"Cyber-crimes" are emotional crimes that are committed against the users of the Internet. I believe that these crimes need to be taken seriously but I disagree with the article "A Rape in Cyberspace" in which Julian Dibbell argues that they should be taken as seriously as rapes committed in the "real world". Victims of "real world" crimes also have to deal with physical scars, as well as emotional scars. The violence that victims of rape in the "real world" have to deal with is one of the major reasons that a person can not consider "cyber-rape" to be as serious.
The victims of these "cyber-crimes" may suffer some emotional stress due to these horrible acts. This stress could be the result of the victim placing a lot of themselves into theur on-line persona. A persons on-line persona could involve the persons exploration of certain aspect of their personality that they do not want anyone to know about within society. Or a victim of "cyber-crimes" might feel that the criminal actually assaulted them because the victim has invested so much of themselves into this character, that it felt like a physical assault. This would make these crimes feel as bad as crimes that are committed with in "real society". The victim of a "cyber-crime" might want the "cyber-criminal" to receive the same punishment that would be placed on a "real world" rapist. This punishment would be too severe because the "cyber-criminal" did not break any criminal laws. I am not disregarding the feelings that a victim of a "cyber-crime" can be traumatized by an act, such as "cyber-rape". I am arguing that the trauma a "real world" rape victim would have to deal with is far worse because they also have to deal with emotional stress along with physical scars.
The punishment of these "cyber-crimes" should be dealt with by the Internet community itself. If the Internet community is able to police itself, the users of the Internet will be able to enforce the morals of the entire Internet community and not just the morals of society. This would be a better choice then having the "real world" society evoke its laws so that they apply to the Internet. If the "cyber-community" is not allowed to police itself and society as whole decides what is acceptable and what is unacceptable on the Internet who would have jurisdiction over such a global entity. This means whose morals would be considered the bench mark for drafting Internet laws. If government is allowed to enact its laws onto the Internet, the result could have a negative effect on the entire Internet community. This negative effect would be that some people who access the Internet for the opportunity to explore certain aspects of their personalities would not be able to continue to do this because society has deemed this behavior to be inappropriate. These people would then have to find another environment where they could investigate these different parts of their personalities. Another major problem that governments would have to deal with if they were going to regulate the Internet is its continuous global growth. The global magnitude of the Internet could also cause problem in regulation because a certain topic or idea may be illegal in one country and legal in the country where the idea originated from. The "cyber-community" could police itself by having a judge and jury within itself. In the example of LambdaMOO, Dr. Bombay followed the appropriate procedure to report this crime. She complained to the other Internet users (the jury) about the crime, as well as other witnesses of the horrific act. These witnesses as well as other Internet users (jury) then forced the administrator of the MOO (the judge) to impose a punishment that was deemed to be fair to both parties. I believe that the expulsion of Mr. Bungle from the MOO was a just punishment for the crime that he committed.
Since Internet providers are able to track their customers use of the Internet, these providers could inform the people that are committing these crimes that this kind of behavior will not be acceptable in certain sites that are not designed for such violent acts. If these "cyber-villains" continue to commit "cyber-crimes", within the Internet sites where this behavior is deemed unacceptable, the Internet servers could then "black-ball" the villain and discontinue his Internet access. Another alternative for the Internet servers is to inform the "cyber-villains" to sites on the Internet where this kind of behavior is acceptable. The "cyber-criminals" who want to continue to engage in acts that some of the Internet community might find offensive must be willing to accept the consequences of their actions. If Internet servers provide "cyber-criminals" with information about sites where these actions are acceptable they will not infringe on the criminals rights or the victims rights. Both the "cyber-victim" and "cyber-criminal" will be able to continue to use the Internet to investigate any topics that the users want to study. The exploration of these ideas can continue for both users without infringing on anyone else’s right to explore the Internet.
The person who commits these "cyber-crimes" could argue that they have the right to express their feelings however they want to on the Internet. The argument of these "cyber-criminals" could be that committing a "cyber-rape" is better for society than if this person committed a "real world" rape or any other "real world" crime. To rebuke this argument I would say that this "cyber-criminal" does have the right to display these tendencies over the Internet, but they have to make sure that the place where they are re-enacting these tendencies is a place where no one else will be offended by such an act. To achieve this goal the "cyber-villain" could enter an Internet site where "cyber-crimes" like "cyber-rape" are acceptable. With the Internet being such a source of information a "cyber-criminal" should be able to find a area of the Internet that will meet his needs to engage in such violent acts without offending anyone.