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.

Comments

wait what

[Anonymous Coward]

"require Niantic to remove any Pokemon Go-related items or locations from near their homes."

fuck that shit I don't want pokestops removed from near where I live because some public pisser lives nearby.

Re:wait what

[silverkniveshotmail.]

Can we stop pretending that public urination makes you a sex offender?
If you're exposing yourself while peeing you're exposing yourself, but pissing in an alley on your way home from the bar isn't a sex crime.

Re:wait what

[blackomegax]

Tell that to the public urinators who got convicted for doing so discretely.

Re:wait what

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:wait what

[Anonymous Coward]

Even if it is the exposure that makes it a sex offence, is being seen pissing really worth putting people on a permanent register for?

Re:wait what

[AvitarX]

I believe it's mostly people that were retroactively put on when the registry was created.

Plea to a slap on the wrist for indecent exposure, all done, then new rules.

I would expect most pissing in public lands you a drunk and disorderly now.

Re:wait what

[jedidiah]

Plus this is New York City we're talking about here. You can't stretch your arms without giving someone a black eye. Any kind of geo-location based restrictions on anyone seem totally absurd. Things like this in particular will impact a large number of people in the "blast zone".

Not even sure how that idea works in NYC at all anyways.

Re:wait what

[powerlord]

Can a minor who publically urinates in AZ be convicted as a sex offender for exposing himself in view of a minor (himself)?

Re:wait what

[bill_mcgonigle]

Yes you exposed yourself, but you aren't a "sex offender" (except in the eyes of the law, since they've legislated one to equal the other)

Which is, in fact, a religious preference (Puritanism, specifically, the hell-spawn of the Massachusetts Bay Colony) . The naked human body is not automatically sexual in most of the world.

No wonder that mixing of Church and State detonates so spectacularly in every case where it's tried.

Re:wait what

[wkwilley2]

I just want to know, if you're pissing in Central park at 3 a.m, who are you exposing yourself to exactly?

It's been perfectly legal to piss outdoors since forever minus 75 years or so, I don't see the harm unless you make eye contact and start shaking it rapidly.

Re:wait what

[strstr]

I happen to know you got to piss you got to piss. I've seen women and men stop and piss publicly on the streets and other places. Because its a human need I don't think it should be an arrestable offense. That's cruel and unusual punishment to prosecute for basic human needs.

Re:wait what

[hackwrench]

Stuff like that happens because this country was actually based on the concepts of Hobbes who believed that the state should have absolute power. The founders justified their revolution based on a variation of Hobbes done by Locke, but they still believed in the basic principle. People keep recommending to me to read the Federalist Papers and act like they understand them and I haven't made it all the way through, but if you don't understand that a big part of the first two papers is the author playing the age old confidence game of telling the reader that only he knows what's best for them and anyone else is in it for themselves, then you don't understand the Federalist Papers.

Re:wait what

[silverkniveshotmail.]

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

I can't find urination mentioned in any of those statues, but I stopped searching at Idaho because it was feeling pointless.

Re:wait what

[Anonymous Coward]

John Locke, not Hobbes, Founders believed in limited government. See the Articles of confederation that they tried before creating the constitution. They sided with limited government. The Articles of confederation was a too limited form government.

Absolute power came from the broad interpretation of the commerce clause of the constitution later on and other sources. Generally in the pursuit of liberal ideals.

Re:wait what

[Anonymous Coward]

1. It's a Statute, not a Statue.

2. They don't regulate urination, they regulate "exposure" which you are guilty of if you're whipping it out in a public place. e.g. (from the CA penal code):

Exposes his person, or the private parts thereof, in any public place, or in any place where there are present other persons to be offended or annoyed thereby; or,

Re:wait what

[F.Ultra]

Perhaps they refer to people having been sentenced due to these statures when publicly urinating? Anyway if we take the first stature (Arizona, Ariz. Rev. Stat. 13-3821) which is available online here: http://www.azleg.gov/ars/13/03... they in section 15 refer to 13-1402 which is here: http://www.azleg.gov/ars/13/01... at which we can read:

A person commits indecent exposure if he or she exposes his or her genitals or anus or she exposes the areola or nipple of her breast or breasts and another person is present, and the defendant is reckless about whether the other person, as a reasonable person, would be offended or alarmed by the act.

Re:wait what

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course.

Re:wait what

[silverkniveshotmail.]

2. They don't regulate urination, they regulate "exposure" which you are guilty of if you're whipping it out in a public place. e.g. (from the CA penal code):

Exposes his person, or the private parts thereof, in any public place, or in any place where there are present other persons to be offended or annoyed thereby; or,

That's my fucking point. Pissing isn't relevant, it's about whipping your dick out. You don't have to expose your penis to urinate in a public place. If you pull out your penis for other people to see making urine come out of it doesn't negate the exposure.
You don't need to let people see your penis in order to take a leak in the bushes.

Re:wait what

[silverkniveshotmail.]

But urinating in public and exposing yourself are different things. You can expose yourself while urinating but that doesn't mean that you are exposing yourself just because you pee outside.

Re:wait what

[Darinbob]

I think we all need to start playing Pokemon Go now, or else onlookers will think we're sex offenders who aren't allowed to play it.

Re:wait what

[Anonymous Coward]

The federalist papers where just propaganda (many historians uphold this belief, though the supreme court usually sees them as dogma re: how to read the constitution)

If you REALLY want to know what the constitution means, you'll read the ratification debates. See, the American people met in town halls and libraries all across the 13 colonies to discuss the constitution and if they would ratify it. As you can imagine this 'founding generation' (not to be confused with the Founding Fathers) had many questions about the intent and meaning of various parts of the constitution. And many founding fathers/drafters of the constitution where present to answer such questions. The answers provided by federalists at the ratification debates often differs from what they said in the federalist papers, pointing out some nefarious motives and downright lies in the attempt to get the constitution ratified.

When debating the intent of the constitution, i don't care (and neither should anyone else) what the writers said they meant in published propaganda. what should hold legal weight is what was discussed in the ratification debates, Cause those debates are what caused the legally binding ratification of the constitution.
You'll only hear this opinion in a history class though, not in any college that is giving you a legal degree or poly sci degree.

Re:wait what

[tsqr]

I just want to know, if you're pissing in Central park at 3 a.m, who are you exposing yourself to exactly?

The cop who arrests you, obviously.

Re:wait what

[omnichad]

13 states require registration for public urination

Where do I go register to urinate? I'd better do that before I get caught.

Re:wait what

[omnichad]

There are plenty of urinating statue fountains out there, too.

Re:wait what

[gweihir]

So if you pee your pants, then it is legal? Way to roll back civilized behavior!

Re: wait what

[hackwrench]

Easy! Once I've told you that, you can actually read the Federalist Papers with that in mind and it should check out. http://www.gutenberg.org/cache...

The plan offered to our deliberations affects too many particular interests, innovates upon too many local institutions, not to involve in its discussion a variety of objects foreign to its merits, and of views, passions and prejudices little favorable to the discovery of truth.

Among the most formidable of the obstacles which the new Constitution will have to encounter may readily be distinguished the obvious interest of a certain class of men in every State to resist all changes which may hazard a diminution of the power, emolument, and consequence of the offices they hold under the State establishments; and the perverted ambition of another class of men, who will either hope to aggrandize themselves by the confusions of their country, or will flatter themselves with fairer prospects of elevation from the subdivision of the empire into several partial confederacies than from its union under one government.

Just what do you think that means?

Re:wait what

[hackwrench]

The Articles of confederation that were tried before creating the constitution.
A quick glance to get me a little up to speed indicates they were the purvey of Benjamin Franklin, the more advanced of the founders. The work of Locke was based on the works of Hobbes, and gave the added leeway for the founders to justify their civil war, but the main principle of Hobbes prevailed in the authors of the Federalist Papers, among them being James Madison who infamously said,

If men were angels, there would be no need for government.

When I said, "Men can learn to be angels", I was asked "Man's definition of angels or God's definition of angels?" and I said, "A definition of angel sufficient for self-governance."

Re:wait what

[hackwrench]

Here, a link to a search. Bare minimum. https://www.bing.com/search?q=... I'll have to look over the results. Going over a few of them, it seems that representatives of the ratifying conventions were representative of the people about as much as the people who said "Kill Jesus" was representative of the average Jew.

Re:wait what

[sudon't]

Not just yet. We're in the midst of a prolonged panic over children's safety. Just be glad they've snapped out of the whole Ritual Satanic Child Abuse thing.

Re:wait what

[Talderas]

Just claim you have a Windows Phone.

Re:wait what

[Anonymous Coward]

the officer writing you up (or anyone else) doesn't in practice need to have seen your dick
if your standing in a corner, with no possibility for the officer to see your dick
but with the officer hearing you peeing you get written up, and the sex offender status then follows from that
no *actual* public exposure was done

Re:wait what

[Darinbob]

I'm unsure which shame is worse.

Re:wait what

[F.Ultra]

I guess that it depends on who happens to watch the "incident", if it's the wrong person then yes you have your dick hanging out -> exposing yourself. Truth be told I have no idea if this really happens, I don't live in the US and in my country we have no such cases that I know of (and we don't have these public sex offenders lists either).

No more pokemon Go in the US

[Chatterton]

If you should remove every pokemon in a zone of half a block around any sex offender, due to the size of the sex offender list there is no more place you can put a pokemon on the map of the USA :)

Re:No more pokemon Go in the US

[Fire_Wraith]

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.

Re:No more pokemon Go in the US

[MitchDev]

So there would be that advantage at least ;)

(for the humor-impaired: /Sarcsm:off )

Re:No more pokemon Go in the US

[turbidostato]

Furthermore, you must weigh the same as a duck and be made of wood.

Re:No more pokemon Go in the US

[MooseTick]

I don't understand how there can be sex offender registries, but people who have committed murder have no such listings.

Re:No more pokemon Go in the US

[Anonymous Coward]

The "sex" in "sex offender" as far as the law is concerned doesn't seem to be associated with the act so much as the concept.

i.e. We are offended because "sex" is a thing. A thing that is a real thing.
The same sort of behavior you see from a bunch of 6 year old giggly girls in the back of the classroom.

Law apparently hasn't "grown up".

Re:No more pokemon Go in the US

[Master Moose]

Agreed. It's all politics. ... "think of the children" is a great pandering tool.

Re:No more pokemon Go in the US

[Kjella]

If you should remove every pokemon in a zone of half a block around any sex offender, due to the size of the sex offender list there is no more place you can put a pokemon on the map of the USA :)

I think you got that backwards. Due to number of "minimum x hundred meters from any school, park, whatever" quite ordinary urban areas are mostly off limits and so sex offenders are squished together in small areas that meet all the requirements. Heck I've even read stories that people ended up living under a bridge because there was no damn way to avoid all the limitations - probably intentionally so they'd move and be somebody else's problem. And due to the notification requirements the whole neighborhood is perfectly aware of this concentration which leads to most everyone else getting the hell out of there. So no, you'd have lots of circles but most of them would intersect ending up not covering much of the US at all.

Re:No more pokemon Go in the US

[Anonymous Coward]

Because murder is righteous, whereas sex is wicked and sinful in the eyes of religion, and America is a fundamentalist theocracy.

Re: No more pokemon Go in the US

[hackwrench]

People don't go back to look at every thread. I want to have discussions with people who are actually logged in and actually check that somebody replied to their posts.

Re:No more pokemon Go in the US

[luther349]

then you will cry because theirs no Pokemon anywhere becouse there is alot of people on that list for dumb reasions.

Re:No more pokemon Go in the US

[ArylAkamov]

Don't forget underage kids themselves being on the sex offender registry for taking pictures of themselves (Counts as producing child pornography, "They were exploiting themselves!")

Re:No more pokemon Go in the US

[idontgno]

"Hey, I think that's a Snorlax!"

"Nope, just a gross walrusmanpig pedo. Snorlaxes don't have Cheetos stains on their chests or scruffy neckbeards. And because of him, we're in a Pokémon desert. Bastard."

Low bar for being in the registry

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like a misguided attempt to "think of the children!"

Does NY law really work that way?

[magarity]

Can the governor really just declare what is and is not a parole violation? Also, what communication ensures the parolees get the memo?

Re:Does NY law really work that way?

[SumDog]

If a person is on parole, they are still incarcerated. They're incarceration is relaxed for a given amount of time, in an attempt to rehabilitate (that's the idea anyway). Keep in mind, prisoners are slaves. It's in the constitution. The US allows two types of slavery: convicted prisoners and people in military service.

So yes, they can attach any arbitrary rules.

The sex offender list is fucking terrible in the US for reasons stated in other comments. Uncle bill who rapes a 12 year old shouldn't be lumped together with an 18 year old who fucks his or her 17 year old partner (which is legal in George, but not Tennessee because we have wildly varying age of consent laws, which itself is totally fucked up).

The justice system has no interest in truly finding a solution to sex offenders. We just punish and punish and punish and give them no hope of being able to fix themselves. In Australia, the sex offender registry is confidential. No one can access it except for very specific jobs and living situations.

Re:Does NY law really work that way?

[sycodon]

The terms of Parole are set by the Judge.

Re:Does NY law really work that way?

[sg_oneill]

Yup. As egrarious as it is, once your in parole world, you pretty much dont have civil rights anymore.

Or at least the government seems to think so. Not all the lawyers, and judges for that matter, agree, but some shmoe on parole for a crime thats hard to publically defend (Ie pedos or whatever) aint got the money to fight for his rights, and is pretty much screwed.

Re:Does NY law really work that way?

[sexconker]

Also rights granted to most people (like constitutional rights) don't apply to people who are still on paper (still in the corrections system on parole or incarcerated)

These rights aren't granted they're guaranteed. Many of the rights our country is built upon are inalienable, meaning they absolutely do apply to people in prison. The government cannot legally take them away, nor can anyone else. They are inalienable.

Re:Does NY law really work that way?

[Aaden42]

You're only half right. The Declaration states that we have "certain inalienable rights" which means we just have them, not that they're granted by the State. The Bill of Rights goes on to state that we can't be deprived of those rights without due process of law.

If you've been convicted, sentenced, and released on parole, your rights are still subject to being curtailed under due process. You only have the rights the State grants you at that point. Basic human rights are still in effect (they can't literally torture you), but it would be a stretch to call Pokémon Go a basic human right.

In some states the State has the right to deprive you of everything up to and including life given due process. Certainly freedom and pursuit of happiness are fair game when you're still on parole.

Corrections is an executive branch agency, so the governor can order them to do pretty much anything that isn't in direct conflict of a law passed by the legislature, a previous judicial ruling telling him he can't, or the Constitution itself.

Re:Does NY law really work that way?

[sycodon]

Since I've never been jailed and subsequently paroled, I yield to your experience.

What did you do?

Re:Does NY law really work that way?

[MooseTick]

"Especially, the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness ones, those are never taken away by the gov't at the prison doors. "

Ever hear of the death penalty?

Re:Does NY law really work that way?

[david_thornley]

However, parole is not mandatory for the convict. The convict is offered the choice of staying in prison vs. getting out and adhering to a lot of rules, which may be arbitrary. If the rules become unacceptable, back to prison is an option.

I'm not saying that this is necessarily good, I'm saying it's considered constitutional.

Re:Does NY law really work that way?

[luther349]

opt out and just serve paral is a joke its set up so you fail.

Re:Does NY law really work that way?

[david_thornley]

The sex offender registry should go away. However, this ban doesn't apply to people on the registry who have served their sentence, it applies to people who haven't finished their sentence and are out on parole.

Lurkers

[goombah99]

You don't have to play to Lurk. All the pokemon stops are fixed in space. They become the real world equivalent of the on-line chatroom. I can't believe I just wrote that last bass ackward sentence-- it's like saying I'm like a chocoholic except for me it's alcohol.

So this does nothing really. But it probably will matter more when Pokemon go gets more inter-player interactions like arranging to meet for "competitions".

Wow...

[MitchDev]

So sex offenders (who should be executed anyway) never actually pay for their crimes and are still "in jail" after they serve their time...

Makes you wonder why they bother to stop at the sex crime. If they are effectively imprsioned forever anyway, might as well just kill their victims....

These politicians are just getting ridiculous. Next step, any criminal is banned from "online games" since they might be teaching other players how to break the law....

Re:Wow...

[Anonymous Coward]

Pissing in a dark alley as a cop walks by should be an executable offense?

Re: Wow...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's past time to stop these idiotic, useless registries and other crap. You do your punnishment and it's over. Since the reoffense rate is lower for 'sex offenders' than for most other types of crimes, nothing of value will be lost. Except of course people might get their lives back if they've otherwise earned it. Sorry, soccer moms, if actual data doesn't support your view of the world as a dangerous place that you get from watching too much Law and Order.

Leave it to New York to come up with more personal freedom infringing bullshit based on no reason. I think they're in a race with California to come up with the most personal liberty infringing garbage laws and rules.

And yes, it makes me a little sad to defend freedom including the relatively small number of actually dangerous people in these lists. It's just that lists like this, any list for any reason, are dangerous and wrong, because they spread to include other things and because membership on them automatically turns off thought in many people.

Re:Wow...

[HumanWiki]

If you had even the slightest clue as to all the minor offences that can land you on a offenders list, you'd not say that so easily.

Re:Wow...

[Holi]

It works the same in the places that never restore voting rights, they are punished long after their debt to society has been paid.

Re: Wow...

[Holi]

Leave it up to New York? At least New York restores voting rights, unlike the 10 states that permanently restrict them, most of them being conservative southern states. I think that's a little more important then whether or not you can get a large soda.

Re:Wow...

[Holi]

Sure it is. It is our right, it is within our power, as it is just an arbitrary moral code that makes it unacceptable in society (thankfully). Outside of society, the taking of a life is just as moral a decision as mercy (though mercy would probably get you killed).

Re: Wow...

[MitchDev]

You got the point.

Re:Wow...

[MitchDev]

No, that was actually part of the point.

Check every law, local city/village/township, county, state, federal, etc. Everyone is a criminal.
These kinds of laws allow the government to do whatever they want and piss all over the Constitution.

Re:Wow...

[Aaden42]

Parole doesn't affect your voting rights, but many felonies will. That includes in New York. It would be part of sentencing, probably a mandatory part for certain offenses. Your voting rights are revoked before you even hit the prison gate. Only way to get them back would be to overturn the conviction through an appeal. Neither serving out your full prison term for an unconditional release nor finishing your parole period will restore voting rights once lost.

(Not stating a position for or against the above, just clarifying that parole isn't the issue for voting. Felony conviction is.)

Re:Wow...

[F.Ultra]

#PissingLivesMatter

Wait, wait.....

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

"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."

Yeah, I don't think that's legal on the face of it unless it's part of the offender's court order, and I don't think a Governor has the power to do that in any case.

Re:Wait, wait.....

[DerekLyons]

You'd be surprised what people will tolerate when it comes to a witch hunt.

Re:Wait, wait.....

[SuricouRaven]

Public opinion not only says it's justified, it says you are probably a pedophile for suggesting otherwise.

People need their bogeyman.

Just Ban Sex Offenders

[Anonymous Coward]

With all the other restrictions we place on them... public registries, public notifications of where they live, living area restrictions, job restrictions, firearm restrictions, voting restrictions, social media restrictions, etc. All after they served their "time" for their crimes. We throw in a restriction from playing video games that work online?

Just ban sex offenders. Ship them all internment camps in Alaska... It's not like they're human anymore anyway. /Sarcasm

Realistically, we need to do away with these public list and what have you. If they already served their time why are they continually publicly shamed? And don't get me wrong, I have no sympathy for rapist and molesters. We should increase the penalty for these crimes, right up to chemical castration... Keep them in prison longer (also reduce the amount we spend on prisoners...) But once they get out, they're supposed to be "Reformed." So treat them like human. Otherwise keep them locked up.

Re:Just Ban Sex Offenders

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember, loads of these "offenders" are guys in their early 20's who (shock) banged 17 year olds. We've already ruined their lives for their "crimes against nature". Do we really need to keep them from playing Pokemon now?

Re:Just Ban Sex Offenders

[suutar]

from what I've read the original idea (this was 20+ years ago, mind you) was that child molesters can't help themselves, so keeping them away from temptation (residency restrictions) and giving everyone else enough info to keep temptation away from them (publicized addresses) was a good thing. Then they started piling all the not-predator stuff on. And of course since then the attitude has changed from "they can't help themselves" to "they are responsible for their actions", which undermines the entire purpose of the list, leaving it only a lifetime punishment that the state doesn't have to pay for. But doing away with it would be "soft on crime"...

Re:Just Ban Sex Offenders

[blind biker]

What does "served their times" even mean? These people were removed from society because they were deemed too dangerous. After they leave prison they are still a considerable risk to others, hence the restrictions.

It's not that hard.

Re:Just Ban Sex Offenders

[DerekLyons]

If they already served their time why are they continually publicly shamed?

Because the public has this twisted idea that if we know who they are and where they live, we'll all be "safer". Never mind that you're a thousand times more likely to molested by a non family adult known to the child (teacher, coach, etc...) than by a stranger... and a thousand times more likely than that to be molested by a family member. Sex offender registries and "stranger danger" are nothing more than moral panic.

Re:Just Ban Sex Offenders

[CanadianMacFan]

Then why do you only do it for sex offenders? Plenty of other prisoners are released when they are known to be a danger to society but don't have restrictions placed on them after they have served their time. Shouldn't they have restrictions placed on them? Oh yeah, it's against their rights! But somehow that doesn't apply for a sex offender (for which the definition is very wide).

Re:Just Ban Sex Offenders

[CanadianMacFan]

Prison has turned into punishment and about keeping people off the street instead about reforming people. But you can't reform people when you keep cutting back on funding. If you keep cutting back on funding the conditions in prisons will continue to worsen which will only lead to more violence and conflict. And the people leaving will be less ready to integrate back into society once they have served their time.

Re:Just Ban Sex Offenders

[SvnLyrBrto]

You're right. It's not that hard.

If they are still a "considerable risk to others" they should not be let out of prison in the first place. We shouldn't be using prison for something so base and depraved as revenge. It should be about public safety, first and foremost, followed by rehabilitation. A comprehensive psychological evaluation should be performed on intake, and an equally comprehensive evaluation, specifically as the the likelihood of recidivism, prior to release. If the offender can't be certified to have little to no recidivism risk... if he/she still presents a danger to the general public... he should not be released. If, on the other hand, the prisoner is rehabilitated and does NOT pose that risk, scrap the lists and the shaming and let him go rebuild his life in peace.

Re:Just Ban Sex Offenders

[bsolar]

The most common age for "sex offenders" is 14 years old: still dangerous decades after the fact? Really? On top of that most "sex offenders" would not even be labelled as such at all in most of the civilized world. Furthermore sex offenders have actually a pretty low recidivism rate. The whole crackdown on "sex offenders" is misguided and driven by irrational overreactions and the whole concept should be reviewed and drastically reformed.

In general, deciding if and when somebody is or still is a risk to others is actually pretty hard: you only think it's not hard because you believe in a solution which is "clear, simple and wrong".

Re:Just Ban Sex Offenders

[david_thornley]

I knew a guy who got caught, while 16, having sex with his almost-14 girlfriend. (14 would be legal, 13 isn't, in this state.) He was supposed to keep registering as a minor, and could have gotten his record sealed if he'd applied when he should (don't remember whether that was at 18 or 21).

I wouldn't trust him with anything important, but he doesn't seem to me to be a danger to anyone.

If these people are this goddamn dangerous...

[Anonymous Coward]

...why aren't they in jail?!?

Re:Ingress

[Anonymous Coward]

"any internet enabled gaming activities". I'd say that catches Ingress.

Re:Metropolis issues

[unrtst]

... in the five boroughs of New York City ...

This wouldn't be a problem

[JohnFen]

This wouldn't be a problem if sex offender registries only covered people who were actually sex offenders.

Better stop them from reading comics too

[gurps_npc]

And playing Dungeons and dragons.

They already are banned from going to church.

Is there any other way we can prevent them from living a normal life, and push them to re-offend?

Oh, oh, how about we ban them from drinking alcohol!

Re:Better stop them from reading comics too

[wkwilley2]

That never stopped father O'Malley

Re:Better stop them from reading comics too

[CanadianMacFan]

I hear that kids go to the grocery stores. Better not allow offenders to buy food.

woah there cowboy....

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it over steps the government's bounds to have game developers remove locations in an AR game just because a sexual predator lives 'close' by.

You're going to penalise me in the form of reduced property value because I happen to live in the same condo as a registered sex offender? Or next door to one? Or half a block away? And yes, I am predicting that locations in AR games will indeed increase property values. Who wouldn't want a 3 pokestops and a gym within range of their living room?

Much easier to just ban these people from social media sites. No facebook, no pokemon go login. Or better yet, just ban them from the internet altogether.

Re:Metropolis issues

[Merk42]

... in the five boroughs of New York City ...

Everyone knows Staten Island doesn't count.

Ah, Summer

[Okian Warrior]

"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."

Yeah, I don't think that's legal on the face of it unless it's part of the offender's court order, and I don't think a Governor has the power to do that in any case.

Ah, Summer. Your first witch hunt.

Re:Ah, Summer

[powerlord]

"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."

Yeah, I don't think that's legal on the face of it unless it's part of the offender's court order, and I don't think a Governor has the power to do that in any case.

Ah, Summer. Your first witch hunt.

Gotta burn them all.

"Protecting the children" again....

[Slugster]

In the USA, prosecuting child molesters is the last bastion of the bureaucratic tyrant.
No punishment is too severe and no 'right' is too sacred to revoke in the pursuit of their private, twisted concept of justice.

Ban sex offenders from visiting libraries

[MobyDisk]

Sex offenders who download the game legally could pinpoint hot spots where children congregate, like pokestops or gyms, and meet them in person.

Pokestops and gyms are at libraries, museums, playgrounds, community centers, churches, etc. Without Pokemon go, how would sex offenders find these places? I guess the mayor thinks it is okay for sex offenders to go to playgrounds, but not if they are playing Pokemon go. They have to use Google Maps to find them. Ohh wait: maybe Google Maps should hide playgrounds, museums, churches, and libraries from sex offenders! We only want sex offenders going to bars and strip joints!

Re:Ban sex offenders from visiting libraries

[PPH]

It's not the sex offenders that are the problem, its letting kids plat games that encourage them to wander out into traffic while staring at their phones chasing Pokemon characters. Just ban kids from playing it.

Re:Ban sex offenders from visiting libraries

[magarity]

We only want sex offenders going to bars and strip joints!

Based on election results, it seems they primarily go to the legislature office building and the executive mansion.

Re:Ban sex offenders from visiting libraries

[HornWumpus]

White list for the rugrats. When they learn to defeat it, they are ready for porn.

Re:Ban sex offenders from visiting libraries

[fedos]

I was just reading about this televangelist who thinks that Pokémon Go is dangerous because Islamic Terrorists (tm) can use it to find where churches are, as if there's no other way to find churches.

Re:Ban sex offenders from visiting libraries

[david_thornley]

You don't have to stare at your phone while walking. Mine vibrates when there's something worth stopping for. The game emphasizes that you should know where you're going, and the loading page shows a player, intent on phone, walking into the jaws of a Gyrados.

People really need to teach other people that blindly following directions, or having all attention on a phone while walking, is a bad idea. I've read about enough adults who do it, it's not just children. If you don't let children have anything that distracting, how will they handle it later?

Re:Ban sex offenders from visiting libraries

[david_thornley]

I have a priest friend with a church. I put it on Wikipedia (there's a few interesting things about it), and even put in a pointer to the church website.

I'll go turn myself in now.

Re:Ban the game entirely

[Anonymous Coward]

Got to level 10, then just deleted it.

The game has been successful in to creating park zombies.
But unless they evolve the game to have actual social meaning, I don't think it can keep people standing doing nothing forever.

How broad is this?

[jasenj1]

So no more Xbox, Playstation, iOS, Android, or Steam games then?
Anything that talks to a server could be considered "internet enabled". As could anything you download. Seems like an awfully big overreach by government.

Re:How broad is this?

[avandesande]

It seems like a program where they are given free weed and video games would do great things for recidivism rates.

Re:How broad is this?

[MobyDisk]

Some people might commit a crime just to get the free weed and video games.

Re:How broad is this?

[omnichad]

Or Linux

Re:How broad is this?

[myowntrueself]

It seems like a program where they are given free weed and video games would do great things for recidivism rates.

With a 78% recidivism rate in the USA it seems anything could help!

Re:How broad is this?

[sabbede]

How serious a crime? I don't want to actually hurt anybody.

Re:How broad is this?

[sabbede]

My question exactly! It sounds like this bars them from using any modern platform.

Re:How broad is this?

[WallyL]

Pee in an alleyway behind a bar!

Re:How broad is this?

[sabbede]

I can do that!

Re: Ingress

[Archfeld]

Online gambling where children are barred ?

Re:Sex Offenders

[SumDog]

I bet today, most adolescent porn is produced by adolescents themselves. Australia's zero tolerance policy has landed many of them in jail for sending consensual pics to one another.

Re: Ingress

[BlueStrat]

With such generic wording, it would also apply to Steam, Blizzard games, and a good many phone/tablet games. How would this be enforceable short of restricting access to the internet and phone services as a whole to registered offenders?

Winner, winner chicken dinner!

That's the next step...virtual banishment from modern communications for "sex offenders'...for now...other groups like people on the 'no-fly' list later...and people like Ben Shapiro and Milo Yiannopoulos shortly after that (or maybe before).

Welcome to Amerika!

Strat

Probably Can't Do That

[sycodon]

I'm skeptical that the governor can unilaterally change the terms of probation and/or subsequent registration requirements and rules without the Legislature changing the law, unless New York has a King for Governor.

Re:Probably Can't Do That

[Anonymous Coward]

I see you aren't familiar with his majesty Cuomo, are you?

Re:Probably Can't Do That

[strstr]

It sounds like a crock. I am no sexual predator nor am I associated with any. I don't defend them. But I take issue with the way the governor thinks he can discriminate and punish people by preventing them from living their normal lives. I personally think even if I or anyone else is a sexual offender they should be allowed to play Pokemon Go and virtual games and they are over strepping their authority to ban people from playing them.

I know the constitution is weak sauce though that's why governors and congress get away with such abuse.

Besides the 14th amendment right to liberty you ain't got a whole lot else protecting you and its so weak that they interpret that to mean all sorts of things. It might not be a protected liberty to play Pokemon Go..

A new constitution should be in order to prevent government from singling out people and attempting to regulate things government and group mobs should have no business regulating.

http://www.oregonstatehospital...

Re:Probably Can't Do That

[strstr]

And no I don't think kids and Pokemon Go go hand in hand .. Adults play Pokemon go more than kids
  I have yet to see kids play it but all my friends who play are adults. Everyone I see walking their dog and playing and dudes on the bus playing have been adults.

I don't see the connection of Pokemon Go and kids and sex offenders.

I see the governor using it as an excuse to target and discriminate against a class of people, in this case the so called sexual offenders. They similarly target many people the same way.. Its a gross abuse of power that needs to be stopped.

The governor believes society will back him up because everyone else thinks its acceptable to crap on sexual offenders or certain other classes at opportune times.

Re:Probably Can't Do That

[nedlohs]

The 14th doesn't help either, since it says "without due process of law" and if you are parole then you have already had your right to liberty removed under due process of law. Parole is the government giving you back some of but not all of those liberties.

I would suspect someone on parole who finds not being able to play pokemon go too drastic a restriction can opt out of parole and spend the rest of their sentence in prison instead.

Re:Probably Can't Do That

[Anonymous Coward]

Blatantly unconstitutional. If they can't function in the world, laws need to change so they can't be released. If they have served their sentence, then stop with the unconstitutional life punishments. All it does is ensure recidivism. Either they are a risk to society or they are not. It's that simple. If they've paid their debt to society, then stop punishing them. If they haven't, then why the fuck are they out of prison?

Our penal system is so fucked up.

Re: Probably Can't Do That

[DMFNR]

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.

Re:Probably Can't Do That

[tsqr]

If they have served their sentence, then stop with the unconstitutional life punishments. All it does is ensure recidivism.

I guess you missed the part about this being applicable to sex offenders ON PAROLE; i.e., they haven't finished serving their sentences. Get it?

Re:Probably Can't Do That

[telchine]

And no I don't think kids and Pokemon Go go hand in hand .. Adults play Pokemon go more than kids I have yet to see kids play it but all my friends who play are adults.

Well there are more adults around than their are kids, but to say kids don't make up a sizeable portion of the players would be inaccurate. Admittedly most of my friends are adults, so most of my friends that play Pokemon Go are adults, but that's selection bias! I see plenty of kids playing it at the mall or in the park.

I don't see the connection of Pokemon Go and kids and sex offenders.

I go running in the park, I sometimes see kids playing it in groups. I usually give them a friendly hello and ask them if they've caught any yet as I pass. It's not inconceivable that a sex offender could strike up a more meaningful conversation, so I can see some kind of connection.

Obviously this legislation would be ridiculous, practically uneforcable and there's much better areas they could be focussing on. However, I can kind of see where they're coming from even if it is a bit of a kneejerk "think of the children" reaction.

Re:Probably Can't Do That

[dryeo]

I read it as anyone on the sex offenders list, which to my understanding is a list that Congress mandated rather then a Judge.
Here in Canada, to be put on the sex offenders list takes the action of a Judge at sentencing, and they only do it when needed, eg people who are actually sex offenders, not someone caught having a piss. Probation also usually consists of keeping the peace unless a Judge adds extra.
Same with arms, not a right here, but you only lose the privilege if a Judge says so, usually due to doing something stupid with a firearm, not smoking a joint. 2nd amendment is pretty simple, people have the right to bear arms, not honest people have the right to bear arms.
Americans, they have a decent Constitution, but let it get abused so much that everyone takes it for granted that there are all these exceptions that have been added through the amendment process. Want to remove rights from the population, write it into your Constitution rather then having political appointees ruling on it.

Re:Probably Can't Do That

[luther349]

it really is better to op out and just serve it out. parole is worse then being inside its designed for you to fail.

Re:Probably Can't Do That

[luther349]

you missed parole i did to at first.

Re:Probably Can't Do That

[nedlohs]

You can't violate parole if you aren't on parole. The actual statement is explicit and clear too: https://www.governor.ny.gov/ne...

Re:Probably Can't Do That

[Gavagai80]

The only place I can think of that doesn't have a lot of kids is nursing homes, and even there the grandkids sometimes visit. Perhaps we'll have to fund Musk's Mars colony so we can send sex offenders there?

Re:Probably Can't Do That

[dryeo]

OK, I admit I didn't read the article. Still, can the Governor make blanket rules for parolees? Usually around here the parole board grants (or doesn't) parole along with a list of conditions which are dependent on your crime, along with other things such as how your rehabilitation is coming along. And if there is a high risk of re-offending, they'll keep you in prison until your sentence is served. The 18 yr old who touched a 16 yrs old breast will be treated differently from the guy who had a habit of violently raping little kids.

Re:Probably Can't Do That

[guises]

Y'all are living in a fantasy land. You're certainly right that these registries shouldn't exist, but they're not unconstitutional and changing the terms of what their registration entails, ex post facto, isn't unconstitutional either. According to a supreme court decision in 2003 (Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. 84), sex offender registries are not punishment and therefore aren't subject to judicial review or any of the associated protections or burdens.

So to address the grandparent's point: the existence of the registry is probably a law passed by the state legislature, but the administration of that registry is almost certainly handled by the executive branch. Since there are no legal limits on when the registry can be changed to effect the people on it, and very few limits on how it can be changed, it's not surprising at all that the governor can do pretty much whatever he wants.

A further thing to note: since these registries are not punishment, you don't actually have to be convicted of a crime, or even accused of a crime, in order to be forced to register. Just a fun little point I thought I'd throw out there. There was a bill floated in Ohio which would have allowed anyone to enter their neighbor on the sex offender list if they wanted to, no legal proceedings necessary.

Finally, about the constitutional thing: the fact that this is outrageous and an affront to justice does not make it unconstitutional. Random Internet Person does not decide what is and isn't constitutional, only the courts decide that. The fact that this is constitutional represents a flaw in our constitution and it needs to be changed. Fortunately, we have a way to do that.

Re:Probably Can't Do That

[nedlohs]

Parole is usually run by the executive branch. So within the guidelines the legislator provided, sure that branch can change the specific implementation of rules.

Doesn't mean they should make stupid knee jerk reactions to non-problems of course, but it's the government of NY so it's to be expected.

Re: Probably Can't Do That

[Anonymous Coward]

Why does everyone assume sex offender always means child molester? A 19yr old high school student gets discovered having a sexual relationship with his underage girlfriend he is immediately charged with sexual assault. That's no where near the same type of crime as someone who lures, molests, and then murders children. Unless they enact a tiered system unilaterally for the level of sex offense, This ruling is a complete infringement of their rights. Where are talking about NYC in this case. Exactly where in the city exists a place that people would not likely travel save for seeking Pokemon rewards? You could throw rocks 24x7 and never miss hitting someone.

  Recently I read an article that said a country (au maybe) was considering an entire ban of the Internet for sex offenders. It's only a handful of years before a sentence like that is tantamount to capital punishment. Paper money would already be eliminated not for the pesky phrase 'legal tender' written on it. There are fewer and fewer off-line venues available to the public.

Re:Probably Can't Do That

[guises]

When the court changes its mind about what is constitutional, then what is constitutional has been changed.

The constitution is a legal document, there is no Truth independent from legal truth here. Moreover, bear in mind what a constitution is: a document which exists to establish the basis for a government in an deliberately inflexible way. The point is to prevent the perversion of government by setting down some ground rules of what it is, what it can do, and what it can't do. If government then becomes perverted, as it has in this case, it represents a failure of the constitution. An ideal constitution could not be interpreted in this way, the fact that it has been means that we need to change it to correct that problem.

Re:Probably Can't Do That

[beastofburdon]

These amendments you speak of, they never happened. Our government has just been ignoring the constitution outright because they know that if they tried to push an amendment that took away one of our rights then there would be people with guns on their doorstep. Instead they pass bills that "regulate commerce" between states and word them in a way that appears to be legal while being a blatant violation of the bill of rights.

Re:Probably Can't Do That

[Desty]

I go running in the park, I sometimes see kids playing it in groups. I usually give them a friendly hello and ask them if they've caught any yet as I pass. It's not inconceivable that a sex offender could strike up a more meaningful conversation, so I can see some kind of connection.

The fact that you often meet kids who are playing Pokémon Go in the park, despite you not playing Pokémon Go, just highlights how utterly pointless this kneejerk rubbish is. It would be more effective for them to ban children from playing the game, and of course even more effective to ban children from ever going outdoors.
But that would not only be stupid, it would also be obviously stupid and unfair to kids.

It's seen as socially acceptable to propose arbitrary limitations on the freedom of sexual offenders, because apparently being released doesn't imply any kind of rehabilitation has happened. This just further reinforces the message that being imprisoned in the first place was about punishment rather than rehabilitation. It's a shame that vengeance and judgement are still such a big part of modern society.

Re: Probably Can't Do That

[strstr]

That's true but if the constitution were beefier, it would not allow basic rights and freedoms to be stripped even if provided due process and convicted of crimes and the like. Even contracts and parole should not remove your basic rights to be your own self.

I forget one important right of the 1st amendment is to be who you are and want to be, to develop who you are and want to be, and to generate and have free speech and expression.

That might protect parole right to be a gamer, to take part in leisure activities and personal enrichment activities and the like, against judges will- to be a part of the community equal to his peers.

Also ordering a person not to play video games is like trying to stop a person from being sexually aroused, and under the 1st amendment the courts have determined you have a right to sexual arousal such as even to take racy pictures of people passing by you on the streets, even of kids, even of upskirts of kids. The Texas Supreme Court overturned a law and vacated a conviction of a guy who took upskirts of girls for example just a few years ago.

obamasweapon.com

The problem is the constitution is so weak it actually doesn't guarantee the things it guarantees unless judges uphold it in their decisions, but they can deliberately refuse to and back one another up.

In other news...

[phresno]

... Niantic today announces the relocation of its corporate headquarters to Ireland.

Who cares about Pokemon Go

[Anonymous Coward]

This could ban people who peed in an alley from playing most PC and console games. Even single-player games are distributed on the Internet, and have server check-ins these days.

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 Pokémon Go."

Keeping pervs away from kids is a worthwhile goal, but the sex offender registry is broken, and this seems much too broad.

And yet...

[sootman]

Murderers -- or, as I call them, "life offenders" -- are still free to play.

Moral of the story: if you're going to rape someone, you may we well kill them, too. Life will be easier when you're released.

Wow

[mark-t]

... banned from downloading, accessing, or otherwise engaging in any internet enabled gaming activities...

This could totally bite for a prior sex offender who has since found gainful employment as a video game developer, since many of the smaller studios I know of have a pretty strong focus on mobile gaming. This law could prevent them from doing their job.

Re:Ingress

[Holi]

That covers every modern video game and game system.

Re: Ingress

[Joe_Dragon]

and when they start robing banks just to get back in as they can't find work and lot's homeless shelters are in the no go zone then what are you going to do?

Internet enabled games?

[Sperbels]

So that's basically every video game that's made these days.

Re:Ban the game entirely

[hackwrench]

I'm just waiting for medicine to make sitting on your rear end a healthy activity. The day they find out yoga mats are carcinogenic will be the happiest day of my life. https://www.youtube.com/result...

Stop voting for stupid people!

[Cajun Hell]

The obvious question is: WHY?! Here ya go:

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 pokémon and 59 pokéstops and gyms within half a city block. They were particularly worried about the "lures" that draw pokémon â" and thus players, including children â" to a location.

So congratulations, New York: you elected total fucking morons to your senate, who think government power should be used whimsically and without thought for whether or not it makes any sense. I bet this little anti-pedo law will be the only consequence, though.

Re:Stop voting for stupid people!

[Big Boss]

Except that smart people don't seem to run for public office, or at least, they don't get very far. There might be some exceptions, but they seem pretty rare to me. I can't think of the last time I saw a candidate for a position more influential than City Council that wasn't a blithering moron and/or completely and obviously corrupt.

They'll just go back to using resonators

[Sloppy]

This is a bad idea, as those of us who are old enough to remember, all know.

Back in the 1980s, before we had internet-connected PCs in our pockets, we had to use different tech to play Pokemon Go. It involved using an electronic resonator which stimulated the pineal gland. This allowed people to see into the pokemon universe, so you knew where they were. There were some problems, though.

The biggest problem was that the resonator did not merely allow you to see; it also allowed you to be seen by the pokemons. Even the magicarp where somewhat dangerous, and it just got worse from there. There were maulings and even some deaths.

A relatively minor problem (then; but in today's context it matters more) is that the pineal stimulation also somehow made people really horny. If sex offenders can't use computers to see the pokemons, then they're going to play with resonators, so you're going to have horny sex offenders hanging out at the lures. Who thought this was a good idea?! For fuck's sake, you want these people to be using the Internet version. Good grief!

They made a movie about it (though they couldn't get the Pokemon licensing, so everything's renamed).

Re:Personally...

[Andreas Mayer]

...I believe it would be easier, and far more sensible to just ban children.

That would definitely solve a lot of problems.

Especially in the long run ...

cant happen

[luther349]

first off who even uses real info on most of these apps. so they have no way of telling who is who whos a offender on parol whos not and if you dont let pokemon spawn near there homes now you have the entire city as a dead zone because that list is no small one. and term of parol are set by the judge and your officer not the governor just retards thinking they have more power then they do.

"near their homes"

[bobmajdakjr]

have you ever looked at the registry? literally, everywhere. sucks to be people in new york.

Does anyone under ...

[RockDoctor]

30 play this?

Ridiculous

[Anonymous Cow Ward]

Given that, in some cases, you can get put on the sex offender list for public urination (more common if a minor sees you, but that's not always necessary) or, in some states, for having sex with a 17 year old when you're 18, or if you're a minor sending explicit pictures of yourself to another minor, this law is ridiculous. The sex offender list needs to be seriously revamped.