BoingBoing submission thoughts

Surprise, surprise...when I submitted this post on a UK man facing jail over photoshopped child porn images to BoingBoing, I was pretty certain it was going to make it. Sure 'nough. Of course, that means there's presently (as of this morning) a post sitting on one of the world's most popular websites, referring to that story, with my name right next to it. And a link to here. Talk about freaky. I thought I'd post some thoughts.

First off...I DO NOT LIKE CHILD PORN!! I DO NOT LOOK AT IT...IT IS DISGUSTING AND DEEPLY DISTURBING! CLEAR ENOUGH!!? I thought I'd get that out of the way. *grin* Problem is, every time I type the aforementioned phrase in this post, I end up in it's Google index regardless. Ick. Semantic Web, where are you?

So, to clarify my thinking, here. The important part of the story isn't about specifics. Rather, it's the nature of the offending material.

In one sense, it's nothing new...obviously, there was written word pornography long before digital photomanipulation or virtual reality. But as the imagined/created material becomes more and more lifelike; more and more indistinguishable from reality, we become even more disturbed by it.

What's the difference, for example, in watching an X-rated movie filmed with real people, and in watching one created with machinima in Second Life, or another virtual world? Sure, today we can tell the difference...but is that necessarily even the point? Does the fact that we can tell it's not real matter? And what about tomorrow, when we can't? What about an X-rated movie filmed with a real actor and a CGI partner? How about CGI partner, that's um...not human? (Don't panic, this could mean, for example, some sort of sci-fi alien. Or a zombie [double ick]. Or whatever.] The point is, when does this become pornography? When does this become illegal? Why does it become illegal (note: I'm not suggesting it's doesn't...or does, for that matter. I'm just asking the question here.)

It's also interesting to note again the difference in perception between sex and violence. Remember the Hot Coffee mod in Grand Theft Auto? Simulated sex that raised a huge controversy...simulated sex, only unlockable via a hack, in a game that otherwise rewards the player for performing acts of random mayhem and murder. Bizarre.  Why is virtual murder ok, and virtual sex not?

Of course, the child sex issue raises additional issues...right? It unmistakeably would, in my opinion...if there were an actual child involved. Pictures taken, etc. But in the case of the UK man, there is no child. He photoshopped pictures of adults. No cropping in other photos; he just altered the adult ones. Weird, eh? How do you define what's what? What about the super-realistic vector art recently profiled on BoingBoing? If he'd started with that, there would have NEVER been an actual person involved...but (unlike with drawings, for example), it'd be almost impossible to tell that.

We've merely reached the tip of the iceberg here. As I mentioned in the BoingBoing post, I actually bumped into the UK post in a Second Life blog, where the author was using it as an example in a larger piece relating primariy to "age play" in Second Life.

For those who don't know, Second Life is a really cool online virtual world that's open-ended. Unlike Everquest or WoW, there's no game to win, or level grind, in Second Life. It's "just" a world. And a player's avatar is completely open...there are folks who look like giant bunny rabbits, and robots, and vampires...and 10-year old girls. (note: the Second Life main grid is intended for 18 and over only, so the actual person behind the keyboard is probably an adult). And yes, SL has a thriving sex industry...escorts and sex toys, dungeons and BSDM. When those things intersect...what happens?

And what about 5 years from now, in a virtual world that makes SL look like Ultima Online does today? Where we can barely (if at all) tell the difference between real-world video and game-generated content? Strange days are coming...

posted by Ken Kennedy at Aug 16th 2006 11:19 a.m.

Old comments (new comments via Disqus)
  1. Mark Hurley commented 2 years, 3 months ago

    Ken -- I guess my only question would be, why would the man even consider making such art?

    If the man truely believes AGAINST child porn, then why go through all the trouble of making it in the first place?

  2. Ken commented 2 years, 3 months ago

    Ah, gotcha. Well, I don't think that he is against it, no. I expect he created it for a very specific reason. But the point, as uncomfortable as both you and I find it, is that no actual child was involved. Now, it's apparently still illegal in Great Britian...but (bear with me, don't lose it...*grin*) why?

    It's not just a victimless crime, it's a virtual victimless crime. There is no spoon. Look at it this way...should it be illegal for you to play a game like Postal, or Silent Hill, or GTA3, where you can run around and randomly blow auay people. Or instead stalk them, follow them into their homes, and hack them up?

    Should "age play" in Second Life be illegal? What about a COMPLETELY f'd-up game like Sociolotron? (Don't even look for it unless you're prepared. And no, I don't play it; I just know about it.)

    What about movies like Hostel? Why was that thing even MADE? Just watching the trailer makes me ill. Should watching it be a crime? Should MAKING it have a been a crime? What if it was machinima, and no people were even being filmed?

    It's hard to figure out where the virtual world and the real one stop affecting each other here. Sexual crimes in particular are difficult, because the psychological damage is often the worst part, and that could indeed reach through into real life.

    Trust me, I'm not saying this guy is NORMAL. I just don't know what exactly to do if you start making decisions about what virtual behavior is appropriate, and what isn't. Where do you stop?

    (Hey! I have dirty word moderation, and I didn't even know it...)

  3. Mark Hurley commented 2 years, 3 months ago

    I understand your point. I even followed it in your article above.

    I see it like this...pictures are visual. And what you see with the human eye can often confuse you, lead you to believe one thing when another is the truth.

    Taking a picture of something, having a poor drawing or drawing it to near perfection may still send the same message. Pictures are forms of messages, communication if you will.

    I do not really know the law. But to me, taking or viewing such images should be illegal. They send the wrong message that in society we as humans have deemed as inappropriate to protect children.

    Again...its a message that is being sent to provoke a feeling (a bad feeling)...and I believe in our society, while we do not always address issues well, we still have to do something to protect those who are innocent and do not know better.

    Ok...now your going to find me very disturbing. I liked Hostel. Ok...have you calmed back down...are you still reading? :)

    To me...Hostel was very well done. I think Tarantino did a great job making the story believable. After watching it, my wife said...that was hollywood. I sat there in silence, and commented: "I wouldn't put it past some of the 3rd world places I have visited..."

    Still...If true, it would prove some sick people in the world do exist. I don't know who's sicker...the people organizing the actual mess, or the people paying to perform the slaughters.

    Sociolotron? Well..I'm sure *someone* will play it. Never heard of it, took a look. Doesn't seem interesting to me...oh yah and the graphics suck! ;)

 
blog comments powered by Disqus