After rereading the case about Lori Drew, I'm convinced that many people either don't care or don't think about the consequences of their online interactions. In the case of Megan Meier, someone's careless words contributed to the death of a young girl. In other instances online interaction has contributed to the corruption of children and the destruction of relationships.
I'm sure the husband who began chatting with some random woman on the internet doesn't think that typed characters could lead to the end of his marriage, but it could. I think that words read on computer screens can have just as much if not more significance than those spoken in person or on the phone. Since the reader must interpret the level of emotion behind the words there's a chance that more and not less emphasis can be placed on the exchange. Therefore the significance is in the mind of the reader. Someone other than Megan may have interpreted the words "the world would be a better place without you" as a joke or sarcasm and dismissed it. It was Megan's state of mind that allowed the message to resonate so loudly.
More on this later...
6 comments:
Tami,
I definitely agree that the importance and significance of words typed on the internet depend highly on the state of mind of the person. I want to bring into light the fact that this is just as true in RL. People say things and some people take it personally and others take it without consequence. To me the biggest difference has to do with the fact that it is easier for the original typer/speaker to make random heartless comments on the internet because they do not have to view the reaction first hand.
Tami, I definitely can see how the written word is more powerful and influential on one's mind, because it's not a fleeting comment -- it can be reread, scrutinized, and ultimately blown out of proportion. To debate whether deriving meaning from those words is the responsiblity of the writer or the reader is, from an American standpoint, questioning the breadth of the First Amendment. This quote from Dibbell illuminates the issue: "The more seriously I took the notion of virtual rape, the less seriously I was able to take the notion of freedom of speech, with its tidy division of the world into the symbolic and the real" (96).
Personally, as a free speech advocate and former journalism student, I find it very difficult to agree that speech should be censored online, no matter how potentially dangerous. Because the truth is, no one can ever predict how certain words will affect others. Even the most benign comment may hit a nerve unknowingly. I could go into a whole tangent on media ethics and law, but I'll just say that I think it takes an extremely stringent reason to restrain this basic democratic freedom.
Christina, I agree that the supposed anonymity of the internet allows people to be much more deceptive and controversial than they would be in RL. Some of the comments I've read on blogs I could never imagine hearing someone say in real life. This false sense of reality allows people innermost thoughts to be expressed with little chance or repercussions and sometimes I find that scary.
Lauren, I am all for the 1st amendment but it is abused on a daily basis. We already have our freedom of speech limited as well as the right to peaceably assemble and petition the government. The Patriot Act and other such ambiguous laws have effectively stripped us of our rights.
Where I disagree with you is when it comes to interaction with minors. I believe that there is a code of conduct that should transfer from RL to the internet. It is illegal to solicit sex from a minor in RL as well as the internet. It is immoral to impersonate a 16 year old boy in RL as it should be on the internet.
I wholeheartedly agree that no one can be responsible for how another person interprets their words in RL or VR. It's difficult to read a comment objectively when there are no other cues to the person's true motives or emotions. I just have trouble accepting the fact that people shouldn't exercise the same level of responsibility online as they do in their everyday lives. If I was to tell someone in person that I would kill them if they hit my car, I could be arrested for making a terroristic threat; the same comment online would be excused. Again, I'm unsure as to how much of our RL decorum should be transferred online, but I definitely think SOME rules should apply to avoid complete mayhem.
Tami, your point about a terrorist threat online being excused reminded me of something called the "clear and present danger test," which has been applied in U.S. trials concerning disruptive speech. The test goes as follows:
http://www.lehigh.edu/~kko2/122/week2/ca.html
The key word of the test is in the first prong: "imminent." It seems that today's laws have yet to recognize online speech as threatening, because no immediate reaction can be proven. Depending on the nature of the speech, this status is troubling and freeing all at once.
"Depending on the nature of the speech, this status is troubling and freeing all at once."
This is so true. As someone who has very playful and sarcastic interactions online, I would hate to have someone read a comment I post and report me. I would totally freak out if the police were at my door due to some nonsense comment I made on a blog or myspace. This becomes scary when people plot murders or suicide online and they are protected. It's a catch 22.
Ms. Howe,
I definitely agree with you that words can be even more dangerous than expressing oneself on the phone or in person. In the article, "Your Online Persona" the author talks about how reading words and hearing them conveys 2 completely different vibes.... since, of course one cannot hear the delivery or tone of the message in cyberspace. As a result, the reader must interpret the meaning.
Although this particular article addresses methods to reduce the "chilly" impression that online interaction conveys...I think it is equally as important to realize the impact of actually seeing something in writing. Plus, in reference to romantic interest or dating (this is a more trivial example than cheating, but I think it should be mentioned as well)...let's say that Gina is interested in Bobby. In real life Bobby wouldn't give her the time of day BUT online it's much easier to appease her because there is no threat of a face-face confrontation. This presents an unfortunate and confusing situation for Gina.
Post a Comment