New York Culls Sex Offenders From the Online Gaming Ranks

SternisheFan writes with a story at PC Mag that New York Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman has announced that more than 2000 registered sex offenders have been kicked off various online gaming platforms, in an cooperative effort involving both the state and various gaming companies. From that article: "Earlier this year, the accounts of 3,500 additional offenders were removed from platforms operated by Microsoft, Apple, Blizzard Entertainment, Electronic Arts, Disney Interactive Media Group, and Warner Brothers. New York State's Electronic Securing and Targeting of Online Predators Act (e-STOP) law requires convicted sex offenders to register all of their email addresses, screen names, and other Internet identifiers with the state. Schneiderman's office then makes that information available to certain websites so they can make sure that their communities were not being used by predators. Operation: Game Over, however, is the first time e-STOP has been applied to online gaming platforms, he said. Since many online gaming platforms let users send messages to other players anonymously, it's unsafe to have convicted offenders using these services, Schneiderman said."

Comments

This will obviously help.

[hazah]

Everyone. Clearly.

Re:This will obviously help.

[Reverand Dave]

I'm curious to see your reasoning for that. I'm kind of swiss on this whole issue, but I want to know exactly how kicking someone off of an online game is a violation of their fundamental rights as a human being.

Re:This will obviously help.

[Joce640k]

Yep. It'll really help them manage their anger issues.

Re:This will obviously help.

[Anonymous Coward]

It could be argued that it's restricting their freedom of assembly.

Re:This will obviously help.

[jedidiah]

You are preventing them from engaging in commerce and public life.

It's basically Amish shunning or Hawthorne's Scarlet letter but without the obvious initial "buy in" of joining an extremist religious cult first.

The sacred cow will ensure the precedent is set in general so that it can be applied to YOU next time.

Re:This will obviously help.

[Anonymous Coward]

"But it's okay because they're just nerds!"

Re:This will obviously help.

[Anonymous Coward]

Because this is another no fly list.

Your rights as citizens are being weithered away by your Americanized 'Committee of Public Safety'. Look how well that worked for the French.

 

Re:This will obviously help.

[MitchDev]

It's the prison you go to after you get out of prison.

Re:This will obviously help.

[Reverand Dave]

Now this is an interesting point. Many online games require a subscription fee. Now if you're paying a fee for the subscription shouldn't it really be up to the company that maintains the environment to determine who can and will associate? Its not a public meeting place but a private one, how does this work out as a definition of freedom of assembly?

Re:This will obviously help.

[Gerzel]

Depends on the game.

If it is a game aimed at children where children are the primary demographic then it is just as right as the rest of the law.

If it is a game for general audiances where children often play then it is a bit more worrisome.

Basically there is a big difference in banning someone from "My Little Pony Online" vs "Call of Duty Modern Bang Bang."

And if it is a game aimed primary at adults which children under a certain age shouldn't be playing then this is simple harassment because authorities don't like this population of people.

Re:This will obviously help.

[Reverand Dave]

How is any of that really a human rights violation though. You don't have a fundamental right to slay dragons or shoot other people in a virtual world, those are first world conveniences. I'm not saying it's not completely dick, but its far from a human rights violation.

Re:This will obviously help.

[hduff]

You are preventing them from engaging in commerce and public life.

It's basically Amish shunning or Hawthorne's Scarlet letter but without the obvious initial "buy in" of joining an extremist religious cult first.

The sacred cow will ensure the precedent is set in general so that it can be applied to YOU next time.

I believe the intent is to prevent pedophile pedators from clandestinely communicating with potential underage prey. However, since sex-offender status is applied to more than just pedophiles, I would think that this is overly broad.

But since creepy and pervy is so creepy and pervy and decent people don't want to be associated with creepy and pervy and doing so may alert law enforcement, I doubt anybody will actually object to this treatment. They basically adopt the "don't do kiddie porn, don't fark teens and kiddies, don't rape or grope anybody and don't expose yourself in public if you want to play online games" attitude.

Re:This will obviously help.

[Snotnose]

Basically there is a big difference in banning someone from "My Little Pony Online" vs "Call of Duty Modern Bang Bang."

Not to mention games aimed at adults, like Call of Booty, Bang Bang ur mom.

Re:This will obviously help.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, it's getting to be a guy can't commit sex crimes without lasting consequences anymore. Sheesh.

Re:This will obviously help.

[Quiet_Desperation]

You don't have a fundamental right to slay dragons

[samulel jackson voice]I am the motherfucking Dragonborn, motherfucker! I will goddamn slay the goddamn dragons I see fit to goddamn slay![/samulel jackson voice]

Yeah, I"m being random. Sorry.

Re:This will obviously help.

[hazah]

Someone gets it! :)

Re:This will obviously help.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd argue being unfairly targeted by the law is a rights violation.

Re:This will obviously help.

[Hoi Polloi]

Yah, make sure they have lots of spare time they don't know what to do with now.

Re:This will obviously help.

[Hoi Polloi]

It should be based on their actions, not just because of their status.

Re:This will obviously help.

[robot256]

How exactly is a lifetime of being treated as a leper proper punishment for drunken public urination? The problem is not that the treatment is inappropriate for some individuals based on their past crimes, but that many people are put on these all-powerful lists who really shouldn't be, given the consequences.

Re: This will obviously help.

[Urza9814]

You do realize what these lists ACTUALLY are, right? Yes, they include rapists and molesters. They also include people who got drunk and pissed in the bushes that one time on college, or went streaking, or skinny-dipping (basically any form of public nudity) or sent topless pictures of themselves to their significant other when they were 17......

Lots of ways to end up on these lists. Some are not even in your control.

Re:This will obviously help.

[letherial]

How do you think this will stop them? Do you have any idea how easy it is to be anonymous on the interent? I dont see how this will solve anything other then putting them in the shadows so they can do what they want.

I mean, if the guy is going to offend and he is stupid enough to do it with his name he gives to the cops, then at least he can get caught and removed from society for a few years, going this route will just force them to learn how to play the internet and it truly is not hard. Also, maybe its the online video game keeping them from offending, pedos cant control themselves.

just another law that brings in political points but makes the problem worse.

Re:This will obviously help.

[KiloByte]

No, the intent is to show the public the current rulers are "tough on crime", children and citizens be damned.

Re:This will obviously help.

[Penguinisto]

A clue you may have missed: not all people with the title "sex offender" was caught doing bad things to children, or even to other human beings.

If the label were applied only to those who sexually assaulted children, then you might have had a point.

Re:This will obviously help.

[Anonymous Coward]

The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all.
- H. L. Mencken

Re:This will obviously help.

[Synerg1y]

You mention a real huge downside to this type of law and that's non-tech savvy sex offender's have one more reason to get tech savvy and learn how to subvert the police, so this brings us to two evils: offender offends using the internet and is caught: a horrible act was committed and justice is served right? but... offender uses the internet to find victims, isn't caught, does it again and again. I'd say the latter is a lot more damage to society. This goes into the whole the justice system makes hardened criminals out of minor offenders bit because I believe that most of the sex offender's we care most about never seeing again are serving decades/life terms in prison. This is just a witch hunt with potentially horrible consequences in creating more victims.

Re:This will obviously help.

[fahrbot-bot]

I believe the intent is to prevent pedophile pedators from clandestinely communicating with potential underage prey.

It's an attempt to prevent people that have been convicted of a crime and paid their dues / served their time from participating in legal activities on the basis that they *might* commit the same crime with new victims.

Are car thieves prevented from owning/driving cars? Are bank robbers prevented from having bank accounts. Are rapist prevented from dating and/or getting married and/or having children? Nope, but as a sex offender, they can't play WoW - along with a whole bunch of other things they must do, like register themselves everywhere, avoid schools and parks, etc...

I understand that sex offenders have an unusually high recidivism rate and the laws are intended to "protect the children" (or others) but isn't this simply shifting the responsibility of parents to teach their children, and for the children themselves, to act safely and responsibly and for parents to monitor their children properly?

You know the financial industry gets away with the disclaimer, "Past performance is no guarantee of future results," and their failure rate is probably worse than the sex offender recidivism rate. But, I guess it's okay to ruin people financially, just don't show them your winky.

Re:This will obviously help.

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe the intent is to prevent pedophile pedators from clandestinely communicating with potential underage prey.

So, following the same logic, those who committed theft are not allowed to touch money, those who committed murder are not allowed to interact with humans, those who did drugs are not allowed near pharmacies nor plants? That's too much punishment, I believe it's time to move on and adopt a fairer "one eye for one eye" policy, not this "one eye for one eye, two legs, one arm and half an eyebrow".

Re:This will obviously help.

[Anonymous Coward]

As a society we have passed laws that identify sex offenders for life because there is enough historcal case data that indicates recidivism is 4x higher for released sex offenders than other released offenders. Keep in mind that this does not include sex offenders that are never caught. http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=1136 [usdoj.gov]

False. You quoted a statistic, then posted raw numbers to back it up. Here are the actual comparative statistics, showing a 30X proclivity for recidivism of non-sex offenders vs. rapists: http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=17. Your "historical data" is nothing more than propaganda.

Re:This will obviously help.

[Xaositecte]

Drunk Drivers are often prevented from owning/driving cars; or at least forced to own a car with a built in sobriety detector.

Re:This will obviously help.

[Anonymous Coward]

"I understand that sex offenders have an unusually high recidivism rate and the laws are intended to "protect the children" (or others) but isn't this simply shifting the responsibility of parents to teach their children, and for the children themselves, to act safely and responsibly and for parents to monitor their children properly?"

You seriously saying that children have an obligation to "act responsibly" so they don't get molested? What the hell?!

Re:This will obviously help.

[icebike]

I believe the intent is to prevent pedophile pedators from clandestinely communicating with potential underage prey. However, since sex-offender status is applied to more than just pedophiles, I would think that this is overly broad.

Exactly. In many jurisdictions, you become a sex offender simply by peeing in a back alley in the dark after the bars close.

There really needs to be a legal redefinition of the terminology to weed out the pedophiles from the person on the losing side of a he-said/she-said.

Re:This will obviously help.

[Anonymous Coward]

No, you idiot, he's saying the parents should act responsibly, and you know: parent their children.

Re:This will obviously help.

[dryeo]

I understand that sex offenders have an unusually high recidivism rate

This is a common misunderstanding as two minutes on Google will show. According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_offender#Recidivism sex offenders have a recidivism rate of 5.3% (or 43% when considering any crime rather then sex crimes) compared with 68% for non-sex crime recidivism.
The way it's done in Canada is at sentencing the judge can include things like being put on the sex offender registry and being banned from certain activities if appropriate.

Re:This will obviously help.

[hurfy]

Yup, and another law for the law-abiding.

Oh, i am sorry, of course the people planning bad things gave all their info over. Silly me for thinking the truely evil ones might not obey.

Maybe, they prevent a couple of people from spur of them moment naughty things...hardly seems worth punishing so many.

Re:This will obviously help.

[e3m4n]

I dont know the specifics of this law, but may of the 'for the children' laws that go after 'registered sex offenders' often end up using too broad of a fishing net. In many states a 23yr old has sex with a 16 or 17 yr old consentually is still found guilty of statuatory rape due to laws concerning age of concent having some relative age component. This can be even more problematic when the said 16 or 17yr old uses a fake id to get into a club and lies about their age. At the end of the day the law is still considered violated and the 23yr old got branded a sex offender. Now fast-forward 10yrs later. I just dont see how this same person should be lumped into having all his rights violated in an effert to protect children from poedophiles. At no time did this person behave in a way dangerous to children. Its also very likely that now that this person is 33yrs old is also still only attracted to people that are still only a few years younger putting them at 30ish in age.

I know in my city they used a dragnet law 3yrs ago that said registered sex offenders could not live within 1000 yards of a school, church, or daycare. Well there really arent but 4 or 5 places here that can escape 1000 yards of a freakin church let alone schools and daycares. This town is church crazy, a damn church is on every city block. As a result of this law they evicted, by force, everyone in violation after a 60 day notice. Now they all live in this one small area of town. This _includes_ a few people in the exact same scenario I painted. Those people had grown up and had kids of their own now, and are forced to live with thier children surrounded by _real_ child predators.

I have no faith in government legislators being able to pull their heads out of their asses and write laws specific enough that stupid shit like this doesnt end up causing more problems than they hope to avert.

Re:This will obviously help.

[icebike]

He certainly worded that somewhat carelessly.

But then he distinguishes between rapists and sex offenders too:
 

Are rapist prevented from dating and/or getting married and/or having children? Nope, but as a sex offender, they can't play WoW .

so it seems he types faster than he thinks.

Re:This will obviously help.

[Anonymous Coward]

Trouble is, you are a sex offender if you were ever caught nude somewhere. Or a myriad of other things I personally consider not-OK, but not capital punishment worthy.

Re:This will obviously help.

[g0bshiTe]

I agree with Rev on this, it's not a human rights violation at all. It's no different than not allowing sex offenders to live within X miles of schools.

Re:This will obviously help.

[e3m4n]

just wanted to point out the obvious here, but a rapist IS a sex offender.. sex offenders are not just poedophiles. Stat rape is defined as having sex with someone below the age of consent despite that person willingly having sex with you. In some states a 17yr old can only concent with an older person within a year or two of their age. So 16 and 18 are ok to have sex, a 16 and 19yr old have consentual sex and the 19yr old is a sex offender for the rest of their life.

Re:This will obviously help.

[icebike]

You seem to take no notice of recidivism rates in the various crimes you throw up as equivalences.

Was it an oversight, or disingenuity?

Re:This will obviously help.

[dryeo]

If someone has been convicted of a crime that implies that they are liable to re-offend and it involves online gaming or similar then the judge can ban them at sentencing like in the rest of the civilized world. Same goes for putting them on any other list including sex offenders and firearm owners.
This called due process and in many countries is a right.

Re:This will obviously help.

[flayzernax]

The consitutional rights of life, liberty and the persuit of happiness apply here. People have a right to eat hot dogs, congregate in parks and sing songs, dance along the side of the street, watch birds in a park, even if its not expressly listed. The rights of the constitution and open ended and anything not listed there is assumed to be a specific right. The bill of rights is there to limit government expressly, anything not expressily written about is assumed to be OK under the constitution.

These people have a right to play video games online with their friends in groups and in public.

Specific services have the right to stop them from using their products, this is the caveat.

To see why this is so, we need only look to the text of the Constitution. It defines our most fundamental rights and protections in open-ended terms: “freedom of speech,” for example, and “equal protection of the laws,” “due process of law,” “unreasonable searches and seizures,” “free exercise” of religion and “cruel and unusual punishment.” These terms are not self-defining; they did not have clear meanings even to the people who drafted them. The framers fully understood that they were leaving it to future generations to use their intelligence, judgment and experience to give concrete meaning to the expressed aspirations.

Citation: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/14/opinion/14stone.html?_r=0 If someone can come up with a better citation and example feel free to contribute.

I do not condone or express any opinion on the actions of anyone on any sex offender lists, however, by shunning people and ostracising them from normal public interaction you are creating a subclass of people. These people will segregate further, and it could lead to potential psychological justification and rationalization of horrible acts in their eyes.

Somewhere you have to draw the line, I think kids should be protected in virtual space, but companies can do this by not allowing people to communicate with text or voice, or designing games with logging and allowing parents to only unlock communication with trusted friends.

It is entirely outside the bounds of the LAW to determine this, its outside of the bounds of the constitution to dictate even the use of specific applications.

This is bad, and most un-enlightened of us. We really are slipping and loosing touch with reality.

Re:This will obviously help.

[Anonymous Coward]

"My Little Pony Online" would be the one that is mostly adults, and
"Call of Duty Modern Bang Bang." would be the one that is mostly 13 year old kids, right?

Re:This will obviously help.

[zakkudo]

If you are that afraid of who your children talk to online and refuse educate them on how to interact with strangers, you should force your children to only play on Nintendo consoles with friend codes. Your talk should be better than "don't talk to strangers" and then hoping for the best. I know its hard to do a proper job parenting and trying to judge the mental maturaty level of your own children.

The kids are playing their M rated games that their parents had got them all the while the adults are being kicked off of them. The irony. This is where things are going.

I get that abuses of power happen and labeling someone who is innocent as a sex offender is the WORST type of crime and should be punishable to the same extent as someone who is found guilty of the accused crime.

I'm pretty sure they are fully well raped while in prison and it helps them greatly learn from their lessons. (Right? Not the opposite right?) Other prisoners do not take kindly to that kind of thing. Of course, this is usually glossed over in jokes and ignored.

The article you linked... 4x is an alarmist sensational number. This is slashdot. You linked an article where they clearly say 5%. On slashdot, we tend to not take kindly to arbitrary non-descript large numbers meant to scare people.

My grandmother before she died lemented how far a lot of these laws are going nowadays. It is telling when laws scare the 16 girl they are meant to protect than the 18 year old boy. This is where we are now.

You are a sensationalist. No more no less. You even called people who don't agree with you petophiles to scare people into submission. This is the new red scare to imprison people who are not communists. This is the new witch hunt to burn people who are not witches.

Re:This will obviously help.

[flayzernax]

Further more I would like to point out that this is a slippery slope, next its homosexuals, or transgenender, then its artists who draw erotic art, or pornstars, then its people who are argueing for the rights of these groups, then its christians because the athiests are tired of them spreading lies to their children online.

Were do you draw the line at?

Re:This will obviously help.

[Reverand Dave]

I could see this if it was a random crackdown. and I want to re-iterate that I don't necessarily agree or disagree with this. It is unfair, but by whose definition is it unfair?

Re:This will obviously help.

[Reverand Dave]

it's cool, you're good man.

Re:This will obviously help.

[dryeo]

Most of the civilized world considers things like speech, assembly and association to be fundamental rights that can only be taken away by due process of the law. If a judge judges that a convicted person is a threat to online gamers then as part of sentencing the judge can order the convicted criminal not to participate in online activities such as gaming.

Re:This will obviously help.

[cayenne8]

I'm curious to see your reasoning for that. I'm kind of swiss on this whole issue, but I want to know exactly how kicking someone off of an online game is a violation of their fundamental rights as a human being.

I wouldn't go that far...and trust me on this, I don't want to be coming off as defending these guys, but, if they've served their sentences, they should be free to go about their business.

I don't understand why the laws are allowed to keep persecuting these people after they serve their sentences.

Do we do this to convicted murderers? Hell, those people ENDED someone's life, and yet they don't get persecuted upon like these guys who must have at least left their victims breathing and able to see the light of another day??

If you've served your time, you should be free to go....and do what you can with the rest of your life, for a living and for pleasure, as long as it doesn't involve something illegal again.

If a criminal has served their time, why can't they play their video games in anonymity?

Re:This will obviously help.

[cayenne8]

If someone has served their time...why are they still being persecuted?

Does this same type of continued persecution follow convicted murderers, which would arguably be LESS on the 'bad' scale, since they actually ended someone's life?

Are convicted murderers, once term served and not on probation still required to register wherever they go...and have this type of ban placed on them?

Re:This will obviously help.

[cayenne8]

Drunk Drivers are often prevented from owning/driving cars; or at least forced to own a car with a built in sobriety detector.

Not on a first conviction!!!!

You aren't branded for life with one DWI conviction...and don't suffer that type of punishment.

You have to have been convicted in most places like 5+ times to get that kind of driving ban placed on you.

Hell, there's people out there with 2-3 DWI convictions under their belts, driving again perfectly legal after paying their 'legal dues'.

Re:This will obviously help.

[cayenne8]

You seem to take no notice of recidivism rates in the various crimes you throw up as equivalences.

Quoting a previous poster on this thread:

"This is a common misunderstanding as two minutes on Google will show. According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_offender#Recidivism sex offenders have a recidivism rate of 5.3% (or 43% when considering any crime rather then sex crimes) compared with 68% for non-sex crime recidivism."

Re:This will obviously help.

[fahrbot-bot]

just wanted to point out the obvious here, but a rapist IS a sex offender.. sex offenders are not just pedophiles.

Thanks. I knew/know that, but wanted a more specific example case and didn't mean to misrepresent. The up-shot is that sex offenders are harassed and punished long after they've paid their debt to society and it's wrong. Yes, they may commit future crimes, but so may all other criminals. All individuals need to take responsibility for their own actions, not (ex-)criminals.

Re:This will obviously help.

[Mattcelt]

Except that in this case, their status is a result of their actions.

The problem is that in the US, "sex offender" is a catch-all for many different types of behaviour, not simply pædophelia. Therefore many people who are "registered sex offenders", but who pose absolutely zero threat to minors, are being grossly punished. (And this applies to many things far outside of online gaming, for certain.)

A great example is of a 16-year-old girl who takes a naked picture of herself and sends it to her 16-year-old boyfriend; an authority finds out; and she is charged with felony production and possession of child pornography. It has happened. A lot.

Fortunately, some places are trying to bring common sense thinking to this. But not enough, not yet. (Btw, the douchebag threatening felony charges against the 16-year-old girl was District Attorney George Skumanick, who was thankfully voted out of office in part because of this in 2009.)

Re:This will obviously help.

[fahrbot-bot]

I understand that sex offenders have an unusually high recidivism rate

This is a common misunderstanding as two minutes on Google will show. According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_offender#Recidivism sex offenders have a recidivism rate of 5.3% (or 43% when considering any crime rather then sex crimes) compared with 68% for non-sex crime recidivism.

Thanks, I did not know that and fell victim to the common perception. I didn't think to actually check...

Re:This will obviously help.

[Elldallan]

Sure but I also think that the government should be forbidden from sharing information about an individuals criminal record after they have served their sentence unless they apply for a job in a school/kindergarten etc or a requiring high security such as working at a nuclear power plant etc. Anyone who gets their hand on such information and uses it to discriminate an individual should face severe fines, jailtime and preferably damages to the discriminated party for many hundreds of thousands or even more depending on the yearly income of the discriminating party.

Any government official who knowingly or through incompetence/negligence shares such information or causes such information to be otherwise known to the public should face a jail sentence for a minimum of 4 years.

Re:This will obviously help.

[Applekid]

I understand that sex offenders have an unusually high recidivism rate and the laws are intended to "protect the children" (or others) ...

This fact is the smoking gun that pedophiles need to be treated as mentally ill, not as hardened criminals. With all the after-effects beyond mere incarceration making it impossible to live or work practically any place, I can't imagine any freed sex offenders can ever afford the costs of treatment, let alone rebuild their life. Even when it's a sick compulsion and not necessarily a choice.

Even insane killers, in our society, can get help in an institution. And they KILLED people.

But, hey, can't make any money for the prison industrial complex and give government an excuse to monitor another citizen 24/7 until his death by being compassionate and sensible.

Re:This will obviously help.

[khallow]

Well, consider this, why is the population of sex offenders subject to blanket constraints (not case by case even) on who they associate with (which I might add is usually a right, explicit or implicit), but not other categories of crime such as hit and run, theft, fraud, etc?

Re:This will obviously help.

[icebike]

I saw that post, but the source does not report what you think it does.

It reports rates for rape, which has a sufficiently long sentence that many rapists are rather old when they leave prison.
It does not address child molestation at all, except by burying it under a mountain of rape cases.

Many of the more notorious molesters are serial molesters, and are often discovered only later in life, and never do get out of prison, so they never do have a chance of recidivism.

Re:This will obviously help.

[Applekid]

Yeah, it's getting to be a guy can't commit sex crimes without lasting consequences anymore. Sheesh.

If you think the jail time wasn't enough, then petition for the sentences to be longer. Don't "free" them when their term is over, really free them. Even murderers get a better shake at life out of the big house.

Re:This will obviously help.

[Anonymous Coward]

Basically there is a big difference in banning someone from "My Little Pony Online" vs "Call of Duty Modern Bang Bang."

You're right. My Little Pony is clearly directed at 18-25 year old bronies/hipsters. "Call of Duty Modern Bang Bang", judging by the sheer number of children I hear on it, is obviously directed at the youth.

The target audience might not be the audience which consumes the product.

Re:This will obviously help.

[Anonymous Coward]

They should start a church

Re:This will obviously help.

[thesandbender]

If you read the original study, you're comparing apples to bricks. From Recidivisim of Sex Offenders Released from Prison in 1994 (Langan, Schmitt, Durose)

Compared to non-sex offenders released from State prisons, released sex offenders were 4 times more likely to be rearrested for a sex crime. Within the first 3 years following their release from prison in 1994, 5.3% (517 of the 9,691) of released sex offenders were rearrested for a sex crime. The rate for the 262,420 released non-sex offenders was lower, 1.3% (3,328 of 262,420) So the rate of recidivism for the same crime is higher among sex offenders. The likelihood of being arrested for a different crime is lower (43% compared to 68%).

It should also be pointed out that all these stats are for the first three years after release only.

With that said, your point that recidivism is not a forgone conclusion as the stereotype suggests is correct, Wikipedia just made a hash of the stats.

Re:This will obviously help.

[bosef1]

Darn, have they already taken that title too? I thought I had a winner after getting turned down for "Call of Booty: Black Ops" and "Call of Booty: Big Red 1".

Re:This will obviously help.

[minijedimaster]

You are preventing them from engaging in commerce and public life.

It's basically Amish shunning or Hawthorne's Scarlet letter but without the obvious initial "buy in" of joining an extremist religious cult first.

The sacred cow will ensure the precedent is set in general so that it can be applied to YOU next time.

I believe the intent is to prevent pedophile pedators from clandestinely communicating with potential underage prey. However, since sex-offender status is applied to more than just pedophiles, I would think that this is overly broad.

But since creepy and pervy is so creepy and pervy and decent people don't want to be associated with creepy and pervy and doing so may alert law enforcement, I doubt anybody will actually object to this treatment. They basically adopt the "don't do kiddie porn, don't fark teens and kiddies, don't rape or grope anybody and don't expose yourself in public if you want to play online games" attitude.

"Creepy and Pervy" is a slippery slope. Person A calls themselves a christian and as such doesn't agree with the lifestyle choices a homosexual makes. BAM, hate crime! Kick em off the internet! Can't have those horrible creepy ideas making their way out to other people! We're a civilized society.

Re:This will obviously help.

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree fully. Most people don't know that a sex offender can be for indecent exposure, which can be applied, as you say, when peeing in a back alley. In most people's mind "sex offender" means rapist and/or pedophile. Unfortunately, many sex offenders who are neither rapists nor pedophiles and still get classified and persecuted as such. We should deal with the actual crimes as they were commited rather than placing people in overly-broad categories and then taking rights away from those people regardless of whether they actually deserve such treatment.

Re:This will obviously help.

[Anonymous Coward]

You silly person.
This isn't about sex offenders. This is about how EVIL the TUBES are and how we must CRUSH the EVIL from the TUBES so our CHILDS can be SAFER. EVIL TUBES are EVIL and we must not stop at ANYTHING to STOP EVILS. RIGHTS must not STAND IN our WAYS. CRUSH the RIGHTS, CLEAN the TUBES. STOP the EVIL. SAFER the CHILDS

See how easy that is to understand when you just write it all in buzz words?

Re:This will obviously help.

[Belial6]

I am probably in the minority with this, but I don't feel that being a corporation should give a free pass on these kinds of things. Corporations are creations of the government. Government uses them to skirt rules that prevent them from performing actions directly. As corporations gain more and more power, the line between corporation and government blurs.

Re:This will obviously help.

[Belial6]

As a parent, I have more fear that my child will be seriously harmed by these laws than I am that my child might be harmed by a pedophile. Interestingly enough, if my next door neighbor had been convicted of being a cannibal that particularly enjoyed the taste of children, they wouldn't need to tell me that they were a danger. On the other hand, if they got caught streaking through a bar, they would need to notify me about how much of a danger they were to my child.

Re:This will obviously help.

[Lashat]

So - Possesion of child pornography shouldn't be a sexual offense?

Re:This will obviously help.

[hermitdev]

Except that criminal records are a matter of public record, at least in the USA. They're freely and easily available. Even traffic violations are easily found if you know where to look, despite rules that if you plead guilty/no contest and keep a clean record, etc. they "don't go on your record". There's still the matter of the actual court case (even if you pay the fine and don't go to court, there's still a court case number & record) and your plea. If the case for something as a speeding or other minor moving violation is a matter of public record, how can you expect that a conviction (or, for that matter an acquittal) would not be on the public record? Further more, there are explicit laws in place mandating that sex offenders be registered in a publicly accessible manner. Once convicted of a felony, in the US, you lose certain rights otherwise guaranteed. For instance, convicted felons cannot legally vote or own firearms.

Re:This will obviously help.

[Reverand Dave]

That is an excellent point. Many people have brought it up in the comments here that RSO's are unfairly subjected to constraints that many other offenders are not subjected to. Habitual shoplifters can still go in Wally etc. I think it is the nature of the category of their offense that makes people allow this kind of treatment of offenders. Really if the people have done their jail time why are they still having to conform to a system that is penalizing them considering they have supposedly paid their debt to society? I still don't think it's a human rights issue though.

Re:This will obviously help.

[arth1]

No, but what are human rights are protection from double jeopardy and retroactive sentencing. When you have paid your debt to society, society can't say "wait a minute, we now also want to restrict you from ...". No matter whether it's a $0.01 fine, public flogging, or being banned from activities that others can join.

If you really want sex offenders serving life time sentences, you need to give them life time sentences. Changing the sentence afterwards is a direct human rights violation.

And unless you're very stupid and short sighted, you do not want to hand out the maximum sentences when you can avoid it. If that's what a rapist is facing, what would stop him from killing the victim and get rid of the witness? If he's going to get the maximum penalty anyhow, there's nothing to lose.

What this is is moral indignation, nothing more, nothing less. It has nothing to do with justice, and everything to do with feeling superior to those you take out your anger on. Because they are not us, and thus does not have to be treated like us.
Fucking double standards.

Re:This will obviously help.

[reasterling]

This deserves to be modded up.

Re:This will obviously help.

[Lashat]

Surely, I will have "the talk" and plenty more with my kids when the time comes. Not there yet, but I will make it a comprehensive as possible.

I agree that parents buying kids M rates games and letting them play online are most likely not being responsible and taking parenting seriously. However, these adults have been convicted of a crime and the penalty for those crimes includes regulation of their online presense.

Right and on /. it should be expected that everyone is better than elsewhere on the internet so they don't have to actually RTFA or posts accurately. This is exaclty from the website I linked. "Compared to non-sex offenders released from State prisons, released sex offenders were 4 times more likely to be rearrested for a sex crime."
This is what I wrote "there is enough historcal case data that indicates recidivism is 4x higher for released sex offenders than other released offenders." It something getting lost in the translation here?

I don't compeletely understand your statement about your grandmother's lament and laws that scare the 16 year old girl instead of the 18 year old boy. Please explain further.

I did make the comment "Maybe it just means that there are 5 sex offenders on ./ with mod points.". It wasn't meant to be accusatory as much as a statement of disbelief.

I am not advocating the curtailing of rights held by the general public. The hue and cry to the contrary is incorrect. Period. We are talking about people convicted of the crime. We are not talking about innocents falsely accused or those acquitted or any one else. That is something entirely different.

To sum up : If you can't do the time (or suffer the penalties) then don't do the crime. I fail to see the arguement that banning people from an online gaming service is that big of a deal anyway. If someone really wants to play, they can always make another account and not report that they are using the alias.

Re:This will obviously help.

[Lashat]

We draw the line through being active in our own community and government. But the line must exist somewhere...

Re:This will obviously help.

[Penguinisto]

Not even having to do with possession of child pornography. Think of people caught urinating in a public alley, to borrow one of numerous examples.

Re:This will obviously help.

[dougisfunny]

So if someone set up a new church in the middle of the area to guide the lost sheep, would they all be forced to move again?

Re:This will obviously help.

[betterunixthanunix]

Well that really depends on how you look at things. The point of outlawing child abuse imagery is to protect children from the people who make such imagery, not from the people who view it, by attacking the distribution chain. By arresting customers en masse, the theory is that there will be no market for child abuse imagery and thus it will not be made (at least not as frequently).

We could debate, endlessly, whether or not this market-based theory about child sex abuse actually makes sense in today's world. More import, though, is the question of whether or not someone who was convicted of possessing child pornography should be forced to register on a sex offenders list and have their freedoms drastically curtailed. If you did not arrest someone for abusing a child or for seeking out children to abuse, what good does it do to add that person to the registry?

Re:This will obviously help.

[Lashat]

Convicted criminals give up some rights based on the crime and sentencing schedule.

I don't really feel the law is akin to shunning or banishment in total from society. It's more like an extension of sex offenders not being allowed to hang out at playgrounds or anywhere "children are likely to congregate". Now again someone will say "not all sex offenders are child molesters".

Right, I would not argue against a more incremental penalty for some offenses on a case by case basis.

Recently in the news was a story about a convicted sex offender that was volunteering as a church festival of some kind. The church also operated a school. Children were present at the festival. A mother recognized the person from the Megan's Law website and called police. The person was not arrested because he had written permission from the church minister to be present. He was asked to leave the area by the cop. I felt sorry for him since it seems that he was following the rules and wasn't bothering anyone. I also feel sorry for the felon who can't get a job because he can't pass a background check.

Still, it is the penalty that comes with being convicted of the crime. It is rarely thought of as a consequence during the commision of the crime. Yet it is a deterrent when you know someone who is in that situation personally.

Re:This will obviously help.

[Lashat]

I totally disagree with public urination being considered "exposure".

Do you know someone that this has happened to and they were not able to get it dismissed? Was it a first/one-time incident?

Re:This will obviously help.

[alexandre_ganso]

Wait, so if a 17yo has sex with someone around 20, the older will never be able to have an iPhone or play wow in his/her life? What's wrong with you people?

Re:This will obviously help.

[Lashat]

Possession of such imagery is not always an indication of more severe problems. It should always be a case by case consideration. Maybe not on the first offense, but what if the first time someone is caught they are caught with drives full of child porn?

I don't disagree with your post. Yet possession of some material is illegal and that includes child porn. Any adult knows this and also knows the penalty exists.

Re:This will obviously help.

[Rakarra]

These people have a right to play video games online with their friends in groups and in public.

While I agree with your overall point, the video game companies also have right of association, they no not need to accept sex offenders onto their service, and there is no obligation that they do so. The question is whether the government is forcing them to eliminate any registered sex offenders, or if they wanted to purge their player base of sex offenders.
Due process generally includes the provision that you must be treated equally before the law, but private organizations do not need to follow it.

Re:This will obviously help.

[Anonymous Coward]

Prosecutors aren't in the business of being lenient. They're judged by number of successful convictions. Why would they offer to dismiss a case instead of advertising that another sex offender was put away on their watch?

Re:This will obviously help.

[DNS-and-BIND]

Sigh...here we go again. The moral outrage. The reason that sex offenders have these laws is that they would be convicted, serve their sentences, move to somewhere that nobody knew them, and start molesting children again. The story was, over and over, "if we had just known this guy was in prison".

Re:This will obviously help.

[fahrbot-bot]

Wait, so if a 17yo has sex with someone around 20, the older will never be able to have an iPhone or play wow in his/her life? What's wrong with you people?

Yup. Welcome to America. Home of the "free" and the "brave".

Re:This will obviously help.

[cheekyjohnson]

The problem is not that the treatment is inappropriate for some individuals based on their past crimes

That's exactly the problem. If they're dangerous, why are they out of prison? If you need to lock them in a bubble even when they're out of prison then maybe you shouldn't have released them to begin with. If they're out of prison, they've been punished already.

Sex crime punishments just seem ridiculous.

Re:This will obviously help.

[Elldallan]

Well they're not public records here in Sweden and I think that is preferable, once you have served your punishment society shouldn't penalize you furter, you should be able to put your life back together. If you forever isolate anyone who's ever been convicted that just forces em to sink deeper and deeper into criminality because no one will give them a decent job.

Court proceedings are public records here as well(but your criminal record is not) but it's somewhat of a hassle to get them, you have to go to the specific court that handed down the sentence and you have to request the specific case.
Yes I know about the sex offender registry and I find it despicable, even convicted criminals has a right to privacy and to not be harassed, again making a phariah out of someone only increases their chance of relapsing into serious criminality

Well over here you can't get a firearms license either if you have a conviction which is fine but also firearms is extremely limited, you can pretty much only get one if you're a licensed hunter or a member of a pistol/rifle club.
And I think it's wrong to deprive someone of their right to vote forever just because you made an error of judgement.

Re:This will obviously help.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep.. welcome to slashdot. Bunch of fucking perverts around here. It's best to just ignore articles like these.. because they'll really make you want to stop coming here.

Re:This will obviously help.

[Anonymous Coward]

I understand that sex offenders have an unusually high recidivism rate and the laws are intended to "protect the children" (or others) but isn't this simply shifting the responsibility of parents to teach their children, and for the children themselves, to act safely and responsibly and for parents to monitor their children properly?

This is, at best, a meme, more likely simply a myth and at worst, a lie perpetrated on purpose.

Sex offenders have the lowest rates of recividism amongst all types of criminals. There are more than a dozen studies from various local, regional and national organizations that show this.

Just worth pointing out.

Re:This will obviously help.

[betterunixthanunix]

Are you sure you don't disagree with my post? This is the sort of question that I was trying to say is not even relevant:

what if the first time someone is caught they are caught with drives full of child porn?

Does it matter if someone has multiple hard drives full of child abuse imagery? The point I was making was that the censorship of such imagery is meant to target the producers of it, not the consumers or collectors; the theory behind making it illegal, and the only reason such censorship passed constitutional challenges, was that by attacking the consumers the cash flow to the producers would be disrupted, and thus children would be protected from harm. Similarly, the theory behind the sex offender registry is that children might be harmed by people who previously abused children, and parents should know if such people are living or working near their children. Forcing people are arrested for possessing child abuse imagery to register as sex offenders does little to further the goal of protecting children; it neither attacks the supply chain for such imagery nor makes parents aware of the presence of people who have a history of molesting children. The problem we have here is that the purpose of these laws has been forgotten. Arresting people who possess child abuse imagery has now become a goal in and of itself, without regard to whether or not those people paid for or even deliberately obtained that material, and without regard for the realities of the modern distribution of such material. Sex offender registration covers broad classes of crimes, many of which do not involve children at all, and a quick perusal of the comments on this story reveals just how absurd sex offender registration has become, with even young teenagers -- which is within the age group the registry was meant to protect -- are being forced to registry for life. Whether or not adults really understand the legal ramifications of their actions is not relevant when the law has become that out of control.

Re:This will obviously help.

[amiga3D]

In the old days felonies were for pretty bad crimes. Murder, rape, bank robbery and such. Nowadays almost anything can be a felony which is the problem. Of course things like pedophilia or rape should actually be capital crimes with mandatory life sentences or death but instead we put them back on the street after a few years or even only a few months. I think they should be grateful just to be alive. You are far more likely to serve heavy time for diddling the stock market than rape or child molestation. I used to get pissed off but now I expect things to be fucked up and am almost never disappointed.

Re:This will obviously help.

[amiga3D]

I saw that show, Continuum.

Re:This will obviously help.

[Anonymous Coward]

5% within 3 years isn't that bad actually, assuming the 95% aren't just better at hiding their crimes ;).

If the rates don't go up that much after 3 years, it sure seems completely unjustified to have lifetime bans especially for stuff like online games. The more hours they spend on games the less time they have for raping people in real life, or even planning to do so.

I'd say it's fine to have lifetime bans for adult child-pedos[1] from being kindergarten teachers etc. That's not that harsh - plus I doubt guys should be a kindergarten teachers anyway given the extra dangers to them- everyone is less likely to give guys the benefit of the doubt, and kids and adults do make stuff up especially if the prosecution insists stuff happens: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fells_Acres_Day_Care_Center_preschool_trial
There are plenty of ways false memories can be created too:
http://faculty.washington.edu/eloftus/Articles/sciam.htm

[1] To me there's a difference between "pedos" who are 16 year olds "consensually raping" each other, and pedo adults raping young children. Those 16 year old "couple" pedos aren't likely to be more dangerous to young children than average.

Re:This will obviously help.

[Imrik]

In some states if two consenting people under the age of 18 have sex, both are guilty of statutory rape.

Re:This will obviously help.

[TheLink]

In many jurisdictions, you become a sex offender simply by peeing in a back alley in the dark after the bars close.

I find that ridiculous. If you're not flashing anyone and clearly trying to hide your genitals (and most of "the act") from view while peeing (whether by facing a wall, or hiding in the bushes) why the heck should you be regarded as a sex offender? Anyone imagining sexual stuff because of this is being perverted. Fine such offenders for littering, illegal dumping of unprocessed human waste or something similar.

As for redefining pedophile terminology, teenagers consensually having sex or "molesting" each other are pedophiles and rapists in the eyes of many laws too.

I personally think teenagers and young children would be more mentally scarred by being "indecently exposed" to the entire Government Apparatus than if someone flashed them. And if you jail a 16 year old girl's 20 year old boyfriend for 10 years, who is creating the most damage? Who is harming the girl more?

Re:This will obviously help.

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a difference between a full blown child/teen loving pedophile. And someone who got caught taking a piss in public. The laws are pathetic when it comes to what they consider a "sex offender". There are several other categories that one can find themselves labeled a sex offender, and these have nothing to do with what you are considering a pedophile.

Your shutting down any source of social engagement without knowing which offenders actually should barred/banned, and there is no way of knowing if the a "pedophile" is truly engaging with children for shear thrills or if they have changed there behavior. This is the kind of thing that allows government or overachieving A/G's, DA's to push the bounds of what the law intended, without taking into consideration what most consider a true "sex offender".

Re:This will obviously help.

[Gerzel]

Which is often a human rights violation in and of itself. Do you have any idea how common schools are? X miles often puts these people out of fair housing. Also this is often applied to offenders whose offence had nothing to do with pedophilia and never harmed a child.

Re:This will obviously help.

[Anonymous Coward]

Or is that only because they usually go to prison for life, and so there chance do do it again in the first place?

(I don't think so, but it's a valid question. So please, prove it wrong.)

Re:This will obviously help.

[gnasher719]

According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_offender#Recidivism [wikipedia.org] sex offenders have a recidivism rate of 5.3% (or 43% when considering any crime rather then sex crimes) compared with 68% for non-sex crime recidivism.

Rape has a very low conviction rate. Are you counting how many people are convicted again, or how many people commit a crime again? For crimes with low conviction rate, the first rate would be artificially lower.

Re:This will obviously help.

[cyborg666]

It's the prison you go to after you get out of prison.

Exactly! Shouldn't the person comitting a crime be redeemed after taking the punishment?

Re:This will obviously help.

[Anonymous Coward]

I almost got on the list. I had an expensive lawyer who managed to knock the charge down to a misdemenor of public indecency..

What did I do? I got undressed to nothing in front of my open window on the ground floor apartment I lived in.

The window faces the side of the apartment, and I often didn't bother to close the blinds or drapes, so it was not unusual for me to undress and just be casual in my apartment, and I didn't think anything of it. The window doesn't face the street, it faces the side grassy common area, but it's not
a public park and there's nobody there.

At that same time, a teenaged girl walking by on the sidewalk at the street saw into my window, at an angle from the street, and she reported it.

A police officer came by (quickly too because I was still undressed) and he shoved his head in my window and shoved his badge in my face.. One interesting point... before the male officer shoved his head in my window, he apparently had a female officer go around the side of my apartment and "observe" first.
I discovered that I was "observed" naked and visible from the street by a female officer. That was in the report.

Because the girl who reported me was a teenager, I got charged with some "Molest and Annoy" charge, basically bullshit, but it meant I had to register if convicted. My lawyer talked it down to Public Indecency and 1 yr probation, a charge that did not require me to register.

This was in 1999 and you can all rest assured I have not re-offended and now I close my drapes... always.

Re:This will obviously help.

[Anonymous Coward]

"I understand that sex offenders have an unusually high recidivism rate"

Actually they don't.

Re:This will obviously help.

[Anonymous Coward]

It could be argued that it's restricting their freedom of assembly.

Who gives a shit about their freedoms? They're lucky they're not all castrated and locked away to rot in a dungeon.

Re:This will obviously help.

[tehcyder]

The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all. - H. L. Mencken

Unfortunately, some people by their previous actions have proved that they are a danger to others, and need to be monitored and controlled. The alternative to keeping a close watch on a convicted paedophile and restricting his freedom is simply to chuck him in prison and throw away the key.

Mencken is generally an interesting writer, but he has fallen victim to the "absolute freedom" idea that so many Americans seem to believe in.

Briefly, by having any laws and punishments at all you are impinging on people's freedom; most people prefer this to absolute anarchy and the law of the jungle.

Re:This will obviously help.

[tehcyder]

I understand that sex offenders have an unusually high recidivism rate and the laws are intended to "protect the children" (or others) but isn't this simply shifting the responsibility of parents to teach their children, and for the children themselves, to act safely and responsibly and for parents to monitor their children properly?

Blaming children for being raped by paedophiles is about as vile an argument as I have ever heard on slashdot, and that's saying something.

Re:This will obviously help.

[tehcyder]

So if someone set up a new church in the middle of the area to guide the lost sheep, would they all be forced to move again?

The Church of the Latterday Pedophiles welcomes all repentant sinners!

Re:This will obviously help.

[tehcyder]

If someone has served their time...why are they still being persecuted?

Public safety. The criminal justice system is a mixture of punishment, rehabilitation and protection of society.

Most murderers who are not professional criminals do not re-offend, as their crimes tend to be domestic and caused by a unique set of circumstances. The ones who are deemed to still be a danger to society stay in prison for a very long time, if not for ever (at least here in the UK).

Re: This will obviously help.

[tehcyder]

You do realize what these lists ACTUALLY are, right? Yes, they include rapists and molesters. They also include people who got drunk and pissed in the bushes that one time on college, or went streaking, or skinny-dipping (basically any form of public nudity) or sent topless pictures of themselves to their significant other when they were 17......

Lots of ways to end up on these lists. Some are not even in your control.

The fact that the US has insane ideas about what constitutes a "sex offender" does not mean that there are not genuine sexual predators.

Re:This will obviously help.

[tehcyder]

The point of outlawing child abuse imagery is to protect children from the people who make such imagery, not from the people who view it, by attacking the distribution chain. By arresting customers en masse, the theory is that there will be no market for child abuse imagery and thus it will not be made (at least not as frequently).

If you do not outlaw the possession of child abuse imagery, it legitimises the notion of child abuse.

It would also make it much easier for the producers of child abuse imagery to get away with their behaviour, as unless they were stupid enough to be caught red handed identifiably filming themselves raping a child, they would always be able to plead that they were just watching something someone else had made.

Re: This will obviously help.

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you actively not getting the point, or what?

Re:This will obviously help.

[tehcyder]

Because this is another no fly list.

Your rights as citizens are being weithered away by your Americanized 'Committee of Public Safety'. Look how well that worked for the French.

And out come the fallacious slippery slope arguments from slashdot's army of libertarians who think that absolute freedom is both desirable and practicable.

Re:This will obviously help.

[tehcyder]

That's exactly the problem. If they're dangerous, why are they out of prison? If you need to lock them in a bubble even when they're out of prison then maybe you shouldn't have released them to begin with. If they're out of prison, they've been punished already.

You do not appear to have heard of the concept of parole.

Re:This will obviously help.

[tehcyder]

Basically there is a big difference in banning someone from "My Little Pony Online" vs "Call of Duty Modern Bang Bang."

And for the real pervs "My Little Pony Bang Bang."

Re:This will obviously help.

[tehcyder]

It's no different than not allowing sex offenders to live within X miles of schools.

Which is often a human rights violation in and of itself. Do you have any idea how common schools are? X miles often puts these people out of fair housing.

Comments like this result from the belief that everyone has an absolutely equal set of rights that should never be infringed on. If that were the case we shouldn't ever lock people up in prison, as physical incarceration is about as fundamental a limitation of your rights as it is possible to imagine.

Re:This will obviously help.

[tehcyder]

If you really want sex offenders serving life time sentences, you need to give them life time sentences.

Society has agreed a compromise between simply executing/locking them away for life, and letting them go scot free, by giving them a limited punishment followed up by on-going restrictions on their liberty.

I know slashdotters like things to be black and white, but civilisation doesn't work like that. If a paedophile has served a prison sentence, and is then allowed to live a somewhat restricted life (e.g. by being banned from working in schools or whatever), then yes his "human rights" are being infringed, but also yes, he is allowed more or less a normal life instead of being strung up by his bollocks on a lamppost.

Re:This will obviously help.

[Anonymous Coward]

If you do not outlaw the possession of child abuse imagery, it legitimises the notion of child abuse.

The same way the possession of murder imagery legitimizes the notion of homicide.

Or in other words: You couldn't be more wrong if you tried.

Re:This will obviously help.

[Anonymous Coward]

Do a lot of under age people using gambling sites in the US?

Re:This will obviously help.

[MitchDev]

"But think of the children! How will they learn to just bend over and take whatever the corporate masters and the puppet government want to force-feed them?!?"

Re:This will obviously help.

[Triklyn]

children: he does make a fair point though, i may have been a overly suspicious child, but when my parents told me to not talk to strangers, I didn't. and i'm fairly sure every child has gotten that phrase at some point in their lives.

I dislike the removal of rights in any context, that's a conservative principle and i'm a lefty.

parental responsibility: don't let your kids do that, monitor them.

online gaming? really? that's the avenue for child-molesters now? if i had a kid, and they didn't tell me when they were going to meet someone i'm not familiar with that they met online, we've got problems involving my parenting. if i don't do the due diligence to figure out if this stranger from the interwebs isn't a registered sex offender, i've got problems involving my senses.

we're not talking about kids getting snatched off the corner here, this ain't no kidnapping.

Re:This will obviously help.

[Anonymous Coward]

If they're dangerous, why are they out of prison?

Because they are as dangerous as needed, and there's no need to make them any more dangerous. You see, the prison system in the US is there to turn criminals into hardened criminals. Unlike civilized countries, where the prisons are there to turn criminals into normal people.

Re:This will obviously help.

[Triklyn]

no, just appropriate punishment for the crime. I'd think anyone who thinks that mandatory minimums are wrong, and approve of life sentences for capital crimes, would come to a similar conclusion. I'm not sure how much of hardship the X miles thing is, but it should be preventative, not punitive.

Re:This will obviously help.

[slimjim8094]

Unfortunately, some people by their previous actions have proved that they are a danger to others, and need to be monitored and controlled.

Despite the fact that sex offenders have the second-lowest recidivism rate around (after murder)?

The alternative to keeping a close watch on a convicted paedophile and restricting his freedom is simply to chuck him in prison and throw away the key.

Well, despite the fact that there's evidence that most sex offenders do not re-offend (as above), and are thus not particularly dangerous to children, wouldn't they be better off in jail than living like this? That's the kind of "restricting his freedom" you are talking about.

I'm all for keeping kids safe and obviously think that sex offenses against children are despicable (and isn't it sad I have to say that?). But either they need to be able to serve their punishment and be done with it, or we should just kill them outright. After all, these pervasive time-unlimited punishments are basically saying they can't be rehabilitated, right?

Re:This will obviously help.

[khallow]

I still don't think it's a human rights issue though.

What would you call punishment that never stops even though it is supposed to? I'd suggest "cruel and unusual punishment" as an accurate description. Proscribing where one can live, can also create a cruel and unusual punishment (a lot of residential places are close to schools, day cares, and other places where kids congregate). The right to not be subject to cruel and unusual punishment is a human right observed by most countries out there.

This is especially egregious when one considers the absurdly non-criminal nature of a lot of sexual offender crime (here, statutory rape for ages that were considered adult a few generations ago).

I also mentioned the right of association. In the US, it's hidden in the First Amendment as "freedom of assembly". That is another human right that is being violated.

Re:This will obviously help.

[cheekyjohnson]

This hardly seems like parole. This seems more like punishing people for the rest of their lives.

Re:This will obviously help.

[StuartHankins]

I totally agree. I live in an upscale community. I was talking to a friend about possibly moving here. They looked at the sex offender counts which were some ridiculous number. I had to explain exactly what you said... I used the example that a 17-year-old having sex with another 17-year-old could technically qualify as a sex offender.

As a parent it helps greatly to weed out these people from the true sex offenders so we can make decisions about where to live. With these definitions the results aren't really usable for determining anything, which is the opposite result from the whole point of publishing that information. If the intent was to drown out the real offenders by throwing a bunch of meaningless data points around, they succeeded.

Re:This will obviously help.

[Anonymous Coward]

I never can get past the third level. Your mom's too good and always finishes me off early.

Re:This will obviously help.

[Politburo]

Yes on a first conviction, if you live in the right/wrong state: http://www.madd.org/laws/all-offender-interlock.html

Re:This will obviously help.

[Opportunist]

But the line must exist somewhere...

It must? Why?

Re: This will obviously help.

[Cro Magnon]

The fact that the US has insane ideas about what constitutes a "sex offender" does not mean that there are not genuine sexual predators.

Yeah, but sorting out the real predators from the 99% harmless ones makes the whole list rather pointless.

Re:This will obviously help.

[Opportunist]

Isn't it odd that sex crimes are the only crimes where images of the crime itself are illegal? It just occurred to me. I mean, I can have a movie about someone being shot dead, in slow motion and with blood flying everywhere (actually, it would probably be ok to show it on prime time TV, considering that it happened quite a few times on shows like CSI), but a hint of (even pretended) rape being shown and the movie is banned.

Personally, I think it's odd, don't you?

What disturbs me most is that it's banned to dress up a child actor like he/she was a rape victim but it's allright to dress him/her up like a murder victim.

Can anyone explain why violence is more acceptable than sex? Last time I checked the latter is a requirement for our survival, while the former is kinda detrimental to it.

Re:This will obviously help.

[Anonymous Coward]

Your comment holds very much merit, but does not entirely invalidate the parents comment. There should be varying degrees... did someone get arrested for a drug related crime and their computer got scanned by off the shelf software and found a google image result of something sexual. What about other forms of sexual imagery that is taboo, but has a more grey legal definition. What if it was one thumbnail that turned up in a search result for viagra or some kind of shaving product?

Theres a difference between someone who draws and makes available lolicon to minors, and someone who draws lolicon or skirts the definition of what is considered erotic to make an artistic point and responsabily only distributes it to other adults. I think people should have a reasonable expectation of protection and privacy if they are not actively harrasing children and not involved in a criminal violation of the law. For that you need to have very clear, limited and specific laws which define "sex offender". The word sex offender is far to broad even in my eyes. As its commonly used for cases as simple as public urination its definately needs refinement before we make other laws.

I think if you want to have a list it should be called "statutory rapist list" or something, the laws need to be fixed so people in high school relationships of 16-19 don't get anally raped (this is a bad thing) by the law. Then you can make it voluntarily available to people and companies, but there should be no "forcing companies to act on it".

In fact the courts need to act more responsibly and put ONLY people on this list who truly deserve it. I think most people would agree that you would have to be involved in a "child abuse imagery" cartel or have committed an act of molestation, or have a clear and defined problem, such as 100's of pictures and an antisocial life, with no other reason (your a prosecutor, or a scientist studying the problems, and their documented etc..) You could probably tighten up the definition, but if I were on a jury and someone happened to have 1 image or 1 search in their google logs, I would probably give them the benefit of the doubt, especially if they were young themselves or had a good excuse (I was curious, and it was gross).

By dictating that a company must use this information we are setting a precedent and causing a bigger social problem. You are also developing an environment were it will shortly be used for more then just keeping people off of WoW or legoland online, but 2cnd life for example.

And I'm sorry but if your a parent and your dumb enough to let your kid use something like Second Life (or Wow, for that matter which I find has a repulsive community) without any supervision you have allot of serious problems. The kid most likely wont die from it, but I think its a bad idea. Its not societies, or ex-criminals (people who served their time) responsibility to make up for your lack of care and your apathy.

Re:This will obviously help.

[Lashat]

To strike a balance between Order and Choas.

Re:This will obviously help.

[Lashat]

I do disagree on the status of the question being relevant or not. Quantity is entirely relevant. Just as type of offense is entirely relevant.

I think there is common ground between us on the idea that some offenses should not automatically require registration. I also agree that pursuing producers of child porn should also be a focus for law enforcement. However, it sounds like you are advocating the decriminalizaion of possesion of child porn. (Correct me if I'm wrong.) I totally disagree with that idea.
Just browsing posts here on /. is not an accurate data pool to represent the entire real world population.

To expand on the quantity point above why would anyone want or need to possess multiple drives full of child porn? Why would someone need kilos of cocaine?

Re:This will obviously help.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm all for it... Sex offenders knowingly committed the crimes they are being persecuted for, and most sex offenders are repeat sex offenders.. Online social networking makes it too easy for them to contiuously commit their crimes upon unsuspecting children. Honestly I don't think they should be let out of prison if they commit the crime more than once. But there are habitual sex offenders that have been to prison multiple times, and just keep getting let back out... Just as convicted felons can't vote or own guns, sex offenders should not be allowed to engage with children on any level.

Re:This will obviously help.

[Anonymous Coward]

Kids playing Halo 4 online multiplayer... Kid has a heaset to speak to friends and co-ordinate attacks against noobs... Perv sends freind request to kid, talks to kid over head set... Hey jjbb6r you ever see a grown man naked... Now do you think this should be allowed to happen?

Re:This will obviously help.

[Anonymous Coward]

It is obviously intended for pedophiles... But who says one sex offence deosn't lead to others...?

Re:This will obviously help.

[Reverand Dave]

This brings into question whether you have a fundamental right to the internet and related network communications and whether that is actually "assembling" in the protected sense. While I do agree that it is a bit cruel and probably unnecessary, is it really much different than not allowing RSO's to go hang out at Chuck E. Cheese, or live near elementary schools. Is it shitty, yes it is, is it a human rights violation? I'm not so sure.

Re:This will obviously help.

[Anonymous Coward]

Furthermore, a restriction like that is put in place by a judge as part of a court proceeding. Based on the specific facts of the case. One that can, you know, be appealed.

Re:This will obviously help.

[Opportunist]

So, essentially, a self serving rule?

Re:This will obviously help.

[Anonymous Coward]

"isn't this simply shifting the responsibility of parents to teach their children, and for the children themselves, to act safely and responsibly and for parents to monitor their children properly? "

As a parent, normally I'd shout you down, sneer, growl, grimace and scratch. But in this case, I have to agree with you. It is our responsibility to protect our offspring. Not that laws are not needed, but let's face it. those who enforce the law cannot be around 24/7/12, no matter how much they say they can. YOU have to protect YOU and YOURS first.

There are things that I do not allow my children to do thanks to predators. Other parents think it's cool to let tweens be on Facebook, or let teens stay out late at parties where college kids and people under 30 hang out. I don't. And while you cannot guarantee that all of your rules as a parent are fool proof, you don't have to be fool enough to think that it is the state's responsibility to protect your children.

Re:This will obviously help.

[Anonymous Coward]

How exactly is a lifetime of being treated as a leper proper punishment for drunken public urination? The problem is not that the treatment is inappropriate for some individuals based on their past crimes, but that many people are put on these all-powerful lists who really shouldn't be, given the consequences.

First of all use that room made for pissing in you drunken degenerate... Pissing in public is obscene and drunks do it in front of families, children, just about anyone because they're drunk and just don't give a shit...Being punished for that sort of crime is understandable, classifying them as sex offender is not ok though. Famous degenerate President W. Bush pissed in the bushes allover Texas and allover us as well... "Sorry, ADD really does hamper getting a point across" Only rapists and pedophiles should be considered Sex Offenders.. Law is the Law, if having sex with your 16 yr old girlfriend is illegal then don't have sex with her.. Try someone your own age or older that might make some sense, because society is cracking down on sex offenders due mainly because of the large number of pedophile cases.. Many parents think Sex Offenders such as rapists and pedophiles should never be let out of prison after their second offense.. That's right second offense... Give them a chance of course, but if they fuck up don't give another one... Thats the oldest rule in the world.. Fool me once shame on you, Fool me twice, Shame on me.. Fool me a third time, I'm a fool and deserve it....

Re:This will obviously help.

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. In many jurisdictions, you become a sex offender simply by peeing in a back alley in the dark after the bars close.

Abusive or irrational legal systems make the general public scared of their own legal system. Given that the US legal system is complex, confusing, even contradictory, there is already significant artificial long term demand for the services of legal professionals. Having abusive laws serves to further increase this demand. After all, people that are scared and confused will naturally (on average) want all the help they can get: this emotion reaction is part of our tribal heritage, part of being human.

As most of the legislators, governors, and so forth who are involved in passing these laws ARE legal professionals, the motivation here is quite clear. And, naturally, we can't expect the judges or prosecutors to do anything about the problem, since they are legal professionals as well.

The ethics concept here is called "conflict of interest". It's not a conspiracy, merely lots of very clever people looking out for their own futures in an amoral fashion.

The US legal profession has very serious problems with ethics, and this isn't likely to get fixed anytime soon. This is not to say that all legal professionals are unethical, but we're a long ways from where we need to be for our society to be considered even remotely rational. Strange how fast technology develops and evolves in comparison to societies and people.

Re:This will obviously help.

[khallow]

You argue this on two fronts. First, the introduction of technology somehow can void a right not by rending it obsolete, but by not fitting exactly a rigid interpretation of the rights in question. I think this is a bizarre view to claim.

Second, I believe most of us understand that breaking of rights is not binary. There is the matter of degree. But it is again bizarre to claim that only big violations are violations.

Re:This will obviously help.

[Anonymous Coward]

Just curious how you understand this "unusually high recidivism rate" for sex offenders. Where did you get your data to make the statement? Just curious, but check the DOJ stats and you'll find exactly the opposite...

Re: This will obviously help.

[Anonymous Coward]

Ending up on a sex offender registry is really an easy thing to do. In my state it became retroactive, going all the way back to 1936; yes, great grandpa and maybe a grandpa found themselves on a registry even though 40+ years had passed without incident. Take note that over 95% of molestations happen by a family member or a trusted friend...a child is more likely to be molested by a cop than by the registered offender living in your neighborhood, and I did say a cop. According to National Police Misconduct Report in 2010-2011, 688 reported incidents of police sexual misconduct (more than any other profession).
Sex offender recidivism is very rarely another sex crime; failing to register on time, failing to report address on time, failing to pay traffic fines and the list goes on and on.

Re:This will obviously help.

[badkarmadayaccount]

What about drawn porn, and dressed up actresses?

Re:This will obviously help.

[Elldallan]

I disagree, I find the death sentence just as despicable and I don't think that any first offense deserves life imprisonment without the possibility of parole(that is not to say I think they should be let off easy though but everyone deserves a second chance and most violent crime are crimes of passion, there is a significant chance that the offender wont fall back into serious crime unless society actively goes out of it's way to make sure that that's the only way to have a decent life after getting out) except for for mass murders and maybe for particularly heinous murders. But even if the felony is for a pretty bad crime I don't think that the offender should be further punished once they have served their jail sentence and paid their fines/damages.

Re:This will obviously help.

[cheekyjohnson]

Pissing in public is obscene

That's completely subjective. It's possible that someone could believe that a myriad of things you do are "obscene," but that doesn't mean you should be punished for doing them.

Law is the Law

That sounds like a scary mindset to me. "Jim Crow laws are unjust? Law is the Law."

due mainly because of the large number of pedophile cases

What exactly is a "pedophile case"? I'm going to assume you're referring to children being sexually abused. So... how are there a large number of "pedophile cases"? They seem pretty rare to me! Perhaps it's just that people in the US are so paranoid when it comes to child safety, and not that there are a large number of children being sexually abused.

Re:This will obviously help.

[Anonymous Coward]

And out come the straw men from someone on Slashdot who often engages in black and white thinking (total freedom or tyranny). I can't imagine how your comment could be considered on-topic if that's not what you meant to say.

Re:This will obviously help.

[virg_mattes]

You're overextending the statement. The statement indicates that this law isn't going to be as useful in preventing this sort of thing as parents taking better responsibility for their kids' online contacts and the kids themselves being more careful (presumably because their parents taught them to be). This isn't Grampa we're talking about, it's a random person in an online game, and keep in mind that most "kids" who play online games aren't first graders who don't have a clue, they're young teens who can reasonably be expected to understand the dangers if their parents put effort into it. So yeah, there's a responsibility that falls on the parents and kids themselves that would be far more effective than this law.

Virg

Why not just block messaging?

[sunderland56]

If the aim is to stop registered sex offenders from messaging, why block them from gaming completely? Just block their ability to message.

Re:Why not just block messaging?

[Trepidity]

rationality doesn't really come into play with "sex offender" laws.

p.s. you can be put on a sex-offender registry because you "sexted" with your gf/bf when you were both in high school!

Re:Why not just block messaging?

[Anonymous Coward]

You can also be put on the registry for a urinating in public charge.

Re:Why not just block messaging?

[Anonymous Coward]

p.s. you can be put on a sex-offender registry because you "sexted" with your gf/bf when you were both in high school!

So don't do that.

Re:Why not just block messaging?

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. This law isn't about keeping kids safe, it's about piling increasing the punishment ex post facto. See, it's an administrative response, not a punishment as far as the courts are concerned.

Re:Why not just block messaging?

[Anonymous Coward]

You clearly are a pedophile sympathizer, if not a pedo yourself!

In all seriousness, though, we won't get rational sex crime laws until a significant cultural attitude shift occurs. Especially when children are involved. These are just some of the problems involved with living in a sexualized but sex negative society like the US.

Re:Why not just block messaging?

[admdrew]

I suspect because no one wants to spend resources developing that sort of functionality. It is probably also seen as far "safer" and easier for companies to simply ban those offenders, than it would be to track and restrict them.

Re:Why not just block messaging?

[Trepidity]

Or maybe you Christian-right nannies should fuck right off.

Re:Why not just block messaging?

[firex726]

Or had a piss behind a dumpster after drinking one night.

It's stupidly easy to get on the list, realistically it's so watered down that it does not really mean anything useful. I looked up the ones near me once and something like half were for BS reasons.

Re:Why not just block messaging?

[SJHillman]

What about the sex offenders whose crimes had *nothing to do* with children? What if they took a piss behind a bush and a 70 year old lady happened to see them and reported it? It's not a "touched little kids" list, it's a "any act that uses any part of the part of the body conceivably used for sex" list.

What you're doing is the same as lumping everyone who has ever had a speeding ticket or parking violation in with DWI offenders and then saying that *none of them* are allowed to go to bars just because a small subset of the group has done something bad related to alcohol.

Re:Why not just block messaging?

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately these lists don't consist of people strictly convicted of heinous crimes. Instead the majority of the people on these lists are those who have been convicted of much lesser crimes and rather than fight pled out. What exactly will this accomplish? I know what will happen and so do you if you thought it through - these people will simply not register their accounts to allow them to be culled. Duh...

Re:Why not just block messaging?

[Anonymous Coward]

And we were all so rational in High School

Re:Why not just block messaging?

[PhxBlue]

Or maybe you Christian-right nannies should fuck right off.

They're going to need an instruction manual to do that. Just sayin'.

Re:Why not just block messaging?

[Anonymous Coward]

so don't piss in the street like an animal?

Re:Why not just block messaging?

[Sir_Sri]

separate problems.

The law is overzealous. But don't tempt fate just because the law is stupid. You personally should make decisions in your own best interest. Vote against such overzealous laws if given the opportunity, but don't violate them while they're on the books.

Re:Why not just block messaging?

[firex726]

More like, what good is a list to protect kids if it's populated by people who are of no threat, and never have been?

Re:Why not just block messaging?

[Joce640k]

Yeah, much better to piss your pants.

Re:Why not just block messaging?

[Reverand Dave]

Lets not try to bring rationality into this argument sir, we're talking about the safety of our children!

Re:Why not just block messaging?

[Joce640k]

you can be put on a sex-offender registry because you "sexted" with your gf/bf when you were both in high school!

Meanwhile the TSA can scan/grope children to their hearts content because the same government that passed this law passed some other ones too.

The TSA is a dream job for a pedophile.

Re:Why not just block messaging?

[jedidiah]

> It's called consequences.

That's what prison is for.

Their "debt to society" is already paid.

Re:Why not just block messaging?

[Anonymous Coward]

In New York (which is what the article is about), sexting between 2 minors with less than 4 years age difference does not get you classified as a sex offender. So bullshit. In fact, even statutory rape laws only apply when on party is over 18 and the other under 15.

Re:Why not just block messaging?

[Anonymous Coward]

Where I live, I've seen people put away for multiple felonies just for peeing on a wall while drunk, namely lewd conduct and indecency in front of a child (no kids as witnesses, but the prosecution did successfully assert that a minivan full of rug rats could have gone by.)

Re:Why not just block messaging?

[PatentMagus]

Should the non-denominational left wing nannies fuck left off?

Re:Why not just block messaging?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ha! You're a sex offender!!!

Re:Why not just block messaging?

[MitchDev]

A-FUCKING-MEN!

Re:Why not just block messaging?

[pla]

so don't piss in the street like an animal?

So next time I visit your town, I can stop in to pee?

Cool, thanks!


/ Still just an animal, but I can pee on the seat in style!

Re:Why not just block messaging?

[The MAZZTer]

I doubt many gaming platforms have that ability. And operators will probably find it easier to just outright ban the users than implement a new feature like that.

Re:Why not just block messaging?

[PopeRatzo]

So next time I visit your town, I can stop in to pee?

That's why God made McDonalds.

Lord knows you shouldn't eat there.

Re:Why not just block messaging?

[Opportunist]

Sure, teenagers are the epitome of rationality and emotion-free thinking. Never heard how that abstinence-only sex ed worked like a charm when it comes to teen pregnancies?

Re:Why not just block messaging?

[Opportunist]

Riiiiight, piss your pants like a real man!

Re:Why not just block messaging?

[chrismcb]

There are a couple of ways to overturn a bad law. ONE of them is to violate the law, and then fight it in the court system. While this can be more expensive and time consuming, it is a way that ONE individual can overturn a bad law. While voting against it takes quite a few more individuals.

Re:Why not just block messaging?

[Opportunist]

I'd rather side with pedos than with people who crap out laws like that.

Think rationally about it: The pedos will never harm me. Those laws, on the other hand, might if I take a piss in the wrong spot.

Re:Why not just block messaging?

[kelemvor4]

Yeah, much better to piss your pants.

It's true. Your life won't be ruined if you piss your pants.

Re:Why not just block messaging?

[kelemvor4]

What about the sex offenders whose crimes had *nothing to do* with children? What if they took a piss behind a bush and a 70 year old lady happened to see them and reported it? It's not a "touched little kids" list, it's a "any act that uses any part of the part of the body conceivably used for sex" list.

What you're doing is the same as lumping everyone who has ever had a speeding ticket or parking violation in with DWI offenders and then saying that *none of them* are allowed to go to bars just because a small subset of the group has done something bad related to alcohol.

Well, the guy DID have a penis with him when he got drunk a the bar...

Re:Why not just block messaging?

[Anonymous Coward]

The punishment does not fit the crime. It is obvious that there should be some punishment. But lifelong membership on a public registry that equates you with child molesters, and is used to deny you from doing things in which you post no risk, is outright egregious.

Re:Why not just block messaging?

[Anonymous Coward]

Here is the problem. In New York, it is perfectly legal to urinate in public. There is a health statute against defecation, but that is a public health thing. The "whizzing in public" scenario is not valid. Court precedence states that "if the accused was making a good faith attempt to be out of the line sight of the majority of the public". This means, behind a bush and granny sees, won't get you a sex crimes conviction, it won't even get you a disorderly conduct citation. Trust me, I work in an outdoor profession, where many times, there isn't a rest room. I have gone on many a landmark and I can play my little video games online. As long as you try to be discrete about where you are going, it isn't a crime. People can get caught out in public and have to go, you don't put them on a sex crimes list for having one too many coffees in the morning. What about people with medical conditions, whose bladders do not function like yours? There are people with disabilities out there. And if you locked up every person who was going through Chemo and needed to go when there wasn't a public restroom open, you would have a problem. I wish more people would actually be familiar with local statutes and the historic purpose behind them. It is sad that this culture quickly blames the victim for being hurt and lets those who commit horrific acts get a pass.

Re:Why not just block messaging?

[Desler]

In fact, even statutory rape laws only apply when on party is over 18 and the other under 15.

Actually for second-degree rape it's 18 or older. If they are under 15. And it's far from unheard of to see 14 year olds in high school as freshman and for a senior to be just over 18 before graduating.

Re:Why not just block messaging?

[hduff]

That's why God made McDonalds.

MsDonalds is the world's largest chain of public toilets.

Re:Why not just block messaging?

[Anonymous Coward]

And just to blow your mind completely... Women can be topless on the subway in New York. You can even breast feed in public. That is perfectly legal. And damned sure, I know how to use a set of mammary glands for sex.

Re:Why not just block messaging?

[Desler]

Plenty of people on sex offender lists are neither rapists or molestors.

Re:Why not just block messaging?

[Opportunist]

I wouldn't mind that so much if your assumption that "only" child molesters get on the list was even remotely true. A lot of people end up there who have no business getting on it. It could be you, next time you go out to pick up your newspaper only in your bathrobe, it flies open, your neighbor (who happens to hate you) sees you and, welcome, we have a winner!

Just to bring on a car analogy after so much time, it's like getting a "car offender" list going and lumping you, who was speeding to say good bye to your dying grandmother, on an empty highway (well, empty except that highway cop), together with some drunk who drove recklessly and crashed a few cars.

And yes, you're on that list where the drunk, reckless drivers are on.

Re:Why not just block messaging?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you can prove your innocence on something like a sex crime, you sure as well don't "Plead out". That makes NO sense. You plead to lesser offenses, not greater ones. I hope you never sit in front of a judge, he will have a field day with you.

Re:Why not just block messaging?

[Anonymous Coward]

Part of paying your debt is whatever punishment the society sees fit. Losing rights and comforts is one thing that is used to deter that behavior. Sort of like losing your right to vote...

Re:Why not just block messaging?

[Anonymous Coward]

So, just to get the Godwin out of the way, if the law says, "turn the Jews over to the paramilitary so they can haul them off for rape, torture, and execution" you should do that, but then vote against the government next election?

Re:Why not just block messaging?

[Anonymous Coward]

Whoever was convicted under such a charge likely had shit for a lawyer. Like, Hanky The Christmas Poo, Esq.. Seriously, ever hear of reasonable fucking doubt? Did this make it to a jury trial, or did this person plea out? I could see the prosecutor using this as a scare tactic to force terms in a plea bargain..

Re:Why not just block messaging?

[Johann Lau]

Vote against such overzealous laws if given the opportunity, but don't violate them while they're on the books.

What if you're not given the opportunity? Also, Rosa Parks. Unless being spineless is what you actually strive for, of course, then what you suggested would be in your "own best interest".

Other than that, screw it. If I had never broken a law in my life I would be some kind of dull blob staring at the wall. I would never have gotten into music without using a pirate copy first, and I got a lot of inspiration and advice from media I couldn't even buy if I wanted to. I could go on. All that stuff I learned on the Amiga by poking around with stuff I copied from somewhere... I spent a LOT of my own money on a LOT of stuff, but still, I broke the law even more. Nobody was harmed, I wouldn't have bought that stuff either way. But it was illegal. Do I regret it? Bullshit, I recommend it.

The law comes from humans. I am one of them. To the degree that I am sane and rational (which isn't much in my case, but hey, the theory is sound), I have ALL that is required to make or abolish laws in me. I don't need the permission of other humans who are exactly like me for that. Actually, with the same justification you could claim they need permission from me. The law isn't something above us, it's a carpet and a tool we made. We can change it, we can ignore it. It's not special, we are. That's actually how many laws change, they get broken so often that it becomes clear the law itself is broken.

But sure, go ahead and loose the love of your life to someone with balls. If that's in your own best interest, that's your thing. It's not in the best interest of other people.

Re:Why not just block messaging?

[Anonymous Coward]

What was the reason you were on the list?

Re:Why not just block messaging?

[Anonymous Coward]

or go to starbucks or into some other business open at night. buy a coffee or some drink and use the bathroom

or don't drink so much alcohol that you have to pee every 5 minutes

Re:Why not just block messaging?

[firex726]

I'm not on it, I looked up the ones near me. They have to register and you can lookup their info and some basic case details.

Re:Why not just block messaging?

[compro01]

Whoever was convicted under such a charge likely had shit for a lawyer.

Or a deliberately overworked public defender.

Re:Why not just block messaging?

[compro01]

Sort of like losing your right to vote...

Which is another matter I find to be completely insane.

Re:Why not just block messaging?

[Anonymous Coward]

...or just leave them alone. I know someone that was put on the sex offenders list for peeing in an alley when he was drunk. Let's just say I'm glad I live in Canada. Land of public prisons where judges aren't paid cash for convictions.

From a psychological standpoint, how can someone make a full recovery when they are labeled as a "sex offender" and are harassed for the remainder of their lives for what is often not even worth a slap on the wrist?

"If I'm going to be punished as a sex offender, then maybe I should go out and deserve it."

Re:Why not just block messaging?

[Penguinisto]

You'd be right if it wasn't for that prohibition against "cruel and unusual" punishments in the US Constitution. I suspect that other countries in the First World have similar clauses, no?

Wanna stigmatize someone for life? Fine. Keep 'em locked up for life, or apply the death penalty.

And before you bring it up - most states even allow felons to buy firearms after a period of time has passed, and the ex-con can apply for the right (after proving that he/she has not been arrested in the interim).

Re:Why not just block messaging?

[SilentStaid]

Well, the guy DID have a penis with him when he got drunk a the bar...

And he didn't later?!? Jesus, those DWI punishments have gotten steep.

Re:Why not just block messaging?

[MitchDev]

Great idea. If your life is over even after you get out of prison, fell free to keep raping, torturing, and killing since according to you it's OK to punish people AFTER they've already served their sentence.

Re:Why not just block messaging?

[MitchDev]

"Society" once said it was OK to own peoplpe. Took way too long for "Society" to change that.

Sorry, you lose.

Re:Why not just block messaging?

[Anonymous Coward]

Additionally, pedos often try to restrict their wrong behaviour. It is estimated that about 20-25% of males are aroused by prepuberty girls, but only a small minority acts on it and only a small minority is only aroused by minors. And if it's really uncontrollable, they should not let you out but put you in a mental instituation or under constant lock-up, not let you go out on the street until you have the power to stop it.

Re:Why not just block messaging?

[Remus Shepherd]

And the only people knowledgeable enough to write the manual aren't allowed to communicate electronically!

Re:Why not just block messaging?

[drinkypoo]

Whoever was convicted under such a charge likely had shit for a lawyer.

Or a deliberately overworked public defender.

If that's who's defending you, for all of your intents and purposes, it's the same thing.

Re:Why not just block messaging?

[isorox]

You can even breast feed in public.

Oh my word! That's shocking! I can't believe that even needs stating. Even in Saudi Arabia it's perfectly legal (and encouraged).

A brief bit of research on the internet confirms that the U.S. is far more puritanical than the rest of the world. Whether that's because of the same failure in the education system which means religion is so pervasive, or pressure from formula companies like Nestle that want to flog their own stuff at the expense of babies health

Re:Why not just block messaging?

[punman]

If the aim is to stop registered sex offenders from messaging, why block them from gaming completely? Just block their ability to message.

Shooting them in the head will stop them from both messaging and gaming. If we're already admitting rapists, pedophiliacs, or exhibitionists are not able to be rehabilitated, why bother even pretending they can live a productive and successful life? Just get rid of them, no one wants them around, obviously. Solves the problem, neat and clean.

Re:Why not just block messaging?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you're giving them a little too much credit in the "Practice what they preach" department.

Re:Why not just block messaging?

[e3m4n]

no but I can definitely see a 15yr old getting a fake id saying she was 18 to get into a night club, then having a 1 night fling with a guy that had reasonable expectation that she was 18. He could be branded for life on this list right?

Re:Why not just block messaging?

[Anonymous Coward]

Okay I won't, but I can still be upset that I have to pay for all of the administrative costs for this crap. You might be rich and capable of paying large sums of money every time someone takes a leak outside but I'd rather not pay for it. You must be one of those big government types.

Re:Why not just block messaging?

[GerryGilmore]

I submit, sir, that this view misses the point. Horrific as they are, rape and molestation are in the same legal category as, say, murder. If a murderer is released, but not required to submit to a "murderers registry", why are these the only crimes for which the ancient principle of "once a person has done their time and paid their debt to society, they are citizens once again" does not apply? Of course, the answer is the same reason we are still - in 2012/2013 openly discussing contraception and abortion - we are a very Puritanical people when it comes to sex. Violence, not so much.....

Re:Why not just block messaging?

[amorsen]

3% of all Federal criminal cases in the US make it to actual trial. The rest end in some kind of plea. The risks of going to trial are very high; many crimes carry very long maximum sentences and it is likely that whatever you are accused of amounts to multiple different charges. If you are looking at the possibility of decades in jail, a plea bargain involving a few months or years in jail, some treatment, and registration as a sex offender suddenly starts looking attractive. Even if you are innocent.

Re:Why not just block messaging?

[amorsen]

So, just to get the Godwin out of the way, if the law says, "turn the Jews over to the paramilitary so they can haul them off for rape, torture, and execution" you should do that, but then vote against the government next election?

In practice, few people stand up to such laws once they are in effect. We can all hope that we will be better than that, but the statistics are not on our side.

Re:Why not just block messaging?

[Applekid]

If you can prove your innocence on something like a sex crime, you sure as well don't "Plead out". That makes NO sense.

It definitely makes no sense. But sometimes you lack the cents (dollars, dozens of thousands of them) to put up a fight. And even then you're rolling the dice. The jury might just decide you look like a pervert anyway, since "sex crime" is a moral panic and, well, if you didn't do it, you wouldn't be on trial, would you? Guilty until proven innocent, since it's about protecting our precious little snowflakes.

Your life is pretty much over even if you're acquitted. Your name will forever be google bombed into every rapist directory in existence. Any potential employer that does any research on you at all will find it, and you will be culled. Good luck paying back the costs of the defense.

Re:Why not just block messaging?

[Anonymous Coward]

Laws like that may even, in time harm your children!
Won't you please THINK OF THE CHILDREN!

Re:Why not just block messaging?

[minijedimaster]

Or maybe you Christian-right nannies should fuck right off.

This is out of New York, one of the most left states in the union. How is this comment insightful?

Re:Why not just block messaging?

[Phrogman]

Just a note: where I live there are *almost* no public bathrooms. McDonalds only allows some people into theirs and then only if you spend money, other places lock the bathrooms between 9pm and 7am (ignoring the laws that say they cannot do this, but no repercussions so far). There are almost no options available and many are miles apart.
I don't approve when people pee into the bushes, but I do understand it. If you don't own a car - or if you are drunk and responsibly not driving it - you are SOL in 90% of the city.
Going behind a bush to pee should *not* get you registered as a sex offender, that is absolutely ridiculous. Now, waving it around in full view of the public, sure no problem.

Re:Why not just block messaging?

[maxwell demon]

Yeah, such people clearly must be kept off the online games. In the end they urinate in the message board, where everyone can read them!

Re:Why not just block messaging?

[jrumney]

Because if they are allowed to continue to occupy themselves with games, they won't have time to reoffend and our prisons will start to empty out, causing prison guards to lose their jobs. And that is not good for the economy.

Re:Why not just block messaging?

[Anonymous Coward]

Teachers demonstrate all the time.

Re:Why not just block messaging?

[Anonymous Coward]

There isn't a person on the planet capable of emotion-free thinking.

Re:Why not just block messaging?

[cheekyjohnson]

It is sad that this culture quickly blames the victim for being hurt and lets those who commit horrific acts get a pass.

Who is blaming the victim? Who is suggesting that we let people get away? If they're truly dangerous, perhaps we shouldn't let them out of prison to begin with.

Re:Why not just block messaging?

[detritus.]

Put them in adult-only gaming pools. Problem solved. Who the hell wants to play against 13 year olds anyway?

Re:Why not just block messaging?

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh, yeah... happens all the time, actually. Your choice is 5-10, felony conviction, name on list, and nearly a decade of ass-rape, or a slap on the wrist with your name on a list. Even the most innocent man, looking at a jury that expects him to "prove his innocence" (fyi: not the way it's supposed to work), is going to give serious thought to pleading.

That's how our justice system has worked for decades: threaten the suspect into a plea deal. The general population cannot afford an attorney that will fight the kind of charges that a determined DA will bring. If everyone entitled to a trial actually got one, the entire system would grind to a halt due to the backlog.

I'm surprised that you are unaware of this, given the number of recent journalistic exposes on the subject. It is somewhat of a trending topic...

Re:Why not just block messaging?

[Anonymous Coward]

New York Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman is a Democrat...but hey don't let facts get in the way of your bigotry and hatred.

Re:Why not just block messaging?

[skine]

If I can be put on the sex offender list for pissing in public, I think that it's only fair that women get put on the sex offender list for breastfeeding in public.

Re:Why not just block messaging?

[tehcyder]

p.s. you can be put on a sex-offender registry because you "sexted" with your gf/bf when you were both in high school!

Only in the US, as far as I know. Most countries restrict being put on a sex offenders' register to actual paedophiles and rapists.

Re:Why not just block messaging?

[Greystripe]

This is occuring in New York and enacted by a Democrat, thanks for showing your bigotry.

Re:Why not just block messaging?

[tehcyder]

Just a note: where I live there are *almost* no public bathrooms. McDonalds only allows some people into theirs and then only if you spend money,

I'd have thought that spending a couple of dollars on a shit-burger or cup of coffee rather than get arrested by the police and put on the sex offenders register, would be a sensible investment if those are the rules where you live.

The only time I've ever had a waz in public is when I've been drunk, and it's not really that big a deal here in the UK. But I'm pretty sure that if it meant getting caught and put on the sex offenders register, I'd make fucking sure I went to the toilet in the last pub I went to. Or, worse come to worse, piss down my trouser leg like the POWs getting rid of soil in The Great Escape.

Re:Why not just block messaging?

[tehcyder]

I broke the law even more. Nobody was harmed, I wouldn't have bought that stuff either way. But it was illegal. Do I regret it? Bullshit, I recommend it.

The level of illegality in infringing copyright has been (at least up until now in the US) a pretty trivial one, rendering you liable to some small amount of civil damages. The risk/benefit calculation is easy.

If by breaking what you consider a silly law you end up in prison and on a sex offenders register for life, that is in a different league.

If there was some archaic law saying that wearing a yellow hat on a Tuesday was punishable by public flogging, I'd make damned sure I had a large group of supporters and fellow law breakers on my side before I tested its stupidity by protesting outside the police station in a yellow hat on a Tuesday.

Re:Why not just block messaging?

[tehcyder]

So, just to get the Godwin out of the way, if the law says, "turn the Jews over to the paramilitary so they can haul them off for rape, torture, and execution" you should do that, but then vote against the government next election?

Everything comes down to a question of individual conscience, and the ability to organise yourself and others into an effective opposition to such governments/laws. One individual in 1930s Germany wasn't going to make much of a difference, and anyway the trouble was that the majority of the people supported Hitler and were only too glad to see him getting rid of jews and communists.

Re:Why not just block messaging?

[tehcyder]

I'd rather side with pedos than with people who crap out laws like that.

Think rationally about it: The pedos will never harm me. Those laws, on the other hand, might if I take a piss in the wrong spot.

I'm taking a wild guess, but you don't have any kids do you?

Re:Why not just block messaging?

[tehcyder]

If the aim is to stop registered sex offenders from messaging, why block them from gaming completely? Just block their ability to message.

Shooting them in the head will stop them from both messaging and gaming. If we're already admitting rapists, pedophiliacs, or exhibitionists are not able to be rehabilitated, why bother even pretending they can live a productive and successful life? Just get rid of them, no one wants them around, obviously. Solves the problem, neat and clean.

It may be that in order to be rehabilitated they have to be kept away from certain temptations, so that a partial reduction of their freedom in the short term is better than a permanent ending of their whole life.

Just a thought.

Re:Why not just block messaging?

[tehcyder]

It is sad that this culture quickly blames the victim for being hurt and lets those who commit horrific acts get a pass.

Who is blaming the victim? Who is suggesting that we let people get away? If they're truly dangerous, perhaps we shouldn't let them out of prison to begin with.

It is not a simple black and white matter of being either (a) harmless after a metaphorical slap on the wrist or (b) too dangerous ever to be let out of prison. There are grey areas in betweeen. Some rapists and paedophiles are more dangerous than others

Re:Why not just block messaging?

[Anonymous Coward]

People who broke a law lose the right to vote? Who came up with that? Saddam Hussein?

"It's not illegal to vote against me, but if you disagree with me (I am the law), you aren't allowed to vote, not even for me".

No wonder you guys think that freedom is just another word for French...

Re:Why not just block messaging?

[cheekyjohnson]

Some rapists and paedophiles are more dangerous than others

And...?

Re:Why not just block messaging?

[Opportunist]

No, and it's not my business to protect yours. Considering how few kids actually get kidnapped by the bad man with his black van and how many are abused right by their own parents or other relatives, people should actually press to have kids removed from their homes if they really want to protect them.

Yes, that's about as insane, why do you ask?

The laws and what they are supposedly protecting is simply way out of proportion. And I think it's about time we take a break from the general hysteria and think rationally about it.

Re:Why not just block messaging?

[crispin_bollocks]

It's about someone wanting to be governor after Cuomo.

Re:Why not just block messaging?

[Anonymous Coward]

Here is the problem. In New York, it is perfectly legal to urinate in public.

I counter your argument with the fact that it is not perfectly legal to urinate in public in every state. And if you get put on that list for urinating in public in some other state, and then move to New York, you are still on the list.

Wooo Justice!

[Anonymous Coward]

Serious Idiocracy moment here.

Re:Wooo Justice!

[Anonymous Coward]

not really. If the perps spent their time in prison, let them be. If they're so damn dangerous they can't be trusted, why let them out??? Society needs to make up its mind.

Re:Wooo Justice!

[Opportunist]

Pretty much this, and this is how it is handled in my country. You can be locked up indefinitely if the judge deems (at the time of the verdict) that you might be a danger to society. It's called preventive custody and it's about the worst kind of punishment imaginable, because after you did your time, you do NOT go free. You stay locked up, until enough shrinks attest that you're safe.

This can take from a year to a lifetime. And you won't know until you go free. I deem that worse than knowing you'll be in for life.

Re:Wooo Justice!

[Penguinisto]

We do the same in the US for those proven "not guilty by reason of insanity", but being proven to be insane is pretty hard to do.

Too Much

[Anonymous Coward]

Please put them back in jail or leave them alone.

Re:Too Much

[firex726]

I do have to wonder if this will every be challenged as "Cruel and unusual".

They paid their time, if they were to be punished more throw them back behind bars, otherwise stop actively harassing them. Realistically they probably would have gotten off easier had they just committed a good ol' fashioned murder.

Re:Too Much

[Anonymous Coward]

Jail is expensive. Execute them. Or leave them alone.

It's either a serious problem and we should kick them out of life permenantly. Or it's not and we need to stfu.

Re:Too Much

[Derekloffin]

That is the thought I had. If there truly is a number of these edge cases getting onto the list, you'd think at least one of them would challenge the list and its usage.

Re:Too Much

[firex726]

Well the definition is just so broad, that pretty much any exposure or sexual twist to a crime can get you added. And if they challenge it then they are accused of being soft on child rapists and the like.

Re:Too Much

[PopeRatzo]

I do have to wonder if this will every be challenged as "Cruel and unusual".

Is it clearly cruel and unusual to tell someone they can't play Medal of Honor: Warfighter?

Re:Too Much

[firex726]

No... it's C&U that someone is convicted, served their time and pays any fines; then are constantly hounded for the rest of their lives, even when trying to engage in perfectly legal activities.

It'd be on the scale of, you being in a drunk driving accident, and then not being allowed to purchase a car every again.

Re:Too Much

[Opportunist]

And this is why you see a lot of rape victims being killed today. It's not more rape going around, it's just that DEAD people kinda stick out, while living rape victims might just shy away from getting the cops.

But seriously, if you get off easier if you killed her after you raped her, it's the logical thing to do.

Re:Too Much

[Derekloffin]

Actually, in the extreme cases, it is like you being convicted of drunk driving while your car was turned off and you were drunk, asleep in the driver seat (yes, you can be convicted under these circumstances), but then later not only are you refused ownership of a vehicle, but can't even go to car shows.

Re:Too Much

[TheRealMindChild]

I think this fails because there is nothing unusual about it. It is just cruel.

Re:Too Much

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know about 'cruel and unusual' but I think you could make a case for 'ex post facto.' (IANAL, of course.)

Re:Too Much

[MitchDev]

Not to mention how expensive it would be to try and fight this.
And if you're already in prison, you probably don't have the funding for it.

Re:Too Much

[Anonymous Coward]

So we all suffer to avoid them dealing with some accusations for 5 minutes?

The system works :)

Re:Too Much

[Anonymous Coward]

The free market will sort things out. If sex crimes are more punishing than murder, then the best option is to ensure your sex crimes end in murder.

Re:Too Much

[Anonymous Coward]

Execution tends to be more expensive.

Re:Too Much

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it clearly cruel and unusual to tell someone they can't play Medal of Honor: Warfighter?

It'd be cruel and unusual to make them play it...

Re:Too Much

[Anonymous Coward]

It's more like you got down and dirty with a car, and are no longer allowed to go to car shows.

Re:Too Much

[skine]

You don't even have to be in the driver's seat.

You can be in the back seat, with the keys on the front passenger seat, and still get arrested.

Re:Too Much

[Anonymous Coward]

The challenge of cruel and unusual punishment has been made and lost. The sex offender restrictions are "penalties", not punishments according the many state Supreme Courts.

YAY I'm so glad!!

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm a girl and I used to play World of Warcraft when I was a teenager and I would get hit on by old perverts saying some pretty gross stuff! Now I play PWI sometimes and it's not as bad. But, this is really going to help protect children :)
It doesn't protect them against the offenders who haven't been caught yet though :(

Re:YAY I'm so glad!!

[medcalf]

I can understand the comfort thing, but at some point we have to decide either that people are so dangerous that they must be removed from the population, or that we have punished them enough and need to let them alone. The alternative is that the state gets to persecute and hound people forever, once convicted, continually piling on new punishments without court action, merely to assuage people's desire to "do something." And any time there are crimes that are so stigmatized (terrorism and "sex crimes" being the current boogymen) that anything can be done to punish the offenders, the natural tendency is to expand the original, horrible crimes beyond all recognition. It's the same thing as calling a handgun a "weapon of mass destruction," which originally meant chemical, nuclear and biological weapons that, when used as intended, could kill thousands at a single use. I simply think it's a bad idea to turn over to government the ability to persecute people indefinitely and infinitely, because that power will always be abused, and eventually I (or you) will be the victims of that abuse.

Re:YAY I'm so glad!!

[Anonymous Coward]

you sound hot.

Re:YAY I'm so glad!!

[Omega Xi]

I logged in pretty much to say this but you beat me to it. Also not every pervert you bump into in WOW is a sex offender, desperate and lonely or perhaps just immature. Sadly there are all kinds of guys who think it's okay to treat girls like this online. These bans won't have any effect on that kind of behavior whatsoever though.

Re:YAY I'm so glad!!

[Omega Xi]

*some are desperate and lonely or perhaps just immature.

Re:YAY I'm so glad!!

[Nemesisghost]

Will it though? You said yourself it won't protect against perverts who haven't been caught or actually done anything legally wrong. And what about those who's offense wasn't online related? I don't see how this will make one bit of difference.

If you want pervs off whatever video game you are playing, good luck. It'll happen about the same time that 4chan disappears.

Re:YAY I'm so glad!!

[bmo]

>But, this is really going to help protect children :)

This is the most moronic thing I've read in a long time, especially since the vast majority of *real life* sex abusers are family members. It's stuff like this that trivializes and distracts from the real issues.

--
BMO

Re:YAY I'm so glad!!

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm the one that posted that. Wow!! That was well said!! You're so right about that!!
Okay then like, maybe they have to look at what the person actually did ? Like, don't just say "OHHH He*s on the sex offender registry so we can't let him play games with other people on the Internet". Instead, maybe people who actually did something pretty bad. Like I read a comment further up and someone said you can be on the registry just for sexting someone else when they're both in high school. Okay so someone like that shouldn't be banned but someone who raped or molested someone or tried to lure a young person should definitely be banned from physical or Internet places where people gather, especially children!
Does that make more sense ? :)

Carrie

Re:YAY I'm so glad!!

[SternisheFan]

If you read tfa, a 12 year old boy was 'groomed' for a period of months by a sex offender using a Playstation. After gaining the youth's trust the sexual assaults began. Sex offenders do not belong around kids at all, it's too big a damn risk to take.

Re:YAY I'm so glad!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Tits or GTFO!

Re:YAY I'm so glad!!

[geekoid]

People who prey upon children are planners and connivers. Sex Offenders will use any means at their disposal. So they should be shunned.

Unfortunately, the list goes far beyond what rational people would consider a threat.

Re:YAY I'm so glad!!

[X0563511]

That's fine, if you classify sex offenders as the very kind of person you describe.

People who were romantically involved around that magical 18 year old bullshit, or had to answer the call of nature without proper facilities being available, should NOT be lumped in with actual predators.

Re:YAY I'm so glad!!

[wonkey_monkey]

If you read tfa, a 12 year old boy was 'groomed' for a period of months by a sex offender using a Playstation. After gaining the youth's trust the sexual assaults began. Sex offenders do not belong around kids at all, it's too big a damn risk to take.

Then you'll just have to keep them locked up forever, unless you're willing to better define "around kids," because the damn things are everywhere (kids, not sex offenders).

The standard cliche (in the UK, at least) is that paedophiles groom children with the promise of puppies - better ban sex offenders from keeping pets!

A few months ago two men seriously sexually assaulted a child in a shopping centre - better ban sex offenders from shopping!

Forfty percent of all sex offenders have jobs and eat bread - well, you see where I'm going with this.

PS You've conflated sex offenders with paedophiles. Not all of one are the other.

Re:YAY I'm so glad!!

[Omega Xi]

I did read TFA, however your straw man has little impact on the points myself and medcalf made.

Re:YAY I'm so glad!!

[Sir_Sri]

when I was a teenager and I would get hit on by old perverts saying some pretty gross stuff!

And some per-pubescent perverts too likely. The thing is, a convicted child rapist isn't any more obviously a threat than anyone else in goldshire. You have literally no idea who you're talking to in WoW, and you should know enough to not disclose anything without a LOT of forethought. I know several people who have met spouses in WoW, so that's certainly possible too, but you can't tell a 'soon to be' sex offender from an actual sex offender.

The problem with say, trying to block anyone who's a pervert from online games is you'd end up blocking a lot of people who are consenting adults role playing as elves. Which... might actually be a good thing come to think of it. Ok, probably not. But you get the idea.

Re:YAY I'm so glad!!

[morgauxo]

First, how do you know they were old and not teenagers themselves? Second, how many are likely all talk and thus will never be on the list?

Re:YAY I'm so glad!!

[Anonymous Coward]

What about the criminals that only targeted adults to sexually assault?

Re:YAY I'm so glad!!

[Anonymous Coward]

So where exactly were the child's parents? Do they bear no responsibility at all? You realize that these lists consist of FAR more than people who have attempted to diddle kids or who have committed rape right? At what point will you have cut off so many avenues for these people that they have nothing left to lose? They are already herded into living in very restricted areas, they are already forced to submit to continuous monitoring, their names are already released to the public and their locations plotted on maps, and their job prospects are shit. Now you wish to remove entertainment? What next? Many of these people have already served their prison sentences, is this not a continuation of their punishment? If they're this much of a threat why were they released? Do you honestly think that this will solve anything? Do you think if a person intends to groom a child they will do it on a registered account? If they did before do you think they will continue to register accounts now?! Why can't you think this through logically? What's the end game of this?

Re:YAY I'm so glad!!

[Opportunist]

Mmmm... I give you a 4 on the 10-part troll scale. You hit the right buttons but I'd say you press them too hard.

Re:YAY I'm so glad!!

[Anonymous Coward]

... it's too big a damn risk to take

An article reveals a woman was stalked for a period of days by a kidnapper using a car. After gaining the woman's route, the kidnapping occurred. Kidnappers do not belong around cars at all, it's too big a damn risk to take.

An article reveals a bank was cased for a period of days by a robber using a camera-phone. After gaining the phone's images, the bank robberies began. Robbers do not belong around phones at all, it's too big a damn risk to take.

Re:YAY I'm so glad!!

[Johann Lau]

I'm a dude and I've seen PLENTY of older guys being creepy to, well, female kids. But hey, what do we expect of a "culture" (ahahahahahaha *ahem* I'm sorry) where a decisive win is called "rape"?

What NY is doing is still dumb, and you're probably a troll, but yeah. Let's not pretend we don't have a metric fuckton of issues, shall we.

Re:YAY I'm so glad!!

[Anonymous Coward]

If you were a teen during World of Warcrafts lifespan you are much too young to be on slashdot. I'ma suggest you're just a trolling dude.

Re:YAY I'm so glad!!

[Vary Krishna]

That isn't an excuse for adding punishment after punishment to crimes after conviction. And obviously this is only going to prevent registrants from using computers for legitimate purposes; if you're going to groom a kid to eventually track down and rape, you're not going to use the email address the state has to do it. It's simply not going to help kids like the victim in that case; the only way to protect kids from online predators is to educate them on online safety.

This is nothing but grandstanding so some politician can brag about how 'tough' he is on sex offenders. Right now peeing in public carries a de facto life sentence in some states, while you can be out and free to live your life however you please with no restrictions in a handful of years after brutally murdering someone. What does that say about us as a society?

Re:YAY I'm so glad!!

[Anonymous Coward]

I also read a post from a girl on a certain forum that said she got online to perv it up when she was 16 or so. So people should be punished severely for the rest of their life for being baited by this? If they never asked about age? Is it amoral yes. Should people keep their dicks in their pants and their legs crossed yes. But the super spycho sex offender list is not the answer and it is not really constitutional (in my eyes)

Re:YAY I'm so glad!!

[Thiez]

> This is a start, and if it keeps ONE kid from being damaged, then imo it is worth it!

Is it, really? How many adults must suffer to prevent harm to one child? Give us an estimate please.

Re:YAY I'm so glad!!

[medcalf]

Why are people so eager to allow tyranny over everyone to save "ONE kid"? I mean, if these people are so dangerous, kill them or keep them incarcerated forever or exile them. If they are not dangerous enough to do one of those things to them, then at some point the punishment has to end.

Re:YAY I'm so glad!!

[Anonymous Coward]

A start might also be parental supervision, education, redefinition of what a sex offender is.

This is the worst start we could possibly hope to imagine. There are so many things I can think people "should do". We should not be dictating this should crap to eachother like this.

Living in a constant state of fear from the state or percieved illusions because you might end up on this list because of some inane bullshit does worse damage then one persons life. I hate to say this but, the life of your child is no more valuable then the life of 100 adults who may commit suicide over the course of 10 years, who would have never molested a child but were somehow wronged by this type of bullshit.

Re:YAY I'm so glad!!

[SternisheFan]

> This is a start, and if it keeps ONE kid from being damaged, then imo it is worth it!

Is it, really? How many adults must suffer to prevent harm to one child? Give us an estimate please.

Three.

Re:YAY I'm so glad!!

[SternisheFan]

That one kid has worth. He/she may not be you, or your kid, or your sibling's, or your neighbors, but every human life has value, including a single one. God values that one kid. (Wrong site to bring up God I'm well aware,, but here we are.) It's incumbent upon a civilized society to do all it can to protect children from predators. Which kid do we sacrifice first?

Re:YAY I'm so glad!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Scientifically speaking living in an overly authoritarian state (or family) erodes peoples ability to defend and look after themselves and their loved ones. People highly adapted to authoritarianism look more to the state for protection then taking steps to deal with their own issues amongst themselves.

We are so afraid of violence, drugs, sex, nudity, violence, anything dangerous that we are loosing touch with reality. (at least I see it in this next generation, they are much less violent but much less able to cope with violence).

In Authoritarian families, whose members may be subjected to inflexible religious values or a black-and-white, one-dimensional view of the universe by a dominant parent, Dr. Janet Kizziar7 believes may be subject to the following problems.

        They suffer from a frozen identity state, dominated by oppressively strict moral values.

        Their feelings become cut off from beliefs, and they no longer are certain what they really feel.

        The members experience great difficulty in thinking and deciding for themselves, as dogma or parental authority overshadows free choice and independent thinking.

        They have discomfort sharing honestly about their past, as they believe they must continually pretend they are living up to the ideal held up to them by their authoritarian parents.

http://www.mudrashram.com/dysfunctionalfamily2.html

This is just one citation and definately not an authoritative source, but authoritarianism erodes coping skills when it because to great and the only means of working out differences. We are literaly eroding our socieities abilities to function properly by increasingly relying on the authority of others and legislating such laws. There have been studies in this regard, but your going to have to dig down and do some research if you don't wish to take me at face value. Our country is heading down a dark path were some susceptable people are truly loosing their minds.

Re:YAY I'm so glad!!

[Cederic]

Ignoring the value you ascribe to some sky fairy, I'm happy to let an arbitrary child be sacrificed if it means that the rest of society benefits.

Society loses as a whole if you try and prevent every kid from suffering.

However, if you really want to be certain that no children are ever assaulted, raped, starved, enslaved or otherwise abused, then I do have a solution: Sterilise every single person in the US as they reach puberty and/or enter the country.

Problem solved.

Note: My solution is guaranteed to be effective, but has detriment to society. If you disagree with my approach then you agree that the needs of society take precedence over the protection of a single child.

Which is my point.

Re:YAY I'm so glad!!

[SternisheFan]

Call me when you have a realistic solution, I'll be here...

Re:YAY I'm so glad!!

[Cederic]

Thanks, glad you confirmed that you value society ahead of every child in America.

After all, protecting every child is no more realistic than my suggested approach to achieving it.

Here's another idea, which is very viable: Unleash the entire US nuclear arsenal against the North American continent. No more child abuse.

Or aren't you going to support that one either? Tell you what, you tell me exactly how you're going to achieve the protection of every child, without detriment to society as a whole. Because right now you're suggesting fucking over millions of people without even getting close to your target.

Re:YAY I'm so glad!!

[SternisheFan]

WTF dude? You're making a big deal about whether or not sex offenders get to play video games with little kids. Block them online, make 'em pay for ankle monitoring if they're high level or throw them back in stir. Tech is a dual edged sword that molesters ARE using to prey on the country's kids. Now it's possible to take them out of the online system. What's the problem here?

Re:YAY I'm so glad!!

[Cederic]

The problem? Have you read the rest of the comments, seen the rate of false entries on the offenders list, considered the excessive and punitive measures on people already punished for their crimes, investigated the alternate activities of someone that has no release through gaming, examined the incidence of revidicism via online gaming and explored whether the answer should be to just ban children from the Internet?

Or are you just knee-jerking into "OMG! Protect the children from this evil and incredibly rare potential threat that wouldn't be a fucking issue if the parents actually did their job properly" ?

Re:YAY I'm so glad!!

[SternisheFan]

Parents are humans who may not always be aware that their kid can get raped through playing a video game. They're worried about a lot in this life, they don't know it all. Government must be able to use legal means to protect its citizens. If I were on the list, and couldn't play a game because of it, you know what? I'd get over it. Lots of games out there, the offenders will need to play single player off-line games, or denied the communicating ability. I stand by my statements, including tough titties for someone who finds themselves on the list. They should have been more careful. You continue your ranting, I'm signing off of this.

Re:YAY I'm so glad!!

[Cederic]

Parents are humans who may not always be aware that their kid can get raped through playing a video game

I hate to break this to you, but children can't be raped through playing a video game. At least, not until the teledildonics technology improves.

Parents are humans that are negligent, stupid, arrogant, ignorant and bad at raising children. That shouldn't excuse unnecessary constraints on the rest of us.

Re:YAY I'm so glad!!

[SternisheFan]

That shouldn't excuse unnecessary constraints on the rest of us.

Are you a registered sex offender? If you are, "boo frickin' hoo" that you can't interact with kids online in N.Y. If you're not on the list, it has no bearing on your life.

Re:YAY I'm so glad!!

[Cederic]

it has no bearing on your life

Stupid laws hurt us all.

Stupid fuckwits thinking a stupid fucking law will protect their children will demand even more fucking stupid laws when their children get hurt anyway, and that hurts us all even more.

I'm including you in that group.

Re:YAY I'm so glad!!

[SternisheFan]

Well, your opinion that it's a stupid law is just that, your opinion. While it's not a perfect system to protect the innocent from being harmed, it is a system. Would you have us go back to the dark days where the Sanduskys of this life can molest children with impunity? It's new territory, and that many taxpayers wish to have more laws to protect the innocent says quite a lot. There's an AC post somewhere here that's obviously from someone who is from an 'unenlightened' country, he feels women run this country and looks forward to the death of America due to its unmanly law system. I don't want to live in his chaotic country, and I'm very glad to see these laws evolving to fit the obvious need. (BTW, can you please use the 'f' word more in your posts? It helps us to differentiate the serious posters from the unhinged ranters. :-)

Re:YAY I'm so glad!!

[Triklyn]

as that dude from way back in the comments quoted that lady saying, and i'm paraphrasing now:

oppression starts with scoundrels, but if you want to prevent it, you've gotta prevent it at its root. oh, and means you've gotta do the distasteful most of the time.

like how i'm all for the phelps being allowed to protest at funerals, the KKK being allowed to throw rallys and the neo-nazis doing whatever they do when they assemble.

i don't like denying people rights, unless it means substantial good will result. they got good evidence that this will prevent recidivism and we'll talk. but somehow i doubt this does anything other than deprive people of rights.

Re:YAY I'm so glad!!

[SternisheFan]

I agree with you on many of your points. It is a 'fine' line being drawn here, and it could grow into stripping of law abiding citizens rights, that will bear watching. The recidivist rate among convicted molestors is rather high, and so is a real concern. My feeling is that there needs to be a review process performed, many young people still do not have a fully formed 'moral compass' at age 18, and sexting a contemporary should not automatically be cause to place them in the sex offender category. By and large, the people on that list are on it for good reason, and I see there is good cause for their online activities to be monitored and if need be, controlled. This is new territory for us, and the entire process will need 'tweaking' as time goes on. While not perfected, it is a positive step towards protecting children from known 'deviants' when online, and it wouldn't distress me much if this plan went national.

Re:YAY I'm so glad!!

[tehcyder]

> This is a start, and if it keeps ONE kid from being damaged, then imo it is worth it!

Is it, really? How many adults must suffer to prevent harm to one child? Give us an estimate please.

If it's a question of convicted paedophiles [*] sufferring, I couldn't give a flying one.

[*] I have read all the comments about how in the US you can be put on the sex offeneers' register for pissing against a wall, but that is a separate question of the stupidity of US laws, and nothing to do with preventing genuine predatory paedophiles from harming further victims.

Re:YAY I'm so glad!!

[tehcyder]

the alternate activities of someone that has no release through gaming

So you're happy with paedophiles getting "release" online by chatting to kids? And you think that all they're going to do is have a crafty wank and not even consider following things through to real life?

Your faith in the goodness of human nature is touching.

Re:YAY I'm so glad!!

[tehcyder]

Parents are humans who may not always be aware that their kid can get raped through playing a video game

I hate to break this to you, but children can't be raped through playing a video game. At least, not until the teledildonics technology improves.

Yes, because "through" has the one simple meaning of "directly by way of" and can't possibly mean "as an agent or indirect cause of".

Obviously you can't meet someone through an online dating service, since neither of you can travel over the interwebs, so it's all just a big lie.

Re:YAY I'm so glad!!

[cheekyjohnson]

While it's not a perfect system to protect the innocent from being harmed, it is a system.

As is the TSA. Honestly, this "save the children" rhetoric has been wearing thin for a while now.

Would you have us go back to the dark days where the Sanduskys of this life can molest children with impunity?

False dilemma.

I don't want to live in his chaotic country

Are you kidding me? Don't we have enough pedophile paranoia as it is?

Re:YAY I'm so glad!!

[cheekyjohnson]

This is a start, and if it keeps ONE kid from being damaged, then imo it is worth it!

Just like the TSA is worth it, eh?

Re:YAY I'm so glad!!

[cheekyjohnson]

And just how likely is that? Or is this just another example of "the terrists are going to get us!"?

Re:YAY I'm so glad!!

[Cederic]

I get home from work, I play computer games. Maybe something engaging like MTG, maybe something mindless like Borderlands 2.

My stress levels drop. My desire to kill myself drop. My ability to function normally improves.

Why wouldn't the same apply to other people, and why do you assume that someone that once pissed up a lamp post will be wanking off due to some muppet in Guildwars 2 doing /dance nearby.

Re:YAY I'm so glad!!

[Cederic]

Are you a parent? Have you taught your child not to talk to strangers? That the man in the van doesn't have puppies? Or that even though he does have puppies, you shouldn't get into the van anyway?

So why the fuck haven't you taught them not to meet random people off the internet without taking basic precautions?

meet someone through an online dating service

I can't rape someone through an online dating service. I can contact them, exchange emails, agree to meet up. I refuse to meet up somewhere that isn't public, and I take absolutely no offence when an hour into the meal she excuses herself and goes to the bathroom to text her best friend to say, "I'm still alive."

Basic fucking precautions. Is that too much to expect?

Re:YAY I'm so glad!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you considered the possibility that continuously inflicting suffering on convicted pedophiles may push them into re-offending? If you ban them from legal sources of entertainment, they might entertain themselves in illegal ways, and we know how that ends. Besides, the more life out of prison resembles life in prison, the less of a deterrent the law will be.

I reckon this 'tough-on-crime' mentality may very well *increase* the problem is supposedly intended to solve (of course the real intent is to segregate, but that doesn't sound very nice on TV, although most people would support it anyway).

Labels

[IonOtter]

I would be much less worried about this, if it weren't for the fact that the label of "sex offender" is used for everything where genitalia are involved.

Did the cops follow you 20 yards into the thick forest along the interstate to catch you peeing? Sex offender.

Did your top get ripped off and carried away in the surf at Jones Beach? Sex offender.

Did you scratch yourself when a cop was looking? Sex offender.

Re:Labels

[Anonymous Coward]

No doubt you have some verifiable instances of each of these cases actually happening in the real world you can share with us... right?

Re:Labels

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod parent up!

He's a Sex offender.

Re:Labels

[Anonymous Coward]

You're under the mistaken assumption that he's making an argument AC.
He's just telling you things that are important. Like any warning, ignore them at your own peril.

Besides, if 30 seconds of goggling could satisfy your requirements it's not on the poster's burden to do so. Stop being a lazy shit and a troll.

Re:Labels

[Anonymous Coward]

Google.

Re:Labels

[Anonymous Coward]

I can confirm the first at the very least, having had a cousin fined for it.

Re:Labels

[asmkm22]

Hyperbole much? None of those would likely ever result in sex offense charges. Not unless there were some really weird details you left out, like peeing in a forest *in front of a bunch of girl scouts* or something.

Re:Labels

[Nemesisghost]

I would be much less worried about this, if it weren't for the fact that the label of "sex offender" is used for everything where genitalia are involved.

Did the cops follow you 20 yards into the thick forest along the interstate to catch you peeing? Sex offender.

Did your top get ripped off and carried away in the surf at Jones Beach? Sex offender.

Did you scratch yourself when a cop was looking? Sex offender.

Even worse is that all of those offenses have nothing to do with online behavior. The punishment doesn't fit the actual crime.

Re:Labels

[93 Escort Wagon]

I can confirm the first at the very least, having had a cousin fined for it.

"Fined" is not equivalent to "labeled as a sex offender". Did your cousin get added to a sex offender registry because of this? I'm guessing not... he was cited for public urination, that's all.

Re:Labels

[SternisheFan]

Read the article for your answer!

Re:Labels

[jedidiah]

Search your own local perverts and see what they are supposed to have done.

Re:Labels

[Anonymous Coward]

No, those are all behaviors that can fall under "Public Indecency" laws and can certainly lead to being put on a sex offender registry (though at a low classification) if you are convicted and sentenced to any jail time.

Re:Labels

[geekoid]

no, that isn't worse then some one peeing in public being on the same list as people who rape children.

People who rape children are planners. The methodically use any tool they have to groom, befriend, and get at children.

Many crimes are one offs, and will stop once caught. Rapist, and people who perpetrate sexual violence should not be allow to communicate with children.

If someone came to me and said we need to let 5 murdered or 5 rapist out, which should it be? I would say the murders should be released. Becasue most murders on one time events, very few are serial. Almost all rapists plan their attacks well in advance.

Re:Labels

[Reverand Dave]

That is exactly where you are incorrect. Here are some references for you
Article 1
Article 2 Check the section about sexting
Article 3 Here is a good article about how most people on sex offender lists are not dangerous pedo rapists.

Literally took me 5 minutes on google to find these.

Re:Labels

[Ellis D. Tripp]

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Can_you_get_put_on_the_sex_offenders_registry_for_public_urination#ixzz20ShoPVh1

Re:Labels

[Anonymous Coward]

The weird details are more likely to be that the defendant did not have 25K upfront to higher a lawyer. Sorry, thems the breaks in this USofA

Re:Labels

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you need to re-think that one. Cops love to put people on the list for all kinds of minor offenses.

This is a much bigger abuse of power issue that you think.

Re:Labels

[phayes]

Your ignorance is showing.
A 17 year old girl can get on the list for having consensual sex with a 15 year old boy:
http://seattletimes.com/html/nationworld/2003101190_offender03.html

Two 14 year olds boys got put on the list for putting their naked butts on the faces of two 12 year old boys :
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2017081/Two-teenagers-branded-sex-offenders-life-horseplay-incident.html

You can get put on the list for answering the door undressed:
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2887/is-it-indecent-exposure-if-im-visibly-naked-while-on-my-own-private-property

A few more dumb reasons for being put on the list:
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/sex_offender_registry_stupidity/

In short, sex offender lists are being applied for anything having to do with nudity and on the other being used to justify barring people from anything to do with children. It's clearly bullshit but as most people don't pay attention to how laxist laws have become on placing people on the list they are easily swayed by prosecutors looking for a cheap & easy public display of how hard they are working.

Re:Labels

[Anonymous Coward]

The first two could be charged with: "public urination" and "public indecency" respectively. If a cop decided to haul them in, and charges were pressed the people in those descriptions would pretty much be hosed as they did violate the laws in question and those crimes are considered "sex offences".

The third one sounds unlikely, but does a good job of conveying how arbitrary the real laws are through hyperbole. The point being illustrated is that the difference between a "sex offender" and a "normal citizen" is often whether or not the person in question happened to get caught by a cop with an ax to grind, or a DA who decided to" make an example of them" more than it does any difference in behavior.

Re:Labels

[asmkm22]

None of those say anything new, and certainly nothing related to what the OP mentioned. The closest is the public urination thing but, as I mentioned elsewhere, peeing in a thick forest off an interstate is hardly "public urination." All of those articles you linked (and pretty much all of the related offenses) have to do with peeing in public, hence the name. Taking a piss on a sidewalk, or in someone's front yard. Or maybe in a stairwell somewhere.

Not in 20 yards into a thick forest on an interstate. That's basically camping.

Re:Labels

[asmkm22]

And none of the examples you linked have anything to do with the crap the OP mentioned.

There are legitimate arguments to be made for the abuse of sex offender charges, but spouting out pure hyperbole like "scratching yourself in front of a cop" isn't really helping the case any. That was my point, and the one everyone seems quick to denounce, comically enough.

Re:Labels

[PraiseBob]

Heres one then:

In my state, the police can charge you for being at a strip club if the stripper touches your shoulder (or any part of you) while being topless. It is rare but can and does happen when the cops want to shake a place down if they haven't been paying their bribes to vice.

Ditto for consensual relations with any type of paid sex worker, such as prostitutes, etc. The cops leave the storefronts (massage parlors and whatnot) alone if they have paid their monthly dues, and arrest the employees & customers if not.

These "sex crimes" result with you being on the sex offender registry for life, having to register everywhere you live, knocking on neighbors doors, and apparently not being able to play video games. Maybe having guys paying for sex isn't something you want in your community, but it isn't the same thing as being a rapist or pedophile.

Paying $100 for dinner with a girl, and having sex = ok.
Skipping dinner, giving the girl $100, having sex = Cant play videogames for your entire life. What?

Re:Labels

[Anonymous Coward]

Did your top get ripped off and carried away in the surf at Jones Beach? Sex offender.

Being topless in New York is perfectly legal.

Re:Labels

[Jaysyn]

Happens all the time actually.

Absolutely yes, in the US. In the past public urination was charged as indecent exposure. There was little thought to how that was worded until the sex offender registry became so broad that it included all who were convicted of this crime. Thousands of people register for public urination, mooning, streaking and many other acts that don't fit the image we have of a sex offender.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Can_you_get_put_on_the_sex_offenders_registry_for_public_urination

Re:Labels

[Anonymous Coward]

OP was modded as funny but in California about 1 in every 400 people are a registered sex offender.

Re:Labels

[Jaysyn]

You are completely & totally wrong.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Can_you_get_put_on_the_sex_offenders_registry_for_public_urination

Re:Labels

[Hatta]

I would be much less worried about this, if it weren't for the fact that the label of "sex offender" is used for everything where genitalia are involved.

You should be worried about it either way. Sex offences are legally just another type of crime. If they can extend punishment through administrative law to people who have served their time, they can do it to anyone.

Re:Labels

[Anonymous Coward]

Jesus, you're really reaching there. 3 cases out of literally BILLIONS of potential ones is HARDLY a pattern.

Since you're so good @ using Google Search, look for "statistical significance".

Re:Labels

[Reverand Dave]

Unless of course someone happens to see you and report you. You don't have be flagrant about it, you just have to be reported.

Re:Labels

[Anonymous Coward]

http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3330427&cid=42351285

I have no idea if "scratching yourself in front of a cop" is in the same category, but I imagine if a cop was looking for an excuse to arrest you he'd call that lewd gestures.

I have no idea if *that* would be enough to put you on some list...

Re:Labels

[Reverand Dave]

I never stated any statistical significance. I never said there were only 3 cases either. I provided 3 links that point to articles that point out that "sexual offenses" are not always pedophiles or rapists. Since you're so bad at reading and good at making assumptions, why don't you go drink some bleach. No quotes, literally, go drink some bleach.

Re:Labels

[Anonymous Coward]

Literally billions? How about you give us those literal numbers, Mr. Statistics?

Re:Labels

[Anonymous Coward]

If they can extend punishment through administrative law to people who have served their time, they can do it to anyone.

They did it in Texas with DWI. Added a $1000 a year penalty to anyone who wants to drive again. The courts said, "Driving is a privilege, so this isn't a punishment." It's been a total failure. The results is even more poor people driving without insurance.

Re:Labels

[phayes]

What everyone is denouncing is that the point you are trying to make is willfully ignorant of the facts & that you make up strawman arguments ("scratching yourself in front of a cop"). Only 6 states have changed their laws to exclude public urination from being indecent exposure which will get you put on the sex offender lists. All it needs is one cop as a witness who want's to push it.

Re:Labels

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd reply - "Tell me more about their offenses"

Re:Labels

[Altus]

Turns out you might have no idea what it takes to end up on one of these registries until you are on one.

Re:Labels

[skine]

Did the cops follow you 20 yards into the thick forest along the interstate to catch you peeing? Sex offender.

Did your top get ripped off and carried away in the surf at Jones Beach? Sex offender.

At the very least, these two aren't illegal in New York.

There was a story a while ago (sorry, I can't find a link) where a man was caught masturbating in the woods on state parkland. He was ruled innocent of indecent exposure, since he was under the reasonable expectation that it was private.

Also, women have had the right to be topless in public since 1992.

Re:Labels

[Vernes]

Not familiar with the law in America. But would you consider "drunk sex" planning ahead? And how does the law deal with "drunk sex" where one of the parties involved decides he/she did not like it the next day (when sober again)?

Sex Offenders

[Translation Error]

This is a good step, along with other such measures that do their best to prevent people convicted of sex crimes from having a chance of living a happy, productive life once they've served their time. We must continually tighten the screws on them and make sure they can't have lives that are worth too much to throw away in a moment of stress, rage, and frustration.

Because a dog that's constantly beaten and scolded is the one that behaves best, right?

Re:Sex Offenders

[war4peace]

This is not funny. It's insightful.

Re:Sex Offenders

[Anonymous Coward]

... and society wonders why people go on rampages...

Re:Sex Offenders

[asmkm22]

Part of the issue is that, unlike bank robbers or most other criminals, sex offenders (not talking the unlucky people who are just technically charged) tend to have actual psychological issues at the heart of their problems. Maybe a dad or priest molested them as a kid or something. Point is, the concept of rehabilitation for an actual sex offender isn't cut and dry. A lot of sex offenders that have "successfully" lived a post-offense life say the same things about rehabilitation. Namely, that the urges never go away, but the self control improves enough to mitigate them.

The problems are psychological in almost all cases, and treatment is more in line with that of a drug addict than a criminal. Look at AA folks, for example. Part of their whole motto is that there are no former alcoholics; only those that can manage the addiction. Sex offense is much the same.

Anyway, as I said before, I'm not talking about the guys (or girls) who get hit with a technicality or other really dubious circumstances. Stuff like date rape accusations kind of bother me due to the sheer number of false chargers as a result of the girl simply deciding after the fact that it was not a good idea, or that claiming rape would be easier to explain to her parents than the truth. Stuff like that freaks me out, but it's not the heart of my argument.

Re:Sex Offenders

[ArhcAngel]

The beatings will continue...until morale improves!

Re:Sex Offenders

[geekoid]

Except it's almost never a moment. Its almost always a planned event.

A dog that is shunned bites no one.

Are we done with thinking humans behave like dogs now?

Re:Sex Offenders

[Anonymous Coward]

The same can be said for nearly any type of offender, if recidivism is any indication: http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=17.

* Released prisoners with the highest rearrest rates were robbers (70.2%), burglars (74.0%), larcenists (74.6%), motor vehicle thieves (78.8%), those in prison for possessing or selling stolen property (77.4%), and those in prison for possessing, using, or selling illegal weapons (70.2%).

* Within 3 years, 2.5% of released rapists were arrested for another rape, and 1.2% of those who had served time for homicide were arrested for homicide.

Re:Sex Offenders

[PolygamousRanchKid]

happy, productive life once they've served their time

Well, maybe a "happy, productive life" for a sex offender . . . is spent doing more sex offending . . . ?

The question is, are they really cured? Or will they just go out and pick up where they left off? I don't think any mental health experts can really give a definite answer on that. Even if they have "served their time", do we really want to let potentially dangerous folks back on the street unmonitored . . . ?

But baring them from gaming certainly is not going to do anything useful, besides making some other folks think they are safe. Oh, an a politician can say that he is tough on crime, and schtinking of the children.

Re:Sex Offenders

[Anonymous Coward]

And a person with a demonstrable moral deficiency, put into a situation with nothing of significance to lose due to the restrictions put on their post-incarceration life, is far more likely to "plan" that a one who is risking a decent life by doing so.

For instance, the only reason I have not left a trail of fucking bodies through life is that I do not wish to lose my freedom. Were that freedom worth nothing due to constraints from repressive legislation, such that there was no difference between "freedom" and prison, I'd probably start popping rounds off in traffic and hunting down obtuse /. posters like the animals that they are.

Can we stop pretending that the analogy was in any way unclear, now?

Re:Sex Offenders

[Anonymous Coward]

Robbers (70.2%), burglars (74.0%), larcenists (74.6%), motor vehicle thieves (78.8%), those in prison for possessing or selling stolen property (77.4%), are 30X more likely to re-offend than rapists (2.5%). Why do we allow these dangerous folks back out on the street unmonitored? Why should we let anyone out of prison, with those recidivism rates?

Source: http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=17

Re:Sex Offenders

[Anonymous Coward]

OK, let us assume that all theses people are actual sex offenders.
What will the result be of preventing them from playing computer games?

Perhaps it's better if they go for a walk, perhaps around the nearest school.

Re:Sex Offenders

[mrclisdue]

...But baring them from gaming...

Pretty sure that barring them is to prevent precisely that!

cheers,

Re:Sex Offenders

[Anonymous Coward]

Even if they have "served their time", do we really want to let potentially dangerous folks back on the street unmonitored?

Yes, because we do it all the time. Society decided that the punishment for murder is X number of years in prison. The person serves X number of years in prison and we release him. Maybe the punishment includes monitored probation, maybe not. But, the point is: we decided the punishment is X and the offender is subjected to punishment X. Period. If the person murders again, they serve X more years in prison, etc.

Sex offenders, on the other hand, have a completely arbitrary process. Society decided that the punishment for molesting a child is Y. However, after serving punishment Y, the offender now has to negotiate a completely arbitrary system of city, county, state statutes that can change at a moment's notice and affect them after the fact.

If you are afraid of sex offenders re-offending, then one of two things needs to happen: 1) society needs to agree that sex offenders should be imprisoned forever, or 2) we need to work toward figuring out ways to help them avoid re-offending.

It is wrong, however, to just arbitrarily create a class of people that are retroactively given vindictive, unproductive punishments with ever increasing severity.

Then again, no one wants to be seen as standing up for the rights of sex offenders. So, this is likely to continue forever.

Re:Sex Offenders

[Lawrence_Bird]

If they did their time and have been released (and are off whatever probation that was given to reduce the sentence) then they should have equal access just like everyone else. Shit like this only morphs into wider reaching 'protections' for society. Got a couple speeding tickets? Well no more Need for Speed for you! Prosecute when laws are broken, not before and not after a sentence has been served.

Re:Sex Offenders

[Tuoqui]

Perhaps they should start by refining the 'sex offender registry'...

They should have a 'Pedophile Registry' and a 'Rapist Registry' but registering people who get busted for taking a leak in public really shouldnt be on such a registry. It just dilutes the effectiveness of such a registry.

oh, please...

[Anonymous Coward]

convicted sex offender != predator.

When is the debt to society paid?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because, you know, serving whatever sentence the courts give out isn't good enough.

So now what will keep them off the streets?

[mrbene]

I mean, sure, block sex offenders who have actually used the internet as a victim discovery method. But the public exhibitionist? Seriously?

Stupid

[Hatta]

The age of the average gamer is around 35. The pedo patrol is just fucking out of its mind. What's next, kicking people who have served their time out of movie theaters, restaurants, concerts, and sporting events just because there might be some kids around?

Re:Stupid

[Kergan]

I think it's pretty safe to bet that the US will go there eventually.

Re:Stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

Just another group to add to America's permanent underclass...

Re:Stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

That's current society. You can't drink until you're 21, but it's perfectly OK to join the army and kill/die in some foreign country. Watching porn until a certain age is forbidden by age ratings, but there are so many teenage mothers, it's making me wonder if people, including those upholding those laws actually realize how stupid those are.

What I don't get, is why they're picking on sex ofenders. I think, thieves are much more likely to socialize with you and clean you up, than a convicted "sex offender"(whatever that means) tries to ... whatever.

Re:Stupid

[geekoid]

"The age of the average gamer is around 35. "
that a pretty irrelevant statement, but it has the bonus of being wrong. The average age of a game purchaser is 35, not gamer.

There are many site the cater to younger people. Guess where people looking to groom and then rape children go to?

What people on slashdot can not seem to grok is that pedophiles and child rapist plan, and almost always repeat their behavior. This is why when ever one gets caught, there is always many children that had raped prior.

Re:Stupid

[phayes]

If the movie theater, restaurant, concert, or sporting event is within 300 feet of a park, school or playground then Florida is already there...
http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2010-04-30/news/fl-sex-offender-loitering-20100430_1_offenders-and-predators-florida-senate-votes-restrictive-zones

Re:Stupid

[Keith111]

I get the feeling that America in general will dismiss this as something just affecting sex offenders, but it definitely feels like a huge step onto a very slippery slope. What I would most like to see is the people as a whole rise up and crush laws like this from overwhelming public outcry, same like SOPA.

Re:Stupid

[Kjella]

What's next, kicking people who have served their time out of movie theaters, restaurants, concerts, and sporting events just because there might be some kids around?

A certain percentage will never agree that sex offenders have ever "served their time". They'd like everyone who's ever earned that title to either:
a) Be in prison for life
b) Go kill themselves
c) Stay a zillion miles from anywhere they go
So their answer to your question is "Yes, all of the above and we're still too nice to them."

Re:Stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

that a pretty irrelevant statement, but it has the bonus of being wrong. The average age of a game purchaser is 35, not gamer.

No, the average age of the game purchaser is even older in that case. The average game player is indeed about 35.

Re:Stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

If this law dealt only with child rapists or even regular rapists, I would have no issue with it. But that's not what it is.

Re:Stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

So you've proven you can read but only do so selectively?

While the average age of game buyers has been stated to be 35, the average age of gamers is 30 and was previously 37.
http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2012/07/how-gamings-demographics-reverted-back-to-2005/

Another thing you may want to consider, that has been said many times in the comments here:
People get put on the sex offender list for a wide variety of things, the vast majority of which have nothing to do with children.

Re:Stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

"What people on slashdot can not seem to grok is that pedophiles and child rapist plan, and almost always repeat their behavior."

What people everywhere can not seem to get is that pedophiles are not always child rapists. Just sayin'.

Re:Stupid

[Kergan]

I'm not holding my breath for public outcry anytime soon... My sample is admittedly anecdotal, but I know more than a few people who don't care about their rights or their privacy because they consider that they've nothing to hide.

To which I always reply, that one day they might have something to hide, or be wrongly accused of something and trapped into the court system for years, or subjected to police brutality for no other reason than being at the wrong place at the wrong time. To which they always reply, meh, won't happen to me...

Until it actually does, and then they finally change their minds -- or, sadly, not...

Re:Stupid

[cheekyjohnson]

To which they always reply, meh, won't happen to me...

In other words, they only care about themselves?

Re:Stupid

[cheekyjohnson]

And if you think sex offenders should be in prison for 998 years rather than 999 years, you're callous towards victims!

Re:Stupid

[Kergan]

To which they always reply, meh, won't happen to me...

In other words, they only care about themselves?

Based on my (again, anecdotal) sample, it's more along the lines of a very genuine and admittedly fantasized "Why would anyone with nothing to worry about feel concerned by this? Nothing can possibly go wrong!"

Yeah, nah.

[Anonymous Coward]

This is an incentive to not provide the state with your "real" email address (by which I mean, the one you actually use, as opposed to one you created specifically to give the state). I do not think removing sex offenders' accounts from online games will have any noticeable effect on crime.

Believe it or not, there are some offenders that fucked up and want to get on with their lives.

Anonymous?

[KermodeBear]

Since many online gaming platforms let users send messages to other players anonymously, it's unsafe to have convicted offenders using these services, Schneiderman said."

I don't know of a single online game that allows truly anonymous messaging. Messages are always at the very least tied to your account specifically for the tracking of abuse. Yet another case of people making laws based on false pretenses. But it's okay, because think of the children. Quite frankly, I wish humans would stop breeding. It would give politicians one less reason to come up with this ridiculous crap.

Re:Anonymous?

[TFAFalcon]

I guess they could write messages on the floor using the corpses of their enemies. That way there would be no way for the players to know who wrote them (unless they happened to be in the area in the hours it took to write)
And I think that one of the MUDs I used to play allowed assassins to change their identity to 'assassin', making it difficult to identify them.

Re:Anonymous?

[spire3661]

Alot of people use ventrilo, a voice program that could easily be used anon.

Re:Anonymous?

[alexander_686]

He probably meant pseudo anonymously – so let’s not be pedantic. Anybody can set up an account pretending to be anything. You, on the other side, have no way of verifying the other’s id. Ergo it is effectively anonymous. Sure, with a warrant one can get an I.P. address and go from there, but that’s beyond the reach of most folks.

Ya, prevent them from gaming!

[Anonymous Coward]

If we prevent them from gaming on their computers.. they'll finally be able to go out into the real world.. and finds kids to touch or something.

I agree with a previous post.. just disable their fucking messaging access.

Re:Ya, prevent them from gaming!

[Sperbels]

I agree with a previous post.. just disable their fucking messaging access.

I don't. First, the sex offender registry has more than pedophiles on it. Second, these are people who have served their time already. Third, even if they are a pedophile, that does not mean they're actively out searching for their next victim. If we're going to assume that they're all serial child molesters waiting in the shadows for their chance to strike again, then we should probably keep them in jail.

Why not just keep them locked up?

[mark-t]

I mean, clearly, if a convicted sex offender is not going ever going to be allowed to reintegrate into normal society and be permitted to relate to society in a normal way after their incarceration, then what on earth is the point of releasing them back into normal society in the first place?

Re:Why not just keep them locked up?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, this is basically the problem. You lock the person up, and then when you release them, you mark them as a special group, They aren't full citizens, they are sex-citizens, with lesser rights (no online gaming, no restaurants where kids might be, etc). If you follow this logic, then we should also do the same for thieves. Don't let a thief into a retail outlet. Ban them from malls and jewelry stores. Create thief-citizens too. We have already taken steps toward creating a set of permissions for a person - you remove permissions if they ever commit crimes of a certain kind. It's permanent sentencing.

Re:Why not just keep them locked up?

[TFAFalcon]

CEOs involved in fraud - never let them hold money again, they might misuse it.

Re:Why not just keep them locked up?

[PolygamousRanchKid]

Overcrowding in prisons. The sex-offenders need to be cleared out to make room for more drug-offenders.

Re:Why not just keep them locked up?

[Sperbels]

Prisons are run by corporations now. Overcrowded prisons are good for economy therefore good for America!

Re:Why not just keep them locked up?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's already that case that any offense will ban you from the securities industry (ie. banking and trading) for life.

Re:Why not just keep them locked up?

[mark-t]

You clearly missed the point of my question. Look at other responses.

Re:Why not just keep them locked up?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, so untrustworthy for business actions? They shouldn't be allowed in any stores or communicate with stores via phone, email, online, or any other way. Their friends and family can feed, clothe, and shelter them. I like this.

So these registered sex offenders

[Anonymous Coward]

are the ones that have already served time in jail and were released because they were 'adequately rehabilitated?"

If they're still a risk they should be in jail, if they're no longer a risk then leave them the fuck alone?

Re:So these registered sex offenders

[The Grim Reefer]

are the ones that have already served time in jail and were released because they were 'adequately rehabilitated?"

If that was the precursor for releasing anyone, all sentences would be for life. There is no "rehabilitation" in prison.

One of two things happen in prison:

1) Either it's such a scary ass place the incarcerated try like hell to never break the law and end up there again or,

2) They learn to be an even better criminal by learning from their fellow inmates.

I'll let you guess which way that usually works.

Re:So these registered sex offenders

[The Grim Reefer]

are the ones that have already served time in jail and were released because they were 'adequately rehabilitated?"

If that was the precursor for releasing anyone, all sentences would be for life. There is no "rehabilitation" in prison.

One of two things happen in prison:

1) Either it's such a scary ass place the incarcerated try like hell to never break the law and end up there again or,

2) They learn to be an even better criminal by learning from their fellow inmates.

I'll let you guess which way that usually works.

Sorry, I forgot number 3) They leave in a body bag.

If the general population discovers you are in for being a child molester, the odds of number three go up considerably.

Let's slip into these sexually offending moccasins

[VortexCortex]

So, Say you're a "Sex Offender". You're required to register all your on-line account information with some agency... Say you decide to "relapse" into your wicked ways and do some sexual offending. Wouldn't you just not register that new on-line account? That is to say, it would be just as effective to simply require that sex offenders don't do any more sex offending ever again, right?

Bonus: Simply requiring sex offenders to stop performing sexually offensive acts would avoid the fairly brain dead Denial of Service that's now possible because they're letting deviants tell them which email addresses to black-list.
"I hate that fucker, I'll just register their email under my sex-offender accounts; Screw you and your on line games! Ha ha!"

Meanwhile, those that wanted to move on and be good people are constantly reminded of their past mistakes. Thus, the frustrating on-line processes, exclusion from parts of society, and reinforcement that they can never be cured will increase the chances that those who channel anger through sexual offenses will do so again.

I know! Why don't we just make it illegal to do bad things! That'll stop all the crime! Also, if they don't do this for violence related criminals too, i.e., murderers then they're damned hypocrites. Killing humans is less heinous than Raping humans? WTF? Won't someone think of the Children!? I'd rather have a raped but still alive kid than a dead one...

Funny but true.

[Anonymous Coward]

Public urination considered sex offense in Georgia, not enforced by police

And don't get me started about 18 year olds having sex with their 17 year old boyfriends/girlfriends and then being charged. Or a 15 year old boy being charged for having sex with his 15 year old girlfriend.

If my teenage son did it with a 20 something or older, I'd first ask if he used a rubber and then I'd say, "Son, you did good! Are you in love with her?"

The last question is just in case his heart is about to be broken and I'll be there to work it through with him if he so desires.

As far as you folks with teenage daughters and expect them to be chaste, well, Ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha - *snort* - ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

Your "little girl" is probably sticking her tits in some boys face and driving the poor kid nuts! *been there*.

WOW...

[Shoten]

...this gives me a whole new perspective on the practice of "teabagging" someone you've just shot in a multiplayer setting...

So picture this...

[JustNiz]

You're on a road trip driving on an empty road in the middle of nowhere, and you desperately need a pee. There isnt a town or anything at all for at least 50 miles and theres no way you can hang on that far anyway.
You finally have to pull over to the side of the road and take care of business. Unfortunately a cop car goes by at the wrong moment and he spotted you, turns around and arrests you for peeing in a public place. Congratulations you are now a registered sex offender. Thats how easy it is and how fucked up the system really is.

Re:So picture this...

[Anonymous Coward]

this is why truckers pee in bottles in the comforts of their own trucks.

Re:So picture this...

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope. Worst that would happen in my country is the cops would laugh at you for having a flabby ass and might tell their friends so they can laugh, too.

What's next?

[stevegee58]

Online banking?

Sounds logical.

[spcebar]

Because all sex offenders prey through World of Warcraft, right guys? Can we just ban games already? Seems like the only rational way to protect children.

Re:Sounds logical.

[Anonymous Coward]

Ban the people who are old enough to play WoW in order to protect those who aren't!

The real problem is religion

[Animats]

The real problem is sex offenders with religious power and organized support for cover-ups. The Catholic church has had a huge problem with this for decades. Now it's coming out that the New York ultra-Orthodox Jewish community has a similar problem. They're having big rallies for a sex abuser. Not for the victim, for the abuser. The 12 year old abused girl "wore supposedly indecent clothing, read People magazine and questioned God's authority in a religious school class", which in that community is considered justification for sexually molesting her.

And New York State is worried about video game chat.

Re:The real problem is religion

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd have to disagree and say the real problem is idiots and the U.S.A. appears to be FULL UP on those. Religious, non-religious and everything else under the sun, you've got it. The market is cornered.

Re:The real problem is religion

[Anonymous Coward]

I think these are two separate issues and should be addressed as such.

My question

[Anonymous Coward]

Aren't all gamers sex offenders?

Or at least ASPRING sex offenders???

Or at least aspiring sex PARTICIPANTS?

Brilliant plan....

[chmod a x mojo]

Yeah, brilliant plan, take away the thing that most of them used to kill time to "protect children." Leaving them more time in the real world to become bored / jaded and for the actual pedos out there plan how to get get their hands on more kids since they have time and nothing to do with it. Meanwhile the non-violent offenders get ostracized even further.

Not to mention they will just "forget" to report that throwaway email they registered with, and get pissed even more at society at large / the state than they already are.

But hey, the lawmakers can stroke themselves harder for a while because they "protected the children."

Re:Brilliant plan....

[axl917]

So, how many accounts did you lose today?

Indeed.

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a family member who has been in prison - the reason is neither here no there. He got help for his issues, he's very smart and wants to work.

As a felon, he has an extremely difficult time getting a job. He's gotten some menial shit jobs on occasion with his contacts from prison, but they were temp jobs or short term, or the employers weren't exactly law abiding themselves - they were legitimate businesses, like furniture stores, but skirted the law (ex. selling mattresses that were returned as new.) He stayed with those jobs for as long as they lasted because he had nowhere else to go.

Those opportunities dried up.

Fortunately, due to his issues, he was able to get on disability.

He had it easy because his crime was just attempted murder.

Sex offenders have it much worse.

Re:Indeed.

[war4peace]

I feel you, man. Point is a convicted person should indeed be monitored, but by a specific government branch-only. Nobody else should be aware of what happened in the past.

What will happen

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually all that will start to happen is more murders. When the true criminalist faced with there sex crime and all the punishment that goes with it they will see its much less of a penalty to just murder there victim. No one to dispute the sex crime and now it's just murder time served and there free, no list no restrictions. Again the politicians side step the issue creating more problems then just fixing the laws in the first place.

Different Games

[coinreturn]

They should at least be able to play in some MMORPG that allows ONLY registered sex offenders to play.

Re:Different Games

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm starting on my business plan for Molestra Online right now. With the right bribes, government will force the perverts to subscribe to Molestra.

Re:Different Games

[Anonymous Coward]

They should at least be able to play in some MMORPG that allows ONLY registered sex offenders to play.

Banning them from all online games seems wrong. Forcing them to play Second Life just seems inhumane.

Re:Different Games

[tehcyder]

They should at least be able to play in some MMORPG that allows ONLY registered sex offenders to play.

You'd have to have strict vetting and moderation so that no pervy kids could join who were just pretending to be paedophiles.

Re:Different Games

[Triklyn]

hell, you'd probably see less offensive images in that mmo since, you know, the guvmints watchin. Also, teenagers are uncouth.

Do you actually UNDERSTAND the system?

[SmallFurryCreature]

This is PART of their punishment, it is not tacked on, it is IT! Punishment doesn't have to constrained to a jail sentence. It can include being banned from a job, restricted from an area, having to report at determined times, being banned from contacting certain individuals or groups, being banned from voting, from owning a gun, from getting a security clearance.

It is in our modern society pretty damn rare to just get a prison sentence and that is it. A probationary period following it is the norm and during your probationary period there are a LOT of conditions and terms that seperate your from a free person. And that is both part of your punishment AND rehabilitation and that is not as contradictory as it sounds. A convict who is in jail is there to be punished BUT is also encourage to study to help his rehabilitation. IF it works it is supposed to be a carrot and a stick with the carrot getting bigger and the stick getting smaller. But the carrot and the stick work ONLY if they are used together on the convict, after all when he was a free man, the carrot was not enough to stop him from getting the stick. The stick alone works in extreme cases, the death penalty.

Our entire legal system however is at the core little more then "stop, or I shall say stop again". It really just doesn't have a solution for those who think the law is for other people. A night in the slammer is enough to stop most people but not a "nutter". What do you do with a repeat offender who just isn't faced by the consequences of his actions? It is easy to say "well, we got to take that chance" but in a democracy the majority rules and the majority thinks that giving people endless free passes to re-offend is wrong.

To give you an idea of how wrong it can go when you let the bleeding hearts in charge: http://nos.nl/artikel/453072-werkstraf-na-misbruik-stiefdochter.html

Man rapes his 15 year old daughter, is sentenced to 240 hours community service, the judge deciding that sentencing him to jail would be to hard a burden on the family consisting of the man, his wife, this daughter and a younger sister... who continue to life with him...

He doesn't have to register, he can chat online but why would he. Two children right at home with him. Oh, he promised to undertake counseling... yah. Because that works instantly and with absolute success.

The really sick truth of it all? Nobody in the world really knows how to deal with those who can't follow the rules. Hard, soft punishment, therapy, making things legal. Nothing really works. Take for instance weed, legalizing makes the crime surrounding it go away? Right... because there are no tobacco and alcohol smugglers and other related crimes anymore? Outlawing it will solve drug issues? Because outlawing stuff stops people? WHEN?

The entire process of trying to stop crime, punish it and rehabilitate or otherwise deal with the criminals has been tried in countless way over thousands of years. And NONE work. Oh some claim some method works better then others but when you look at the figures it is pretty much like debating whether you tiger rock is better then my tiger stick. Both ultimately will have pretty much the same statistics.

And the ultimate lie? Recidivism rate. It counts re-offending criminals whose crimes are reported, investigated, prosecuted, sentended and the sentence recorded. Do you know how the rate of sentencing on some crimes are? Belgium scores 4% on rapes. 96 our of a hundred rapes are NOT counted in recidivism figures yet we are to believe only 70% of rapist re-offend? ONLY 70%?

THINK of the odds, what are they for a rapist who rapes twice to be sentenced TWICE?

But hey, vote for the guy who promises to fix it all. I am sure YOUR guys tiger gadget really works.

Re:Do you actually UNDERSTAND the system?

[Anonymous Coward]

It would seem to me that if someone is accused but not convicted that adding them to the recidivism stat would be wrong. If there aren't prosecutions in enough cases then the problem is with the police and prosecution. Your 96 of 100 rapes not counting is reasonable - why do you think all of those were repeats? If there was no conviction then they should NOT be counted as anything but what they are - a rape that was unsolved. I agree that the conviction rate is too low but that doesn't support your point at all and is a problem that needs to be solved in and of itself not connected and used as evidence against other things.

As for placing a father who raped a daughter back in the home does seem quite awful. However if you read the link you provided it's listed as a man having sex with this girl (and filming it - ick) not violently raping her. He didn't beat her with a pipe to do it so it could certainly have been worse - he apparently is quite remorseful for it. In that particular case he would've lost his job and the family their income had he gone to court - what exactly would you propose? Slave labor for him living in a box somewhere and sending all monies home to the rest of the family? What would be your solution to that which wouldn't put the family on the street?

I agree with you on one point - no one knows how to deal with people who won't follow reasonable rules....

Re:Do you actually UNDERSTAND the system?

[Anonymous Coward]

How's this for an idea - "innocent until proven guilty", "statute of limitations", and "punishments reflecting the transgression".

My proposed system:
Minor transgressions, things that are not provable beyond doubt that were intentional and cause no actual harm. In this case, accidental exposure or public urination with reasonable attempt at privacy, get minor punishments. (monetary fine, perhaps some temporary penalty beyond that)
More severe transgressions (harassment, deliberate exposure, unwanted suggestive gestures without actual physical contact) get harsher punishments. (fine, temporary restraining order, etc)
Transgressions causing physical harm to someone (rape, nonconsensual contact, damage to personal property, or somehow behaving in a threatening fashion) would get more severe, such as jailtime, mandatory psychological evaluation, restraining orders, etc
Major transgressions (premeditated rape, things that require someone to go extremely out of their way to commit and obviously illegal or harmful) harsher jailtime.

All transgressors would be flagged for a period of time in the police computer, to look for repeat offenses. The more severe offenses would require a parole officer or periodic mental health checkups.

Leave the social stigma for repeat offenders, people who have sinned, been punished, released back into the world, and learned nothing from it. THEN you can feel free to isolate them from society, but ensure that they have a method through which to gain absolution, some method that they can claim "I'm better now."

Some would argue (including Heinlein in the book Starship Troopers) that unless the punishment is severe and immediate (and public), the offenders won't learn anything and will simply treat it as an acceptable cost, until the offenders become irredemable. My answer to that is - fine, make punishments immediate and severe if need be, but temporary in duration. If a sentence ends up with the equivalent of putting someone in the stocks or being whipped in the public square, so be it, with the understanding that afterwards, that person is absolved and, outside of law enforcement officials, not to be punished further. The idea would seem to punish 1, prevent 100 through the use of public shaming, but they are still human!

It will not help anything to hand out the maximum penalty for minor infractions, then the system gets overloaded, people who do have (relatively) harmless interests can't find harmless outlets for such, you drive them into the shadows. Rather, we need to encourage them to seek help, to find those harmless outlets, so as to relieve the pressure valve.

Also, try to re-adjust public perception. it's not the pedophiles one need worry about, it's those who actually act on those interests in ways that harm others that are the troublesome ones. Somehow, we've associated the word "pedophile" with "evil person bent on harming every child he/she comes across while laughing like Hannibal Lector".

i like their thinking

[Anonymous Coward]

these god damn sex offenders shouldn't be holed up in their house playing games, they should be out at the mall food court and public playgrounds.

Same as CA Prop 35 (which passed)

[Khopesh]

From the ACLU stance on 2012's California Propositions opposing Prop 35 (The EFF opposed it too):

Proposition 35 - Oppose
Proposition 35 increases criminal penalties for sex offenses and imposes new restrictions on registered sex offenders. For example, the measure requires that registrants provide online screen names and information about their Internet service providers to law enforcement - even if their convictions are very old and have nothing to do with the Internet or children. This provision essentially eliminates the ability of registrants to engage in anonymous online speech and imposes a substantial burden whenever a registrant wants to use a new online platform to speech, infringing on registrants' First Amendment right to free speech.

This was buried in an otherwise good proposal (human trafficers should be registered as sex offenders) and wasn't even visible from the official voter guide summary. It has the same problems.

This proposition also passed and I believe goes into effect on in just over a week.

Re:Same as CA Prop 35 (which passed)

[Anonymous Coward]

When I was first presented with that proposition it seem like a no-brainer YES vote but because it was such an obvious yes why did it have to go all the way to the voters to get approval? That was a huge red flag and like you said, the voters guide provided basically no information. Thankfully we now have excellent resources such as balletopedia which pointed that part out to me. But not everyone else is as well informed and are stuck with "THINK OF THE CHILDREN" so my vote against amounted to nothing.

Re:Same as CA Prop 35 (which passed)

[Keith111]

Yeah, very sad. I voted against this but apparently most people did not read about the props in detail...

Why, yes, they should...

[Anonymous Coward]

The Left Wing nannies have failed to notice that keeping lawfully owned and operated guns away from any place that is not actively guarded delays the defence of innocent people in those places. So they want to fix this by further infringing your Second Amendment rights.

Right Wing nannies divide the world up between the righteous and the unrighteous. Whether they are pregnant teens, or drunken unrinators they have no problem infringing the 1st and 4th amendment rights of those people.

There are bad people with guns, some teens do have irresponsible sex, some drunks can't be trusted around kids. That said, blanket infringements of those first 10 amendments always do more harm than good. Always.

Re:Why, yes, they should...

[Anonymous Coward]

The Left Wing nannies have failed to notice that keeping lawfully owned and operated guns away from any place that is not actively guarded delays the defence of innocent people in those places.

And your evidence that letting Jed brings guns to these places actually makes any difference in a shooting is where? Actual statistical evidence not assertions.

Re:Why, yes, they should...

[Anonymous Coward]

Since you're too fucking lazy or stupid to do your own research:

http://www.thehighroad.org/archive/index.php/t-270374.html

I think simply shooting them is more humane

[Anonymous Coward]

No, can't live near a park. Can't live near a school. Can't play online games. Probably restricted from social networking. They are basically in prison for the rest of their lives. I can't think of anything they ARE allowed to do.

And there's no mention of attempting to classify here. Are these even people who are considered at high risk for recidivism (the recidivism rate for sex offenders is quite low) or is it just anybody, including the proverbial man who pees in the street?

Apparently, it doesn't matter. They are all just as evil and should never play an online game again.

Of course, I'm posting anonymously because any hint of defense for this particular group is enough to get you branded as being among their number in spirit even if nobody has caught you yet.

What about NON game xbox stuff that needs live?

[Joe_Dragon]

What about NON gameing xbox stuff that needs live? can they block that?? will MS have to open that up to people who are locked out of live?

replace sex offender with any other crime

[Joe_Dragon]

replace sex offender with any other crime and soon people can get blacked listed for life for stuff and end up not being able to use stuff like netflix.

If you're too dangerous to play games with...

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're too dangerous to play games with, you're too dangerous to be in society. You should be locked back up if you're that dangerous. Of course what's really going on here is that doing the right thing is ohh... spare me... too HaaaArd. Poah widdle govenment official might have to do his... sob... job, instead of just setting the "sex offender bit" in a database and collecting six figures.

Well, That Explains That...

[Anonymous Coward]

I was wondering why my guild lost 90% of its members....

That was a joke, Mr. Hansen. Just to be clear.

NOT Amish

[Anonymous Coward]

It's basically Amish shunning

The Amish don't believe in coercive authority, which is the core principle and first prerequisite of all governments. Clearly, a shunning conducted by coercive authority is an entirely different scenario than a shunning conducted by free association.

Re:why am I a TROLL ?

[Anonymous Coward]

No one is trying to be mean. We just happe to disagree with your logic that because you were sexually harassed on WoW people who were convicted of pissing in alleys should be banned from online activities by entities other than the courts. Your feelings shouldn't be involved in restricting the rights of others.

Link to law's text

[lamber45]

Had to dig a bit to find it (no link in article). The law itself just says that registered offenders have to provide Internet IDs as well as name and address, that the state may disclose them in certain cases, and that a certain subset of offenders may not access a certain subset of websites. How this translates into account closures is that the gaming companies, or whatever, consider the accounts to be in violation of their Terms of Service; for example, the Facebook ones specify:

You will not use Facebook if you are a convicted sex offender.

If someone doesn't like that, they need to sue Facebook; this particular law did not require Facebook to add it.

Crual and Unusual

[chrismcb]

This is pretty much the definition of "Cruel and Unusual"
It should be shot down, but of course.... think of the children.

Criteria?

[englishknnigits]

I didn't see any criteria listed in TFA other than they are registered sex offenders. If they used this to target people who are on the list for doing things like soliciting sex from a minor online then I think it makes sense. If it is a blanket action that includes people who pissed in public, "sexted" their high school gf/bf, etc. then I think it is ridiculous and basically harassment of people who already served their time.

not like they're voters

[Anonymous Coward]

What do politicians care about the sex offenders.

Its not like they're allowed to vote; unlike their donors who what to either continue punishing them preferable for eternity, or protect their children.

Because you know felons can't actually vote.

And....

[thejynxed]

Once again, we have a State making a law that is essentially ignorant of how technology works and the loopholes and evasions around and through any such restrictions as having to tell the State one set of online credentials while having several sets of other credentials the "offenders" actually use, but don't tell them about.

Tea-bagging

[Anonymous Coward]

What if a sex offender were to kill a player via PVP and then tea-bag him non-stop? Then what?

Its a Christian thing

[Anonymous Coward]

Eternal punishment; its he christian way.

i am a registered sex offender

[Anonymous Coward]

i got caught urinating in public... and was atomatically enrolled in the sex offender registry. i did not go to trial, all i did was pay a small fine, and have the rest of my life ruined. since it was not a court case, i had no trial, and i cannot have my name removed from the list. good thing i dont live in new york

Re:why am I a TROLL ?

[Johann Lau]

Well, sorry for also calling you a troll. People are just lame and jaded that way.

Feminist Religion

[Anonymous Coward]

The laws and beliefs of the united states and other anglo or western "nations" is a feminist religion. It is at odds with the religion of the bok of Deuteronomy.

In Deuteronomy the man is "ba'al" - master (of the woman). There is no word for wife in the hebrew (only woman or girl). If a man rapes a little or young girl who lives in her fathers house who has not been espoused yet to another man, that man keeps her and pays her father (pedophile rape) Deut 22 28-29. In the companion history book 2 Samual 12 God is angry that David killed a man who had taken a little girl (little lamb in the metaphore) in as his wife. God of Deuteronomy is not opposed to the pedophiles, he says man is master.
The United States and its allies are enemies of every man on earth and enemies of the God of Deuteronomy.
Deuteronomy says to kill those who oppose its viewpoints and say to worship some other God.

The United States says to worship women, says to obey it's feminist laws, says that man is not master but woman is.

This has been the case for all of our lives, Albert Einstine noted that in the United States men were the toy dogs of women and he had never seen men work so hard anywhere. Men worked, women ruled and played.

Alex de Torcvilla, however you spell his name, noted that in the USA men were happy to convict eachother of rape while in france that never happened.

The USA is the whore. It is the enemy.
These politicians are servants of the whore and the enemy of the God of Deuteronomy (whom it seems christians reject and see as a demond (gnosticism))

Marry/keep little girls.
Death to women's rights.

RDeuteronomy 22 28-29

[Anonymous Coward]

Deuteronomy 22 28-29, In the hebrew.
Pedophiles who rape girl children are to keep the girl and pay the father. It is good to see the Jewish people not being hypocrates

Marry little girls, they are quite nice often, and cute, and will only get prettier.
Good investment.

Women and their toy fucking dogs don't like that and war against this the world over.

The empire of the whore.
Fuck your federal/american/anglo religion.

Why not jsut shoot them like dog in the backyard ?

[aepervius]

I mean, I hate sex offender (the real one, not the one caught pissing in a backstreet 380 yard from a school), but this is what ? Double punishemnt ? or even tripple punishment ? First they get the prison treatment, then they are difficult to employ or get a flat (can#t be within XXX yard of a school which cut off a lot of possible work or living place) then they get kicked out of many stuff now. If you want to punish them for life then give them life in prison. this type of triple punishment whammy is "cruel and unusual". Once out they should be OUT.

Anglo Feminist religion is the enemy of the God of

[Anonymous Coward]

The laws and beliefs of the united states and other anglo or western "nations" is a feminist religion. It is at odds with the religion of the bok of Deuteronomy.

In Deuteronomy the man is "ba'al" - master (of the woman). There is no word for wife in the hebrew (only woman or girl). If a man rapes a little or young girl who lives in her fathers house who has not been espoused yet to another man, that man keeps her and pays her father (pedophile rape) Deut 22 28-29. In the companion history book 2 Samual 12 God is angry that David killed a man who had taken a little girl (little lamb in the metaphore) in as his wife. God of Deuteronomy is not opposed to the pedophiles, he says man is master.
The United States and its allies are enemies of every man on earth and enemies of the God of Deuteronomy.
Deuteronomy says to kill those who oppose its viewpoints and say to worship some other God.

The United States says to worship women, says to obey it's feminist laws, says that man is not master but woman is.

This has been the case for all of our lives, Albert Einstine noted that in the United States men were the toy dogs of women and he had never seen men work so hard anywhere. Men worked, women ruled and played.

Alex de Torcvilla, however you spell his name, noted that in the USA men were happy to convict eachother of rape while in france that never happened.

The USA is the whore. It is the enemy.
These politicians are servants of the whore and the enemy of the God of Deuteronomy (whom it seems christians reject and see as a demond (gnosticism))

Marry/keep little girls.
Death to womn's rights.

Even simpler:

[Anonymous Coward]

Sex offender != predator

But what if they talk to people on the street?

[Anonymous Coward]

I propose these. They're totally compatible with the current official US understanding of human rights.

Why hasn't anyone....

[Kookus]

Started submitting random people's handles/email addresses and gotten other innocent people banned in the process? Seems like a great way to show that this kind of punishment can be abused and used to harm others as well...

I can see it now... Blizzard picks up the phone and tries to explain to someone why they were banned. It's because you're on the sex offenders list and we don't want you using our service to solicit underage children. With the response.. Dude, I'm only 12 years old, how can I be on the sex offender's list?

What I don't understand is...

[tjonnyc999]

...why don't more convicted sex offenders emigrate to other countries, or become spree killers?

There's no such thing as a "term prison sentence" for anything even remotely resembling a "sex crime". Take a piss on a playground at 4AM, even though there are no kids within a mile, ZOMFG pedo = 10 year sentence + permanent, endless, interminable persecution.

Can't have a decent job - who's going to hire a convicted sex offender?
Can't live in a nice neighborhood, or if you do somehow manage to buy a house there, since you have to inform everyone, you'll be shunned.
Can't walk down the sidewalk of a school, playground, etc., etc, so your freedom of movement is restricted.
Forget about buying a gun legally.
Forget about participating in chatrooms, etc.
And now, they can't even play videogames.

What kind of existence is that?

I'm not defending "pedophile-pedophiles", but considering that a sizeable percentage of sex offenders didn't really do a damn thing that has to do with sex, the punishment is ridiculous - and the interminable nature of it is really inexcusable.

I honestly don't understand why more of them don't just completely snap from all the persecution, get an assault rifle & some ammo, and Lanza out in style. Seriously. If I was told that my life will be a living hell from here on out, and there is no expiration period, and I will be ostracized forever & ever & ever, I would either be on a plane getting the hell out of here permanently, or stocking up on ammo.

Re:What I don't understand is...

[amorsen]

...why don't more convicted sex offenders emigrate to other countries

Which countries allow immigration of sex offenders? Plus, typically they are poor because they cannot find a job. Emigration generally requires resources.

Re:What I don't understand is...

[tehcyder]

I honestly don't understand why more of them don't just completely snap from all the persecution, get an assault rifle & some ammo, and Lanza out in style. Seriously. If I was told that my life will be a living hell from here on out, and there is no expiration period, and I will be ostracized forever & ever & ever, I would either be on a plane getting the hell out of here permanently, or stocking up on ammo.

Where's Jon Katz to write a sober, sensitive "Hellmouth" style article about all the poor misunderstood paedophiles out there?

Re:Why not jsut shoot them like dog in the backyar

[Anonymous Coward]

Same happens to us.

I find a good 45 mph city road with 2 lanes in each direction. It's the only road besides 25-30mph one lane city streets with city buses that stop at every block.

So what happens? They rush to build a preschool right off this beautiful 45mph road. Now it drops to 25mph every day.

How about you keep your schools away from my roads? We can start there and work towards the offenders.

Re:Let's slip into these sexually offending moccas

[drinkypoo]

Won't someone think of the Children!? I'd rather have a raped but still alive kid than a dead one...

I know you were trying to say something positive there, but it came out rather creepy. Say instead you'd rather be raped than killed. It's still creepy, but less likely to put you on the legal path to the sex offenders list.

You want significance?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's pretty fucking significant to the individual who gets the label, you stupid twat.

"Oh, it doesn't happen much" is a moronic argument to try to make your case with.

Hey! On the Sex Offender list for non-predatory act, now a class-shitbird citizen, be living under a bridge now, unemployable and ostracized! "that's ok, no action required, doesn't happen.... much"

When the issue is, as TFS has it, that a broad brush is being used to paint a wide variety of people with a VERY bad presumption that has major consequences, IT'S A FUCKING PROBLEM.

Lord, I don't know why I bother. Some of you idiots use tissue paper for brains. It's no wonder at all that scumbags like this attorney general feel free to be complete and utter social asswipes, happily turning the "justice" system into a parody of itself.

I know you're too intellectually dishonest and lazy to consider how such a mislabeled person might feel, or to bother to reason out what the actual impact on their life and family might be... and so I suppose it follows that you're somehow avoiding thinking about what the blowback could turn into either... but good grief, the fact that you're assembling a powder keg right under society's ass is unquestionable. How could this not go wrong?

The system needs some refinement

[Anonymous Coward]

Peeing in public, say in a back alley behind a dumpster and out of site of anybody, will make you a sex offender in most states. The cops just need to see the physical evidence of you doing so, have your admission of doing so, or have somebody that says they witnessed or knew that you were doing so (whether they did or not).

I understand the intent behind their actions, but they need to be a bit more specific with their scarlet lettering.

There needs to be a strong look taken at what marks someone as a sex offender and for how long they're marked. There are many cases where the term 'sex offender' doesn't accurately fit a person or it no longer fits them. Does an 11-year-old offender with no recidivism, in every case, still need to be classified as a sex offender when in their 40s? In some cases, yes, but current law in most states makes it a permanent mark. This is creating a new class in the US: those that can't find employment, can't find shelter, can't even take their children to school (whether or not their offense involved children, think about peeing in public).

By all means, I understand why people feel the way that they do, but I think that a more sober look needs to be taken at the labeling and legislation currently in place.

Let the flaming begin.

Am I missing something here?

[hiojay]

Ummm, but what is to stop them from registering with another email address? Sure, they'd probably have to buy the game(s) again, but the last time I checked, it was quite easy to create a new email account with a free email service provider.

Re:Why not jsut shoot them like dog in the backyar

[axl917]

Why not jsut shoot them like dog in the backyard ?

Works for me. As far as I'm concerned, the lives of pedophiles are forfeit.

In the USA at least,,,

[Slugster]

,,,pedophilia laws are the last bastion of the bureaucratic tyrant.

No amount or type of punishment is too severe or too long, and none of your so-called "rights" should be allowed to stand in the way of such noble efforts.

Pleading out

[Anonymous Coward]

If you can prove your innocence on something like a sex crime, you sure as well don't "Plead out".

You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Most "sex crimes" don't involve anything more than an accusation, which the prosecutor will liberally salt with anything even remotely related they can think of. Many of them of similar seriousness. Now, assuming you've got a house to mortgage so you can afford to go to trial, and assuming you have someone who will swear you were in Melborne, Australia complete with time-stamped Australian government photos (assuming the accusation pinpoints you outside of Australia), you may indeed get out of any kind of a conviction. Anything below that standard, and you're going to come out of there with some damage, because I assure you, there's not a prosecutor in this country who is actually *willing* to accept a defeat in court, and there isn't a jury in the country that doesn't convict you as soon as a finger points and claims abuse of some kind. You're *far* better off with a plea, innocent or guilty, unless your case is so airtight that they wouldn't have bothered bringing it anyway.

As far as pleading goes, the way that works is, they drop one or more of the (usually trumped-up) charges, you plead to what remains, they give you a (probably) known deal for a certain result. Maybe, if you apply enough money, you even get "adjudication withheld", which means no conviction on your record. None of this has anything whatsoever to do with "guilty" or not. It all stems from "accused", because in this country, accused is guilty.

Then, years down the road, they make a law that, after the fact, makes you guilty anyway. And bingo, you're on the lists. Once you're on the lists... that's when the real shit starts to roll. Employability. Where you can live, or not. Insurance issues. When and where you can talk to your own kids. Or not. Regardless of what they or their other parent might want. Who your kids can play with. If you can see your kid in the XMas play, or on the football field. If you can have a facebook account, or XBox, or whatever. Again, hasn't got a flying fuck to do with "guilty." Has to do with accused. Because that road leads only one place.

That's the reality.

That's without arguing the rightness of many of the laws themselves, which is really the low hanging fruit here. Most of these laws are horribly inappropriate on multiple levels at once. Not all -- pre-pubes are straight-up off limits, and post-pubes should certainly be left to discover their own sexuality at their own pace, while being educated as to the technical details early enough so that discovery isn't shock (or disaster, like unwanted pregnancy, aids, etc.) You only get to do it once, and it's just nasty as hell to impose it on someone -- and no, I'm not even saying every encounter over an idiot age line is an imposition. But that still leaves the vast majority of laws dealing with sexuality in the pot called "completely stupid, made by dumb fucks, guaranteed to cause far more harm than benefit."

Why online games?

[Hentes]

Lat time I checked, you can't rape people over the internet.

Re:Why online games?

[tehcyder]

Lat time I checked, you can't rape people over the internet.

Yeah, lucky there's no such thing as grooming isn't it?

*eyeroll*

[Anonymous Coward]

Because signing up with a new account and/or going behind a different proxy is just so damn hard, that those pedophiles will never think of it.

Great, so...

[Anonymous Coward]

Take a leak at the side of the road on an empty highway at 2:00 am and never be allowed to participate in culture ever again. Seems fair.

Cruel and unusual punishment

[elucido]

It should not be that sex offenders are banned from gaming. They can't play games why? It's just a game. I don't understand this logic.

Re:Cruel and unusual punishment

[tehcyder]

It should not be that sex offenders are banned from gaming. They can't play games why? It's just a game. I don't understand this logic.

Online games mean that real people can talk to each other, as in a real paedophile and a real vulnerable child.

It's really not that hard.

You might as well say "what's the harm in paedophiles chatting to children online, it's only an internet forum".

Newsflash: the online and real worlds do coincide sometimes.

Re:Cruel and unusual punishment

[elucido]

It should not be that sex offenders are banned from gaming. They can't play games why? It's just a game. I don't understand this logic.

Online games mean that real people can talk to each other, as in a real paedophile and a real vulnerable child.

It's really not that hard.

You might as well say "what's the harm in paedophiles chatting to children online, it's only an internet forum".

Newsflash: the online and real worlds do coincide sometimes.

You don't have to ban sex offenders from playing games to keep children from meeting them. You restrict it at the network level by age and not have to worry about any of this. If you're an adult why would you want to play games with children when you can play with other adults? Also why assume everyone listed as a sex offender is a pedophile?

The real criminals ...

[Anonymous Coward]

wear suits and pull the strings. So, look over there, a pedo! Burn him!

Re:Fuck your feminist religion

[Cederic]

I think you may have a problem.

Seek professional help. Please.

Single play

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're a registered sex offender, single play is all you'll get.

Re:Why not jsut shoot them like dog in the backyar

[cheekyjohnson]

Why? A pedophile is not necessarily a child molester.

But what about murderers? I consider them even worse.

Rapes ??? Profit

[Anonymous Coward]

It makes perfect sense to ostracize sex offenders further from society, so that they will relapse and rape again, and then go to prison again. It's good for private prison stocks.

Abhorrent

[Anonymous Coward]

Even if the list was valid it would still be abhorrent. The internet is used for everything, up to and including basic human interaction.

Make them register their gaming ID's, randomly check up on them, but for God's sake, let them live their gd life. What's next?, no flying because there might be children on the plane?

yeah...

[amoeba1911]

... because we really don't want sex offenders playing games. They should be out on the street raping people instead. Someone clearly didn't think this through. Kudos on stupidity.

Maybe Kids shouldn't play

[Anonymous Coward]

World of Warcraft has been proven addicting. Maybe they are taking the wrong hammer to this. Maybe they should just ban everyone under 18 from playing. I'm sure they would never lie about being an adult would they?

No way

[Anonymous Coward]

Does anyone know if they actually kicked everyone who's a registered sex offender? As someone who's been naked in the public a couple of times (it isn't such a serious crime in more civilized parts of the world), I don't feel comfortable continuing my subscriptions to these companies if this is the case.

Re:Why not jsut shoot them like dog in the backyar

[tehcyder]

A pedophile is not necessarily a child molester.

Yes, bravo, we all know that the word "paedophile" comes from the Greek for "child-loving" but it is in fact a coinage by Krafft-Ebbing relating specifically to those who have sexual desires towards children, not just a fancy way of saying "someone who likes kids".

And yes, there are paedophiles who do not act out their desires on real children, but adding cowardice to warped sexuality is not much of an achievement.

Re:Why not jsut shoot them like dog in the backyar

[cheekyjohnson]

"we all know"? Speak for yourself; I've encountered numerous people that truly believed that being a pedophile is synonymous with being a child molester.

And yes, there are paedophiles who do not act out their desires on real children, but adding cowardice to warped sexuality is not much of an achievement.

Cowardice?

Who is the coordinator

[Anonymous Coward]

They should be chased down by the UN.

Re:Let's slip into these sexually offending moccas

[Anonymous Coward]

You are missing the point.

Suppose someone should reoffend, now instead of just the offense, they are looking at a litany of other smaller offenses as well. Charge stacking. It's not like the DA will need to prove that someone violated not registering an account, but it will be a list of charges that the DA presents when looking for a plea bargain. "With all these charges you could go away for 50 years or you could confess and get 20. Your choice."

And let's not forget where all this madness really came to a head- feminism. This is just the logical conclusion to the absence of due process men have when facing rape charges.

Some good, some bad...

[JakeBurn]

The one thing that is extremely bothering to me is that 'sexual offender' is used to describe things that have nothing to do with what most people think it does. You ask a normal person on the street and they assume a rapist or pedophile. Some 21 year old gets a little too drunk and takes a piss behind a bush, he can be labeled a sex offender for public display of nudity. So can a person, male or female, who sends a text message with a pic of their naked body to the wrong person. I've read about people in both of those situations being labeled a sex offender and both can now be banned from playing a video game? A lot of non-predator's get screwed with laws like this but it makes since how these laws get passed. People think it makes since to keep a child rapist offline since most of these parents are too damn stupid and/or lazy to realize that their small kids have no business being alone online in the first place.

Protecting kids from whom exactly?

[Anonymous Coward]

Since many online gaming platforms let users send messages to other players anonymously, it's unsafe to have convicted offenders using these services, Schneiderman said. He pointed to a 2011 case in which a 19-year-old man met a 12-year-old boy via Xbox Live, gained his trust over a few months, and invited him to his home, where the young boy was abused.

The 19-year-old man was not a registered sex offender when that happened, so they've pretty much just proved that this won't actually protect kids.