If you found the previous post concerning First Amendment rights in virtual worlds interesting, a new article in Volume 30 of the Cardozo Law Review may be worth your time. The article, The Freedom of 3D Thought: The First Amendment in Virtual Reality, was written by Marc Jonathan Blitz of Oklahoma City University and presents the following question in its abstract:
This article seeks to understand its place in First Amendment law. My question, in short, is whether the actions we take in our personal Holodeck would count as “speech” or other First Amendment-protected activity. The First Amendment right to freedom of speech generally protects expression, not non-expressive conduct, such as driving a car, flying an airplane, or having sex. So where in this familiar First Amendment dichotomy does one place the convincing replica of non-expressive conduct that becomes possible inside a fully immersive VR world? Are we engaging in First Amendment “speech” when we drive a phantom car, pilot an illusory plane, or have virtual sex, and if so, why do activities such as these – which generally count as “non-expressive” conduct, unprotected by the First Amendment, in the physical world – suddenly become “expressive” in a 3D virtual world? In short, courts confronting such questions will have to decide whether VR’s convincing illusions are First Amendment “speech,” like the movies or video games of which they are arguably three-dimensional analogues, or “conduct” like the actions they mimic.
Download the entire article here.
[Hat tip to Media Law Prof Blog]
