Abstract
The restrictions for disseminating certain kinds of information that is considered publicly offensive and (or) dangerous has made topical a fundamental problem of the limits of reasonable interpretation and application of law to the contexts that could be characterized as virtual, playful or otherwise non-serious. From the standpoint of interdisciplinary approach including mostly philosophy of law and game studies, the underlying problem reflected in therepresentative examples above, has substantial similarities with the “magic circle” concept studied in the research direction that is conventionally called “videogame law”. However, existing theories of magic circle, both in game studies and law, are not satisfactory to resolve this problem. The article suggests that the solution can be found in theoretical sociology concept of “generalized symbolic media”. If an object of social relationship is an “external referent of value” of such media and has convertible “socio-currency value”, this means that such object is significant enough to be included into the scope of legal regulation. However, for the application of law to be appropriate without doubt, such an object should also share functional similarity with the core meaning of the relevant legal norm. Together, these two criteria, conventionally designated as “the criterion of seriousness” and “the criterion of reality”, are necessary and sufficient to assert that interpretation and application of law is not absurd, but reasonable in cases related to virtual reality that is characterized by possibility to include simulation that is out of scope of law.
Highlights
In the experience of the Russian Federation, a recent trend of states to seek “sovereignization” in the informational space finds one of its implications in establishing the rules restricting “information prohibited for dissemination [in the Internet]” [Efremov A.A., 2018: 202]
If the object of social relationships, interpreted as an external referent of value, has a convertible “social-currency value” — and we are talking about such generalized symbolic media as money, political power, influence and others that are constitutive to social reality — the application of law to social relationships with such object is within the framework of common sense
This no longer concerns special legal collisions related to virtual property, but presupposes much broader context of the question how law should relate to mediareality that quite often contains various simulacra that should not be subject to law
Summary
In the experience of the Russian Federation, a recent trend of states to seek “sovereignization” in the informational space finds one of its implications in establishing the rules restricting “information prohibited for dissemination [in the Internet]” [Efremov A.A., 2018: 202]. Referring to the second of the above examples, a game dedicated to fictional drugs suddenly becomes a tool for propaganda of the objects limited for economic exchange This state of affairs tacitly suggests that there should be some other explanation, perhaps of general theoretic nature, that could explain why in some cases seemingly fictional, non-serious and/or game phenomena could be included into the scope of “real” law without violation of common sense, while in other cases they clearly should remain in distance from day-to-day social reality. In a similar way, reinventing of the magic circle along the lines suggested in this paper may help to separate legally significant cases from the legally insignificant ones both for practical and theoretical purposes
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
