If this robotic girlfriend—unveiled last weekend at the AVN Adult Entertainment Expo and costing $7-9k—actually goes mainstream, I’ll bet it’s only a matter of time before we see some state lawmaker somewhere propose to ban the toys. The FCC well, no doubt, follow suit, by demanding the incorporation of parental control tools into the devices so Junior doesn’t have his way with Ms. Roxxxy (or her soon-to-be-released male counterpart, Rocky) while Mom and Dad are out at NASCAR the opera.
Laugh if you will, but if Moore’s Law holds true, such robots will become smarter, cheaper, and probably sexier as microchips continue to plummet in price and meaningful artificial intelligence becomes marketplace reality. Move over, Roomba, Roxxxy has arrived—and she ain’t no Rosie the Robot Maid from The Jetsons! Telegraph reports that there’s a whole book about this:
In a 2007 book, “Love and Sex with Robots,” British chess player and artificial intelligence expert David Levy argues that robots will become significant sexual partners for humans, answering needs that other people are unable or unwilling to satisfy.
But the most interesting part of the telegraph article is creator Douglas Hines’s motivation:
Inspiration for the sex robot sprang from the September 11, 2001 attacks, he said, where a friend died and he vowed to store his personality forever.
This sounds an awful lot like the plot of Caprica, the new SyFi television series, a prequel set 58 years before the beginning of Battlestar Galactica, the cult phenomenon that even seduced hardened TV-refusenik like me. Continue reading →
This morning the Federal Trade Commission released its report on kids and virtual worlds. You can read the report, entitled Virtual Worlds and Kids: Mapping the Risks,here. (I’ve posted similar thoughts over at Terra Nova, apologies for the cross-post).
What initially strikes me about the report is the distance between how the report’s being billed and what it actually says. The billing of the report—and thus the likely media tagline—is that the “FTC Report Finds Sexually and Violently Explicit Content in Online Virtual Worlds Accessed by Minors.” But a more accurate statement would be “FTC Report Finds Surprisingly Little Sexually and Violently Explicit Content in Online Virtual Worlds Accessed by Minors, Especially Compared to What Minors Can Find on the Internet.”
The Commission found at least one (really? that’s all?) instance of explicitly violent OR sexual content in a significant percentage of the virtual worlds it examined—and that includes user chat, but in general it didn’t find many such instances per world. So to be counted in the study as a virtual world that contains explicit violent or sexual content, the researchers just had to find one instance of chat in which someone said something violent or sexually oriented (which of course includes the scatalogical as well as the sexual). The point is, it appears to me that they went looking for anything and didn’t find much. Far from being seen as an indictment of virtual worlds as dangerous for kids, this seems to me to be quite positive for virtual worlds, especially as compared to the internet at large. I’m relying on the following language from the report:
Despite this seemingly high statistic [the Commission found at least one instance of sexually or violently explicit content in 19 out of 27 worlds], the Commission found very little explicit content in most of the virtual worlds surveyed, when viewed by the actual incidence of such content.
And:
Of [the 14 virtual worlds open to children under 13], the Commission found at least one instance of explicit content on seven of them. Significantly, however, with the exception of one world, Bots, all of the explicit content observed in the child-oriented worlds occurred when the Commission’s researchers visited those worlds as teen or adult registrants, not when visiting the worlds as children under age 13.
I think the study said some interesting things, and there is some strong analysis, but the reception the report will get is, I bet, far removed from what the report actually says.
The Parents Television Council (PTC) released a new report today entitled Women in Peril: A Look at TV’s Disturbing New Storyline Trend. The report argues that “by depicting violence against women with increasing frequency, or as a trivial, even humorous matter, the broadcast networks may ultimately be contributing to a desensitized atmosphere in which people view aggression and violence directed at women as normative, even acceptable,” said PTC President Tim Winter. As evidence the report cites… Nicole Kidman. OK, it cites more than Nicole Kidman, but the 7-page report and accompanying press release does seem to place a lot of stock in the fact that, while being questioning by a House Foreign Affairs subcommittee hearing about violence against women overseas, “Ms. Kidman conceded that Hollywood has probably contributed to violence against women by portraying them as weak sex objects, according to the Associated Press.” I’m not sure what Ms. Kidman was doing testifying before Congress on the matter of violence against women overseas — dare I suggest some congressmen were out for another photo-op with a Hollywood celeb? — but the better question is whether Ms. Kidman’s opinion has any bearing on the question of what relationship, if any, there is between televised violence and real-world violence against women. (Incidentally, if she really feels passionately about all this, is she prepared to go back and recut some of her old scenes in “Dead Calm,” “To Die For,” and “Eyes Wide Shut“?)
But let’s not nitpick about the credentials Ms. Kidman brings to the table or whether it makes any sense for PTC to elevate her opinions to proof of theory when it comes to a supposed connection between depictions of violence against women in film or television and real world acts of violence against women. PTC, however, suggests that’s exactly what is going on today. They allude to a few lab studies which are of the “monkey see, monkey do” variety — where the results of artificial lab experiments are used to claim that watching depictions of violence will turn us all into killing machines, rapists, robbers, or just plain ol’ desensitized thugs.
There’s just one problem with such studies, and the PTC report: Reality. Continue reading →
I’ve been meaning to say something about this new paper by Renee Newman Knake of Michigan State University College of Law, which calls for a new paradigm to analyze, and then likely regulate, video game content. Knake’s paper is entitled, “From Research Conclusions to Real Change: Understanding the First Amendment’s (Non)Response to Negative Effects of Mass Media on Children by Looking to the Example of Violent Video Game Regulations.” In it, she proposes to extend an emerging legal philosophy known as “ecogenerism” to the field of video games and the First Amendment treatment thereof. “Ecogenerism” is largely the creation of Barbara Bennett Woodhouse and the theory argues that we should apply lessons or legal frameworks from the field of environmental law to the area of media and children. “Under an ecogenerist model,” states Knake, “media harm decisions should prioritize concern about the level of ‘toxic’ media which children are exposed over free speech interests.” Simply stated, we should treat “toxic media” like toxic chemicals.
There have been other efforts to get courts to relax the legal scrutiny applied to video game content from “strict” to something more relaxed or intermediate in character. For example, there is the “violence as obscenity” approach proposed by Kevin Saunders, who, like Knake, is also with the Michigan State University College of Law. But whereas Saunders has proposed applying an adjacent legal theory or framework (obscenity law) to legal analysis of the constitutionality of regulation of video game content, Woodhouse and now Knake propose a much broader, and more radical, reformulation of First Amendment law along the lines of entirely different body of jurisprudence — again, environment law and regulation.
Of course, this is nuts. The notion that words or images are as “toxic” as chemicals is preposterous, and yet that is exactly what Knake and Woodhouse want us to accept. We can determine with a great deal of certainly the physiological impact of too much mercury or lead on the development of the human brain or body. Generally speaking, we know what dose would kill or deform. The same cannot possibly be said of media, and the very allusion to toxic materials or chemicals is ludicrous to begin with since words and images have never directly killed anyone. EVER! Continue reading →
Josh, a law professor at Washington & Lee Law, will be guest-blogging with us over the coming weeks about his important paper on online child safety in virtual worlds, an issue currently under review by the FTC.
Me, as a druid who could turn into my daughter’s pet bear
This is a story about Mary and the Bear. And the FTC. And a paper entitled Virtual Parentalism.
The motivation for the paper was simple: I love playing virtual worlds with my daughters, who are avid explorers of the medium. I wouldn’t consider letting them do this without pretty serious parental supervision, so instead I went with them, joining them in their virtual world adventures. Here’s me talking about it: How Parents can Connect with their Children in Virtual Worlds.
As I began to explore in greater depth, however, it became clear that parents’ involvement in virtual worlds is not a given. The trend is toward segregating children and adults into separate virtual worlds. Thus, my paper, which I have posted for your convenience on SSRN here (Virtual Parentalism), works out some of the dangers replacing parents with parentalist regulation in virtual worlds. Continue reading →
I really enjoyed my Second Life appearance on “Government’s Place in Virtual Worlds and Online Communities,” which was hosted by Metanomics. You can watch the entire segment on the Metanomics site. But the folks at Metanomics have also posted 6 clips from the show at YouTube that highlight some of the topics we discussed. Here’s the list of clips and the videos:
Just FYI… I’ll be speaking tomorrow in Second Life about “Government’s Place in Virtual Worlds and Online Communities” as part of an ongoing series hosted by Metanomics, “an active community with a passion for exploring the uses and issues related to virtual worlds.” Metanomics takes a serious look at virtual worlds and the evolving use of virtual world technologies. I’m excited to be the guest on tomorrow’s show where we will be discussing free speech and privacy policy, online child protection concerns, and issues related to cyber-bullying and anonymity as they effect online communities and virtual worlds.
Those of you who already have Second Life avatars can be a member of the “live studio audience” at the Metanomics virtual studio, which you can find in Second Life here. Or you can watch and participate in the online broadcast at the Metanomics website where you can text comments to other audience members or ask questions. A video of the virtual broadcast will be made available later and I will post it (or a link to it) here.
In terms of background material, here are a few things I’ve penned that deal with issues that might come up on the show: Continue reading →
Who among us does not like the bitch about their least favorite journalists, or reporting that we find disagreeable? Indeed, we Americans are all armchair media critics at heart. That’s generally a healthy thing in a democracy, but how often do we step back and appreciate those who provide us with in-depth reporting and journalistic excellence? Not enough, I dare say. Perhaps my early pursuit of a career in journalism and a college degree in the subject has left me more sensitive to this, but I think it is important on occasion to send out a big “thank you” to those whose investigative reporting — especially on niche subjects — contributes greatly to societal knowledge and a better understanding of important issues.
In the case of journalist Dennis McCauley, long-time editor of Game Politics.com, I wish I would have gotten around to thanking him publicly sooner, because he has just announced his departure from Game Politics and the journalism profession in general. That’s a shame because Dennis was a trailblazer in a field that desperately needed attention from serious journalists. Until Dennis came on the beat, no wait, strike that… until Dennis created the beat, most journalists just didn’t bother taking a serious look at “where politics and video games collide,” which is the motto of Game Politics.com (which is now part of the Entertainment Consumers Association). Before Dennis, most journalists looked a video games as a “kiddie” thing, and to the extent they reported on developments in this field at all, their stories where typically relegated to the back pages of most papers or magazines. And there wasn’t much serious reporting by online sources either.
I’m not sure how I missed this, but someone just pointed out to me that in late July, the city of Amherst, NY, “failed to approve a game license for [Chuck E. Cheese’s] the kids-themed food and entertainment venue… citing concerns about violent video games and bad behavior by patrons that require police intervention.” That is according to this article by Sandra Tan in The Buffalo News. Tan reports that the Amherst Town Board deadlocked 3-3 when considering the license for Chuck E. Cheese’s, apparently meaning that the pizza and arcade hot spot for kids will no longer be able to offer games at their Amherst venue. According to her article, game content considerations drove the move:
Council Member Shelly Schratz said she was disturbed by several “action-packed shoot-and-kill games” that were accessible to children as young as 4. “When I see 6-year-olds, 8-year-olds playing those games, when all the time we’re opening the paper and seeing those stories on youth violence, do we need those games to make money?” she said. Schratz was one of three board members who voted against renewing the establishment’s game room license, which is necessary for the business to legally run its arcade games, a major draw for families that patronize the chain’s 500-plus locations from coast to coast.
I find the actions of Amherst in this case to be quite troubling. Here are a few quick thoughts about this incident: Continue reading →
Robert Corn-Revere, a partner with the law firm of Davis Wright Tremaine and one of America’s greatest living defenders of the First Amendment, has a new essay up on the Media Institute website entitled “The Terminator Cometh.” Corn-Revere takes on the former Terminator himself, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who along with other Calif. lawmakers, has asked the Supreme Court to review a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision holding that a California video game statute was unconstitutional. (More background in my previous post here). California’s decision to appeal the law up to the Supreme Court [petition is here] sets up a potential historic First Amendment decision (if they Court agrees to take the case, that is). Corn-Revere points out why this case is so important:
In seeking review, California is asking the Supreme Court to reverse 60 years of First Amendment jurisprudence and to hold that “excessively violent” material — whatever that may be –”deserves no constitutional protection.” It is also asking the Court to relieve government from actually having to demonstrate the purported harmfulness of speech it seeks to regulate, but instead to defer to “reasonable inferences” and “legislative judgments.”
The John Connor of Your First Amendment Freedoms
In other words, Corn-Revere notes, “the state is asking the Court simply to lower the bar so that protected speech may be regulated based on legislative whim.” He continues:
Thus, like the Terminator, no matter how many times you kill it, the government drive that motivates these laws keeps on going and going until it achieves its programmed goal. If California is successful, it will open the door to regulate not just video games, but a wide range of speech that is currently protected under the First Amendment.
Corn-Revere is right. The ramifications of this case could be profound. As I pointed out in my previous essay on this case:
The Technology Liberation Front is the tech policy blog dedicated to keeping politicians' hands off the 'net and everything else related to technology. Learn more about TLF →
If this robotic girlfriend—unveiled last weekend at the AVN Adult Entertainment Expo and costing $7-9k—actually goes mainstream, I’ll bet it’s only a matter of time before we see some state lawmaker somewhere propose to ban the toys. The FCC well, no doubt, follow suit, by demanding the incorporation of parental control tools into the devices so Junior doesn’t have his way with Ms. Roxxxy (or her soon-to-be-released male counterpart, Rocky) while Mom and Dad are out at NASCAR the opera.
Comments 
Posted in: First Amendment, Free Speech & Online Child Safety, Sin on the 'Net, Technology, Business & Cool Toys, Video Games & Virtual Worlds 
The Technology Liberation Front is the tech policy blog dedicated to keeping politicians' hands off the 'net and everything else related to technology.
