when you are quietly minding your own business I have (almost certainly) committed an offence.

If I punch you on the nose while we are boxing I have (almost certainly) not committed an offence because you have implicitly or explicitly given your consent.

In law you cannot give your consent to your own murder, or, I believe rape or stabbing.

I'd be interested to see what level of consent courts decide you have implicitly given by entering a virtual space.

Be an interesting one for lawyers to argue!

 

[Craig the cyclist]

Indeed, so it is possible to invade someone’s personal space in that virtual environment.

Yeah, you either don't understand or you just want to argue with me because I am me.

You cannot have your personal space invaded in the rooms unless you let someone inside your buffer zone. In which case it isn't really an invasion and more of accepting an invite.