Sex offenders banned from online games

[aGameOfThrones]

New York is dropping the banhammer on registered sex offenders. The state's attorney general, Eric T. Scheiderman, today announced that 3,580 online accounts belonging to sex offenders have been struck from online gaming networks--or at least had their communication privileges revoked--as part of "Operation: Game Over."

The state had cooperation from Microsoft, Sony, Blizzard, Electronic Arts, Warner Bros., Disney, and Apple, all of whom agreed to the account purge. New York requires that convicted sex offenders register all of their e-mail addresses, screen names, and similar identifiers for the purposes of limiting their access to certain online networks. This is the first time the law has been invoked relative to online gaming.

The attorney general said that sexual predators have been using voice and text chat in online gaming services to find and arrange meetings with underage victims. Earlier this month, a 19-year-old Monroe County man pled guilty to sexually abusing a 10-year-old boy he met through Xbox Live

http://www.gamespot.com/news/sex-offenders-banned-from-online-games-6370214



First comment I saw from the site.


ZeroX91

Posted Apr 6, 2012 12:27 pm GMT

So what about us that are on the list for statutory we aren't exactly rapists just guys who didn't get along with the girls parents.

[CaptainAmerica]

the entire judicial system is a joke . yesterday on the local arizona news a report was made on a neighborhood that was aggressively campaigning against a halfway house of 3 female convicted felons . In the news report the people of the neighborhood were shouting "You cannot live in my neighborhood" blah blah blah...and in my mind I thought hmm if a person served their sentence do they not have the same right to have a house and have a place to live? I think americans have become so over sheltered and ignorant ,and the parenting has become dumber and dumber...if parents would engage their own kids instead of watching stupid SHIT (while ignoring their kids) on tv like jersey shore they would know who is involved with their kids lives. Im sick of the government nanny state pretending everyone needs them to protect everyone from the boogie man.

[Danke]

meh, I never played online games anyway. :toady:

[dillo]

meh, I never played online games anyway.

Im not black but I still think slavery was wrong and in violation of our constitution

[Danke]

Im not black but I still think slavery was wrong and in violation of our constitution

I'm not Asian, and I agree.

[jmdrake]

So what about online games with adult content that children shouldn't be playing anyway? Mass Effect 3 comes immediately to mind.

[bolil]

fascinating.

[Anti Federalist]

The state had cooperation from Microsoft, Sony, Blizzard, Electronic Arts, Warner Bros., Disney, and Apple

The state, working hand in hand with private companies for purposes of control???

No, can't be. "Private property" is an absolute, unquestionable good.

[Acala]

The state, working hand in hand with private companies for purposes of control???

No, can't be. "Private property" is an absolute, unquestionable good.

I have no problem whatsoever with people excluding criminals from their property. I WANT real criminals excluded from as much of my world as possible. It is the modern equivalent of shunning, which I prefer to the current system of state-run punishment. It is likely to be more sensible.

The problem in THIS scenario is that the government gets to define who is an offender and, as that comment points out, it isn't a very good definition.

[MRK]

Other myriad problems with this law aside, there is a great irony in that this law takes these people out of a virtual prison for their minds and gives them more incentive to interact with the real world where they could potentitallu carry oit their real world crimes once more.

Granted, anyone determined to play these games will not be affected. These people can still buy visa gift cards and pay for their subscriptions under alternate names. It also doesny even cover the makers of most online games.

[The Free Hornet]

I have no problem whatsoever with people excluding criminals from their property.

It isn't property so much as it is patents (covers devices, much software, and business methods) and copyrighted materials (software, story, artwork, voices, acting, characters). The government is saying "people on our naughty list will be restricted from these 'writings and discoveries'".

I don't doubt that there is excessive punishment involved for many, but the lever of this punishment is so-called intellectual property (which I am against unless agreed to by voluntary contract).

[Butchie]

If it was up to me sex offenders would never get out of jail in the first place and prisons wouldn't be the country clubs they are now, problem solved.

[Acala]

If it was up to me sex offenders would never get out of jail in the first place and prisons wouldn't be the country clubs they are now, problem solved.

I agree to the extent that I don't think there should be "limited citizenships". You are either safe to be free in society or you aren't. If you, after due process, are determined to be too dangerous to live in a free society, you can't. If you are not so determined, then you can. None of this halfway free with permanent government strings stuff.

[heavenlyboy34]

The state, working hand in hand with private companies for purposes of control???

No, can't be. "Private property" is an absolute, unquestionable good.
No matter how I read this it sounds like you're conflating fascism with a system of property rights. Am I misreading you? :confused:

[Acala]

It isn't property so much as it is patents (covers devices, much software, and business methods) and copyrighted materials (software, story, artwork, voices, acting, characters). The government is saying "people on our naughty list will be restricted from these 'writings and discoveries'".

I don't doubt that there is excessive punishment involved for many, but the lever of this punishment is so-called intellectual property (which I am against unless agreed to by voluntary contract).

I consider the World of Warcraft servers to be private property in exactly the same way this forum is private property. If Blizzard wants you off, you leave. But perhaps what you are saying is that Blizzard should not be able to control access to the server? Even if it doesn't require legal process? Are you saying government should PREVENT Blizzard from excluding people from its servers?

[heavenlyboy34]

If it was up to me sex offenders would never get out of jail in the first place and prisons wouldn't be the country clubs they are now, problem solved.
Srsly? AF posted a thread a while back about a 19 year old who had a sexual relationship with a 17 year old (or something very similar), and the guy was deemed a "sex offender". The system is too fucking insane to take seriously.

[Anti Federalist]

No matter how I read this it sounds like you're conflating fascism with a system of property rights. Am I misreading you? :confused:

No, I'm saying what I have been saying for years now.

Corporate tyranny can be just as intrusive, invasive and heavy handed as government tyranny.

When the two work together you have, as you noted, the textbook definition of fascism.

[Acala]

No, I'm saying what I have been saying for years now.

Corporate tyranny can be just as intrusive, invasive and heavy handed as government tyranny.

When the two work together you have, as you noted, the textbook definition of fascism.

I think you are using the word tyranny too loosely. Except when private entities use government to serve their purposes, they are limited in their ability to control your life.

[Butchie]

Srsly? AF posted a thread a while back about a 19 year old who had a sexual relationship with a 17 year old (or something very similar), and the guy was deemed a "sex offender". The system is too fucking insane to take seriously.

Well, I guess I should have elaborated more, certainly I feel some of our laws need to be changed along with our parole system, I'm just speaking in hyptheticals here, in that instance no I would not suggest a life sentence, but for a 40yr old with a 12yr old or something like that, absolutely. I agree some things are all lumped to together in the term "sex crime" when they shouldn't be.

[The Free Hornet]

If it was up to me sex offenders would never get out of jail in the first place and prisons wouldn't be the country clubs they are now, problem solved.


Srsly? AF posted a thread a while back about a 19 year old who had a sexual relationship with a 17 year old (or something very similar), and the guy was deemed a "sex offender". The system is too fucking insane to take seriously.

And how is Butchie any different?

:)

I should temper my comment having read Butchie's last post. But even then 'life'? And I doubt most prisons are country clubs, certainly not the state-run ones for rapists or some guy who was naked drinking coffee in his own house.

[Anti Federalist]

Srsly? AF posted a thread a while back about a 19 year old who had a sexual relationship with a 17 year old (or something very similar), and the guy was deemed a "sex offender". The system is too fucking insane to take seriously.

I'm looking for that to bump it, I recall that story, and the sex was consensual.

[Anti Federalist]

I think you are using the word tyranny too loosely. Except when private entities use government to serve their purposes, they are limited in their ability to control your life.

I don't think I am.

Comply or die.

If the motivation is a government bullet to the brain pan, or starvation in the street, both are pretty compelling ways in which to force compliance against your will.

[heavenlyboy34]

I'm looking for that to bump it, I recall that story, and the sex was consensual.
Good man! :D

[The Free Hornet]

I consider the World of Warcraft servers to be private property in exactly the same way this forum is private property. If Blizzard wants you off, you leave. But perhaps what you are saying is that Blizzard should not be able to control access to the server? Even if it doesn't require legal process? Are you saying government should PREVENT Blizzard from excluding people from its servers?

I am saying there shouldn't be copyrights or patents which only help prevent others from creating similar, competing products in the marketplace.

Government says, we are protecting ownership of an idea (!), giving it to Blizzard to control, and letting Blizzard know that certain "undesirables" maybe ought not be allowed to use this idea.

Government = Blizzard. Fascism or corporatism. Who would stand up to the very same government that keeps your competitors at bay?

In truth, my comment is more about the abuses of IP than the SO list.

More importantly, private property is not the issue when the (state) government is looking for "cooperation". I hope these companies get their asses sued off. And, I do accept the principle that the solution to one abuse isn't creating another. However, I don't see how these people can be restricted from the IP in question unless all these companies want to make SO-welcome versions of the same. And wouldn't that be a hoot?

[pcosmar]

Is this for WoW too,, ??


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ii1XsBdtpfY

[Anti Federalist]

Good man! :D

I think this is the one that we were both thinking of.

15 year old and 14 year old.

Girl lied about being "raped" and this fellow, now 20, finds his life ruined by being on sex offender registries, even though he was innocent.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?333307-VA-Innocence-is-no-defense-for-being-put-on-sex-offender-registry.&highlight=man+put+sex+offender+registry

[LibertyRevolution]

I consider the World of Warcraft servers to be private property in exactly the same way this forum is private property. If Blizzard wants you off, you leave. But perhaps what you are saying is that Blizzard should not be able to control access to the server? Even if it doesn't require legal process? Are you saying government should PREVENT Blizzard from excluding people from its servers?

Devils advocate time:
Say you meet some chick at the bar that was wasted out her mind on all the drinks she been buying with herself, so you go back to her place and have sex, only to get caught by he mom, and they tell you she is 17, blame you for getting her drunk and have you arrested.
Your now a sex offender.
So you move on, you get into wow, spend some years building up this character and making friends int he community, only to now years later have the state and blizzard shut off your account. Yeah that seems fair.

Don't you think that if blizzard wanted to not allow sex offenders on wow that should have been part of the EULA when you bought it?
Don't you think that changing the conditions on the use of a product after sale is wrong?
I don't see anyway to justify this...So I thought I would play devils advocate.
I do not condone being a sexual predator, but if you server your time, all this after the fact tracking and limitations seems like overreach on the part the judicial..

If your not safe to release into the community, if you have to be tracked and limited, then you should not be released from prison.
Wouldn't that seem the smart thing to do?

[Diurdi]

You can become a sex offender for public urination. (http://www.economist.com/node/14164614?story_id=14164614&source=hptextfeature) Not sure if that's the case in NYC though.

Fuck NY anyway.



Don't you think that if blizzard wanted to not allow sex offenders on wow that should have been part of the EULA when you bought it? You'll get refunded for any months of subscriptions you've already paid for but haven't got to play yet. This is the case when you get banned as well iirc. They pretty clearly state that anything in those games (characters etc) are property of the game company.

[tmg19103]

I agree to the extent that I don't think there should be "limited citizenships". You are either safe to be free in society or you aren't. If you, after due process, are determined to be too dangerous to live in a free society, you can't. If you are not so determined, then you can. None of this halfway free with permanent government strings stuff.

Agreed. If you are a violent/dangerous sex offender (or other violent criminal) you should be behind bars.

One poster suggested suggest prison is a country club and it is not. State prisons are certainly not a country club. They are extremely dehumanizing, the guards are out to get you and and other prisoners (often in gangs) are out to get you.

That being said, it should not be a walk in the park for a violent crime.

However, prison generally does very little to rehabilitate - rather it just punishes. That is wrong in my view.

Further, if you have done your time and completed probation after incarceration, you should be a free member of society. That simple in my view.

I think sex offenders have committed abhorrent crimes, but to give them no place to live because they are too close to this or that, to have their names plastered all over the internet, to not even let them play online games after doing their time tells them they are below second class citizens when they paid their debt and if they learned their lesson, they will still be punished for the rest of the lives with the ability to contribute to society ruined with all these coercive post-incarceration rules and I think they are more likely to re-offend then if they were given a real chance to start over.

[VBRonPaulFan]

You can become a sex offender for public urination. (http://www.economist.com/node/14164614?story_id=14164614&source=hptextfeature) Not sure if that's the case in NYC though.

Fuck NY anyway.

hahahaha, that sort of happened to my friend in high schools dad. he had drank a few beers and was buzzed and was walking somewhere. he had to take a leak so he stopped on the side of the road and started to go when a cop pulled up. the cop said it was against the law to piss in public. he laughed in the cops face and pissed at him and got thrown in jail for a day lmao.

[Butchie]

Agreed. If you are a violent/dangerous sex offender (or other violent criminal) you should be behind bars.

One poster suggested suggest prison is a country club and it is not. State prisons are certainly not a country club. They are extremely dehumanizing, the guards are out to get you and and other prisoners (often in gangs) are out to get you.

That being said, it should not be a walk in the park for a violent crime.

However, prison generally does very little to rehabilitate - rather it just punishes. That is wrong in my view.

Further, if you have done your time and completed probation after incarceration, you should be a free member of society. That simple in my view.

I think sex offenders have committed abhorrent crimes, but to give them no place to live because they are too close to this or that, to have their names plastered all over the internet, to not even let them play online games after doing their time tells them they are below second class citizens when they paid their debt and if they learned their lesson, they will still be punished for the rest of the lives with the ability to contribute to society ruined with all these coercive post-incarceration rules and I think they are more likely to re-offend then if they were given a real chance to start over.

The problem with this is most every bit of research agrees sex offenders do not get rehabilitated. It is like any other sexual urge, it does not go away just because you sit in jail or go through some therapy. Perhaps, maybe, they can learn to not act on it out of fear of the consequences, but honestly, would you take that chance with your children, wife, etc and let this person move in next door to you?