The Chief Justice, Alana, & Thoughts on Cyber Law

It was the morning of September 19th, and I was on my way to meet and have a private Q&A with the Chief Justice of the United States of America. As I was walking across campus, i couldn't help thinking how the chief justice would answer my question, which, i had a feeling, was going to be different than most he would receive that day. As one of the two chosen representatives from my home college, the iSchool at Syracuse, I wanted to ask something both cross-disciplinary but technology driven.

The basis for my question was from my recent work as an undergraduate research associate. I've been reading articles and playing on Second Life, and my questions just began to pile up. I knew that this September morning was my opportune moment to find out from the head of the legislative branch of the United States of America what his thoughts were on the subject.

My question went something like this: "My question relates to the CyberLaw and CyberEthics. Massive Multi Player (MMP) online games such as Linden Lab's Second Life have been growing and gaining popularity around the world. These virtual worlds allow for the ownership of property as well as running virtual economies that trade real money based on an exchange rate. In your opinion, do you believe that laws from the physical world can be applied in these virtual worlds?"

In response, he said that a bill will probably be passed sometime in the future which would rule on what the guidelines for acceptable behavior. But he did reference the cases on virtual child pornography.

He was referring to the "2002 case that was later affirmed in 2004, deciding that previous prohibition of simulated child pornography under the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 was unconstitutional.^[32] The majority ruling stated that "the CPPA prohibits speech that records no crime and creates no victims by its production. Virtual child pornography is not 'intrinsically related' to the sexual abuse of children." (source: wikipedia).

This led me to do some independent research on the topic:

From a 2007 article found in the Columbus Dispatch:

"In attempting to put their arms around a quickly evolving area of technology and law, justices said the state's ban on child pornography should stand even though it's getting more difficult to distinguish real images from digital forgeries.

Images that are wholly faked, no matter how realistic, still are legal, justices said.

The unanimous decision appears to seek a middle ground in an area where technology, morals and the First Amendment collide.

Prosecutors still can bring charges against people who create or possess images that appear to depict children in sexual situations, and they must show beyond a reasonable doubt that an actual child is involved. But prosecutors do not need to produce the actual child or produce expert scientific testimony that the image is real.

Pictures that appear to be child pornography but actually are the handiwork of digital artists are not against the law. In coming to that conclusion, Ohio justices relied on a 2002 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court that found that no children are harmed in making "virtual" child porn." (end cited source).

Overall, in doing some research on the topic, I have come to realize that this is just the beginning. The future will lead us to other cases that will ask a similar question: if i can't do it in the physical world, can it be done online? What are the loopholes- are images that look like children, and modeled after children not considered pornographic in nature?

I believe that cases that set a precedent on virtual behaviors will greatly impact the evolution of today's digital societies and economies.

We've all watched "To Catch a Predator."