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.

 

[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?

 

[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?

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.