New York Culls Sex Offenders From the Online Gaming Ranks

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

New York Culls Sex Offenders From the Online Gaming Ranks

Posted by timothy on Thursday December 20, 2012 @05:53AM from the cradle-to-grave dept.

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."

108 of 511 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

This will obviously help. by hazah · 2012-12-20 05:56 · Score: 4, Insightful

Everyone. Clearly.
1. Re:This will obviously help. by Reverand+Dave · 2012-12-20 06:19 · Score: 2
  
  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 got here through a series of tubes
2. Re:This will obviously help. by jedidiah · 2012-12-20 06:27 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  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.
  
  --
  A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
3. Re:This will obviously help. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-20 06:42 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  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.
4. Re:This will obviously help. by MitchDev · 2012-12-20 06:42 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  It's the prison you go to after you get out of prison.
5. Re:This will obviously help. by Gerzel · 2012-12-20 06:49 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  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.
6. Re:This will obviously help. by hduff · 2012-12-20 07:05 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  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.
  
  --
  "I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
7. Re:This will obviously help. by Snotnose · 2012-12-20 07:10 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  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.
8. Re:This will obviously help. by Hoi+Polloi · 2012-12-20 07:19 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Yah, make sure they have lots of spare time they don't know what to do with now.
  
  --
  It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
9. Re:This will obviously help. by robot256 · 2012-12-20 07:24 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  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.
10. Re: This will obviously help. by Urza9814 · 2012-12-20 07:25 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  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.
11. Re:This will obviously help. by letherial · 2012-12-20 07:28 · Score: 2
  
  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.
12. Re:This will obviously help. by KiloByte · 2012-12-20 07:37 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  No, the intent is to show the public the current rulers are "tough on crime", children and citizens be damned.
  
  --
  The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
13. Re:This will obviously help. by Penguinisto · 2012-12-20 07:42 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  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.
  
  --
  Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
14. Re:This will obviously help. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-20 07:44 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  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
15. Re:This will obviously help. by fahrbot-bot · 2012-12-20 07:45 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  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.
  
  --
  It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
16. Re:This will obviously help. by Xaositecte · 2012-12-20 07:56 · Score: 2
  
  Drunk Drivers are often prevented from owning/driving cars; or at least forced to own a car with a built in sobriety detector.
17. Re:This will obviously help. by icebike · 2012-12-20 08:09 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  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.
  
  --
  Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
18. Re:This will obviously help. by dryeo · 2012-12-20 08:12 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  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.
  
  --
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
19. Re:This will obviously help. by hurfy · 2012-12-20 08:12 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  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.
20. Re:This will obviously help. by e3m4n · 2012-12-20 08:13 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  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.
21. Re:This will obviously help. by e3m4n · 2012-12-20 08:17 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  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.
22. Re:This will obviously help. by cayenne8 · 2012-12-20 08:53 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  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?
  
  --
  Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
23. Re:This will obviously help. by cayenne8 · 2012-12-20 08:57 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  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'.
  
  --
  Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
24. Re:This will obviously help. by cayenne8 · 2012-12-20 09:01 · Score: 2
  
  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."
  
  --
  Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
25. Re:This will obviously help. by fahrbot-bot · 2012-12-20 09:07 · Score: 2
  
  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.
  
  --
  It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
26. Re:This will obviously help. by Mattcelt · 2012-12-20 09:08 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  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.)
27. Re:This will obviously help. by fahrbot-bot · 2012-12-20 09:10 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  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...
  
  --
  It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
28. Re:This will obviously help. by Applekid · 2012-12-20 09:20 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  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.
  
  --
  More Twoson than Cupertino
29. Re:This will obviously help. by khallow · 2012-12-20 09:23 · Score: 2
  
  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?
30. Re:This will obviously help. by Applekid · 2012-12-20 09:25 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  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.
  
  --
  More Twoson than Cupertino
31. Re:This will obviously help. by thesandbender · 2012-12-20 09:53 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  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.
32. Re:This will obviously help. by Belial6 · 2012-12-20 10:15 · Score: 2
  
  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.
33. Re:This will obviously help. by Belial6 · 2012-12-20 10:26 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  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.
34. Re:This will obviously help. by arth1 · 2012-12-20 10:43 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  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.
35. Re:This will obviously help. by dougisfunny · 2012-12-20 11:21 · Score: 2
  
  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?
  
  --
  This is not the funny you're looking for.
36. Re:This will obviously help. by betterunixthanunix · 2012-12-20 11:27 · Score: 2
  
  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?
  
  --
  Palm trees and 8
37. Re:This will obviously help. by Elldallan · 2012-12-20 13:25 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  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.
38. Re:This will obviously help. by betterunixthanunix · 2012-12-20 14:48 · Score: 2
  
  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.
  
  --
  Palm trees and 8
39. Re:This will obviously help. by Gerzel · 2012-12-20 17:55 · Score: 2
  
  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.
40. Re:This will obviously help. by tehcyder · 2012-12-20 23:49 · Score: 2
  
  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).
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
41. Re:This will obviously help. by slimjim8094 · 2012-12-21 03:16 · Score: 2
  
  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?
  
  --
  I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
Why not just block messaging? by sunderland56 · 2012-12-20 05:56 · Score: 4, Insightful

If the aim is to stop registered sex offenders from messaging, why block them from gaming completely? Just block their ability to message.
1. Re:Why not just block messaging? by Trepidity · 2012-12-20 05:58 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  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!
  
  --
  10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
2. Re:Why not just block messaging? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-20 06:01 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  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.
3. Re:Why not just block messaging? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-20 06:01 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  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.
4. Re:Why not just block messaging? by admdrew · 2012-12-20 06:06 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  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.
  
  --
  LegendMUD
5. Re:Why not just block messaging? by Trepidity · 2012-12-20 06:09 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Or maybe you Christian-right nannies should fuck right off.
  
  --
  10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
6. Re:Why not just block messaging? by firex726 · 2012-12-20 06:10 · Score: 2
  
  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.
7. Re:Why not just block messaging? by SJHillman · 2012-12-20 06:15 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  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.
8. Re:Why not just block messaging? by PhxBlue · 2012-12-20 06:18 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Or maybe you Christian-right nannies should fuck right off.
  They're going to need an instruction manual to do that. Just sayin'.
  
  --
  !#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
9. Re:Why not just block messaging? by firex726 · 2012-12-20 06:22 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  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?
10. Re:Why not just block messaging? by Reverand+Dave · 2012-12-20 06:22 · Score: 2
  
  Lets not try to bring rationality into this argument sir, we're talking about the safety of our children!
  
  --
  I got here through a series of tubes
11. Re:Why not just block messaging? by Joce640k · 2012-12-20 06:24 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  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.
  
  --
  No sig today...
12. Re:Why not just block messaging? by jedidiah · 2012-12-20 06:29 · Score: 2
  
  > It's called consequences.
  That's what prison is for.
  Their "debt to society" is already paid.
  
  --
  A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
13. Re:Why not just block messaging? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-20 06:29 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  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.
14. Re:Why not just block messaging? by PopeRatzo · 2012-12-20 06:51 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  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.
  
  --
  You are welcome on my lawn.
15. Re:Why not just block messaging? by chrismcb · 2012-12-20 06:57 · Score: 2
  
  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.
16. Re:Why not just block messaging? by Opportunist · 2012-12-20 06:58 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  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.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
17. Re:Why not just block messaging? by kelemvor4 · 2012-12-20 07:02 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  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...
18. Re:Why not just block messaging? by Desler · 2012-12-20 07:07 · Score: 2
  
  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.
19. Re:Why not just block messaging? by Desler · 2012-12-20 07:09 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Plenty of people on sex offender lists are neither rapists or molestors.
20. Re:Why not just block messaging? by compro01 · 2012-12-20 07:38 · Score: 2
  
  Whoever was convicted under such a charge likely had shit for a lawyer.
  Or a deliberately overworked public defender.
  
  --
  upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
21. Re:Why not just block messaging? by compro01 · 2012-12-20 07:43 · Score: 2
  
  Sort of like losing your right to vote...
  Which is another matter I find to be completely insane.
  
  --
  upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
22. Re:Why not just block messaging? by SilentStaid · 2012-12-20 08:16 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  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.
23. Re:Why not just block messaging? by Remus+Shepherd · 2012-12-20 08:23 · Score: 2
  
  And the only people knowledgeable enough to write the manual aren't allowed to communicate electronically!
  
  --
  Genocide Man -- Life is funny. Death is funnier. Mass murder can be hilarious.
24. Re:Why not just block messaging? by punman · 2012-12-20 08:33 · Score: 2
  
  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.
25. Re:Why not just block messaging? by Phrogman · 2012-12-20 11:08 · Score: 2
  
  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.
  
  --
  "The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
Labels by IonOtter · 2012-12-20 06:01 · Score: 5, Funny

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]
1. Re:Labels by Nemesisghost · 2012-12-20 06:20 · Score: 2
  
  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.
2. Re:Labels by 93+Escort+Wagon · 2012-12-20 06:24 · Score: 2
  
  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.
  
  --
  #DeleteChrome
3. Re:Labels by SternisheFan · 2012-12-20 06:24 · Score: 2
  
  Read the article for your answer!
4. Re:Labels by Ellis+D.+Tripp · 2012-12-20 06:38 · Score: 2
  
  http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Can_you_get_put_on_the_sex_offenders_registry_for_public_urination#ixzz20ShoPVh1
  
  --
  Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
5. Re:Labels by phayes · 2012-12-20 06:45 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  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.
  
  --
  Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
6. Re:Labels by asmkm22 · 2012-12-20 06:53 · Score: 2
  
  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.
7. Re:Labels by PraiseBob · 2012-12-20 07:02 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  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?
8. Re:Labels by Jaysyn · 2012-12-20 07:17 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  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
  
  --
  There is a war going on for your mind.
9. Re:Labels by phayes · 2012-12-20 12:00 · Score: 2
  
  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.
  
  --
  Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
10. Re:Labels by Altus · 2012-12-20 17:47 · Score: 2
  
  Turns out you might have no idea what it takes to end up on one of these registries until you are on one.
  
  --
  "In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson
Sex Offenders by Translation+Error · 2012-12-20 06:03 · Score: 5, Insightful

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 ..." they're usually exactly right.
1. Re:Sex Offenders by asmkm22 · 2012-12-20 06:28 · Score: 2
  
  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.
2. Re:Sex Offenders by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-20 07:27 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  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:YAY I'm so glad!! by medcalf · 2012-12-20 06:05 · Score: 5, Insightful

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
Stupid by Hatta · 2012-12-20 06:06 · Score: 3, Interesting

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!
1. Re:Stupid by Kergan · 2012-12-20 06:13 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I think it's pretty safe to bet that the US will go there eventually.
2. Re:Stupid by Kjella · 2012-12-20 07:15 · Score: 2
  
  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."
  
  --
  Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
3. Re:Stupid by cheekyjohnson · 2012-12-20 13:57 · Score: 2
  
  And if you think sex offenders should be in prison for 998 years rather than 999 years, you're callous towards victims!
  
  --
  Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
Re:YAY I'm so glad!! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-20 06:07 · Score: 5, Funny

you sound hot.
Re:Too Much by firex726 · 2012-12-20 06:12 · Score: 4, Insightful

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:YAY I'm so glad!! by Omega+Xi · 2012-12-20 06:14 · Score: 3, Informative

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
Re:YAY I'm so glad!! by bmo · 2012-12-20 06:21 · Score: 2

>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
Why not just keep them locked up? by mark-t · 2012-12-20 06:22 · Score: 3, Insightful

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'
1. Re:Why not just keep them locked up? by TFAFalcon · 2012-12-20 06:45 · Score: 2
  
  CEOs involved in fraud - never let them hold money again, they might misuse it.
2. Re:Why not just keep them locked up? by PolygamousRanchKid+ · 2012-12-20 06:49 · Score: 2
  
  Overcrowding in prisons. The sex-offenders need to be cleared out to make room for more drug-offenders.
  
  --
  Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
3. Re:Why not just keep them locked up? by Sperbels · 2012-12-20 07:28 · Score: 2
  
  Prisons are run by corporations now. Overcrowded prisons are good for economy therefore good for America!
Let's slip into these sexually offending moccasins by VortexCortex · 2012-12-20 06:23 · Score: 4, Interesting

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. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-20 06:27 · Score: 2, Interesting

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... by Shoten · 2012-12-20 06:28 · Score: 2

...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.
So picture this... by JustNiz · 2012-12-20 06:28 · Score: 4, Insightful

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:YAY I'm so glad!! by X0563511 · 2012-12-20 06:31 · Score: 2

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...
Re:YAY I'm so glad!! by wonkey_monkey · 2012-12-20 06:33 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.
The real problem is religion by Animats · 2012-12-20 06:40 · Score: 2

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.
Brilliant plan.... by chmod+a+x+mojo · 2012-12-20 06:42 · Score: 2

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!
Re:Wooo Justice! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-20 06:45 · Score: 2, Insightful

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:YAY I'm so glad!! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-20 06:45 · Score: 2, Informative

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?
Different Games by coinreturn · 2012-12-20 06:46 · Score: 4, Funny

They should at least be able to play in some MMORPG that allows ONLY registered sex offenders to play.
Re:Too Much by firex726 · 2012-12-20 06:58 · Score: 3, Insightful

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 by Derekloffin · 2012-12-20 07:29 · Score: 4, Interesting

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.