Police investigate virtual sex assault on girl's avatar
Police investigate virtual sex assault on girl's avatar
The incident in a virtual world reportedly left the under-16-year-old traumatised.
Police are investigating a virtual sexual assault of a girl's avatar, the chair of the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners has said.
Donna Jones said she had learned that a complaint was made in 2023, triggering a police inquiry.
The virtual incident did not result in physical harm but caused "psychological trauma", the Daily Mail has reported a source as saying. Police chiefs have called on platforms to do more to protect their users.
…
The impact of the attack on the girl's avatar was said to be heightened because of the immersive nature of the VR experience.
You're viewing a single thread.
It sounds ridiculous that they assaulted an avatar. I think it is the wrong take. The avatar is just the medium. The target was obviously the person behind the avatar. It's like saying that threats over text message is assaulting her phone.
Ssssh it's okay iphone. Don't listen to them. I know you were just protecting me from the bullies in high school
I didn't know how to feel about the headline when I read it, is it possible to do that? I still don't know. It's not really for me to decide how SHE feels either. It just sounds.... Weird? And not possible? I don't know.
Regardless, in my mind, it depends on what the action was. If I send a text to your phone to hack it, then I guess I'm "assaulting your phone" but if the phone is the medium used to get to you then obviously it's towards you.
And this can all be made moot by the software devs with an input box "keep non-friends N meters away". Its all tech and virtual. Whatever she has a problem with can be an option to toggle for her.
Example from the article what it can look like:
Recalling the experience, Ms Patel told the same programme that she was "surrounded by three to four male-sounding and male-representing avatars, who started sexually harassing me in a verbal sense and then sexually assaulting my avatar".
She said they had used misogynistic language and "continued to touch my avatar in a way that can only be described as a sexual assault of my avatar".
So, I guess the appropriate terminology would be sexual harassment of the person by virtual sexual assault on their avatar in the VR space, or something like that.
I can imagine for an innocent person unprepared for it to be ganged and surrounded by deviants in VR sounds like it could be a proper traumatic experience. I don't think there should be downplaying or normalizing this kind of experience for the sole reason that pervs are to be expected online. There is no reason to sink expectations of society to the lowest uncommon deranged denominator.
I feel guilty for that, I really do, but this description is very funny for me in a way a South Park episode could be.
It is absurd and funny, I agree, but only because it is not representative of what actually happened.
Yeah, I had and sometimes still have very strong feelings over much smaller unpleasantries in the Web, so it is bad.
No one is down playing it, it's being up played by being labeled sexual assault. At worst this should be considered harassment.
Plenty of comments here alone dismiss everything about it.
We, as a seasoned internet nerd community and the gamers amongst us in particular, may have been exposed to edgy and lewd behaviour online since forever, not that it is a good thing.
It should not be considered normal that it happens everywhere online and it should not be expected that everyone should be as cynical and desensitised as we are.
But yeah. Assault is the wrong charge. It is sexual harassment. And it should be taken seriously.
It can't be sexual assault.
[Edit: Sexual] Assault is physical contact.
No, that's battery.
You're thinking of battery
Downvoted for being right. Reddit 2.0
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/part/1/crossheading/assault
https://www.findlaw.com/state/new-york-law/new-york-sexual-assault-laws.html
https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/defense/penal-code/243-4/
You can look at other jurisdictions, but physical contact is core to the definition.
nope
https://vindicatelaw.com/assault-vs-battery-are-they-the-same-or-different-crimes/
The legal definition of assault is an intentional act that gives another person reasonable fear that they’ll be physically harmed or offensively touched.
No physical contact or injury has to actually occur, but the accused person must have intentionally acted in a way to cause that fear.
https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/criminal-charges/assault-and-battery-overview.html
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/assault_and_battery
Assault refers to the wrong act of causing someone to reasonably fear imminent harm. This means that the fear must be something a reasonable person would foresee as threatening to them. Battery refers to the actual wrong act of physically harming someone
I gave you the relevant jurisdiction and two major US ones. In all three cases, it cannot be sexual assault without actual sexual contact with the victim.
Regular assault isn't relevant here.
And one of them says.
Five key things to know about California’s sexual battery laws are:
The one that also tells you California uses the terms interchangeably?
Yep.
But that still doesn't change the way the legal systems views the terms assault and battery
This topic isn't about assault vs battery. This topic is about sexual assault.
In the relevant legal system (and two major US ones), the law requires actual physical contact for sexual assault.