MS, Apple, Blizzard, EA, WB and Disney ban all NY sex offenders

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT
 

Isn't this more about that fact that you can't actually murder someone through the internet, but you sure as hell can (verbally) molest under aged children.

This isn't about "Haha, you can't have fun any more."
It's about "There are children here, under aged, maybe we shouldn't let registered sex offenders near them."

And I'm pretty sure that they check what kind of sex offence, before you come up with the public urinating argument again.

yeah, I'm pretty sure this is unconstitutional, punishing people beyond their sentence is just petty and pointless, sex offenders have a hard enough excistance as is with all the restrictions already placed upon them on top of the actual sentence.

also, I hear it's pretty easy to gain this status, but I'm not very knowledgeable on these laws.
does a sexual harrassment case make you a sex offender immediatly? (flirting with co-workers for example) or does it have to be something very drastic?

Ranorak:

And I'm pretty sure that they check what kind of sex offence, before you come up with the public urinating argument again.

How do you know?

veloper:

Ranorak:

And I'm pretty sure that they check what kind of sex offence, before you come up with the public urinating argument again.

How do you know?

I don't know, but I do guess the outcry is not going to go unnoticed if they banned every single person that ever urinated at the corner of a street and toss them in the same box as child molesters.

I know a lot of people have little faith in anything government related, but I'd be honestly shocked if they didn't think this through.

Is this just another effort to "protect the children"?

Well first off, sex offender doesn't always = child abuser

It sounds like this was just a big blanket sweep over the entire roster they had of sex offenders. Seeing as people can be put on that list for relatively minor offenses these days, it seems a little unfair. They either already served their time, or are still doing so. We shouldn't be persecuting people AFTER that happens.

If all of those thousands of people were convicted of pedophillia or what-have-you then okay. But I doubt they all were.

idarkphoenixi:
Is this just another effort to "protect the children"?

Well first off, sex offender doesn't always = child abuser

It sounds like this was just a big blanket sweep over the entire roster they had of sex offenders. Seeing as people can be put on that list for relatively minor offenses these days, it seems a little unfair. They either already served their time, or are still doing so. We shouldn't be persecuting people AFTER that happens.

If all of those thousands of people were convicted of pedophillia or what-have-you then okay. But I doubt they all were.

A little unfair? No, colossally unfair. I don't know the numbers on how many people get put on the sex offender list for petty shit, unrelated sex offences or stuff that shouldn't be a crime in the first place, but if it's even 1% (which I doubt it's anywhere below 40%), what they're doing here is deeply immoral.

And all this goes to further the absence of of societal reintegration. Great forward thinking there.

This is ridiculous. If we're going to treat sex offenders (try reading a list of all the crimes that fall under that category, by the way. Most of the people we're talking about aren't rapists or child-molesters. There have been some children put on the list for running naked around an elementary school playgrounds. Do we really want to lay on this kind of punishment for something someone did when they were six?) this way, effectively saying that they're never allowed back into society even after serving their sentences (you might also want to check out their rates of recidivism versus those for other types of offenders. The "they can never be rehabilitated" argument kind of takes a hit from that), then there's really no argument against just killing them on the spot. If you don't think they can improve and never intend to give them a real second chance, why waste so many resources keeping in prison and monitoring them afterwards? The way we treat prisoners and former prisoners in the US is already beyond barbaric and does nothing but encourage them to become more antisocial and commit more crimes; adding shit like this on top of that is just fucking dumb.

Bad thing. Punishing people beyond court sentence. Unlawful. Don't do it.

Fappy:
There is so much wrong with this thread it hurts just looking at it. People have some strange perspectives on the world D:

I agree Fapmaster. :L

Ranorak:

veloper:

Ranorak:

And I'm pretty sure that they check what kind of sex offence, before you come up with the public urinating argument again.

How do you know?

I don't know, but I do guess the outcry is not going to go unnoticed if they banned every single person that ever urinated at the corner of a street and toss them in the same box as child molesters.

Er, what outcry? It happens all the time and no one cares. Certainly doesn't help when the people who would actually say something are thrown in the category of "omg he's defending kiddie fiddlers". :/

I know a lot of people have little faith in anything government related, but I'd be honestly shocked if they didn't think this through.

The economy is in the toilet and we are arresting people for smoking grass. I think people have too much faith in their government. :L

Ranorak:

veloper:

Ranorak:

And I'm pretty sure that they check what kind of sex offence, before you come up with the public urinating argument again.

How do you know?

I don't know, but I do guess the outcry is not going to go unnoticed if they banned every single person that ever urinated at the corner of a street and toss them in the same box as child molesters.

I know a lot of people have little faith in anything government related, but I'd be honestly shocked if they didn't think this through.

Really? You "guess"? They already put them on the same list and subjected them to the same regulations (including routine public humiliation in some areas), what makes you think this this is going to cause any more of a public outcry? The public attitude on issues like prison rape and the abuse of minors by privatized juvenile facilities has already demonstrated how little the American public cares about anyone you hang the "criminal" sign on, regardless of what they actually did. The only exception seems to be women who commit abuse or murder against their partners or children. There are whole international organizations willing to threaten terrorist action to keep them out of prison, and no one seems to mind.

OtherSideofSky:

Ranorak:

veloper:

How do you know?

I don't know, but I do guess the outcry is not going to go unnoticed if they banned every single person that ever urinated at the corner of a street and toss them in the same box as child molesters.

I know a lot of people have little faith in anything government related, but I'd be honestly shocked if they didn't think this through.

Really? You "guess"? They already put them on the same list and subjected them to the same regulations (including routine public humiliation in some areas), what makes you think this this is going to cause any more of a public outcry? The public attitude on issues like prison rape and the abuse of minors by privatized juvenile facilities has already demonstrated how little the American public cares about anyone you hang the "criminal" sign on, regardless of what they actually did. The only exception seems to be women who commit abuse or murder against their partners or children. There are whole international organizations willing to threaten terrorist action to keep them out of prison, and no one seems to mind.

Really?!

I mean, honestly?
I'm not American, so I'm actually quite surprised that public urination and raping a child are in the same fucking ballpark!

Here in the Netherlands, if they catch you urinating in public, you get a 100 Euro fine.
So yeah, colour me shocked and slightly repulsed.
And having lost, yet another, chunk of hope for American Governments.

Crono1973:

RJ 17:
"Operation: Game Over". Heh got a decent chuckle out of that title.

As for do I agree with it? Ehhhhhhhh. I can see what they're protecting against, I agree with what they're wanting to do. But as a conservative I'm against most forms of governmental regulation. On the other hand when it comes to sex crimes, I believe - obviously this meaning what follows is opinion - that you can never be fully rehabilitated. You'll always have the urges to be naughty with people/things you shouldn't be naughty with. And if I had a young child that played on XBox live, I wouldn't want some jackass coming on the mic and asking my kid if he likes going to the gym and watching guys work out, or if he likes professional wrestling, or if he likes movies about gladiators.

Hey, maybe we should just put all the sex offenders on an island then?

they planned to build a concentration camp but it would go beyond their budget.
(yes they are heading in THAT kind of territory)

RJ 17:

Zhukov:
Also, why only sex offenders? What about murderers?

Murderers don't typically talk about their penises to 12 year olds.

so you dont want them to hear what they always hear on COD?

Zhukov:
This is kinda weird. Why are they punishing people beyond their court sentence?

this ^ .because of this

Kahunaburger:

It's amazingly stupid that we slap, for instance, people who get drunk and take a leak in public, 15-year-olds who have sex with other 15-year-olds, and so on with stupid arbitrary restrictions for the rest of their life.

the law is, as of now pretty weird and full of loop holes.
its damn easy to get a sex offender stamp on you.
sometimes you just need to piss a crazy woman off and you end up with this, even if you can prove that you are innocent.

I can understand the reasoning behind it, but this is a twoedged sword. The harder we make it for criminals to return to a normal, decent live, the more likely they will get to commit another crime of one sort or the other.

Then there is the other reasons other people listed.
Why not murderers too? the crime is at least as horrible. But where will we stop?
What about weaker degrees of sexual offending like exhibitionistic acts or peeping?
What are we willing to allow?

Vrach:

Zhukov:
This is kinda weird. Why are they punishing people beyond their court sentence?

Also, why only sex offenders? What about murderers?

Because a murderer doesn't need internet to find and lure a random target. A sex offender does.

Sure, tell that to all the people who've been molested by relatives, family friends.etc.

lapan:
I
What about weaker degrees of sexual offending like exhibitionistic acts or peeping?

Those do get people put on sex offender registries. This includes, as mentioned before, non-sexual public nudity like streaking and people taking a leak in the bushes. America's legal system is pretty fucked up.

Incidentally, if we're super worried about kids being exposed to creepy people in multiplayer, wouldn't the solution be to ban children from M-rated multiplayer? Please?

Ranorak:

OtherSideofSky:

Ranorak:

I don't know, but I do guess the outcry is not going to go unnoticed if they banned every single person that ever urinated at the corner of a street and toss them in the same box as child molesters.

I know a lot of people have little faith in anything government related, but I'd be honestly shocked if they didn't think this through.

Really? You "guess"? They already put them on the same list and subjected them to the same regulations (including routine public humiliation in some areas), what makes you think this this is going to cause any more of a public outcry? The public attitude on issues like prison rape and the abuse of minors by privatized juvenile facilities has already demonstrated how little the American public cares about anyone you hang the "criminal" sign on, regardless of what they actually did. The only exception seems to be women who commit abuse or murder against their partners or children. There are whole international organizations willing to threaten terrorist action to keep them out of prison, and no one seems to mind.

Really?!

I mean, honestly?
I'm not American, so I'm actually quite surprised that public urination and raping a child are in the same fucking ballpark!

Here in the Netherlands, if they catch you urinating in public, you get a 100 Euro fine.
So yeah, colour me shocked and slightly repulsed.
And having lost, yet another, chunk of hope for American Governments.

Just want to let you guys now you can talk about urinating in public as much as you want. It reminds me of MC Public Urination, and that guy is hilarious.

OT: This seems pretty stupid. I mean, I can understand banning someone who jacks of on webcam in xbox live UNO (apparently a common occurrence), but just banning someone for something he or she did outside of the service? ...Whaaaat?

I guess you could argue its an effort to make xbox live a more child friendly place so parents can leave their children alone in their room with their console and a copy of Black Ops without having to question their parenting abilities, but anyone who has ever played an online game knows resistance to the hostile environment is futile.

Microsoft & co know this. Just another publicity stunt. Fuck you Microsoft, Apple, EA, WB, Disney and ESPECIALLY Blizzard. So that guy who spams "Want 2 roleplay sexy lesbian action?" in Stormwind is fine but the guy who did it in the real gets banned.

--

RJ 17:

Zhukov:
Also, why only sex offenders? What about murderers?

Murderers don't typically talk about their penises to 12 year olds.

You're right, but how many of them kill 12 year olds? I don't know about you, but I'd prefer to talk about some weirdo's dick then DIE?

If they're registered then presumably they've served their sentence. So yeah, this would seem to pretty much fundamentally undermine the judicial process.

And as others have pointed out, people have been put on sex offenders registers for completely inane reasons (although it doesn't seem to say if they pick and choose the worst).

Are they, at the very least, implementing further programs to HELP these people in any way, or do they just plan on alienating them even more than they already are?

Ranorak:

OtherSideofSky:

Ranorak:

I don't know, but I do guess the outcry is not going to go unnoticed if they banned every single person that ever urinated at the corner of a street and toss them in the same box as child molesters.

I know a lot of people have little faith in anything government related, but I'd be honestly shocked if they didn't think this through.

Really? You "guess"? They already put them on the same list and subjected them to the same regulations (including routine public humiliation in some areas), what makes you think this this is going to cause any more of a public outcry? The public attitude on issues like prison rape and the abuse of minors by privatized juvenile facilities has already demonstrated how little the American public cares about anyone you hang the "criminal" sign on, regardless of what they actually did. The only exception seems to be women who commit abuse or murder against their partners or children. There are whole international organizations willing to threaten terrorist action to keep them out of prison, and no one seems to mind.

Really?!

I mean, honestly?
I'm not American, so I'm actually quite surprised that public urination and raping a child are in the same fucking ballpark!

Here in the Netherlands, if they catch you urinating in public, you get a 100 Euro fine.
So yeah, colour me shocked and slightly repulsed.
And having lost, yet another, chunk of hope for American Governments.

Gets tossed under the "Sexual Misconduct" label which basically means anything that could vaguely be described as sexual. Idiot streaker at a baseball game? Sex offender. Person skinny dipping in there own back-yard pool. Sex offender.

For that matter prostitution will get you on that list. So you know, more then a few young women in a very bad spot in their lives (Assuming they had any choice in the matter at all.) end up on that list.

stinkyrobot:

RJ 17:

Zhukov:
Also, why only sex offenders? What about murderers?

Murderers don't typically talk about their penises to 12 year olds.

You're right, but how many of them kill 12 year olds? I don't know about you, but I'd prefer to talk about some weirdo's dick then DIE?

Allow me to respond to that in the same way that I did before:

RJ 17:

Crono1973:

RJ 17:
Murderers don't typically talk about their penises to 12 year olds.

Are you really saying that murder is better than talking about a penis? Man, that's pretty fucked up but it explains why politicians get away with persecuting sex offenders.

Don't think I ever came close to saying that murder is better than talking about penises. But last time I checked, you can't stab someone through your mic.

I can see the idea behind it, but it's just not very good execution.

Crono1973:
Don't see how these types of things are constitutional.

They're not.

But really, who's going to make a stand for kiddie fiddlers?

I'm curious to know what those companies are getting out of this. I've never seen corporations turn away customers on mortal grounds.

Zhukov:
This is kinda weird. Why are they punishing people beyond their court sentence?

Also, why only sex offenders? What about murderers?

There are many reasons:

1. Because the most common image we see when we hear "sex offender" is a child molester, and we instinctively hate people who prey upon children.

2. Because, in an extreme sense, most of us could conceive of a situation in which we would murder someone... but most of us can't conceive of a situation in which we would commit a sexual offense. Harder to relate, easier to hate.

3. Most importantly: Because sex offenders that target children use these media to target, contact, and "groom" potential victims. Generally speaking, murderers don't.

This isn't a punishment for sexual offense per se. It's a recognition that the internet is, in many ways, a predator's dreamland -- it's very much like a dark, secluded alley in which an attacker can wait... except there's a lot more traffic in this particular alley. The extremely high recidivism rate means that these people are potentially a substantial threat to unsupervised children.

Above all, this is a business decision on the part of the companies, and a political decision on the part of New York. It's not a "legal" decision, in the sense that it's meant to behave as law, or on behalf of the law. These businesses feel they will gain more money from the "concerned parent demographic" than they will lose from the "sex offender demographic." I suspect they're right.

That said, my feelings on the law:

There's probably something less-than-ideal about the way we aggressively chase down these people the way we often do. Of course, it's understandable -- we sympathize with the victim, not the offender. But if we take that difficult step back, we see that these people are villainized and isolated in every way, so what reason (and what guidance) would they have if they even wanted to?

No one wants to be the person to try it, though, because no one wants to be associated with these people. Hell, I wouldn't do it for a million dollars -- I see the problem, but want nothing to do with fixing it, which I guess makes me a big ol' hypocrite.

Zachary Amaranth:

Crono1973:
Don't see how these types of things are constitutional.

They're not.

But really, who's going to make a stand for kiddie fiddlers?

I am pleasantly surprised to see so many in this thread standing up for civil rights, I did not expect it.

RJ 17:

Zhukov:
Also, why only sex offenders? What about murderers?

Murderers don't typically talk about their penises to 12 year olds.

Actually, neither do "sex offenders". Judging by the numbers and the lack of specification they've swept up every single registered sex offender they had - which will mostly entail garden-variety rapists and adult molesters, coupled with the odd drunk-as-fuck-jailbait-sex idiot. Not exactly the most likeable set of people out there, but banning them all from online video games is a PR stunt, nothing more.

Crono1973:

Kahunaburger:

Crono1973:

Hey, maybe we should just put all the sex offenders on an island then?

They do, in some communities. Sex offenders can't live with in X miles of things like schools/libraries/etc., so occasionally these laws essentially confine all the sex offenders to an island or something.

That's not the same thing and you know it and you totally missed the point. I really fuckin hate how it's ok to persecute certain groups. Sex offenders, smokers, etc...

It's like people in those groups aren't people at all and can have rights removed without backlash. I would say this ban is a civil rights violation.

Wait... What? I think as a smoker the worst thing that's ever happened to me is to be compared to a sex offender. I smoke cigarettes, I don't rape people.

VoidWanderer:

Crono1973:

VoidWanderer:

Most rapists enjoy the feeling of power over their victims, believing they did the victim 'a favour'. They enjoy the rush of power whenever they see them. Killing the victim would negate that.

You think the victim would be better off dead then? Rape crisis centers should just start killing victims?

See, I don't think you really believe that rape/molestation is worse than murder.

Which requires more help for the victims; Murder or Rape.

Murder. For a murder there's witnesses and people close to the victim that all need help. For rape there's just one person, and the crime, though horrible, is not as bad as taking a life.

Spot1990:

Crono1973:

Kahunaburger:

They do, in some communities. Sex offenders can't live with in X miles of things like schools/libraries/etc., so occasionally these laws essentially confine all the sex offenders to an island or something.

That's not the same thing and you know it and you totally missed the point. I really fuckin hate how it's ok to persecute certain groups. Sex offenders, smokers, etc...

It's like people in those groups aren't people at all and can have rights removed without backlash. I would say this ban is a civil rights violation.

Wait... What? I think as a smoker the worst thing that's ever happened to me is to be compared to a sex offender. I smoke cigarettes, I don't rape people.

You haven't noticed all the limitations that have been placed on smokers? No smoking in parks, government building, movie theaters, within so many feet of a door, higher sales tax, etc.. Why? What did smokers do to be singled out like this?

You may not care, most smokers don't (that's why it was allowed to happen) but that doesn't make it right.

Also, using an example of one persecuted group does not mean the groups are being compared in every way, just the stated way (in this case, the being singled out and sanctioned part).

Crono1973:

Spot1990:

Crono1973:

That's not the same thing and you know it and you totally missed the point. I really fuckin hate how it's ok to persecute certain groups. Sex offenders, smokers, etc...

It's like people in those groups aren't people at all and can have rights removed without backlash. I would say this ban is a civil rights violation.

Wait... What? I think as a smoker the worst thing that's ever happened to me is to be compared to a sex offender. I smoke cigarettes, I don't rape people.

You haven't noticed all the limitations that have been placed on smokers? No smoking in parks, government building, movie theaters, within so many feet of a door, higher sales tax, etc.. Why? What did smokers do to be singled out like this?

You may not care, most smokers don't (that's why it was allowed to happen) but that doesn't make it right.

Also, using an example of one persecuted group does not mean the groups are being compared in every way, just the stated way (in this case, the being singled out and sanctioned part).

What did I do to deserve it? Breathe harmful chemicals on people for a start. I'm still allowed go to those places, I'm just not allowed smoke there. Smoking wherever I want around whoever I want and bothering people with it is hardly a civil right.

Elmoth:

VoidWanderer:

Crono1973:

You think the victim would be better off dead then? Rape crisis centers should just start killing victims?

See, I don't think you really believe that rape/molestation is worse than murder.

Which requires more help for the victims; Murder or Rape.

Murder. For a murder there's witnesses and people close to the victim that all need help. For rape there's just one person, and the crime, though horrible, is not as bad as taking a life.

And normally a body. Hence "Habeas corpus"....

Zhukov:
This is kinda weird. Why are they punishing people beyond their court sentence?

Also, why only sex offenders? What about murderers?

It's one of those feel good laws, like banning sex offenders from residing near a school. The reality is there's not a lot of places not in range of a school and in some cities, sex offenders cannot legally reside anywhere... meaning they skip town and aren't monitored at all.

About the only thing this will accomplish is making it easier to throw them back in prison, as many of them will log in under secret IDs.

The worst part is that not all sex offenders are predators. You can become one for offenses such as public urination. High school kids have become sex offenders by merely kissing their slightly younger girlfriends. One girl was arrested for distributing child porn when she posted naked pictures of herself.

We certainly need some sex offender legislation and monitoring, but there's lots of problems that need to be addressed.

Spot1990:

Crono1973:

Spot1990:
Wait... What? I think as a smoker the worst thing that's ever happened to me is to be compared to a sex offender. I smoke cigarettes, I don't rape people.

You haven't noticed all the limitations that have been placed on smokers? No smoking in parks, government building, movie theaters, within so many feet of a door, higher sales tax, etc.. Why? What did smokers do to be singled out like this?

You may not care, most smokers don't (that's why it was allowed to happen) but that doesn't make it right.

Also, using an example of one persecuted group does not mean the groups are being compared in every way, just the stated way (in this case, the being singled out and sanctioned part).

What did I do to deserve it? Breathe harmful chemicals on people for a start. I'm still allowed go to those places, I'm just not allowed smoke there. Smoking wherever I want around whoever I want and bothering people with it is hardly a civil right.

Yeah whatever, give your rights away if you want to. I don't even smoke anymore, I am not going to fight harder for your rights than you do.

Unless we are talking about sex offenders that have been CONVICTED of crimes against minors, then this is wrong.

As previously mentioned, peeing in the street could be classed as sex offense, drunken rape could be, however wrong or right they are, they will have been punished and do not serve to cause harm to anyone since it was blatantly a one off.

So, as I said, unless it is a very specific group of sex offenders, this IS a slippery slop, and a dangerous one at that.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked