New York Convinces Game Companies To Kick Registered Sex Offenders Off Gaming Services

from the it's-an-election-year dept

Back in 2008, New York passed a law requiring registered sex offenders to register all email addresses and social network accounts with the government. Since then, a number of states have passed similar laws and some social networks, such as Facebook, have resorted to simply banning sex offenders from the sites. While these laws provide those who pass them with political capital in following elections, their effectiveness is pretty minimal if it can even be measured.

Not content with just making the online lives of registered sex offenders more difficult, New York is now poised to make sex offenders online lives less enjoyable. New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman has announced the first wave of an initiative called "Operation: Game Over". Under this initiative, over 3500 sex offenders' online gaming accounts with companies such as Apple, Microsoft and Blizzard have been banned completely. AG Schneiderman applauds the effort with the following:
We must ensure online video game systems do not become a digital playground for dangerous predators. That means doing everything possible to block sex offenders from using gaming networks as a vehicle to prey on underage victims.
While protecting children from dangerous predators is a noble goal, one needs to seriously question this initiative.This isn't just removing access to gaming networks for those that have targeted children in the past, it is also affecting hundreds possibly thousands of people whose crimes had nothing to do with children. To ban them completely from gaming networks seems a bit much. In fact, the New York Civil Liberties Union questions just that:
While the intent here is admirable, schemes like this one do very little to keep children safe and trample on the right to free speech and expression.

And the problem this initiative is trying to solve is almost non-existent. Children are almost always abused by people they know – a friend or family member – not by people they interact with while playing video games online.
If the problem New York is trying to solve is non-existent, then what are they actually accomplishing here? Much like other similar initiatives, those supporting it have no concrete answers. Even Microsoft has no real idea why it is going along with the initiative it; it just is:
At Microsoft, we continually evaluate ways to manage safety for our 40 million Xbox Live members and particularly for children on our service. Our partnership with the Office of the New York Attorney General helps further this cause.
Do you want to know what could really help you protect the 40 million Xbox Live members? An educational program for parents on how to properly manage the online play of their children would do a far more effective job at protecting children than an effort like this. Banning registered sex offenders will do nothing to protect children from predators that have not been caught and prosecuted in the past.

Not only are these people blocked from playing with children through these services, they are also blocked from playing with friends and family members. We are further eroding the ability for these people to reintegrate themselves with society, and for what? While New York and those gaming companies that partnered with the state continue the witch hunt, they will surely earn some brownie points with parents. After all, that is really what matters in an election year. Being able to say, "I did something to protect your children." That is the important thing. Who cares if justice is actually being served? Sex offenders are expendable. They aren't real people. At least you can keep telling yourself that if it helps you sleep at night.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    identicon
    Rekrul, Apr 12th, 2012 @ 5:16am

    This isn't just removing access to gaming networks for those that have targeted children in the past, it is also effecting hundreds possibly thousands of people whose crimes had nothing to do with children.

    Especially since you can now get labeled a 'sex offender' for something as trivial as taking a leak in the bushes.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2.  
    icon
    Planespotter (profile), Apr 12th, 2012 @ 5:28am

    So could they just set up a new email account/social network account and register with that?

    What is this actually trying to achieve? ... oh nothing just "we are thinking of the children" banner waving!

    Is he up for re-election soon?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 12th, 2012 @ 5:35am

    Anytime a politician plays the "For the Chillllllllldrrrrrennnn" card

    They are lying. The only questino is why: are they just that stupid? Bribed? Blackmailed? Insane?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4.  
    icon
    artp (profile), Apr 12th, 2012 @ 5:44am

    Thanks for speaking out on this

    I recently became aware of just who was on the sex offender registry, and have been telling friends about it ever since.

    The first post mentioned urinating in public. I hardly think that we need to be protected from drunks who don't know where the can is.

    The largest segment of people entering the sex offender registry is young boys, children, actually, between the ages of 14-16. There is no way to get off the sex offender registry. I checked with an attorney friend here in Iowa, and the law has no provision for removing someone from the registry. Two children involved in sex exploration who are more than 24 months apart in age will get the male put on the sex offender registry. Any sex exploration will get him on the list. Whether you think that child sex play is OK or not, the results are too draconian to tolerate. Children (under 18) almost never match up with the female older than the male. Males don't mature as fast as females, and it is easy for the gap to be two years. Think back to your high school days and look at the couples you remember. How many of them would have been on the sex offender registry?

    When I told one woman about this, she was upset that she could no longer trust the registry to protect her children by checking who the REAL problem people were that she needed to worry about. They are now hidden in a thicket of miscellaneous offenders, most of whom are not dangerous to children, as Zachary pointed out in his article.

    This whole mess is indicative of the lack of oversight on legislatures, who make meaningless laws that are not integrated into the existing body of law. No wonder judges' decisions make no sense when the corpus of law is such a Gordian knot. Discussions over the years have suggested sunset laws, or requiring legislators to fund enforcement of the laws they pass, or other schemes to bring this mess into some sort of order. But nothing ever gets done.

    Anyway, it is time to stop criminalizing our children, besides all the criminalizing that the **AA's would have the government do to the rest of the population.

    [/vent]

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5.  
    identicon
    Pixelation, Apr 12th, 2012 @ 5:45am

    How about this case

    We should make sure she doesn't get near a computer!...

    http://www.economist.com/node/14164614?story_id=14164614&source=hptextfeature

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 12th, 2012 @ 5:55am

    Re:

    [Grammar nit: it's not "effecting" (creating) people, it's *affecting* (having an effect on) those people.]

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7.  
    icon
    Torg (profile), Apr 12th, 2012 @ 5:56am

    "We must ensure online video game systems do not become a digital playground for dangerous predators."

    We must ensure that digital playgrounds don't become digital playgrounds. Makes sense.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8.  
    identicon
    Yogi, Apr 12th, 2012 @ 5:58am

    Double punishment?

    Is it legal in the U.S to punish people for the same crime over and over again?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9.  
    icon
    Zakida Paul (profile), Apr 12th, 2012 @ 6:10am

    Re: Thanks for speaking out on this

    What's next? Place children on the register for playing doctor?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 12th, 2012 @ 6:11am

    While we're at it we also need to ban sex offenders from doing the following.
    -Eating at restaurants (kids eat there you know!)
    -Driving (or riding along) on public or private roads (kids use those roads!)
    -Shopping at a grocery store (parents often bring young kids with them to grocery stores!)
    -Reading books (books may contain descriptions of child pornography! Who knows, we don't have the manpower to read through them all and make a specific list of banned/allowed books!)
    -Working anywhere (Take your kid to work day comes once a year after all! And then company picnics to!)
    -Breathing air (kids breathe that air to! You wouldn't want your kid sharing a milkshake with a sexual predator, so why would you let them share the oxygen in the air with a sexual predator!)

    Oh and the last thing we need to outlaw.
    -Being in jail (kids come on in on Sundays to visit people in jail! If the sex offender is still in jail serving their sentence on a Sunday we need to charge them with endangering those kids coming to visit!)

    There, now our kids are PERFECTLY safe no matter what they do.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  11.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 12th, 2012 @ 6:15am

    Wow, the more I read about US law, the stupider it seems.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  12.  
    icon
    WysiWyg (profile), Apr 12th, 2012 @ 6:15am

    Re:

    Yes. And if they're caught they go to jail for a VERY long time.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  13.  
    identicon
    kenichi tanaka, Apr 12th, 2012 @ 6:15am

    While I applaud New York for passing this law, this has very obvious constitutional issues. While our country, state and Federal, has the right to pass laws to protect the public, these companies that are banning these sex offenders from their network could be liable for constitutional violations.

    It's like ISPs banning sex offenders from subscribing to their internet services or cell phone companies banning sex offenders from acquiring cell phone services through their network.

    I think we're going to see lawsuits aimed at Apple, Microsoft, Blizzard and so on.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  14.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 12th, 2012 @ 6:17am

    Response to: Anonymous Coward on Apr 12th, 2012 @ 6:11am

    Make a list of banned and allowed books? What the hell is this, the catholic church's index?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  15.  
    icon
    Torg (profile), Apr 12th, 2012 @ 6:20am

    Re: Double punishment?

    Well, technically it's forbidden by the fifth amendment, but no one takes the Bill of Rights seriously anymore.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  16.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 12th, 2012 @ 6:23am

    Re:

    This is why the 'sex offender' label really needs to be saved for those who deserve it. Once thats done though, I have no problem with any measures taken to fuck with them.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  17.  
    icon
    Nathan F (profile), Apr 12th, 2012 @ 6:31am

    Re:

    If those all were not privately owned networks, I would agree. We very likely will see a challenge to it from the ACLU and others aligned with them, but I don't see the suits getting very far. MS, Apple, and Blizzard can all set the terms for you to use their property, if you don't like it go find a game somewhere else.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  18.  
    icon
    Chris Rhodes (profile), Apr 12th, 2012 @ 6:31am

    Re: Re: Thanks for speaking out on this

    After they do time for not having a medical license, of course.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  19.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 12th, 2012 @ 6:36am

    Re: Re:

    But now it's a buzz word so it will be used for everything under the sun. Expect to see gaming companies using this to spin their service as a "safer" online system for gaming in their advertising.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  20.  
    icon
    Leigh Beadon (profile), Apr 12th, 2012 @ 6:36am

    Everyone knows that if you have an unstable person with serious psychological issues, the best solution is to completely ostracize them from society and leave them to their own devices with no support structure. Then there's no way they'll ever do anything wrong again — people who feel worthless and hated with nothing left to lose don't commit crimes. Duh.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  21.  
    icon
    Machin Shin (profile), Apr 12th, 2012 @ 6:40am

    Re: Double punishment?

    Well my question is this. Isn't there something in US law about cruel and unusual punishment? The way the laws are for sex offenders I think I would rather get life in prison than be put on that registry.

    Once on this registry you are told where you can and can't live, your job prospects are now next to zero, and your constantly having to deal with law enforcement to keep records up to date. Then on top of that your posted up on a page as a sex offender and the social stigma is that every one on there is a pedophile. Does not matter if you are or not, if your name is on the list people will assume you are.

    So basically they destroy any and all hope of these people having a real life and toss them onto the street. It is well beyond what I think qualifies as fair punishment for their crimes. It is time for lawmakers to fix this mess. This "one size fits all" solution for sex offenders is not fair and is counter productive. Yes, we need to take a hard stance against child molesters but destroying someones life for taking a piss in a bush is not saving children.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  22.  
    identicon
    IronM@sk, Apr 12th, 2012 @ 6:42am

    Re: Re:

    [Comment thread etiquette nit: replying to the correct person. It was a quote from the article, not a comment authored by Rekrul.]

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  23.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 12th, 2012 @ 6:43am

    Re:

    Especially since you can now get labeled a 'sex offender' for something as trivial as taking a leak in the bushes.

    I don't suppose it's too much to ask to cite an example of this?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  24.  
    icon
    David (profile), Apr 12th, 2012 @ 6:43am

    You know why they passed this law

    You know why they passed this law, rather than the educational program Zachary mentioned...

    1. It would require thinking the issue through, but the politicians involved just want the headline.
    2. It would cost the government money, this program pushes the costs off onto the game networks.

    It is sad that this is what we come to expect from our political "leaders".

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  25.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 12th, 2012 @ 6:44am

    Re: Double punishment?

    Good point. Maybe this could be a point of contention for challenging it and getting it declared unconstitutional. However given the way the right-wing media cultivates and panders to the religious zealots anyone who brings such a case is likely to be crucified by a pointed media campaign.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  26.  
    icon
    Ron (profile), Apr 12th, 2012 @ 6:45am

    Free Time

    Wonder what those banned going to do with all the new free time on their hands?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  27.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 12th, 2012 @ 6:46am

    Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Apr 12th, 2012 @ 6:11am

    Banned? They don't need to ban them. They will just burn them.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  28.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 12th, 2012 @ 6:50am

    Re: Re:

    Google and you will find what you seek.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  29.  
    icon
    silverscarcat (profile), Apr 12th, 2012 @ 6:52am

    Re: Re:

    http://www.eagletribune.com/newhampshire/x1876416971/Lawmakers-Public-urination-shouldnt-lead-to-sex -offender-status - Apparently, it's Federal Law now. =/

    Peeing in public, mooning someone, having sex in your car...

    "You're a sexual predator of children!"

    Ugh...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  30.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 12th, 2012 @ 6:53am

    Re: Re:

    I agree. The lawsuits would likely be aimed at the state for passing an unconstitutional law.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  31.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 12th, 2012 @ 6:56am

    Re: Re:

    Julia Tuttle Causeway sex offender colony

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julia_Tuttle_Causeway_sex_offender_colony

    Pissing on side of road is a sexual offense in California
    http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message843814/pg1

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  32.  
    icon
    E. Zachary Knight (profile), Apr 12th, 2012 @ 6:58am

    Re: Re:

    Alright, alright. Just for you I changed it. However, I would like to leave you with this:

    http://xkcd.com/326/

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  33.  
    icon
    PaulT (profile), Apr 12th, 2012 @ 6:58am

    Re: Re: Thanks for speaking out on this

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  34.  
    icon
    David (profile), Apr 12th, 2012 @ 6:59am

    Re: Free Time

    The economist article that Pixelation links to above mentions the fact that studies hint that those who don't have jobs because of sex offender status are more likely to have recidivism.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  35.  
    icon
    silverscarcat (profile), Apr 12th, 2012 @ 7:01am

    This just doesn't work...

    I gotta wonder what the hell lawmakers are thinking...

    Sure, you can make zones where sex offenders aren't allowed... Or ban them from doing stuff, fine...

    Then what?

    They start living in the woods, under bridges, etc, with no stable address...

    The only thing that the lawmakers are doing is A: making it harder for law enforcement officials to keep track of any sort of sex offender and B: making it far less safe for children to live.

    Which would you prefer? A sex offender who lives near you, but has an address and works all the time...

    Or a sex offender who's homeless, has no job and nothing but free time?

    I've got nothing against tough laws against serial rapists or child molesters, but seriously, people who urinate in public, moon others, statutory rape when they're underage (don't ask, it's stupid, kids having sex with kids and both are guilty of breaking the law), sexting... Yeah...

    Stupid laws are stupid.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  36.  
    icon
    E. Zachary Knight (profile), Apr 12th, 2012 @ 7:05am

    Re: Re: Double punishment?

    The 5th amendment doesn't really apply here as people on the Sex Offenders registry are not being charged for a crime they have already been found innocent of. What this can be reasonably be a violation of is the 8th amendment which protects us from cruel and unusual punishment.

    Sex offender registries are little more than a public branding of a person in an attempt to ostracize the person or to provide an outlet for legal persecution of a class of people. It has no reason to exist in a "civilized" society. Sadly, the US is moving further and further away from being a civilized society everyday.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  37.  
    icon
    Tobias Harms (profile), Apr 12th, 2012 @ 7:06am

    Re: Double punishment?

    Considering that people convicted for a crime in U.S aren't allowed to vote in at least some of the elections I would say yes.
    You might be inocent until proven guilty but there is apperently no way to repay you debt to society.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  38.  
    icon
    Mega1987 (profile), Apr 12th, 2012 @ 7:07am

    What they have is NOT a long-term solution...
    It's a freaking band-aid....

    A mini Band-aid that so small... it can't cover the whole would up....

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  39.  
    icon
    Dark Helmet (profile), Apr 12th, 2012 @ 7:08am

    Re: Re: Double punishment?

    "However given the way the right-wing media cultivates and panders to the religious zealots anyone who brings such a case is likely to be crucified by a pointed media campaign."

    And this is why I find my country so god damned entertaining. Let's take a look at the fun steps here:

    1. Congress at varying levels create catch-all legislation that over-punishes a sizeable percentage of "offenders", half the time for things that wouldn't be illegal in most of the rest of the modern world (go look at age of consent laws in Europe, it's hysterical).

    2. Someone somewhere complains that the process sucks.

    3. Seeing a chance to score a headline, politician panders to religious zealots who don't read past said headline and actually choose to ramp UP punishment. Religious zealots everywhere rejoice.

    4. Religious zealots fail to realize that thanks to the shell game religious institutions play with their clergy, some of the folks they take their moral cues from either are or SHOULD BE on that same damned list they're getting all hot and bothered about.

    5. Rinse and repeat.

    I take no sides in politics on this blog, but I'll be damned if the religious seem to be the most willfully blind folks on the planet....

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  40.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 12th, 2012 @ 7:21am

    "Children are almost always abused by people they know – a friend or family member – not by people they interact with while playing video games online."

    Another wonderful Techdirt contradiction. If you can justify a pirate site because it's occasionally used for non-infringing purposes, can't you apply the same standard here, where it really counts? If SOME children are harmed by people they meet online (and it does happen) is this not a good idea in the end?

    Or are you suggesting that, because a majority of children are abused by people they know, that we shouldn't deal with the small amount that happens otherwise?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  41.  
    icon
    That Anonymous Coward (profile), Apr 12th, 2012 @ 7:21am

    This story was part of what drove this new round of ZOMG SAVE THE CHILDREN!
    http://www.whec.com/news/stories/s2072336.shtml

    Parents to busy to actually interact with their child left him in the care of the Xbox. He met someone playing and was chatting with him on Xbox Live. They figured out they were close to each other, and then boy went to the creeps house.

    So you have a 12 yr old lacking the basic instructions of don't talk to strangers online, don't tell them where you live, and for f*cks sake don't go over to their house multiple times. Parents to busy to inquire where there child was going, who this person was, where this person lived or anything else... the ENTIRE 3 months the boy went to his home.

    Huh... younger than 13, isn't that a violation of the law to let them have an online account?

    But by all means assume that the circumstances of this case will fit the criteria of every case. Everyone knows its only male strangers that abuse children, never family, friends, clergy, coaches, etc.

    Now this obviously was a predator who was on Xbox Live who happened across a victim. But we also have parents who are/were completely unaware of their child's activities. There isn't a law to fix stupid.

    People who prey on children deserve a special place in hell.
    People who mooned someone once should be no where NEAR that list of predators, but they are on there.
    Assuming that a bad act by 1 person is how they all must operate because they are all on the same list is stupid. (If you doubt, examine the entire TSA system.)

    The sex offender list was just the hot new button to push to excite the voters, and a vast number of the people on the list wouldn't be there if the voters understood what ACTUALLY happened in many of the cases. Instead you list some statute and we just assume they are all evil child eating monsters.

    New York is the nanny state run amok, how soon until the voters in New York finally reach the point where they have had enough of this "feels good but does nothing" law making? But then this is a city where if you don't have a child with you, your not allowed to sit in some public parks.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  42.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 12th, 2012 @ 7:24am

    Which just proves the saying “People who trade freedom for security deserve and get neither”.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  43.  
    icon
    Mike C. (profile), Apr 12th, 2012 @ 7:25am

    Re: Thanks for speaking out on this

    So much THIS.

    I checked the registry for a 5 mile area around my home. There were 20 or so "offenders" found. Of those, all but 1 were offenses similar to urinating in public or having a girlfriend while both kids were in high school. The one person on the list for a serious offense had been tried, convicted, served his time and moved hundreds of miles from where the incident took place. Additionally, it was an incident with a family member, not a stranger (looked up court records to verify).

    I guess my approach of teaching my kids how to protect themselves and what is/isn't appropriate was right all along... lol

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  44.  
    icon
    Robert Doyle (profile), Apr 12th, 2012 @ 7:26am

    What about Bill?

    Hold on - does this mean Bill Clinton can't have a Facebook page?

    Awkward...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  45.  
    identicon
    kenichi tanaka, Apr 12th, 2012 @ 7:26am

    Nathan is wrong. He made the argument that these companies operate private networks. Technically? That may be true but they are a business and all businesses have certain rules they must abide by. This is why businesses have to provide access for the handicapped, for the blind and what not.

    Microsoft, Apple, Blizzard ... whether you want to believe it or not, is basically violating the constitutional rights of sex offenders. It's no better than "banning everyone who has red hair" or banning all women from their service.

    Now, if a sex offender is on their network and they're propositioning children on their network, then they can remove them from their network but arbitrarily banning all registered sex offenders? They really are creating a huge liability for their respective countries.

    This is really a violation of someone's constitutional rights because these companies don't have standing to ban someone from their network before they've even signed up.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  46.  
    icon
    silverscarcat (profile), Apr 12th, 2012 @ 7:27am

    Re:

    "Or are you suggesting that, because a majority of children are abused by people they know, that we shouldn't deal with the small amount that happens otherwise?"

    No, what's being suggested that instead of being stupid and over-reaching, we should narrow the scope of how laws are applied.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  47.  
    icon
    That Anonymous Coward (profile), Apr 12th, 2012 @ 7:29am

    Re:

    Or maybe demand that parents prepare their children to exist in the real world where these things happen.

    Or maybe demand that the Sex Offender Registry actually be used as it was intended, and not as a catch all for DA's to plump up their win record by sending a 16 yr old to jail for kissing his 15 yr old girlfriend, and getting him on the list for life.

    Someone playing WoW in NY isn't exactly in a position to molest someone in real life who lives in CA.

    Harming the thousands of people who aren't active pedophiles/child molesters in the classical sense with a law banning them from social interaction is overreaching and helps no one.

    Another wonderful troll contradiction, the hell with the collateral damage it "fixes" the problem.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  48.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 12th, 2012 @ 7:31am

    Hmmm…the “state” watching you 24/7 just waiting for you to do something stupid or illegal.

    How bad could it be?

    Helping political careers...one dumb ass at a time.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  49.  
    icon
    That Anonymous Coward (profile), Apr 12th, 2012 @ 7:34am

    Re: Re: Free Time

    We keep kicking you and treating you like crap, why won't you behave better?!

    I wonder if anyone has ever looked to see how many of them commit another offense not because they had the desire but just to get thrown back in jail because its the only place we allow them to fit in. We've seen stories of some people who get paroled and then do something stupid and end up back in jail, because they can't fit into society anymore and its easier to be in prison than to find work, a home, a job.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  50.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 12th, 2012 @ 7:37am

    Re:

    Indeed... parents are usually the real problem in these situations. The hand-wringers always unite, however, to find ways to solve the problem of stupid parents - but I think Darwin already found a solution to this. But whatever, if parents want to use a game console as a substitute for actual parenting, that's their business. To turn around and blame society for their (and their kids') problems as a result is terrible.

    As a dad with several daughters, who all play video games (occasionally online), I'm not terribly worried.

    My kids know what a suspicious person is, they know how bad people can be. They know they're not allowed to leave the house without telling us where they're going. They know they're not allowed to let anyone in without our knowledge.

    Where I live, there are registered sex offenders within a mile of my house - my kids know this, we tell them. They also hear about these dreadful stories so that they can understand just how terrible people can be in the real world. That's life - there are always going to be terrible people, you just need to know how to deal with them.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  51.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 12th, 2012 @ 7:47am

    Re: Re: Thanks for speaking out on this

    Simpler approach: find all the Catholic churches.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  52.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 12th, 2012 @ 7:48am

    Re:

    And this is actually the mentality that haunts those with psychological issues. Mental health treatment and recovery services in my state of Ohio have had a huge cut ($90 million since 2008) in funding. If you are only on Medicare, not qualifying for Medicaid or other help, you get to see a psychiatrist once every 3 months.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  53.  
    icon
    PaulT (profile), Apr 12th, 2012 @ 7:51am

    Re:

    "If you can justify a pirate site because it's occasionally used for non-infringing purposes, can't you apply the same standard here, where it really counts? If SOME children are harmed by people they meet online (and it does happen) is this not a good idea in the end?"

    Logic fails you yet again, I see. Let's take this slowly for the hard of thinking:

    In scenario 1, people are aware that some abuse takes place using a particular privilege (internet/P2P/file lockers/what have you). However, the level of abuse and ACTUAL resulting damage (rather than fearmongering) does not justify draconian measures being taken. They can lead to dangerous unintended consequences and will almost certainly not reduce the problem being tackled - especially when compared to alternative solutions available (treating customers fairly, making product available without restrictions, servicing demand, etc).

    In scenario 2, people are aware that some abuse takes place using a particular privilege (using gaming services). However, the level of abuse and ACTUAL resulting damage (rather than fearmongering) does not justify draconian measures being taken. They can lead to dangerous unintended consequences and will almost certainly not reduce the problem being tackled - especially when compared to alternative solutions available (education, monitoring, etc).

    How in the hell is this a contradiction in your mind? It's exactly the same standard, albeit that the second scenario is based on something that at least has some kind of evidence to prove real damage being caused (even if I'd say the link between that and gaming is tenuous at best).

    "Or are you suggesting that, because a majority of children are abused by people they know, that we shouldn't deal with the small amount that happens otherwise?"

    No, they're saying that the measures taken should be proportional, fair and effective. This is not true of these measures, nor are they true of SOPA and the other bullshit you push, so they are not supported.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  54.  
    icon
    That Anonymous Coward (profile), Apr 12th, 2012 @ 7:52am

    Re: Re:

    Your an amazing dad, and I wish more parents followed your example.
    You don't have to terrify your children with every gory detail of the crimes, but you can give them the information they need at the detail required for the age they are.

    That strangers don't always show up in a trenchcoat and a white van with Free Candy painted on the side.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  55.  
    icon
    Pitabred (profile), Apr 12th, 2012 @ 8:03am

    Re: Re:

    If they're so dangerous, why aren't they in jail? Really... creating a class of humanity that's not dangerous enough to keep locked away from everyone else, but is so horribly dangerous that they basically can't be allowed to interact with anyone else... doesn't that sound stupid to anyone else? Because that's what we have now.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  56.  
    identicon
    Cowardly Anonymous, Apr 12th, 2012 @ 8:04am

    Re:

    The idea that underlies the concept of innocent until proven guilty is that it is better to allow some criminals to go free in order to ensure we do not convict an innocent. This concept is very much held as a fundamental pillar of a free nation. Take a moment and think about what this idea means and whether our government is actually upholding it when they expand laws into victimless territory.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  57.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 12th, 2012 @ 8:05am

    Re: Re: Re:

    This reminds me of the old quote allegedly attributed to Winston Churchill, which has appeared in various forms, where he was allegedly corrected by a subordinate for ending a sentence with a preposition...

    "Offensive impertinence, up with which I will not put."

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  58.  
    icon
    Leigh Beadon (profile), Apr 12th, 2012 @ 8:09am

    Re: Re:

    I watched PBS Frontline documentary about the prison system in Ohio, which has been forced to build a huge mental hospital completely out of their own pockets with no additional budget, because they are effectively the new caretakers for the mentally ill.

    It was excellent... though, quite depressing and distressing:
    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/asylums/view/

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  59.  
    identicon
    Cowardly Anonymous, Apr 12th, 2012 @ 8:11am

    Re:

    "But then this is a city where if you don't have a child with you, your not allowed to sit in some public parks."

    New York is not a city-state. New York City isn't even the capital. It really disparages on your credibility when you say something so inane (which is annoying, because the rest of your post is actually well thought out).

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  60.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 12th, 2012 @ 8:13am

    Re:

    I might just leave this here...

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brass_Eye_Special#Paedophilia_special_.282001.29

    "...paed ophiles have more genes in common with crabs than they do with you and me [...] Now that is scientific fact — there's no real evidence for it — but it is scientific fact".

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  61.  
    icon
    Chuck Norris' Enemy (deceased) (profile), Apr 12th, 2012 @ 8:16am

    Re: Thanks for speaking out on this

    Wasn't there a recent story of a kid who kicked his bully in the nutz in self defense and proceeded to be registered as a sex offender?

    Okay, he was accused of sexual harassment. Don't know if that could also lead to sex offense, and get registered? An overzealous DA would probably try to get that tacked on.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  62.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 12th, 2012 @ 8:17am

    It's the ones you can't see

    The convicted offenders on these registries are not the ones you have to worry about....It's the thousands out there that haven't been caught yet.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  63.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 12th, 2012 @ 8:20am

    Re: Re: Re: Double punishment?

    Right, and as I have said before, the right wing doesn't really care about the issues that the religious zealots care about. They really couldn't care less about things like Abortion, Gay Marriage (well may be this one but only if it means that gay couples qualify for more benefits that cost them money), etc. These are DISTRACTIONS for them to get the zealots to focus on something else other than their real agenda. The right-wing really cares about the issues that things like the Occupy Movement bring to light. But if they can get the "Moral Majority" to support them by playing "look at the monkey" with rhetoric that plays on their religious convictions, they use them to maintain the status quo and keep them in power.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  64.  
    icon
    TtfnJohn (profile), Apr 12th, 2012 @ 8:25am

    Re: Re: Thanks for speaking out on this

    Oh well,

    You can't have little children playing doctor, now can you? Or expressing and playing out their natural curiosity about male and female bodies. (Note that I didn't say acting out.)

    We've long since past the point of paranoia about the safety of our children where, as a society, we want to raise them in a bubble of alleged safety.

    Drive them to school, to sports activities, keep them organized, do everything but let them be children and let them play with each other. And, no, not only doctor but unorganized, adult absent play that allows children to learn from play about the journey of life they're on.

    Strangely enough, as adults, we drive them off to schools, organized sports, church and other activities where the tiny proportion of adult pedophiles will be present because of the access to children. (Real pedophiles are something like 0.1% or less of the adult population.) And then we're outraged when something happens.

    OK, so ban these people from playing online games through XBox and other devices, even though the majority of sex offenders aren't guilty of hunting children. As has been pointed out a large number of people on the sex offender registries are innocent in the sense that both parties consented even if both parties are under age.

    Over reach anyone?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  65.  
    icon
    PaulT (profile), Apr 12th, 2012 @ 8:25am

    Re: Re:

    Yeah, that was hilarious, especially the hypocritical reactions from the usual idiots. Choice excerpts from the Wiki:

    "Beverley Hughes described the show as "unspeakably sick" but later admitted she had not seen it, and David Blunkett said he was "dismayed" by it. It later emerged that he also had not seen the episode."

    Erm, to be fair Blunkett couldn't have "seen" it since he's blind, but still...

    "There was also a tabloid campaign against Morris, who refused to discuss the issue. The Daily Star decried Morris and the show, placing the story next to a separate article about the 15-year-old singer Charlotte Church's breasts under the headline "She's a big girl now" and using the words "looking chest swell". The Daily Mail pictured Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie, who were 13 and 11, in their bikinis next to a headline describing Brass Eye as "Unspeakably Sick"."

    Par for the course, and morons seem to lap it up every time...

    "Defenders of the show argued that media reaction to the show reinforced its satire of the media's hysteria and hypocrisy on the subject of paedophilia."

    Indeed.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  66.  
    icon
    That Anonymous Coward (profile), Apr 12th, 2012 @ 8:27am

    Re: Re:

    New York the state, is the nanny state.
    New York City is the nanny city.
    Albany is the capitol of New York, but doesn't get near enough national press.

    In New York City you can be ticketed for sitting in some public parks without a child.

    How much credibility can I have? Have you seen my avatar? :D
    I accidentally some words in a sentence... forgive me.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  67.  
    icon
    That Anonymous Coward (profile), Apr 12th, 2012 @ 8:29am

    Re: It's the ones you can't see

    *inserts snarky joke about them having Vatican mailing addresses here*

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  68.  
    icon
    silverscarcat (profile), Apr 12th, 2012 @ 8:32am

    Re: Re:

    I wish to give you 20 million internets for your post.

    If not, can we get this guy voted up on insightful?

    He deserves it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  69.  
    icon
    E. Zachary Knight (profile), Apr 12th, 2012 @ 8:34am

    Re: Re: Re: Free Time

    This is the biggest problem with our criminal "justice" system. We have perfected punishment for crimes, but we are nowhere near having a decent program for rehabilitating criminals.

    Rehabilitation should be the goal of any justice system. We should want people to become good contributing members of society. The fact that we have no system set up for that goal is saddening.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  70.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 12th, 2012 @ 8:37am

    Re: Re:

    The complete article can be found at:

    http://www.lawrefs.com/item/urinating-in-public---michigan

    This is just one of the many examples of this behavior. Yes it is very real.

    The Charter Township of Meridian Code Sec. 50-112 addresses spitting, urinating, and defecating specifically. It states that it shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly or recklessly spit, urinate, or defecate in any public place or on private premises without the consent of the owner or his tenant, agent, or employee, except where an approved sanitary facility is provided. An argument to make in defense of this crime is disability as where the person, due to a disability, violated this law because of necessity. One can argue an undersized bladder or kidney problems for example. An affidavit of a physician assist in proving this defense.

    There is a question of whether a person who has been convicted of urinating in public must register on the Michigan Sex Offenders List. According to the Sex Offender Registry Act, the intent of the act was to better assist law enforcement officers and the people of this state in preventing and protecting against the commission of future criminal sexual acts by convicted sex offenders. A person who has been convicted of committing an offense covered by the is considered to pose a potential serious menace and danger to the health, safety, morals, and welfare of the people, and particularly the children, of Michigan. The registration requirements of this act are intended to provide law enforcement and the people of this state with an appropriate, comprehensive, and effective means to monitor those persons who pose such a potential danger.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  71.  
    icon
    E. Zachary Knight (profile), Apr 12th, 2012 @ 8:37am

    Re:

    I guess it could be a contradiction, if you have no reading comprehension skills.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  72.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 12th, 2012 @ 8:41am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Furthermore, as necessity is the mother of invention, attempting to pass laws to compensate for lack of parenting is only encouraging parents to be worse parents. In the same way allowing parents to get away with blaming the media for all of the ills in society that are really caused by their lack of parenting is only encouraging them to continue to shirk their parenting duties. The only stop this sort of nonsense is to give parents NO OTHER CHOICE THAN TO RAISE THEIR OWN KIDS.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  73.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 12th, 2012 @ 8:49am

    Re: Re:

    That's a given. It's already a well established fact that the Content Cartels and their shills fail elementary school level math and reading comprehension.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  74.  
    icon
    TtfnJohn (profile), Apr 12th, 2012 @ 8:59am

    Re: Re: Re: Double punishment?

    What I find curious about the folks you call "religious zealots" is that they don't realize that a church, mosque, temple or synagogue is a place that pedophiles would be attracted to. As are schools. As is organized sports. There are lots of children around, you see, and they get to operate, or at least hope to operate, below the radar there.

    As for catch all laws, sex offender registries and all the rest I'm not at all sure that children are any better protected. Particularly given all of the above.

    And given that the vast majority of child sexual abuse occurs in family, and a lower amount through trusted adults in places like the above and then, finally, pedophiles acting alone.

    I've done a lot of research on this subject in my recovery from sexual abuse that I suffered at the hands of my father. And in family, by a parent, is where most abuse happens. Period, full stop.

    I disagree that most "religious zealots" rejoice with each upping of the penalties or that most are willfully blind, even though their leadership certainly is. The upper echelons of the Roman Catholic Church certainly is as well, though I'd argue that most Catholic's aren't. In the case of the RC's what's happening is denial which is common enough in situations like this. Though, in my opinion, it's long past time the RC's upper echelons just accepted the fact that this has and will happen. Which doesn't mean they stop guarding against it.

    I'm writing this, also, as a devout Anglican so being in a religious community doesn't equal zealotry.

    In fact, Jesus warned against and had no use for the zealotry of his time. And we shouldn't have a use for it in our time. From politicians or anyone else.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  75.  
    icon
    silverscarcat (profile), Apr 12th, 2012 @ 9:04am

    Re: Re: Re:

    They're the Burakumins of the Western world.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  76.  
    icon
    Jesse (profile), Apr 12th, 2012 @ 9:17am

    Re: Re:

    Exactly. So long as I know that, in my mind, innocent people can be put on that list it's hard to take it seriously. Ordinary people, just like you and I, caught up in a moral panic that ruins the rest of their lives.

    Underage youth takes pictures of herself and sends to also underage boyfriend? She's a sex offendor (even though they could just have sex legally).
    http://www.timesnews.net/article.php?id=9020190

    Underage youth receives pictures of also underage girlfriend? He's a sex offendor (even though they could just have sex legally).
    http://www.timesnews.net/article.php?id=9020190

    Draw a picture that could be interpretted as a minor in a sexual manner? Watch porn featuring an adult actor who looks young? Sex offendor.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PROTECT_Act_of_2003
    http://atheism.about.com/b/2006/05/25/w hats-wrong-with-virtual-child-pornography-book-notes-free-for-all.htm
    - That same article also talks of a man who is a sex offendor for grabbing the arm of a 14 year old girl, to lecture her for running in front of his car (an argument the courts accepted as true).

    Keep a dream log book of disturbing dreams you have featuring children in bad ways, as part of a means to overcome this problem? Sex offendor.
    [I made that one up as an extension to existing cases.]

    Someone sends you an explicit photo featuring children? Sex offendor.
    http://yro.slashdot.org/story/09/12/05/1511258/accidental-download-sending-22-year-old-ma n-to-prison

    Take some pictures of your children in the bath tub? Sex offendor.
    http://current.com/community/90986809_parents-sue-wal-mart-after-children-taken-away-over -bath-time-photos.htm

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  77.  
    icon
    Yakko Warner (profile), Apr 12th, 2012 @ 9:17am

    Re: Re: Double punishment?

    ...right-wing media? I thought no one listened to FOX News anyway.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  78.  
    icon
    Jesse (profile), Apr 12th, 2012 @ 9:20am

    Re: Re: Re:

    This is similar to the arguments against copyright maximalism, in that nobody can respect the law because everyone could be classified as a sex offendor. Innocent people have their lives ruined, rather than just the people we traditionally think of as being pedophiles.

    And even for the pedophiles in the traditional sense of the word, is it really wise to absolutely guarantee zero chance of reintegration??

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  79.  
    icon
    The Infamous Joe (profile), Apr 12th, 2012 @ 9:24am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Obligatory. (NSFW?)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  80.  
    icon
    btr1701 (profile), Apr 12th, 2012 @ 9:29am

    Re:

    > Especially since you can now get labeled a
    > 'sex offender' for something as trivial as
    > taking a leak in the bushes.

    It's worse than that. The state of Georgia fought for and won the right to include people on the sex offender registry whose crimes have nothing whatsoever to do with sex. Crimes like armed robbery and embezzlement. The Georgia Supreme Court said there's nothing wrong with that whatsoever.

    So these people, while not admirable for being embezzlers and whatnot, now have to register on a list that makes everyone in their community assume they are kiddie-diddlers and restricts where they can live and work and now what they can do online. And it's for life.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  81.  
    icon
    peersu (profile), Apr 12th, 2012 @ 9:32am

    This makes even less sense for games rated MA, or with EULA's stating the user is over a certain age. Truly trash legislation solving zero problems. Maybe the SoNY AG should focus on fracking, and not some hyperbole internet legislation making people's lives suck that much more.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  82.  
    icon
    TtfnJohn (profile), Apr 12th, 2012 @ 9:32am

    Re:

    Troll bait!

    Of course we should deal with the small amount that happens otherwise. THAT is not the problem.

    The problem is that all people on New York's sex offender registry were convicted of sexual crimes against children. Some were children themselves when they landed on it because a boy and girl in junior high kissed in the hallways or some such silliness or, even younger, were found playing "doctor".

    The problem is the drag net approach of sex offender registries not a desire to protect children. Done for political gain is a problem. And still on line are those convicted of non-sexual criminal offenses against children such as beating and on and on I could go.

    If you want to look fearfully at the Internet then this doesn't make it a less dangerous place. Of course, if the Internet is a dangerous place, to you, then Real Life must be a horror show to you as well.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  83.  
    icon
    btr1701 (profile), Apr 12th, 2012 @ 9:38am

    Re: Re: Re: Double punishment?

    > The 5th amendment doesn't really apply here
    > as people on the Sex Offenders registry are
    > not being charged for a crime they have already
    > been found innocent of

    Double jeopardy doesn't just apply to acquittals. It prevents any re-prosecution for an offense which has already been adjudicated once.

    So basically, not only does it prevent the DA from trying you again after a jury says "not guilty", it prevents the DA from deciding to try you again for a separate charge arising from the same set of facts.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  84.  
    icon
    Liz (profile), Apr 12th, 2012 @ 9:42am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Maybe it's because that every society needs a pariah. Someone to point to and say, "See? These people are disgusting and evil. Don't be like them. Shame them and be better."

    Or maybe because the prison population is so full of pot-smoking drug offenders that there's no room to house them long term.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  85.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 12th, 2012 @ 9:44am

    Re: Re:

    You need to think though - if a small amount of legit uses of piracy infrastructure makes it "acceptable", then shouldn't the large amount of legit uses of online gaming networks make the small amount of predatory uses of online systems some how enough to block it all off?

    Places where kids play are the perfect home for a pedophile. It's like a candy store to them. Why let them do their shopping there?

    It seems pretty simple, no?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  86.  
    icon
    btr1701 (profile), Apr 12th, 2012 @ 9:47am

    Re:

    > While our country, state and Federal, has the
    > right to pass laws to protect the public, these
    > companies that are banning these sex offenders
    > from their network could be liable for constitutional
    > violations.

    Actually, you have it precisely backward. Only the government would be liable for constitutional violations, as the Constitution only restricts government action. Other than the 13th Amendment, the Constitution has no application to private individuals or businesses.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  87.  
    icon
    E. Zachary Knight (profile), Apr 12th, 2012 @ 9:51am

    Re: Re: Re:

    What? You are seriously not making sense.

    In the case of piracy and this move against people on the sex offender registry, if it harms someone that is not guilty of a crime, it should not be used.

    If someone using torrents to distribute their legal content is blocked from doing so, the anti-piracy measures on torrents is too much.

    If someone who is on the sex offender registry for a "crime" that had nothing to do with children is blocked from playing on a gaming network, the blocking measure is too much.

    No contradictions here.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  88.  
    icon
    Yakko Warner (profile), Apr 12th, 2012 @ 9:55am

    Re:

    Sorry, no. They are free to allow or ban anyone for any reason, constitutional or not. They are not a government entity, they are private companies running their own networks.

    Don't believe me? Try signing on to Xbox Live, put some racial or sexual slurs in your profile, and whine about your constitutional rights when you get banned.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  89.  
    icon
    Yakko Warner (profile), Apr 12th, 2012 @ 10:00am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Double punishment?

    So basically, not only does it prevent the DA from trying you again after a jury says "not guilty", it prevents the DA from deciding to try you again for a separate charge arising from the same set of facts.

    Wait, how did OJ Simpson get found guilty of "wrongful death" after being acquitted of murder?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  90.  
    icon
    John Fenderson (profile), Apr 12th, 2012 @ 10:03am

    Re: Re:

    I seriously doubt that would have a deterrent effect on people who abuse children. After all, child abuse is very illegal too, and that didn't stop them.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  91.  
    icon
    John Fenderson (profile), Apr 12th, 2012 @ 10:06am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Double punishment?

    The wrongful death was from a civil suit, not criminal.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  92.  
    icon
    The Infamous Joe (profile), Apr 12th, 2012 @ 10:06am

    Re: Re:

    There's a difference between a private company deciding to do something, and a law mandating that a private company do something.

    I'm not sure where "initiative" falls between those two, but it's definitely not as simple as you're suggesting.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  93.  
    icon
    John Fenderson (profile), Apr 12th, 2012 @ 10:08am

    Re: Re: Double punishment?

    Considering that people convicted for a crime in U.S aren't allowed to vote in at least some of the elections I would say yes.


    This depends on what state you're in. Not all states strip you of voting rights due to felony convictions.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  94.  
    icon
    John Fenderson (profile), Apr 12th, 2012 @ 10:17am

    Re:

    Another wonderful AC completely missing the point. Like with the articles about copyright, what you think is being said is not what is actually being said.

    If SOME children are harmed by people they meet online (and it does happen) is this not a good idea in the end?


    That does not logically follow. Some children are likely being harmed, but that does not automatically mean that this idea is a good response.

    This response will do exactly nothing toward keeping sex offenders off gaming systems. Nothing. Everybody knows they can, and how to, obtain as many free email addresses as they want.

    The suggestion being made in this article is not that nothing should be done, but that if something is to be done, it should be something that might actually have a beneficial effect.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  95.  
    icon
    Atkray (profile), Apr 12th, 2012 @ 10:29am

    Re: Re: Thanks for speaking out on this

    I believe what happens is the DA pulls the parents in and tells them he'll reduce the charges so little johnny won't have to go on trial and face jail time in an adult facility if they agree to put him on the list and pay a fine.

    Parents weight the costs and agree.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  96.  
    icon
    DinDaddy (profile), Apr 12th, 2012 @ 10:31am

    Re:

    Not really "now". That has been true for decades.

    All the "think of the children" zero tolerance for anyone classified as any sort of sex offender should give anyone pause before agreeing to any plea deals for things like public urination or nudity now though.

    In fact, it probably gives lawyers defending minor infractions like that some decent ammunition for raising the bar for such a conviction.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  97.  
    icon
    DinDaddy (profile), Apr 12th, 2012 @ 10:32am

    Re: Anytime a politician plays the "For the Chillllllllldrrrrrennnn" card

    Ah the questino, the quantum particle of inquisitiveness.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  98.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 12th, 2012 @ 10:45am

    Wait a damn minute. Now I can't go online and shoot sex offenders anymore? What the the hell is this country coming to...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  99.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 12th, 2012 @ 10:49am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    The point is if a small benefit from piracy is determined, then it's all right to accept all the crime.

    Sex offenders are a small part of the online gaming universe. Doesn't banning them, without banning the great population a good thing?

    If a small number if enough to justify one, isn't enough to justify another?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  100.  
    icon
    WysiWyg (profile), Apr 12th, 2012 @ 10:57am

    Re: Re:

    Can they really make any rules they like? Can they for example prohibit black people?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  101.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 12th, 2012 @ 11:40am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Thanks, but I was looking for a concrete example of an individual placed on a sex offender registry. All of these helpful examples point only to the fact that it might happen.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  102.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 12th, 2012 @ 11:59am

    Re: Re: Re:

    If they are private then yes, they can make whatever rules they want to a certain degree. Ever seen the sign in a bar or restaurant that says "Management reserves the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason"?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  103.  
    identicon
    Nobody, Apr 12th, 2012 @ 12:02pm

    What the hell?

    OK, let's see if I have this straight:

    This law makes it illegal for people, that may or may not be sexual predators, to play games on-line in order to protect the children...

    Which means they will likely be spending less time sitting in front of their TV, on their couch, in their home/apartment/whatever...

    You know, a location where we can be reasonably certain that they would not have any actual (physical) contact with kids...

    Yeah, that makes perfect sense.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  104.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 12th, 2012 @ 12:07pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    The relative sizes have nothing to do with write or wrong. They only address effectiveness.

    Banning people on the sex offenders list from game networks will do very little to keep predators from accessing children while having a huge amount of collateral damage.

    The collateral damage makes it wrong. The size just points out that it doesn't do what it claims to do.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  105.  
    identicon
    PRMan, Apr 12th, 2012 @ 12:11pm

    Re: Re: Thanks for speaking out on this

    Seriously, we had a member (not minister) of our church that was beginning to be WAY TOO friendly to children. Someone reported that he was on the list, so as the computer-knowledgeable guy, it was my job to verify it.

    I seriously had a hard time finding the guy on the map, because I had to wade through 100s of public urination and teen sex "criminals". I finally found him, but I only found 3 "actual" sex offenders on the list out of about 200.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  106.  
    icon
    The Infamous Joe (profile), Apr 12th, 2012 @ 12:22pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Just because someone hangs a sign doesn't mean it's true.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  107.  
    icon
    TtfnJohn (profile), Apr 12th, 2012 @ 12:28pm

    Re: Re: Re: You're discpicable, know that?

    "if a small amount of legit uses of piracy infrastructure makes it "acceptable", then shouldn't the large amount of legit uses of online gaming networks make the small amount of predatory uses of online systems some how enough to block it all off?"

    IF we were talking about a sex offender registry that was limited to offenses against children by adults (say over 18 on under 18 just to draw a theoretical line in the sand) but we're talking all those on the registry whether or not they can be classed as pedophiles.

    The scope is too broad (drag net approach as I said) and the probability of "escapement" (to use a fishing term) is too great the way it's being done now.

    And yes, places where there are children playing on or off line MAY attract a pedophile, though the candy store is more like becoming a coach in organized sports, teacher or janitor at an elementary or junior high or, hell, even a well known university. (Penn State, say.) Or a Sunday School teacher or lay preacher or youth pastor at a church, or just about any other activity you can think of where there are children present and the pedophile can move from stranger to trusted adult in a relative hurry. On line is somewhat more difficult because it often brings with it a log record, say, to restart the game.

    As others have noted there's a parental responsibility here. The computer or game box is NOT a cheap baby sitter. Children need to talk to their parents about what's happened in their games that makes them uncomfortable and parents either have to ask or give them express permission to talk to them about it no matter what the creep on the other end of the game box says. Children are almost always creeped out by the pedo at the other end, at first, and the constant demands to "keep it our little secret". And parents need to listen and understand that their son or daughter isn't making this up. (Not all pedos prey on girls only, you know.)

    Indeed, why let them do their shopping there? In real life or on the Internet? Don't. At the same time don't penalize those who have no inclination or record of being sexually attracted to and willing to draw the child into their reality/fantasy world. Target it a bit better.

    As it is, I'd wager that not a single child is being protected from on line predation by a pedophile or that the instances will drop all that much if at all.

    As for the offenders themselves, what is being accomplished if they aren't pedophiles, by blocking them off? Not much, I'd wager, other than to continue to marginalize and punish them as our post modern version of the lepers of old.

    As for your attempt to link this issue with real and imagined copyright infringement is nothing short of despicable. The two are not analogous.

    Nothing real is lost in copyright infringement whereas lives are destroyed when a child is sexually, physically and/or emotionally abused. You have no idea, none at all of the special kind of hell we go through in life, as long as it lasts for most of us. Children blame themselves for the abuse, you know, and carry that blame and shame with them as they grow into adulthood. I certainly did. I'd go on at length about what it did to my life but you're more interested in using these children as pawns in your silly games than have any real concern for them/us. As children or adults.

    One day you may learn to deal with us as real people not abstractions you can use for your despicable analogies. One day politicians may do that too. But I'm not holding my breath for that to happen.

    All that said, I pray that you never know the pain and torture a child important to you goes through as you watch him or her grow up, self destructive and none of the promise you once saw gone. Even at then you'll know less than a hundredth of what he or she is going through.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  108.  
    identicon
    Squeaki, Apr 12th, 2012 @ 12:48pm

    This is awful!

    This is hideous. How could people be so blind as to generalize like this!? There are sex offenders who pray on kids but like the article says, how will further restrictions and punishments be fair to those who served their time for urinating in a public fountain or assaulted their 30 year old girlfriend 20 years ago?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  109.  
    identicon
    anony-mouse, Apr 12th, 2012 @ 1:04pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: You're discpicable, know that?

    John, totally OT but if you remember this comment of yours, you might want to look through this to see what else the weirdo has been up to, and it's not fun (Forbes, NYT, and Popehat also ran with it)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  110.  
    icon
    Nick Burns (profile), Apr 12th, 2012 @ 1:16pm

    I don't have a problem with this law, per se, I have a problem with what the law constitutes as a "sexual offender". If a man as a pendence to expose himself to little old ladies, even though it has nothing to do with children, I may still not want him around children. However, if an 18-year-old had an indiscretion with a 16-year-old and is now labeled a "sexual deviant", that's different. He really shouldn't be on the list. But that's the way the laws are nowadays. If that list was only truly perverted sexual offenders, I can see where this law could make sense.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  111.  
    icon
    Nathan F (profile), Apr 12th, 2012 @ 1:55pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    You are legally able to hang a sign that says you will refuse your service to a certain class of people. Socially you may be on the receiving end of a lot of anger from said class, but as long as you are a privately owned and operated business or individual there isn't much they can do legally.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  112.  
    icon
    E. Zachary Knight (profile), Apr 12th, 2012 @ 2:24pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Perhaps it would help your argument if you could type in coherent sentences.

    I am really struggling to parse your thoughts.

    With piracy, there are measurable net gains for content producers who are more open and accepting of sharing of their work.

    With banning a class of people from a social or gaming network, there is no measurable gain for those networks or those that use them. The threat that a kid would be targeted by a predator still exists no matter how many registered sex offenders you ban. The fact remains that there are predators that are not on the registry that are still using those services.

    Fighting piracy and persecuting registered sex offenders to nothing but stroke the egos of those who perform the actions. Neither action provides a positive benefit to society.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  113.  
    identicon
    Lord Binky, Apr 12th, 2012 @ 2:30pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Getting caught taking a drunk piss in the park on your birthday will get you labeled a sex offender. This isn't for child sex offenders, this includes people who get caught mooning someone, or a couple that found a hidden away place that was still "public" to uh.. express their feelings...ok, sex it up. It's ridiculous that it's possible to classify someone that that was really unlucky on laundry day and split their pants the first time in their life they went commando to a child molester.

    As for the prison population, I could see almost any other crime being more prison worthy than the dude that pissed in a park. Isn't it sad that the first drug offenders we think of in prison are pot smokers. I always thought it must be the differences in the effects of the drugs that cops would prefer. On one hand you have guys doing drugs that an upper type drug that worst case is they're super violent, full of energy, and ready to throw a coffee table at your head with one hand VS a group that are on a downer type drug that worst case they're lethargic. Yeah... forget locking up those dangerous ones, not only are they hard to arrest, it's scary and dangerous!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  114.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 12th, 2012 @ 2:37pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Why is it acceptable to have specific label for crimal actsthat covers such a broad range as urination in public to unspeakable acts to a child? One is acceptable and used for humour in movies, Adam Sandler's "Big Daddy", and the other is likely in the top 5 worst crimes thinkable?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  115.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 12th, 2012 @ 2:49pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    You might want to read up on some case law: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katzenbach_v._McClung

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  116.  
    icon
    Almost Anonymous (profile), Apr 12th, 2012 @ 3:16pm

    New York has the issue backwards

    They need to ban children from online gaming! Seriously, have you ever played on Xbox Live? Those kids, with their creepy fast reflexes... as soon as I spawn, I see "Killed by Vold3mort13", and then the little bastich comes over and teabags me! There's your sexual assault, maybe I should file charges next time...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  117.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 12th, 2012 @ 4:08pm

    I'm surprised no one has opposed the forfeiture
    of valuable WoW digital objects.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  118.  
    icon
    E. Zachary Knight (profile), Apr 12th, 2012 @ 4:46pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Double punishment?

    Even with that, the sex offender registry is not a second prosecution but an extension of their punishment. Doesn't make it any more reasonable.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  119.  
    icon
    Torg (profile), Apr 12th, 2012 @ 4:47pm

    Re:

    This is a good point. Who knows how many hats these poor souls have collected in TF2? This is a travesty! Something must be done!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  120.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 12th, 2012 @ 5:24pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Are you really this stupid? Or do you somehow believe your sophomoric attempts at a debate make any kind of sense to a rational person.

    The reason the authors position is not contradictory is that the author is looking at it from the point of view of how much collateral damage is done to those who are either no threat or a very low threat to the general public. Why should they be harmed just because it is might be possible to use the network to harm someone. The law will do very little, likely nothing, to actually prevent sexual crimes and instead significantly infringes on the rights of the individuals and makes it even harder for them to reintegrate into society.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  121.  
    icon
    BentFranklin (profile), Apr 12th, 2012 @ 6:12pm

    Re: Re:

    Should sex offenders be forced to abandon their Second Life properties without the chance to sell them?

    If a sex offender has to move in real life due to a law change does he have to go right that second and forfeit all his furniture and belongings?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  122.  
    icon
    That Anonymous Coward (profile), Apr 12th, 2012 @ 7:16pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Free Time

    Well people want to go back to the whole Scarlett Letter thing, where even if your debt to society is paid everyone still needs to know now and forever your bad.
    There is also the assumption that all of the money being sent to prisons is enough to offer these programs and they just won't use them. Its like the problem with the homeless, people assume just because they heard about a program once it is just these people not caring about themselves and using the program is why they are still homeless.
    Lets ignore we cut away almost all mental health care, and many of the homeless have issues that need that sort of care. Lets ignore that many of them are former veterans, who fought for us to enjoy Beiber how, where, and when we wanted, that we didn't ever think about creating a support system for. We assume that people can go from war back to real life, like turning off Halo.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  123.  
    icon
    That Anonymous Coward (profile), Apr 12th, 2012 @ 7:20pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    We are a society that abdicates personal responsibility on a regular basis. Its not my fault I was drunk driving it was the bars fault. Its not my fault My kid if fat, they used happy meals to lure them in. Its not my fault my kid played a game where he got points for beating up hookers, its the stores fault.

    Not everyone does this, but enough people do and society gets to wrapped up in the "wrongdoing" by the outside force and gives the parent/person all of the breaks because they couldn't be responsible for their own actions.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  124.  
    icon
    TtfnJohn (profile), Apr 12th, 2012 @ 10:13pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You're discpicable, know that?

    She's gone quite bonkers, hasn't she?

    Given the redesign of her web site and the, now. total lack of posts what journalism was there has vanished. As I said then, not good journalism, not well researched or written but broadly speaking journalism.

    Remember that I also said that her attempts at extortion, even then, blew her case out of the water and then some with respect to the protection of the shield law in Oregon.

    Thanks for bringing this to my attention. What Cox has done there is also despicable. Abusing a child is, IMHO, far from acceptable under any circumstances, sexually or otherwise and that's what Cox has done here. Thank you very much to alerting me to this.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  125.  
    icon
    WysiWyg (profile), Apr 13th, 2012 @ 12:27am

    Re: Re: Re:

    True, but the idea isn't to deter, but to be able to throw them back in jail if they misbehave without any children having to be hurt. I think.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  126.  
    identicon
    Rekrul, Apr 13th, 2012 @ 12:49am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Because sex related crimes have become a moral panic, where all rational thought goes out the window.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  127.  
    identicon
    Rekrul, Apr 13th, 2012 @ 1:00am

    Re: Re:

    The idea that underlies the concept of innocent until proven guilty is that it is better to allow some criminals to go free in order to ensure we do not convict an innocent.

    Doesn't apply in sex cases. Oh sure, technically it might still be the law, but in actual practice it's 'guilty until we decide otherwise'.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  128.  
    identicon
    Rekrul, Apr 13th, 2012 @ 1:29am

    I have an idea; For any new movie that comes out, containing a scene of public urination, public nudity, mooning, etc, we start a publicity campaign warning people that the film contains graphic scenes of sex crimes. Two teenagers having sex? "Movie contains scenes of statutory rape!" One character slaps another character on the butt for comedic offect, or someone kicks someone else in the nuts during a fight? "This movie contains explicit scenes of sexual assault!"

    Under current laws, none of the above is a lie. Why should movies get away with depicting conduct that would get real people on the sex offender registry? Let's start labeling movies according to reality and show the politicians and the public how ridiculous the laws have become.

    Even if they don't care, I'm sure Hollywood would...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  129.  
    identicon
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Apr 13th, 2012 @ 2:08am

    Ghettoization Of Potential Recidivists

    Leaving aside all issues of where you stand on “human rights” versus “soft on crime”, there is one point that is very hard to ignore: driving sex offenders away from all “respectable” neighbourhoods (whether physical or virtual) forces them to congregate in places where there are so many of them, the cops simply cannot watch them all.

    This seems to be what happened in the Jaycee Lee Dugard case, for example: a known repeat sex offender, already on the local registry and known to the police, was able to get away with continued reoffending for 18 years.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  130.  
    identicon
    anony-mouse, Apr 13th, 2012 @ 4:36am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You're discpicable, know that?

    Your welcome John,

    and yes bonkers is one word for it, our concern is their could be future victims of her style of link/google bombing and then "reputation management".

    Putting the foundation together for case now, though she seems to have attracted like minded conspiracy nutters (Monica Foster - in porn world) et.al now.

    It's just a matter of educating people about what she is doing, and that others could (probably are) doing similar things. EFF & Eugene Volokh (yep) are appealing the case. And in some ways I agree it was bad law though the new opinion judge gave cleared up a lot of concerns, though even the EFF acknowledge that even if they win the appeal it is NOT about Ms Cox but about the 'what is a journalist' concern and that Ms Cox will most likely lose anyway if it gets sent back to the lower court.

    She didn't abuse the three-year old persay, though the intimidatory and implied threat was there. As you know the bar for threats is pretty high. It's not about just Ms Randazza (or her father) or even Obsidian anymore it's about how someone like her could affect this still fragile entity we call the Internet and its social framework for years to come. She needs to be either helped, or made to be helped by either appropriate LEO authorities or Mental Health specialists.
    (email us at the website if you like)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  131.  
    icon
    Ninja (profile), Apr 13th, 2012 @ 7:56am

    Re: Re: Re:

    And we've learned from experience that it's pretty hard to actually agree on what are the requirements to label some1 a sex offender. As things are now, a toddler kissing another is enough to make the first a sex offender in the US. Seems very reasonable to sentence a toddler to be a sex offender to the rest of his life and deprive him of gaming while at it.

    But the US isn't well known for being sane and reasoned, are they?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  132.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 13th, 2012 @ 8:43am

    Re: Re: Re: Double punishment?

    Actually, sex offender lists are becoming a way of getting citizens into a national tracking program. As more and more 'crimes' get you put onto the list, the government is able to openly track and monitor more people, which is cheaper than doing it on the sly.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  133.  
    icon
    Chargone (profile), Apr 14th, 2012 @ 5:33am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    to be fair, the entire preposition thing is bullshit anyway, the effect/affect thing isn't.

    (technically, the 'never end a sentence with a preposition' thing is both Redundant due to being Impossible (if it is at the end, it is clearly AFTER the thing it goes with, and thus a POSTposition, not a preposition at all) as well as Wrong (english does allow the use of many of it's adpositions (the collective term for prepositions and postpositions, as well as the (hypothetical?) errr... inpostion? hehe.) as postpositions and, in fact, in many of the situations where it is objected to by people who obsess over rules like this, actually Requires it, hence Churchill's line. (though, really, that line's not a great example, due to the Many ways it could be reworded to make it Less awkward that do not end in adpositions.)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  134.  
    icon
    Chargone (profile), Apr 14th, 2012 @ 5:36am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    ehh, there's a case to be made that sanitation violations (pissing in the park would be an example) can be pretty damn serious... (the occasional one off incident in a modern environment, not so much, but...)

    still isn't/shouldn't be a SEX crime though...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  135.  
    icon
    That Anonymous Coward (profile), Apr 14th, 2012 @ 8:07am

    Re: Ghettoization Of Potential Recidivists

    There are so many of them they have to check as quickly as possible because people want them watched, but don't want to pay for it.

    Of course there are many of them they have to check on, who a reasonable person would wonder why the hell they were a registered offender in the first place.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  136.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 14th, 2012 @ 4:25pm

    Response to: That Anonymous Coward on Apr 12th, 2012 @ 7:21am

    What this story doesn't tell you is that the 19yo "creep" has autism and the mind of a ten year old. I don't have the link handy but there's a story about it. Google is your friend.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  137.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 14th, 2012 @ 5:20pm

    Re: Response to: That Anonymous Coward on Apr 12th, 2012 @ 7:21am

    Sorry it's Asperger's Syndrome, not autism.

    In a rare circumstance, Kretovic also waived patient privacy rights and allowed a Licensed Clinical Social Worker who has been counseling him for the last four months to speak publicly on his behalf.

    "I certainly would never want a true predator to go free, I would want a true predator to be caught but that's not Ricky and that's what's disturbing to me," Kitty Moran Wolfsong said of Kretovic. "Socially I would say that Ricky is somewhere between the age of ten and twelve."


    http://www.13wham.com/news/local/story/Exclusive-The-Secret-Behind-The-Xbox-Sex-Case/5V1 taQid0k6gRE-iCjPX4Q.cspx

    This is the state's idea of a "creep" and a "predator."

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  138.  
    identicon
    Lois M, Apr 15th, 2012 @ 12:05pm

    Re: Re: any measures

    If it isn't already obvious to everyone, the reason we are now getting laws that mess with everyone's Constitutional rights is that we have been allowing laws that mess with the Constitutional rights of despised groups, such as sex offenders. Now we have laws that allow the rights of OTHERS to be encroached upon, and which have such broad definitions that yes, the sex offender registry can be applied to an 8 year old (happened in Colorado) who is doing nothing more than "playing doctor".
    Further, the sex offender registry has made NO impact on repeat offense rates, and is doing so VERY expensively. In fact, the registry may (according to the latest data) have a NEGATIVE impact, making it MORE likely that sex offenders will re-offend. Do we want that? I don't think so!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  139.  
    identicon
    PROUDMOM2, Apr 15th, 2012 @ 6:29pm

    Re: Re: Thanks for speaking out on this

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  140.  
    identicon
    whatajoke, Apr 16th, 2012 @ 8:51am

    I live with a die hard xbox live gamer, its just that online. These gamer play in their own livingrooms or bedrooms they don't go out meeting each other. I also have 2 kids of my own and 8 stepkids whom also all online play none of them have ever been propositioned by a man or women and a real ir decent parent should be paying attention to what there kids are doing online. The real issue is yes there is sum in the world that will hurt our babies at any age if given the chance. As parents it is our job to protect them if you think your child is endanger from somebody on the other side of the world playing a videogame then your failing at our jobs as parents.
    At the rate of this ridiculisnes we will see a news headline that read to keep our kids safe the goverment is going to raise them in an undisclosed location and they will be returned upon their 18th birthdays. The added bonus will be it will be a 50% tax increase and on a military lifestyle.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  141.  
    identicon
    walter, Jun 15th, 2012 @ 7:35pm

    the sex offender article

    The only thing the stricter laws are doing is isolating the sex offenders to the point that sooner or later they will retaliate against the system, because they have nothing to loose since they have no where to live, work, find a mate. In general, they are being push back to jail. Society wants them to fail. Society wants them to be prisoned for life. But there is a problem. One, money to pay for it. And two, that is against there "human rights". Considering the fact that most offenders will never recommit a sexual crime again, and the ones that do, do on the registry list any ways. A lot of these laws are touching on the constitution.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  142.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 3rd, 2012 @ 8:27pm

    This is the same state where gay "marriage" is legal. What hypocrites. I guess some are more equal than others.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This