Slashdot Mirror
New York Governor Bars Sex Offenders From Playing Pokemon Go (theverge.com)
Adi Robertson, reporting for The Verge: At the direction of Governor Andrew Cuomo, New York's correctional department has made playing online games a violation of parole for sex offenders -- particularly Pokemon Go. In a statement, Cuomo said that people on the sex offender registry are now banned from "downloading, accessing, or otherwise engaging in any internet enabled gaming activities, including Pokemon Go." He also published a letter that he sent to game developer Niantic, asking for its cooperation in preventing registrants from signing up. The decision is based on a report from two New York state senators, released last week. Jeffrey Klein and Diane Savino visited the locations of 100 registered sex offenders in New York City and found 57 pokemon and 59 pokestops and gyms within half a city block. They were particularly worried about the "lures" that draw pokemon -- and thus players, including children -- to a location. While criminals have used pokestops and lures to attract and rob players, there are no known cases of sexual predators using them so far. Nonetheless, Klein and Savino have crafted bills that would ban sex offenders from playing the game and require Niantic to remove any Pokemon Go-related items or locations from near their homes.
Never-mind that in many cases, the "sex offender" label is handed out for a wide array of crimes. Most people hear it, and they think of pedophiles and rapists, but it can cover far more than that. For instance, a drunk peeing in an alleyway can be prosecuted for indecent exposure, which is an offense requiring sex offender registration in many (if not most) states. In other states, two teenagers having otherwise consensual sex that their parents disapprove of can lead to statutory rape charges, which come with mandatory sex offender registration.
Educate yourself:
At least 13 states require registration for public urination; of those, two limit registration to those who committed the act in view of a minor.
Arizona, Ariz. Rev. Stat. 13-3821 (if the individual has more than one previous conviction for public urination-two if exposed to a person under 15; three if exposed to a person over 15); California, Cal. Penal Code 314(1)-(2), 290; Connecticut, Conn. Gen. Stat. 53a-186, 54-250, 54-251 (if the victim was under 18); Georgia, O.C.G.A. 42-1-12, 16-6-8 (if done in view of a minor); Idaho, Idaho Code Ann. 18-4116, 8306, 8304; Kentucky, Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. 510.148, 17.520, 500, 510.150; Massachusetts, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272 16, ALM GL ch. 6 178G, 178C; Michigan, Mich. Comp. Laws 167(1)(f), 28.722, 723; New Hampshire, N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. 651-B:1, RSA 651-B:2, 645:1(II), (III); Oklahoma, 57 Okl.St. 582.21, 1021; South Carolina, S.C. Code Ann. 23-3-430; Utah, Utah Code Ann. 77-27-21.5, 76-9-702.5; Vermont, Vt. Stat. Ann. Tit. 13, 2601, 5407, 5401.
https://www.hrw.org/report/2007/09/11/no-easy-answers/sex-offender-laws-us
It seems from reading the actual article that this applies only to registered sex offenders who are on parole. Parole is basically serving your prison time on the street in exchange for the offender giving up various freedoms. Most parole agreements require absolute sobriety, curfews, travel restrictions, and parole officers can add pretty much whatever arbitrary restrictions the deem fit. On parole/probation/extended supervision you are not a free citizen, you are a ward of the state, your rights are severely restricted. So I doubt they will have any trouble banning people on supervision from playing these games, they can already forbid Internet access and things like that. It doesn't even take the governor, any parole officer could have done this himself but writing a single sentence on a rules agreement. The gray area comes if the rule persists past parole, as it's possible to be a registered sex offender but no longer be in department of corrections custody. The article is not clear on whether or not that's the case, and I am not sure what exactly is required to restrict the rights of a free citizen on the sex offender registry. Perhaps it could becovered under already existing rules restricting contact with children.