The network removed the most important constraint on speech in real space—the separation of publisher from author. There is vanity publishing in real space, but only the rich can use it to reach a broad audience. For the rest of us, real space affords only the access that the publishers want to give us.

Sounds like blogs... --Lemi4

But the most significant feature of this story about Jake is how cyberspace permitted him to escape the constraints of real space. Cyberspace is not, of course, a place; you don’t go anywhere when you are there. But it is also quite true that the world Jake lived in when writing was a space quite different from the space he lived in here. He was free there of real-life constraints. He was free of the norms and understandings that had successfully formed him into a member of a college community. Maybe he wasn’t perfectly at home; maybe he wasn’t the happiest. But the world of the University of Michigan had succeeded in steering him away from the life of a psychopath—except when it gave him access to the Net. On the Net he was someone else.

This passage, and the earlier one where jake is said to "slither," and how it is explained his "hatred" (etc) is allowed to surface is, I think, inflammatory to the point.

This person wrote stories and published them to a newsgroup called "stories." He wrote works of fiction and found reward in publishing them. As a southerner I have to wonder if Mr. Lessig would also describe William Faulkner in this way after reading his account of poor Temple Drake's guided descent into deviancy. After all, Faulkner, in the introduction, admits to a desire to create the most "vile" tale he could invent.

Surely as Mr Faulkner wrote these stories he was transported - perhaps even more than Jake here. After all, Faulkner's world existed in story after story, characters evolved, and even maps of the places were created by this person. Surely Faulkner was there in the barn when Temple lost her innocence to a corn cob at the hands of Popeye - and yet he did nothing to prevent it, choosing instead to chronicle the events following in order to supply us all our vicarious thrills...

Is this an example of cyberspace deviancy only because it involves work published to usenet? Because aside from that one tiny detail I do not see how this is any different at all than any other works of published fiction. Author places him or herself in a place and time, author invents story. With exception of the usenet part this storytelling could have taken place around a campfire or, as the book mentions, in Hustler magazine. In the pages of a magazine it could likewise have been published anonymously, so would this also make Jake a "coward?"

I'm sorry, I just do not see how this is applicable to the example of cyberspace altering someone's behavior. It's not as if he entered a game world and set about molesting other characters (avatars of other real-life people sitting at their computers) in-game, or even took pleasure in torturing Sims characters (AI based "real people") - examples of which are well to be found.

-----------------------

In response to the above, it seems to me that the difference between cyberspace and physical space that Professor Lessig is trying to bring out here is that the publishing can be accomplished anonymously and easily, and be guaranteed available. The closest comparison in the examples above is that of anonymous publication in a magazine - but even that involves a selection process by the editors of the magazine, who act as gatekeepers ("Even Hustler wouldn't publish the likes of this"). The point here seems to be that the psychology of gatekeeperlessness (if I may be permitted to coin such a monstrosity) is fundamentally different (something which may even have influenced the character of this post); people may give freer rein to some aspects of their natures if they know that no censor stands between them and their audience, even if they don't get anything out of it directly. Similarly, I suspect there are many people today writing blogs who wouldn't have bothered to keep private journals. Perhaps the balance of the emphasis ought to be shifted slightly from the scope of the potential audience to the lack of editorial oversight? -- avir

As discussed in Professor Lessig's Code class, the reaction to games such as Grand Theft Auto raises free speech issues.  One of the arguments against such games is that they cause children to become accustomed to violence (and immorality generally) and regard it as acceptable.  The idea was compared to other issues of context change, such as soldiers returning from Vietnam and generally not causing atrocities at home.  Perhaps children would not be able to distinguish as easily between "real" and "fictional" contexts.  On the other hand, perhaps children who are well-educated from a young age in the idea that there are fundamentally different contexts will then be able to more easily shift between them, without carrying inappropriate influences across.    -Avi