ABSTRACT
In Part 1, we presented cyberspace as a place of altered contingencies; a place where the possibility for representation and interaction is virtual and, in many cases, immediate. The discussion that followed was, in part, a response to the general question: If the way we represent ourselves and interact with others is contingent on a particular space, then what possibilities present themselves in these different spaces and how should we police them? In Part 1, we explored this question with an emphasis on the act of taboo violation and presented a case supporting the claim made in Chapter 2: that, ultimately, questions about the morality of virtual acts are the wrongs sorts of questions to ask, at least when trying to determine what should be permissible within a given virtual space.
