Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

New York Culls Sex Offenders From the Online Gaming Ranks

timothy posted about 2 years ago | from the cradle-to-grave dept.

Crime 511

SternisheFan writes with a story at PC Mag that New York Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman has announced that more than 2000 registered sex offenders have been kicked off various online gaming platforms, in an cooperative effort involving both the state and various gaming companies. From that article: "Earlier this year, the accounts of 3,500 additional offenders were removed from platforms operated by Microsoft, Apple, Blizzard Entertainment, Electronic Arts, Disney Interactive Media Group, and Warner Brothers. New York State's Electronic Securing and Targeting of Online Predators Act (e-STOP) law requires convicted sex offenders to register all of their email addresses, screen names, and other Internet identifiers with the state. Schneiderman's office then makes that information available to certain websites so they can make sure that their communities were not being used by predators. Operation: Game Over, however, is the first time e-STOP has been applied to online gaming platforms, he said. Since many online gaming platforms let users send messages to other players anonymously, it's unsafe to have convicted offenders using these services, Schneiderman said."

cancel ×

511 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

This will obviously help. (4, Insightful)

hazah (807503) | about 2 years ago | (#42349993)

Everyone. Clearly.

Re:This will obviously help. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42350157)

human rights violations?

Re:This will obviously help. (2)

Reverand Dave (1959652) | about 2 years ago | (#42350317)

I'm curious to see your reasoning for that. I'm kind of swiss on this whole issue, but I want to know exactly how kicking someone off of an online game is a violation of their fundamental rights as a human being.

Re:This will obviously help. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42350413)

It could be argued that it's restricting their freedom of assembly.

Re:This will obviously help. (5, Insightful)

jedidiah (1196) | about 2 years ago | (#42350449)

You are preventing them from engaging in commerce and public life.

It's basically Amish shunning or Hawthorne's Scarlet letter but without the obvious initial "buy in" of joining an extremist religious cult first.

The sacred cow will ensure the precedent is set in general so that it can be applied to YOU next time.

Re:This will obviously help. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42350547)

"But it's okay because they're just nerds!"

Re:This will obviously help. (1)

Joce640k (829181) | about 2 years ago | (#42350341)

Yep. It'll really help them manage their anger issues.

Why not just block messaging? (4, Insightful)

sunderland56 (621843) | about 2 years ago | (#42350003)

If the aim is to stop registered sex offenders from messaging, why block them from gaming completely? Just block their ability to message.

Re:Why not just block messaging? (5, Insightful)

Trepidity (597) | about 2 years ago | (#42350039)

rationality doesn't really come into play with "sex offender" laws.

p.s. you can be put on a sex-offender registry because you "sexted" with your gf/bf when you were both in high school!

Re:Why not just block messaging? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42350059)

You can also be put on the registry for a urinating in public charge.

Re:Why not just block messaging? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42350511)

Where I live, I've seen people put away for multiple felonies just for peeing on a wall while drunk, namely lewd conduct and indecency in front of a child (no kids as witnesses, but the prosecution did successfully assert that a minivan full of rug rats could have gone by.)

Re:Why not just block messaging? (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42350061)

p.s. you can be put on a sex-offender registry because you "sexted" with your gf/bf when you were both in high school!

So don't do that.

Re:Why not just block messaging? (5, Insightful)

Trepidity (597) | about 2 years ago | (#42350171)

Or maybe you Christian-right nannies should fuck right off.

Re:Why not just block messaging? (5, Funny)

PhxBlue (562201) | about 2 years ago | (#42350303)

Or maybe you Christian-right nannies should fuck right off.

They're going to need an instruction manual to do that. Just sayin'.

Re:Why not just block messaging? (1, Interesting)

Sir_Sri (199544) | about 2 years ago | (#42350325)

separate problems.

The law is overzealous. But don't tempt fate just because the law is stupid. You personally should make decisions in your own best interest. Vote against such overzealous laws if given the opportunity, but don't violate them while they're on the books.

Re:Why not just block messaging? (2)

Reverand Dave (1959652) | about 2 years ago | (#42350361)

Lets not try to bring rationality into this argument sir, we're talking about the safety of our children!

Re:Why not just block messaging? (1)

PatentMagus (1083289) | about 2 years ago | (#42350565)

Should the non-denominational left wing nannies fuck left off?

Re:Why not just block messaging? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42350293)

And we were all so rational in High School

Re:Why not just block messaging? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42350069)

Exactly. This law isn't about keeping kids safe, it's about piling increasing the punishment ex post facto. See, it's an administrative response, not a punishment as far as the courts are concerned.

Re:Why not just block messaging? (2)

firex726 (1188453) | about 2 years ago | (#42350183)

Or had a piss behind a dumpster after drinking one night.

It's stupidly easy to get on the list, realistically it's so watered down that it does not really mean anything useful. I looked up the ones near me once and something like half were for BS reasons.

Re:Why not just block messaging? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42350313)

so don't piss in the street like an animal?

Re:Why not just block messaging? (5, Insightful)

firex726 (1188453) | about 2 years ago | (#42350357)

More like, what good is a list to protect kids if it's populated by people who are of no threat, and never have been?

Re:Why not just block messaging? (1)

Joce640k (829181) | about 2 years ago | (#42350359)

Yeah, much better to piss your pants.

Re:Why not just block messaging? (5, Insightful)

Joce640k (829181) | about 2 years ago | (#42350401)

you can be put on a sex-offender registry because you "sexted" with your gf/bf when you were both in high school!

Meanwhile the TSA can scan/grope children to their hearts content because the same government that passed this law passed some other ones too.

The TSA is a dream job for a pedophile [google.com] .

Re:Why not just block messaging? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42350473)

In New York (which is what the article is about), sexting between 2 minors with less than 4 years age difference does not get you classified as a sex offender. So bullshit. In fact, even statutory rape laws only apply when on party is over 18 and the other under 15.

Re:Why not just block messaging? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42350071)

You clearly are a pedophile sympathizer, if not a pedo yourself!

In all seriousness, though, we won't get rational sex crime laws until a significant cultural attitude shift occurs. Especially when children are involved. These are just some of the problems involved with living in a sexualized but sex negative society like the US.

Re:Why not just block messaging? (3, Insightful)

admdrew (782761) | about 2 years ago | (#42350119)

I suspect because no one wants to spend resources developing that sort of functionality. It is probably also seen as far "safer" and easier for companies to simply ban those offenders, than it would be to track and restrict them.

Re:Why not just block messaging? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42350125)

It's called consequences. Don't touch little kids and you can keep your little video games. I say make their lives as miserable as possible. They did that to someone else. Ohh and try to cry about how I am taking a eye for an eye. Right. Can't play Call of Duty == PTSD from rape. Good luck justifying that.

Re:Why not just block messaging? (4, Insightful)

SJHillman (1966756) | about 2 years ago | (#42350237)

What about the sex offenders whose crimes had *nothing to do* with children? What if they took a piss behind a bush and a 70 year old lady happened to see them and reported it? It's not a "touched little kids" list, it's a "any act that uses any part of the part of the body conceivably used for sex" list.

What you're doing is the same as lumping everyone who has ever had a speeding ticket or parking violation in with DWI offenders and then saying that *none of them* are allowed to go to bars just because a small subset of the group has done something bad related to alcohol.

Re:Why not just block messaging? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42350249)

Unfortunately these lists don't consist of people strictly convicted of heinous crimes. Instead the majority of the people on these lists are those who have been convicted of much lesser crimes and rather than fight pled out. What exactly will this accomplish? I know what will happen and so do you if you thought it through - these people will simply not register their accounts to allow them to be culled. Duh...

Re:Why not just block messaging? (2)

jedidiah (1196) | about 2 years ago | (#42350469)

> It's called consequences.

That's what prison is for.

Their "debt to society" is already paid.

Re:Why not just block messaging? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42350657)

Ha! You're a sex offender!!!

Wooo Justice! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42350011)

Serious Idiocracy moment here.

Too Much (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42350015)

Please put them back in jail or leave them alone.

Re:Too Much (4, Insightful)

firex726 (1188453) | about 2 years ago | (#42350197)

I do have to wonder if this will every be challenged as "Cruel and unusual".

They paid their time, if they were to be punished more throw them back behind bars, otherwise stop actively harassing them. Realistically they probably would have gotten off easier had they just committed a good ol' fashioned murder.

Re:Too Much (1)

Derekloffin (741455) | about 2 years ago | (#42350621)

That is the thought I had. If there truly is a number of these edge cases getting onto the list, you'd think at least one of them would challenge the list and its usage.

Re:Too Much (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42350259)

Jail is expensive. Execute them. Or leave them alone.

It's either a serious problem and we should kick them out of life permenantly. Or it's not and we need to stfu.

YAY I'm so glad!! (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42350025)

I'm a girl and I used to play World of Warcraft when I was a teenager and I would get hit on by old perverts saying some pretty gross stuff! Now I play PWI sometimes and it's not as bad. But, this is really going to help protect children :)
It doesn't protect them against the offenders who haven't been caught yet though :(

Re:YAY I'm so glad!! (5, Insightful)

medcalf (68293) | about 2 years ago | (#42350103)

I can understand the comfort thing, but at some point we have to decide either that people are so dangerous that they must be removed from the population, or that we have punished them enough and need to let them alone. The alternative is that the state gets to persecute and hound people forever, once convicted, continually piling on new punishments without court action, merely to assuage people's desire to "do something." And any time there are crimes that are so stigmatized (terrorism and "sex crimes" being the current boogymen) that anything can be done to punish the offenders, the natural tendency is to expand the original, horrible crimes beyond all recognition. It's the same thing as calling a handgun a "weapon of mass destruction," which originally meant chemical, nuclear and biological weapons that, when used as intended, could kill thousands at a single use. I simply think it's a bad idea to turn over to government the ability to persecute people indefinitely and infinitely, because that power will always be abused, and eventually I (or you) will be the victims of that abuse.

Re:YAY I'm so glad!! (3, Informative)

Omega Xi (888812) | about 2 years ago | (#42350231)

I logged in pretty much to say this but you beat me to it. Also not every pervert you bump into in WOW is a sex offender, desperate and lonely or perhaps just immature. Sadly there are all kinds of guys who think it's okay to treat girls like this online. These bans won't have any effect on that kind of behavior whatsoever though.

Re:YAY I'm so glad!! (1)

Omega Xi (888812) | about 2 years ago | (#42350287)

*some are desperate and lonely or perhaps just immature.

Re:YAY I'm so glad!! (1)

SternisheFan (2529412) | about 2 years ago | (#42350369)

If you read tfa, a 12 year old boy was 'groomed' for a period of months by a sex offender using a Playstation. After gaining the youth's trust the sexual assaults began. Sex offenders do not belong around kids at all, it's too big a damn risk to take.

Re:YAY I'm so glad!! (2)

X0563511 (793323) | about 2 years ago | (#42350495)

That's fine, if you classify sex offenders as the very kind of person you describe.

People who were romantically involved around that magical 18 year old bullshit, or had to answer the call of nature without proper facilities being available, should NOT be lumped in with actual predators.

Re:YAY I'm so glad!! (5, Insightful)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about 2 years ago | (#42350529)

If you read tfa, a 12 year old boy was 'groomed' for a period of months by a sex offender using a Playstation. After gaining the youth's trust the sexual assaults began. Sex offenders do not belong around kids at all, it's too big a damn risk to take.

Then you'll just have to keep them locked up forever, unless you're willing to better define "around kids," because the damn things are everywhere (kids, not sex offenders).

The standard cliche (in the UK, at least) is that paedophiles groom children with the promise of puppies - better ban sex offenders from keeping pets!

A few months ago two men seriously sexually assaulted a child in a shopping centre - better ban sex offenders from shopping!

Forfty percent of all sex offenders have jobs and eat bread - well, you see where I'm going with this.

PS You've conflated sex offenders with paedophiles. Not all of one are the other.

Re:YAY I'm so glad!! (1)

Omega Xi (888812) | about 2 years ago | (#42350573)

I did read TFA, however your straw man has little impact on the points myself and medcalf made.

Re:YAY I'm so glad!! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42350351)

I'm the one that posted that. Wow!! That was well said!! You're so right about that!!
Okay then like, maybe they have to look at what the person actually did ? Like, don't just say "OHHH He*s on the sex offender registry so we can't let him play games with other people on the Internet". Instead, maybe people who actually did something pretty bad. Like I read a comment further up and someone said you can be on the registry just for sexting someone else when they're both in high school. Okay so someone like that shouldn't be banned but someone who raped or molested someone or tried to lure a young person should definitely be banned from physical or Internet places where people gather, especially children!
Does that make more sense ? :)

Carrie

Re:YAY I'm so glad!! (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42350127)

you sound hot.

Re:YAY I'm so glad!! (1)

Nemesisghost (1720424) | about 2 years ago | (#42350311)

Will it though? You said yourself it won't protect against perverts who haven't been caught or actually done anything legally wrong. And what about those who's offense wasn't online related? I don't see how this will make one bit of difference.

If you want pervs off whatever video game you are playing, good luck. It'll happen about the same time that 4chan disappears.

Re:YAY I'm so glad!! (1)

geekoid (135745) | about 2 years ago | (#42350485)

People who prey upon children are planners and connivers. Sex Offenders will use any means at their disposal. So they should be shunned.

Unfortunately, the list goes far beyond what rational people would consider a threat.

Re:YAY I'm so glad!! (2)

bmo (77928) | about 2 years ago | (#42350349)

>But, this is really going to help protect children :)

This is the most moronic thing I've read in a long time, especially since the vast majority of *real life* sex abusers are family members. It's stuff like this that trivializes and distracts from the real issues.

--
BMO

Re:YAY I'm so glad!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42350425)

Tits or GTFO!

Re:YAY I'm so glad!! (1)

Sir_Sri (199544) | about 2 years ago | (#42350609)

when I was a teenager and I would get hit on by old perverts saying some pretty gross stuff!

And some per-pubescent perverts too likely. The thing is, a convicted child rapist isn't any more obviously a threat than anyone else in goldshire. You have literally no idea who you're talking to in WoW, and you should know enough to not disclose anything without a LOT of forethought. I know several people who have met spouses in WoW, so that's certainly possible too, but you can't tell a 'soon to be' sex offender from an actual sex offender.

The problem with say, trying to block anyone who's a pervert from online games is you'd end up blocking a lot of people who are consenting adults role playing as elves. Which... might actually be a good thing come to think of it. Ok, probably not. But you get the idea.

Re:YAY I'm so glad!! (1)

morgauxo (974071) | about 2 years ago | (#42350623)

First, how do you know they were old and not teenagers themselves? Second, how many are likely all talk and thus will never be on the list?

Labels (5, Funny)

IonOtter (629215) | about 2 years ago | (#42350065)

I would be much less worried about this, if it weren't for the fact that the label of "sex offender" is used for everything where genitalia are involved.

Did the cops follow you 20 yards into the thick forest along the interstate to catch you peeing? Sex offender.

Did your top get ripped off and carried away in the surf at Jones Beach? Sex offender.

Did you scratch yourself when a cop was looking? Sex offender.

Re:Labels (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42350077)

No doubt you have some verifiable instances of each of these cases actually happening in the real world you can share with us... right?

Re:Labels (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42350209)

You're under the mistaken assumption that he's making an argument AC.
He's just telling you things that are important. Like any warning, ignore them at your own peril.

Besides, if 30 seconds of goggling could satisfy your requirements it's not on the poster's burden to do so. Stop being a lazy shit and a troll.

Re:Labels (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42350225)

Google.

Re:Labels (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42350261)

I can confirm the first at the very least, having had a cousin fined for it.

Re:Labels (2)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | about 2 years ago | (#42350403)

I can confirm the first at the very least, having had a cousin fined for it.

"Fined" is not equivalent to "labeled as a sex offender". Did your cousin get added to a sex offender registry because of this? I'm guessing not... he was cited for public urination, that's all.

Re:Labels (2)

SternisheFan (2529412) | about 2 years ago | (#42350411)

Read the article for your answer!

Re:Labels (1)

jedidiah (1196) | about 2 years ago | (#42350535)

Search your own local perverts and see what they are supposed to have done.

Re:Labels (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42350141)

Mod parent up!

He's a Sex offender.

Re:Labels (0)

asmkm22 (1902712) | about 2 years ago | (#42350267)

Hyperbole much? None of those would likely ever result in sex offense charges. Not unless there were some really weird details you left out, like peeing in a forest *in front of a bunch of girl scouts* or something.

Re:Labels (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42350541)

No, those are all behaviors that can fall under "Public Indecency" laws and can certainly lead to being put on a sex offender registry (though at a low classification) if you are convicted and sentenced to any jail time.

Re:Labels (1)

Reverand Dave (1959652) | about 2 years ago | (#42350615)

That is exactly where you are incorrect. Here are some references for you
Article 1 [findacrimi...torney.com]
Article 2 [mytexasdefenselawyer.com] Check the section about sexting
Article 3 [techliberation.com] Here is a good article about how most people on sex offender lists are not dangerous pedo rapists.

Literally took me 5 minutes on google to find these.

Re:Labels (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42350629)

The weird details are more likely to be that the defendant did not have 25K upfront to higher a lawyer. Sorry, thems the breaks in this USofA

Re:Labels (2)

Nemesisghost (1720424) | about 2 years ago | (#42350335)

I would be much less worried about this, if it weren't for the fact that the label of "sex offender" is used for everything where genitalia are involved.

Did the cops follow you 20 yards into the thick forest along the interstate to catch you peeing? Sex offender.

Did your top get ripped off and carried away in the surf at Jones Beach? Sex offender.

Did you scratch yourself when a cop was looking? Sex offender.

Even worse is that all of those offenses have nothing to do with online behavior. The punishment doesn't fit the actual crime.

Re:Labels (1)

geekoid (135745) | about 2 years ago | (#42350559)

no, that isn't worse then some one peeing in public being on the same list as people who rape children.

People who rape children are planners. The methodically use any tool they have to groom, befriend, and get at children.

Many crimes are one offs, and will stop once caught. Rapist, and people who perpetrate sexual violence should not be allow to communicate with children.

If someone came to me and said we need to let 5 murdered or 5 rapist out, which should it be? I would say the murders should be released. Becasue most murders on one time events, very few are serial. Almost all rapists plan their attacks well in advance.

Funny but true. (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42350443)

Public urination considered sex offense in Georgia, not enforced by police [wordpress.com]

And don't get me started about 18 year olds having sex with their 17 year old boyfriends/girlfriends and then being charged. Or a 15 year old boy being charged for having sex with his 15 year old girlfriend.

If my teenage son did it with a 20 something or older, I'd first ask if he used a rubber and then I'd say, "Son, you did good! Are you in love with her?"

The last question is just in case his heart is about to be broken and I'll be there to work it through with him if he so desires.

As far as you folks with teenage daughters and expect them to be chaste, well, Ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha - *snort* - ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

Your "little girl" is probably sticking her tits in some boys face and driving the poor kid nuts! *been there*.

Sex Offenders (5, Insightful)

Translation Error (1176675) | about 2 years ago | (#42350085)

This is a good step, along with other such measures that do their best to prevent people convicted of sex crimes from having a chance of living a happy, productive life once they've served their time. We must continually tighten the screws on them and make sure they can't have lives that are worth too much to throw away in a moment of stress, rage, and frustration.

Because a dog that's constantly beaten and scolded is the one that behaves best, right?

Re:Sex Offenders (1)

war4peace (1628283) | about 2 years ago | (#42350161)

This is not funny. It's insightful.

Re:Sex Offenders (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42350285)

... and society wonders why people go on rampages...

Re:Sex Offenders (2)

asmkm22 (1902712) | about 2 years ago | (#42350461)

Part of the issue is that, unlike bank robbers or most other criminals, sex offenders (not talking the unlucky people who are just technically charged) tend to have actual psychological issues at the heart of their problems. Maybe a dad or priest molested them as a kid or something. Point is, the concept of rehabilitation for an actual sex offender isn't cut and dry. A lot of sex offenders that have "successfully" lived a post-offense life say the same things about rehabilitation. Namely, that the urges never go away, but the self control improves enough to mitigate them.

The problems are psychological in almost all cases, and treatment is more in line with that of a drug addict than a criminal. Look at AA folks, for example. Part of their whole motto is that there are no former alcoholics; only those that can manage the addiction. Sex offense is much the same.

Anyway, as I said before, I'm not talking about the guys (or girls) who get hit with a technicality or other really dubious circumstances. Stuff like date rape accusations kind of bother me due to the sheer number of false chargers as a result of the girl simply deciding after the fact that it was not a good idea, or that claiming rape would be easier to explain to her parents than the truth. Stuff like that freaks me out, but it's not the heart of my argument.

Re:Sex Offenders (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42350649)

The same can be said for nearly any type of offender, if recidivism is any indication: http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=17.

* Released prisoners with the highest rearrest rates were robbers (70.2%), burglars (74.0%), larcenists (74.6%), motor vehicle thieves (78.8%), those in prison for possessing or selling stolen property (77.4%), and those in prison for possessing, using, or selling illegal weapons (70.2%).

* Within 3 years, 2.5% of released rapists were arrested for another rape, and 1.2% of those who had served time for homicide were arrested for homicide.

Re:Sex Offenders (1)

geekoid (135745) | about 2 years ago | (#42350597)

Except it's almost never a moment. Its almost always a planned event.

A dog that is shunned bites no one.

Are we done with thinking humans behave like dogs now?

Re:Sex Offenders (1)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | about 2 years ago | (#42350651)

happy, productive life once they've served their time

Well, maybe a "happy, productive life" for a sex offender . . . is spent doing more sex offending . . . ?

The question is, are they really cured? Or will they just go out and pick up where they left off? I don't think any mental health experts can really give a definite answer on that. Even if they have "served their time", do we really want to let potentially dangerous folks back on the street unmonitored . . . ?

But baring them from gaming certainly is not going to do anything useful, besides making some other folks think they are safe. Oh, an a politician can say that he is tough on crime, and schtinking of the children.

oh, please... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42350107)

convicted sex offender != predator.

When is the debt to society paid? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42350111)

Because, you know, serving whatever sentence the courts give out isn't good enough.

So now what will keep them off the streets? (1)

mrbene (1380531) | about 2 years ago | (#42350113)

I mean, sure, block sex offenders who have actually used the internet as a victim discovery method. But the public exhibitionist? Seriously?

Stupid (3, Interesting)

Hatta (162192) | about 2 years ago | (#42350123)

The age of the average gamer is around 35. The pedo patrol is just fucking out of its mind. What's next, kicking people who have served their time out of movie theaters, restaurants, concerts, and sporting events just because there might be some kids around?

Re:Stupid (4, Insightful)

Kergan (780543) | about 2 years ago | (#42350217)

I think it's pretty safe to bet that the US will go there eventually.

Re:Stupid (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42350273)

Just another group to add to America's permanent underclass...

Re:Stupid (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42350419)

That's current society. You can't drink until you're 21, but it's perfectly OK to join the army and kill/die in some foreign country. Watching porn until a certain age is forbidden by age ratings, but there are so many teenage mothers, it's making me wonder if people, including those upholding those laws actually realize how stupid those are.

What I don't get, is why they're picking on sex ofenders. I think, thieves are much more likely to socialize with you and clean you up, than a convicted "sex offender"(whatever that means) tries to ... whatever.

Re:Stupid (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42350571)

So the large numbers of teenage mothers are a sign that we're not permissive enough?

Re:Stupid (1)

geekoid (135745) | about 2 years ago | (#42350665)

"The age of the average gamer is around 35. "
that a pretty irrelevant statement, but it has the bonus of being wrong. The average age of a game purchaser is 35, not gamer.

There are many site the cater to younger people. Guess where people looking to groom and then rape children go to?

What people on slashdot can not seem to grok is that pedophiles and child rapist plan, and almost always repeat their behavior. This is why when ever one gets caught, there is always many children that had raped prior.

Yeah, nah. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42350167)

This is an incentive to not provide the state with your "real" email address (by which I mean, the one you actually use, as opposed to one you created specifically to give the state). I do not think removing sex offenders' accounts from online games will have any noticeable effect on crime.

Believe it or not, there are some offenders that fucked up and want to get on with their lives.

Anonymous? (1)

KermodeBear (738243) | about 2 years ago | (#42350223)

Since many online gaming platforms let users send messages to other players anonymously, it's unsafe to have convicted offenders using these services, Schneiderman said."

I don't know of a single online game that allows truly anonymous messaging. Messages are always at the very least tied to your account specifically for the tracking of abuse. Yet another case of people making laws based on false pretenses. But it's okay, because think of the children. Quite frankly, I wish humans would stop breeding. It would give politicians one less reason to come up with this ridiculous crap.

Ya, prevent them from gaming! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42350339)

If we prevent them from gaming on their computers.. they'll finally be able to go out into the real world.. and finds kids to touch or something.

I agree with a previous post.. just disable their fucking messaging access.

Why not just keep them locked up? (3, Insightful)

mark-t (151149) | about 2 years ago | (#42350371)

I mean, clearly, if a convicted sex offender is not going ever going to be allowed to reintegrate into normal society and be permitted to relate to society in a normal way after their incarceration, then what on earth is the point of releasing them back into normal society in the first place?

Re:Why not just keep them locked up? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42350563)

Yes, this is basically the problem. You lock the person up, and then when you release them, you mark them as a special group, They aren't full citizens, they are sex-citizens, with lesser rights (no online gaming, no restaurants where kids might be, etc). If you follow this logic, then we should also do the same for thieves. Don't let a thief into a retail outlet. Ban them from malls and jewelry stores. Create thief-citizens too. We have already taken steps toward creating a set of permissions for a person - you remove permissions if they ever commit crimes of a certain kind. It's permanent sentencing.

So these registered sex offenders (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42350377)

are the ones that have already served time in jail and were released because they were 'adequately rehabilitated?"

If they're still a risk they should be in jail, if they're no longer a risk then leave them the fuck alone?

Let's slip into these sexually offending moccasins (4, Interesting)

VortexCortex (1117377) | about 2 years ago | (#42350387)

So, Say you're a "Sex Offender". You're required to register all your on-line account information with some agency... Say you decide to "relapse" into your wicked ways and do some sexual offending. Wouldn't you just not register that new on-line account? That is to say, it would be just as effective to simply require that sex offenders don't do any more sex offending ever again, right?

Bonus: Simply requiring sex offenders to stop performing sexually offensive acts would avoid the fairly brain dead Denial of Service that's now possible because they're letting deviants tell them which email addresses to black-list.
"I hate that fucker, I'll just register their email under my sex-offender accounts; Screw you and your on line games! Ha ha!"

Meanwhile, those that wanted to move on and be good people are constantly reminded of their past mistakes. Thus, the frustrating on-line processes, exclusion from parts of society, and reinforcement that they can never be cured will increase the chances that those who channel anger through sexual offenses will do so again.

I know! Why don't we just make it illegal to do bad things! That'll stop all the crime! Also, if they don't do this for violence related criminals too, i.e., murderers then they're damned hypocrites. Killing humans is less heinous than Raping humans? WTF? Won't someone think of the Children!? I'd rather have a raped but still alive kid than a dead one...

WOW... (2)

Shoten (260439) | about 2 years ago | (#42350455)

...this gives me a whole new perspective on the practice of "teabagging" someone you've just shot in a multiplayer setting...

So picture this... (4, Insightful)

JustNiz (692889) | about 2 years ago | (#42350459)

You're on a road trip driving on an empty road in the middle of nowhere, and you desperately need a pee. There isnt a town or anything at all for at least 50 miles and theres no way you can hang on that far anyway.
You finally have to pull over to the side of the road and take care of business. Unfortunately a cop car goes by at the wrong moment and he spotted you, turns around and arrests you for peeing in a public place. Congratulations you are now a registered sex offender. Thats how easy it is and how fucked up the system really is.

What's next? (1)

stevegee58 (1179505) | about 2 years ago | (#42350483)

Online banking?

Sounds logical. (1)

spcebar (2786203) | about 2 years ago | (#42350619)

Because all sex offenders prey through World of Warcraft, right guys? Can we just ban games already? Seems like the only rational way to protect children.

The real problem is religion (2)

Animats (122034) | about 2 years ago | (#42350645)

The real problem is sex offenders with religious power and organized support for cover-ups. The Catholic church has had a huge problem with this for decades. Now it's coming out that the New York ultra-Orthodox Jewish community [nydailynews.com] has a similar problem. They're having big rallies for a sex abuser. [nydailynews.com] Not for the victim, for the abuser. The 12 year old abused girl "wore supposedly indecent clothing, read People magazine and questioned God's authority in a religious school class", which in that community is considered justification for sexually molesting her.

And New York State is worried about video game chat.

My question (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42350647)

Aren't all gamers sex offenders?

Or at least ASPRING sex offenders???

Or at least aspiring sex PARTICIPANTS?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?