Registered Sex Offenders Denied Online Gaming

[crashhelmet]

These people need better lawyers. From the logic put forth from these examples, I can turn around accuse ANYONE of wanting to sexually assault me and have them put on the list. Police officers, politicians, judges, etc.

What happened to innocent until proven guilty?

[bara]

These people need better lawyers. From the logic put forth from these examples, I can turn around accuse ANYONE of wanting to sexually assault me and have them put on the list. Police officers, politicians, judges, etc.

What happened to innocent until proven guilty?

Its the result of zero tolerance policies and politicians playing on people's fears to get votes.

[Andara Bledin]

The State Supreme Courts are upholding these regulations.

It's "think of the children" gone mad.

And it's happening all across the country and very few people are even paying attention to the people being hit with what is essentially a plot thread from Minority Report.

I think part of the problem is that people are on the list so they must be sexual predators and if they're sexual predators, then they must belong on the list... and who wants to defend that sort.

^-.-^

[BlaqueKatt]

I think part of the problem is that people are on the list so they must be sexual predators and if they're sexual predators, then they must belong on the list... and who wants to defend that sort.

and the mindset of "all sexual predators are pedophiles"

[Gravekeeper]

Even putting the disaster that is the sex offender registry aside: The biggest online titles of the company's listed are not games children should be playing. They're applying a systematic failure of the justice system to protect a systematic failure of parenting.

Disney, sure. Warner Bros, okay. But Microsoft, Sony, Blizzard and EA? All the most popular online titles from those publishers are straight M rated games across the board with a T for World of Warcraft.

Your children should not be in any of the these games in the first place. This is like banning a sex offender from going to see Saw VI because there might be a 6 year old in the audience.

[Andara Bledin]

Actually, EA owns Pogo (among others). Which, while heavily populated by bored housewives and parents of grown children, is also heavily populated by younglings as well, and every game has an attached chat room.

Plus, despite a good percentage of the games in question being rated Mature, we all know that the player base is not comprised entirely of mature (or even immature) adults. I have listened to my brother berating 12-year-olds pretty much daily for the last couple of months while playing some FPS.

^-.-^

[Gravekeeper]

Actually, EA owns Pogo (among others). Which, while heavily populated by bored housewives and parents of grown children, is also heavily populated by younglings as well, and every game has an attached chat room.

Can't say I've ever heard of Pogo being some sexual predator stomping grounds. Call of Duty seems to creep up a fair amount though for the statutory rape card. Still, EA casual stuff aside, Sony, Microsoft and Blizzard?

Plus, despite a good percentage of the games in question being rated Mature, we all know that the player base is not comprised entirely of mature (or even immature) adults. I have listened to my brother berating 12-year-olds pretty much daily for the last couple of months while playing some FPS.

That's my entire point. X-Box Live has such a problem with parents letting their miserable children play M rated games, completely unsupervised, that its literally become the brand stereotype and reputation. It's literally what the X-Box is famous for. X-Box Live = Racist Homophobic 12 year olds with microphones. All playing M rated games like Call of Duty. Games most game store chains won't let children buy by themselves on a service that requires a credit card subscription. There is absolutely no excuse for your child to be playing Call of Duty aside from you failing as a parent.

Saying you're going to ban all sex offenders from it then congradulating yourself for protecting children is like having someone sneak their 10 year old into a bar then congradulating yourself after you order all the booze and drunks removed just from the table next to you. It only covers New York. So aside from being stupid, its also totally ineffectual.

Its just all so stupid. The sex offender register is an embarrassment to justice as a whole to begin with. Its already a needless punitive measure thats not extended to any other type of crime. Starting to use that already flawed list as a basis for denying goods and services under yet more "OMG THINK OF THE CHILDREN" bullshit is an appalling precedent.

If you have an actual violent pedophile with a high risk to re-offend then A) Why the fuck is he out to begin with and B) If you want him offline, don't allow him Internet as part of his parole conditions. Don't slap some bullshit feel good measure onto individual companies then congradulate yourself for effectively doing nothing in the grand scheme of things if they still have internet access.

[BlaqueKatt]

This is like banning a sex offender from going to see Saw VI because there might be a 6 year old in the audience.

which the sex offender may tell the parents off for being right idiots, so there's that.....

[Andara Bledin]

Can't say I've ever heard of Pogo being some sexual predator stomping grounds.

Have you seen the gobs of data people post about themselves and everybody in their families on Pogo? It makes me uncomfortable just reading it; but if you tell these people that it's not wise to tell a room full of strangers about their children's schedules, they go off in the way only a bad parent whose had their bad parenting pointed out does.

If I kept notes, I'd have the names, ages, schools, schedules, and medical conditions of hundreds of kids over the course of a year. The bored housewives aren't very net-savvy, generally, and a large percentage of them appear to be complete fools who also make a habit of giving their log-in credentials to third-party sites for the purpose of tournament ladders and "free" tokens and gems.

I want to know what's next. Are we now going to ban these people from going to amusement parks and shopping malls and grocery stores because those places are all full of children?

I wouldn't normally bring a "slippery slope" argument up, except for the fact that this measure is already halfway down said slope, and the slipping shows no sign of letting up.

^-.-^

[Slytovhand]

How about the lack of complete logic??

let's say I've been put on the list for something that those above mostly agree shouldn't put me on the list (or, even if it should be). I'm trying to 'rehabilitate' myself, and not do anything naughty - but society doesn't trust me. So, I sit at home most days, going bonkers. What can I do? Well, I could log onto WoW or some other MMO, and play a game in a safe and secure environment which does no harm to me or anyone else (other than addiction).

And the government has just taken that option away from me!!!

If they really wanted to do something to ensure our children are safe, wouldn't it simply be better to monitor those offenders and the chats they're doing in those games??? ooops, no - paranoia is ok, as long as it doesn't cost too much...

[Gravekeeper]

let's say I've been put on the list for something that those above mostly agree shouldn't put me on the list (or, even if it should be). I'm trying to 'rehabilitate' myself, and not do anything naughty - but society doesn't trust me. So, I sit at home most days, going bonkers. What can I do? Well, I could log onto WoW or some other MMO, and play a game in a safe and secure environment which does no harm to me or anyone else (other than addiction).

This is essentially the entire problem. When you ostricize someone from society, you increase the chance of them reoffending because why the fuck should they care about what that society thinks? Sex offenders are the only ones that society doesn't allow to serve the time so to speak. When they do the time for the crime, they get out and now they're facing further punishment. It becomes impossible for them to serve enough time. We always want them to keep being punished, despite the fact it contradicts the entire point of having a set jail sentence.

We don't do that with any other type of crimes. Even the ones that are far worse than sex offences.

I don't care if my neighbour got drunk and flashed a bus full of nuns once. That doesn't mean anything to my life. If he has a meth problem he can't kick and 20 prior arrests for breaking into cars to feed his habit. That would be nice to know so I can remember to park my car in the garage rather than the driveway. ;p

[Andara Bledin]

One of the articles I linked said it best: The Sex Offenders Registry is cruel and unusual punishment and needs to be abolished.

^-.-^

[DrFaroohk]

There should just be a criminal registry, and the most serious offenders get to be up on a plaque in public places.

And it wouldn't just say stuff like "Matt Smith - Theft by unauthorized taking" or something, it'd be like "Matt Smith - broke into an old lady's home and stole her oxycodone, then tracked mud all over her carpets."

[Gravekeeper]

There should just be a criminal registry, and the most serious offenders get to be up on a plaque in public places.

And it wouldn't just say stuff like "Matt Smith - Theft by unauthorized taking" or something, it'd be like "Matt Smith - broke into an old lady's home and stole her oxycodone, then tracked mud all over her carpets."

You can't have a punishment *after* the punishment, else your justice system no longer has any meaning. This is the problem. There's no chance of rehabilitating anyone if you effectively condemn them for life regardless of their crimes.

[Greenday]

You can't have a punishment *after* the punishment, else your justice system no longer has any meaning. This is the problem. There's no chance of rehabilitating anyone if you effectively condemn them for life regardless of their crimes.

Exactly. If they are never going to stop punishing you, why continue to follow the law?