MS, Apple, Blizzard, EA, WB and Disney ban all NY sex offenders
- Thread starter Eri
- Start date
Recommended Videos
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?RJ 17 said:
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?
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 said:
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.
I'm curious to know what those companies are getting out of this. I've never seen corporations turn away customers on mortal grounds.
There are many reasons:Zhukov said:
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.
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.RJ 17 said:
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?Spot1990 said:
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).
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.Zhukov said:
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.
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.
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.
Because sex offenders are the one type of criminal that it is universally accepted to actively hate on.Zhukov said: