Cyber Rat Posted April 6, 2012 Report Share Posted April 6, 2012 http://www.gamespot.com/news/sex-offenders-banned-from-online-games-6370214 Thoughts? I'm not really familiar with US law, so wouldn't know if this is excessive in that context... But I'm not really sure I agree with this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P4: Gritty Reboot Posted April 6, 2012 Report Share Posted April 6, 2012 It's an odd one. It doesn't sound like it was a law, more of the government just asking those companies to ban certain users. Of course the companies are welcome to ban whomever they wish, but in my opinion the chummy cooperation of state and corporations is a bit unnerving. That article also doesn't specify whether it was all sex offenders or just certain types of more serious sexual offenses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Posted April 6, 2012 Report Share Posted April 6, 2012 Whyyyyyy...? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyber Rat Posted April 6, 2012 Author Report Share Posted April 6, 2012 Whyyyyyy...? Because parents are too lazy to keep track of what their children are doing, so the state/corporations will step in? I don't see why you should restrict or punish any criminal beyond what they are sentenced to if they served their time. But again, I know the US has some strict laws over sex offenders, so maybe this isn't that odd there. It certainly strikes me as a bit too much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister Jack Posted April 6, 2012 Report Share Posted April 6, 2012 I'm sure they had good intentions, but the sex offender registry paints with some pretty broad strokes. Public urination is enough to get you on there depending on where you live, and I'm not sure being permanently banned from online games because of that is either helpful, necessary, or fair. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted April 6, 2012 Report Share Posted April 6, 2012 Yeah, a lot of the crimes that make people register as sex offenders for the rest of their lives are downright retarded and I'd argue it undermines the effectiveness of the whole system to lump indecent exposure and public urination in with rape and child sexual abuse. That aside, I think the idea is to keep them from being able to use these networks to prey upon kids, same reason they're not allowed near parks and schools. Seems to make sense until you consider what a ridiculously wide range of crimes are encompassed. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister Jack Posted April 6, 2012 Report Share Posted April 6, 2012 They really should either introduce some kind of tiered system into the registry to distinguish the level of offense or drop the harmless offenders off the list entirely. Sure, peeing in public is gross, but I wouldn't lump someone who does that in with a child molestor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted April 6, 2012 Report Share Posted April 6, 2012 At least in Kansas if you go look at the registry it tells you specifically what they were convicted of. I don't know about other states. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. GOH! Posted April 6, 2012 Report Share Posted April 6, 2012 The New York Sex Offender registry is actually one of the better ones. Folks charged with public indecency or other non-aggressive sex crimes wouldn't be affected. Rapists and pedophiles are the obvious targets of the sweep. New York also has a somewhat liberal statutory rape law; folks who are three or four years apart in age (generally) may have consensual sex, so statutory rape isn't much of an issue here. That said, I still have mixed feeling with the action, leaning towards being okay with it. I also suspect the ban is relatively easy to get around for the concerned sex cons. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CorgiShinobi Posted April 6, 2012 Report Share Posted April 6, 2012 That aside, I think the idea is to keep them from being able to use these networks to prey upon kids, same reason they're not allowed near parks and schools. Seems to make sense until you consider what a ridiculously wide range of crimes are encompassed. This is how I see it. It's not like there haven't been instances where a much older male has met up with a younger person through Xbox Live. I'm sure I didn't imagine those articles on Kotaku and Joystiq years ago, right? Even in the linked article it talks about a 19 year-old having met his 10 year-old victim through this method. So yeah, I don't see this as another form of punishment, but closing off another channel in which some pervert wants to bypass his physical limitations. Obviously there are flaws, given varying sex offenders lists, but I'm not going to outright dismiss the idea. It will need to be refined, and even if someone is being a good parent, it's almost impossible to keep track of every communication medium at a kid's disposal today. You can keep tabs, and hopefully you're fine with your kid screaming at you for being a "tyrant" and being "overprotective" when it comes to sexual predators. At least this makes more sense than when people flipped out over PictoChat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted April 6, 2012 Report Share Posted April 6, 2012 The problem with trying to refine the system is that any attempt to remove any crimes from the registries or soften any of the penalties is met with cries of "he's trying to protect pedophiles!" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yantelope V2 Posted April 6, 2012 Report Share Posted April 6, 2012 It fall under what Ethan said earlier I think about not being able to live near schools and parks and that sort of thing. I think some of those rules are based on the fact that sex crime offender's changes of reoffending are very high so they have extra restrictions on their freedom. Personally I'm okay with this restriction for most purposes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted April 6, 2012 Report Share Posted April 6, 2012 (edited) Yeah, I'm not opposed to the idea of it either, my only problem with it is how wide a net they cast. *Edit* - In terms of the offenses included, that is. Edited April 6, 2012 by TheMightyEthan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.