Slashdot Mirror
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."
Everyone. Clearly.
If the aim is to stop registered sex offenders from messaging, why block them from gaming completely? Just block their ability to message.
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.
[End Of Line]
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?
When someone says, "Any fool can see
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.
-- Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong. - Dire Straits
I mean, sure, block sex offenders who have actually used the internet as a victim discovery method. But the public exhibitionist? Seriously?
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?
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
you sound hot.
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.
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.
Love sees no species.
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.
Simplicity lies within chaos
*some are desperate and lonely or perhaps just immature.
Simplicity lies within chaos
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.
>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
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
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.
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?
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
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...
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*.
...this gives me a whole new perspective on the practice of "teabagging" someone you've just shot in a multiplayer setting...
For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
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.
Online banking?
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.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
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.
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
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.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
I did read TFA, however your straw man has little impact on the points myself and medcalf made.
Simplicity lies within chaos
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.
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.
Which one is the 'anykey'?
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.
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?
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.
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."
To err is human; effective mayhem requires the root password!
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.
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.
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?
They should at least be able to play in some MMORPG that allows ONLY registered sex offenders to play.
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.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
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.
Use my userscript to add story images to Slashdot. There's no going back.
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.
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?
Is it clearly cruel and unusual to tell someone they can't play Medal of Honor: Warfighter?
You are welcome on my lawn.
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.
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.
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.
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.
If someone doesn't like that, they need to sue Facebook; this particular law did not require Facebook to add it.
This is pretty much the definition of "Cruel and Unusual"
It should be shot down, but of course.... think of the children.
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.
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.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
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.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
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.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I think this fails because there is nothing unusual about it. It is just cruel.
"When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
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.
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.
@Mindless Drivel: 100% of Twitter posts ever Tweeted.
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.
Well, sorry for also calling you a troll. People are just lame and jaded that way.
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?
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.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
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.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
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?
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.
...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.
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.
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're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
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.
,,,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.
> 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.
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.
-- Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong. - Dire Straits
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."
Lat time I checked, you can't rape people over the internet.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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" ?
Why? A pedophile is not necessarily a child molester.
But what about murderers? I consider them even worse.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
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.
... 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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. :-)
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.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
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.
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.
> 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.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
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.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
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.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
"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?
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
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?
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
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?
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
And just how likely is that? Or is this just another example of "the terrists are going to get us!"?
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
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.
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?
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.