Police investigate virtual rape

[Nessie]

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/cri...police-daily-mail-internet-npcc-b1129844.html

"Police investigate virtual rape of girl in metaverse
The girl is said to have been left distraught after her avatar - or digital character - was attacked online by several adult men in a virtual 'room'"

One thing is for sure, this is not a rape under the Sexual Offences Act of 2003. Indeed, I think the police and CPS will struggle to find a crime that they can prosecute under. Existing laws regarding harassment and abuse online, such as S127 of the Communications Act, which is about messaging, clearly do not cover the virtual commission of an actual criminal act, which causes upset or trauma.

 

[lionking]

This cannot possibly go anywhere. Is virtual murder next? I’d be found guilty numerous times.

 

[Nessie]

I used to play Dungeons & Dragons and had a character, a knight of which I still have the metal painted figure, for many months, till he was killed in a battle. I remember parents having to intervene as us children argued over what had happened. I was really upset.

I think the virtual rape of an online character, which is being played in virtual reality, is a big step up from a metal figure on a table-top game. I can see why the girl is traumatised. I think the solution is also online and such conduct should result in the male players being banned and have to issue apologies. Putting this to court, means all online virtual crimes should also be investigated, which is a nonsense.

 

[HansMustermann]

Interesting. Does it mean I also can sue for defamation and such when kids online claim to have screwed my mom?

 

[Olmstead]

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/cri...police-daily-mail-internet-npcc-b1129844.html

"Police investigate virtual rape of girl in metaverse
The girl is said to have been left distraught after her avatar - or digital character - was attacked online by several adult men in a virtual 'room'"

One thing is for sure, this is not a rape under the Sexual Offences Act of 2003. Indeed, I think the police and CPS will struggle to find a crime that they can prosecute under. Existing laws regarding harassment and abuse online, such as S127 of the Communications Act, which is about messaging, clearly do not cover the virtual commission of an actual criminal act, which causes upset or trauma.

The Communications Act sounds like it should apply, or if not, should be expanded to cover such conduct. It's clearly a case of cyberbullying.

[...]

I think the virtual rape of an online character, which is being played in virtual reality, is a big step up from a metal figure on a table-top game. I can see why the girl is traumatised. I think the solution is also online and such conduct should result in the male players being banned and have to issue apologies. Putting this to court, means all online virtual crimes should also be investigated, which is a nonsense.

Obviously no one should be investigated for actual rape. But even in the real world, describing a rape fantasy in the wrong context could easily land people in some real legal trouble, no matter how make-believe it is.

 

[Thermal]

Sexual abuse can easily be verbal only. Not a huge stretch to extend that to virtual.

Kind of surprising to me that a game would allow you to gang rape other players by design. I'm not a gamer, but is this a normal thing?

 

[theprestige]

I used to play Dungeons & Dragons and had a character, a knight of which I still have the metal painted figure, for many months, till he was killed in a battle. I remember parents having to intervene as us children argued over what had happened. I was really upset.

I think the virtual rape of an online character, which is being played in virtual reality, is a big step up from a metal figure on a table-top game. I can see why the girl is traumatised. I think the solution is also online and such conduct should result in the male players being banned and have to issue apologies. Putting this to court, means all online virtual crimes should also be investigated, which is a nonsense.

Animated dolls pantomiming sex has been happening online for ages. Honestly I think the verbal abuse women (and men) receive online is probably a lot more traumatizing than whatever thin parody of sex this is supposed to be. But I'm glad police in the UK have solved all the other crime and now have nothing worse than this to investigate.

One way you can tell this isn't real rape is that a real rape victim can't log off and go outside the moment things start to go wrong.

 

[theprestige]

Sexual abuse can easily be verbal only. Not a huge stretch to extend that to virtual.

Kind of surprising to me that a game would allow you to gang rape other players by design. I'm not a gamer, but is this a normal thing?

The game doesn't allow it. It's not a normal thing. It's just sexless avatars standing around pantomiming hip thrusts and the like. The victim can leave anytime they want, but if they're waiting in a game lobby, or in the middle of a game, you can see how it becomes bullying to have these avatars around making the game experience unpleasant and unplayable.

 

[smartcooky]

Of course, this sort of thing started with Leisure Suit Larry in the Land of the Lounge Lizards

 

[jimbob]

James O'Brien talked about this. He asked if it would be OK for a group of men to text a girl saying in graphic details the sexual violence they want to commit on her, or possibly shout to her the same thing.

 

[theprestige]

Of course, this sort of thing started with Leisure Suit Larry in the Land of the Lounge Lizards : D

No it did not. LLS was a single-player game where people could make an informed choice about whether or not to play. Also, there was no rape simulated in the game. The core principle of the narrative is that the player character is trying to obtain consent so they can reach their goal of getting laid.

This is an online multiplayer game where some players are sexually harassing other players without their consent. This sort of thing almost certainly started with actual online multiplayer games with lax controls on player interaction. It couldn't really have started any sooner than that.

Also, calling this sort of thing "rape", and investigating it as such, really devalues the word. The cops should be ashamed of themselves. There must already be some sort of "online sexual harassment" or "cyberbullying" law on the books that is much more appropriate to the scenario.

 

[theprestige]

James O'Brien talked about this. He asked if it would be OK for a group of men to text a girl saying in graphic details the sexual violence they want to commit on her, or possibly shout to her the same thing.

Like happens in FPS game lobbies all the time.

 

[jimbob]

Like happens in FPS game lobbies all the time.

Which doesn't mean it's okay. And if all parties are in the same jurisdiction, it might actually be a crime that could be prosecuted - not for rape but violent threats.

 

[smartcooky]

No it did not. LLS was a single-player game where people could make an informed choice about whether or not to play. Also, there was no rape simulated in the game. The core principle of the narrative is that the player character is trying to obtain consent so they can reach their goal of getting laid.

This is an online multiplayer game where some players are sexually harassing other players without their consent. This sort of thing almost certainly started with actual online multiplayer games with lax controls on player interaction. It couldn't really have started any sooner than that.

Also, calling this sort of thing "rape", and investigating it as such, really devalues the word. The cops should be ashamed of themselves. There must already be some sort of "online sexual harassment" or "cyberbullying" law on the books that is much more appropriate to the scenario.

Firstly, you missed the smiley. I was kidding (and you need to grow a sense of humor).

Secondly, the person whose avatar was "raped" had no choice but to play this online game? They were forced into participating?

 

[theprestige]

Which doesn't mean it's okay. And if all parties are in the same jurisdiction, it might actually be a crime that could be prosecuted - not for rape but violent threats.

Of course not. It's absolutely not okay. But it's been going on for years, without the police making the news with their "virtual rape" investigations.

Firstly, you missed the smiley. I was kidding (and you need to grow a sense of humor).

Haha fair enough.

Secondly, the person whose avatar was "raped" had no choice but to play this online game? They were forced into participating?

I thought about going on a blame the victim rant, but decided not to.

Instead, I pointed out that this kind of behavior creates an unpleasant experience for nonconsenting players, and drives them out of the game they wanted to play - maybe even paid to play.

Yes, they have the option of removing their VR gear and logging out, and I assume that's exactly what the victim did once she realized what was happening. But it still happened. It's still not right. People shouldn't be bullied out of where they're entitled to be and have chosen to be.

Oh, but she should have done her due diligence, and realized it was going to be that kind of place, before she went in there.

Yeah. And she should have dressed more modestly, and stayed away from that side street, and not gone home with that guy, and not accepted that drink. Victim blaming is victim blaming, offline or on.

 

[Orphia Nay]

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/cri...police-daily-mail-internet-npcc-b1129844.html

"Police investigate virtual rape of girl in metaverse
The girl is said to have been left distraught after her avatar - or digital character - was attacked online by several adult men in a virtual 'room'"

One thing is for sure, this is not a rape under the Sexual Offences Act of 2003. Indeed, I think the police and CPS will struggle to find a crime that they can prosecute under. Existing laws regarding harassment and abuse online, such as S127 of the Communications Act, which is about messaging, clearly do not cover the virtual commission of an actual criminal act, which causes upset or trauma.

"Prosecutors should note that an offence under s.127 CA 2003 may be committed in a number of different ways:

s.127(1) – an offender sends, or causes to be sent, via a public communications network a communication that is either grossly offensive, or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character;
s.127(2) – for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or anxiety to another, an offender:
sends, or b. causes to be sent, a communication that the offender knows to be false; or
persistently makes use of a public electronic communications network."


I'd say that covers it.

Though the fact that the girl was under 16 makes this even more disturbing, and could also be an offense under another act.

Hence why police need to investigate, I guess.

 

[PitPat]

This is one of these cases where there's an intersection of sociology and law where there isn't a clear precedent. Like alleged pedophiles who write their own graphic child rape stories and can be tried for possession of child pornography. Maybe more technology in this case, but pretty similar, I think.

Don't have an answer, but it's an interesting question.

 

[Chanakya]

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/cri...police-daily-mail-internet-npcc-b1129844.html

"Police investigate virtual rape of girl in metaverse
The girl is said to have been left distraught after her avatar - or digital character - was attacked online by several adult men in a virtual 'room'"

One thing is for sure, this is not a rape under the Sexual Offences Act of 2003. Indeed, I think the police and CPS will struggle to find a crime that they can prosecute under. Existing laws regarding harassment and abuse online, such as S127 of the Communications Act, which is about messaging, clearly do not cover the virtual commission of an actual criminal act, which causes upset or trauma.

Haha, the future is here! We're actually living in the pages of sci fi, how cool is that!


eta: Although, on second thoughts, scratch the Haha. I don't think it's fair to laugh at the girl's distress over this thing --- not without first taking the trouble to understand this, and her, more fully. ...And in any case, regardless of anything, I suppose finding mirth in someone's distress is ...not done, no matter what, that is provided that distress is genuine not some ploy to somehow profit, not that I'm suggesting that's the case.

What I mean to say is, my remark was knee-jerk. This is interesting, this thing, and bears looking into some more. (I'll start with reading the link, that I haven't bothered checking out so far!)

 

[Nessie]

Sexual abuse can easily be verbal only. Not a huge stretch to extend that to virtual.

Kind of surprising to me that a game would allow you to gang rape other players by design. I'm not a gamer, but is this a normal thing?

It was not a rape. It was online characters attacking another online character in a way that the girl perceived as looking like rape.

I do not know enough about such games, but presume a character can be forced to the ground and another lies on top and simulates the sex act by moving the hips backwards and forwards.

 

[Nessie]

....
Also, calling this sort of thing "rape", and investigating it as such, really devalues the word. The cops should be ashamed of themselves. There must already be some sort of "online sexual harassment" or "cyberbullying" law on the books that is much more appropriate to the scenario.

Did the cops refer to it as rape, or was that the journalist's headline?

It is not the case, if the cops have called it rape, they are doing so, because that is how the victim perceives what happened and the police's policy is to believe and be supportive of the victim, rather than dismissive?

 

[gabeygoat]

The girl is a juvenile. To support the "quasi" rapists is to support, well, "quasi" rapists AND pedophiles. Obviously, if I owned a gaming platform, I'd like to ban rapey pedophiles. Evidently that's now a woke contriversial take on things. Legally, I think there should be laws against threats of rape to children, but I guess that too is a step to left.

 

[Nessie]

"Prosecutors should note that an offence under s.127 CA 2003 may be committed in a number of different ways:

s.127(1) – an offender sends, or causes to be sent, via a public communications network a communication that is either grossly offensive, or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character;
s.127(2) – for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or anxiety to another, an offender:
sends, or b. causes to be sent, a communication that the offender knows to be false; or
persistently makes use of a public electronic communications network."


I'd say that covers it.

Though the fact that the girl was under 16 makes this even more disturbing, and could also be an offense under another act.

Hence why police need to investigate, I guess.

This is the official government version of S127(1);

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/21/section/127

"sends by means of a public electronic communications network a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character"

That is different from other versions and I think makes it clearer how the use of a virtual online game the public have access to, to send other matter, namely creating virtual characters who go out to simulate a rape on another, which is obscene and menacing.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Did the cops refer to it as rape, or was that the journalist's headline?

It is not the case, if the cops have called it rape, they are doing so, because that is how the victim perceives what happened and the police's policy is to believe and be supportive of the victim, rather than dismissive?

It's a second hand report of a Mail story and contains the line

The Metropolitan Police told the Standard it had no knowledge if[sic] the case

 

[Shrinker]

It was not a rape. It was online characters attacking another online character in a way that the girl perceived as looking like rape.

I do not know enough about such games, but presume a character can be forced to the ground and another lies on top and simulates the sex act by moving the hips backwards and forwards.

I do a lot of VR and in my experience it’s not even remotely like that. The reporting is vague, but it’s seems the incident likely happened in a chat room, not a game. But even in games which are more physical, characters can’t usually push each other around and certainly not to the floor. The technology only tracks your head and hands, not any other part of your body, so if the app you’re using draws a body at all, its position is only estimated from your head and hand positions. Some games do have dynamics which push your character around but they are very disorientating and unpleasant. Most VR experiences do not show your own body, just your hands. Characters typically move around by teleporting, and I’ve never seen an experience where players can prevent other players from teleporting away from them.

My expectation based on reporting of other incidents is that the girl was talked into disabling safety features, eg ones that keep players physically distant, and then these other players sent their floating hands wafting around the girls crotch area. This is laughably unlike rape because body parts pass through each other like poorly rendered ghosts, and the girl probably couldn’t see her own body anyway. However if it was accompanied by a lot of nasty verbal business, explicit language etc. it could have been very frightening, not because its VR but because nasty people are scary.

This is the problem the social media companies can’t solve - they can add all the safety features to what moves where but they can’t filter language and tone. They really need a completely different mentality to how they build these things. For example, though this entire ordeal the girls avatar would almost certainly have been rendered as an adult woman with a bright smile, because that’s how crude these things are. That means the social signals to boys are completely screwed up. In real life girls don’t smile when you cross the line. In VR everyone looks like they’re flirting with you.

It’s only the Daily Mail calling this ‘rape’ BTW. The BBC’s version of the story has marginally better sourcing, and only commits to confirming there was a complaint last year and therefore an investigation was triggered. I cyclically assume the DM sat on this story a while so they could use it post-Xmas to scare parents who just gifted a headset to their kids. They could have used the opportunity to educate parents on which VR experiences are safe, and which are full of horny teenagers, but they didn’t because they’re morons.

 

[FatherLukeduke]

I do not know enough about such games, but presume a character can be forced to the ground and another lies on top and simulates the sex act by moving the hips backwards and forwards.

The developers have only just managed recently to add legs to the game (seriously), so this definitely isn't possible. You can't knock anyone over or "hip thrust" them. Even if this were technically possibly, why in the world would they add that as a feature? Unless you were creating an online rape simulator, but I doubt this is what Meta are going for.

This "gang rape" will have been a bunch of avatars crowding round the child's avatar making disgusting comments and doing emotes that seem lewd in the context. However the only way to let that happen now is by turning off the automatic safety feature "personal boundary" which stops anyone not on your friends list getting within a few feet of you. If anyone gets too close they just fade out of existence in your view. You can also mute anyone at any time.

There are definitely questions for the parent as to why they let a vulnerable child unsupervised into what is potentially a very toxic online environment. Or why the victim had turned off their personal boundary, or why they just didn't mute them all and run off.

And there are questions for Meta as to how they can stop this environment turning into a toxic mess ruled by teenage boys or perverts (same thing?).

This Times journalist went in to see what it was like:

https://archive.ph/390OF#selection-2717.0-2721.251

In some ways, though, things feel more equal. In VR, you can hear everyone’s real voice. This means that there are far more clues to identity than in most online forums. When I start talking in a game called “Bad Room-mates”, the British teenage boys playing squeal with laughter. “Wait, are you my mum?” one says.

I have the same height and power as males, and at one point in a haunted house game called Bonnie’s Revenge I am briefly surrounded by a bunch of unknown guys in a dark corridor. In real life this would be a heart-rate moment; instead I blast straight past them. I am repeatedly reminded that I have the mute button to turn off any characters that offend me.

 

[Darat]

...snip...
It’s only the Daily Mail calling this ‘rape’ BTW. The BBC’s version of the story has marginally better sourcing, and only commits to confirming there was a complaint last year and therefore an investigation was triggered. I cyclically assume the DM sat on this story a while so they could use it post-Xmas to scare parents who just gifted a headset to their kids. They could have used the opportunity to educate parents on which VR experiences are safe, and which are full of horny teenagers, but they didn’t because they’re morons.

Some people aren't aware they need to be quite sceptical in what they read from the media and will use it to jump off into weird flights of fancy about how the police should only investigate potential crimes if they have investigated every single other crime on their books.

 

[Darat]

The developers have only just managed recently to add legs to the game (seriously), so this definitely isn't possible. You can't knock anyone over or "hip thrust" them. Even if this were technically possibly, why in the world would they add that as a feature? Unless you were creating an online rape simulator, but I doubt this is what Meta are going for.

This "gang rape" will have been a bunch of avatars crowding round the child's avatar making disgusting comments and doing emotes that seem lewd in the context. However the only way to let that happen now is by turning off the automatic safety feature "personal boundary" which stops anyone not on your friends list getting within a few feet of you. If anyone gets too close they just fade out of existence in your view. You can also mute anyone at any time.

There are definitely questions for the parent as to why they let a vulnerable child unsupervised into what is potentially a very toxic online environment. Or why the victim had turned off their personal boundary, or why they just didn't mute them all and run off.

And there are questions for Meta as to how they can stop this environment turning into a toxic mess ruled by teenage boys or perverts (same thing?).

This Times journalist went in to see what it was like:

https://archive.ph/390OF#selection-2717.0-2721.251

I don't think you need to add the word vulnerable. For some reason adults, even ones that have grown up since the digital age got going seem to think the usual rules don't apply as soon as it involves "computers". Parents that would never think of allowing their kid to go to an unsupervised party in the real world that would only consist of their kid's friends yet will let them go to an online "party" of potentially hundreds of thousands of people they don't know.

It's all very strange to me - this tendency to be over-protective in the real world but under-protective in the digital world.

I've found myself moving more and more to a view that no under 16 should be allowed to use any form of social media or rather none that are not proactively moderated, by that I mean moderation of content, by people before it is published.

 

[FatherLukeduke]

I don't think you need to add the word vulnerable.

Perhaps redundant. Though there of course different levels of vulnerability and we don't know the age of the child. Obviously an 11 year old could be far more traumatised by this than a sassy 15 year old, who might just give the perps an earful and move on without a second thought, already inured to the sleaziness of certain men.

It's all very strange to me - this tendency to be over-protective in the real world but under-protective in the digital world.

I've found myself moving more and more to a view that no under 16 should be allowed to use any form of social media or rather none that are not proactively moderated, by that I mean moderation of content, by people before it is published.

Agreed. Meta really shouldn't be letting children into these environments (they weren't originally), though I gather the majority of users on the platform are children...probably on their parents accounts/kit most of the time. One youtuber visited some "over 18s" venue and found he was the only adult in there. It was all very weird and had a virtual Lord of the Flies vibe.

 

[Wudang]

Some people aren't aware they need to be quite sceptical in what they read from the media and will use it to jump off into weird flights of fancy about how the police should only investigate potential crimes if they have investigated every single other crime on their books.

And provide fodder for the
"Something must be done.
This is something.
This must be done"
supersaturated solution of fury waiting for something to crystallize around.

 

[theprestige]

NM