What a headline- “Woman jailed after ‘killing’ virtual husband!”

03 November 2008 Internet, IT & e-Discovery Blog Blog
Authors: Peter Vogel

Since millions of individuals play online games, and many virtual characters are killed daily it’s hard to image exactly how someone could really be found guilty of killing a virtual character. However, apparently this news story from Japan indicates that the defendant was so angry with her Maple Story online husband that she killed his digital persona. Actually according to the story the defendant found that she was divorced without warning and so she logged into the virtual Maple Story world using her ex-husband’s ID and password to kill him.

How can one kill a virtual person?

This seems a little goofy except that Maple Story and all online virtual worlds, including Second Life, require all users to agree to terms of service (TOS). So it’s not much of a surprise that the TOS restrict what users can do...but neither Maple Story nor Second Life have TOS that even mention killing or murder. So that‘s why the Japanese authorities are charging the defendant with illegally accessing a computer which is a crime in most states and countries.

Where are we going with virtual law?

As mentioned in an earlier blog, the American Bar Association published a book entitled Virtual Law in which Chapter 10 is entitled “Criminal Law and Virtual Worlds” and states that the most common virtual law crimes include money laundering, fraud, gambling, and stalking/harassment. As well, some virtual worlds have tried to deal with sexual behavior which is pretty difficult to regulate. But it seems appropriate that the virtual worlds try to protect children from sexual behavior, so all TOS generally do not permit anyone younger than 18 from participating. However, as my favor New Yorker cartoon indicates with one dog sitting in front of a computer talking to another dog and says “on the Internet no one knows you’re dog.” No one really has a clue who is users really are. But defining pornography is not so easy, even when the US Supreme Court tried to define pornography Justice Potter Stewart’s famous statement in Jacobellis v. Ohio, 378 U.S. 184 (1964) was that he could not define it, ‘but he knew it when he saw it.’ So how can pornography in virtual worlds be regulated?
 

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Authors

Related Services

Insights

Lacktman, Ferrante Cited in mHealth Intelligence About Ryan Haight Act
19 September 2019
mHealth Intelligence
Tinnen Discusses How Viewpoint Diversity Helps Businesses Thrive
18 September 2019
InsideTrack
Vernaglia Comments on AHA v Azar Decision
18 September 2019
MedPage Today
Lach Comments on Launch of New Group
16 September 2019
BizTimes Milwaukee
MedTech Impact Expo & Conference
13-15 December 2019
Las Vegas, NV
Review of 2020 Medicare Changes for Telehealth
11 December 2019
Member Call
BRG Healthcare Leadership Conference
06 December 2019
Washington, D.C.
CTeL Telehealth Fall Summit 2019
04-06 December 2019
Washington, D.C.