Originally posted by BartDaCat

Originally posted by DarkPony

Originally posted by Four0Six

Originally posted by DarkPony

Originally posted by st4t1ck

*snipage*

This is kinda crazy, there are a lot of things stupid about the sex offender laws, in michigan public urination can be a Sex offense and make you register as a sex offender

what bothers me the most is what happened to "do the crime pay the time"  you are punished you get sentanced to 5 years you get out and you find that you pretty much still being punished in every way

Lol ... seriously?

"That'll be no more online gaming for you mister tree sprinkler!"

"Don't taze me bro ..."

"BZzzzzt"

It is all funny...until it is done in front of an elementary school, in front of a bunch of 8 year olds...

 

Yes, of course. The horror. Those kids will be marred for life with traumas. They'll be staring through windows and absent mindedly drawing pictures of bearded one eyed snakes for years to come. We shouldn't want that.

OMG!!!  TOO LATE!!!

(Some drawings of bearded, one-eyed "Snakes")

 

   

Oh my dear Lord!   Uncle Charlie????

/twitch /twitch

Originally posted by ProfRed

First, this will be almost impossible to enforce unless they somehow get the ip of each of them.  They can just go make a new gmail account and be on their way.

somewhat true but if you need to use your name and address for billing info -- can get complicated

http://www.mcvuk.com/news/read/new-york-state-banning-sex-offenders-from-xbox-live/094071?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+mcvuk%2Fstream+%28MCV%3A+Home+Stream%29

Some 3,500 accounts have been purged from various gaming services run by Microsoft, Apple, Blizzard, Electronic Arts, Disney, Warner Bros. and Sony.

Each company gave their full consent in the state’s action.

Xbox Live is the only service explicitly mentioned in the announcement, though it would seem PSN, Origin, Game Center, and Battle.net would make sense as well given the companies involved.

Legal age of consent varies from state to state in America. There is no federal law and it usually ranges from 16 to 18. Aside from that, teenage pregnancies are at an all time high. Which is what happens when society revolves around the Jones's and parents are more interested in trying to one up their neighbors financially or whatever, instead of raising their kids properly.

Leave it to the crowd at MMORPG.com to defend sex offenders. 

You all know EXACTLY who they are targeting by doing these bans, it seems like you all want to debate this just for the sake of debating...

Bleh...

Although the one-eyed snake drawings were pretty funny.

Originally posted by brody71

Originally posted by DarkPony

Originally posted by brody71

Originally posted by DarkPony

Hmm, good or bad depends on your definition of "sex offender".

Looking how anal (no pun intended) sex offenses can be in the US I don't think this is such a great idea. Not sure about this but I once read an article about a 21ish year old guy having a normal relationship with a 17 year old girl and that making him a sex offender as well. I think that is slightly draconic, but whatever ...

They should only restrict this to the actual "predators", who have been convicted for stalking and trying to groom minors (or worse).

um, yeah a 21 year old with a 17yr old is considered rape.   and the 21yr old would be considered, and is a predator.   the 17yr is a minor.

Exactly, stuff like that. The girl probably is his senior in mental age anyway but the guy can never play online games again because of them having a relationship ... That's kind of crazy in my eyes. Where's the law separating people like that from the actual predators who are actually convicted for online grooming of minors?

 

considering the article states "3500" offenders. i think there are some limits in place.  i think New York City has more sex offenders than 3500. and that quote is for the whole state.

That statement is made as though all sex offenders are gamers...

Originally posted by Slampig

Leave it to the crowd at MMORPG.com to defend sex offenders. 

You all know EXACTLY who they are targeting by doing these bans, it seems like you all want to debate this just for the sake of debating...

no one is defending pedophiles

much of the debate is how EASY it is to be a sex offender in some states

http://www.economist.com/node/14164614?story_id=14164614&source=hptextfeature

- consenting oral sex between spouses was a sex offender offense in Georgia until 10 years ago

the sodomy law got overturned but people already convicted for it were not removed from the Sex offender registry

USA laws can get pretty stupid like law that got passed this week

Strip Searches now legal for any arrest -- be it driving, walking the dog w no leash, etc

http://news.yahoo.com/strip-searches-supreme-courts-disturbing-decision-101205560.html

While I do support not allowing sex offenders access to online gaming, this is another case in 100's of America trying to control the net.

I think the law is completely ridiculous. There isn't enough connection with the criminal act - eg. raping your date after she refuses you sex - and the consequence - being banned from online games.  If anything this new law will increase the acts of physical violence when criminals aren't allowed to spend their free time online and look for other ways to amuse themselves.

Originally posted by Slampig

Leave it to the crowd at MMORPG.com to defend sex offenders. 

 

You all know EXACTLY who they are targeting by doing these bans, it seems like you all want to debate this just for the sake of debating...

 

Bleh...

Although the one-eyed snake drawings were pretty funny.

This is just plain ignorant to believe that anyone is defending sex offenders. What we, or atleast me, would be defending is the right to keep Internet "Free". So things like this and related, like SOPA, is trying to limit access to Internet either directly or indirectly.

So it starts with sex offenders now, then it will move to any kind of offender (petty crime, you name it) and then to political views and ideas and so on. In any case this is fundamentally wrong in the sense that accessing information on internet, which is otherwise publicably accessable, should not be restricted. If some are concerned that it is being used for illegal actions then it is those illegal actions that needs to be curtailed and not accessing of information.

This whole pre-emptive legal action is just nonsense because it goes completely against presumption of innocence. Yes, even offenders with prior convictions need to have this right.

Originally posted by DarkPony

Looking how anal (no pun intended) sex offenses can be in the US I don't think this is such a great idea. Not sure about this but I once read an article about a 21ish year old guy having a normal relationship with a 17 year old girl and that making him a sex offender as well. I think that is slightly draconic, but whatever ...

This made me lol big time. My dad is 5 years older than my mom and when they met she was 16.

According to this my dad would be listed as pedophile.

Needless to say it was my brattish and bossy mom who did the first move...

Originally posted by brody71

Originally posted by fenistil

Originally posted by Vesavius

Originally posted by brody71

Originally posted by Vesavius

Originally posted by brody71

Originally posted by DarkPony

Hmm, good or bad depends on your definition of "sex offender".

Looking how anal (no pun intended) sex offenses can be in the US I don't think this is such a great idea. Not sure about this but I once read an article about a 21ish year old guy having a normal relationship with a 17 year old girl and that making him a sex offender as well. I think that is slightly draconic, but whatever ...

They should only restrict this to the actual "predators", who have been convicted for stalking and trying to groom minors (or worse).

um, yeah a 21 year old with a 17yr old is considered rape.   and the 21yr old would be considered, and is a predator.   the 17yr is a minor.

 

this is true in the US? Or does it depend on state?

wow, didnt know that. In the UK this would be perfectally legal.

yes 18 is legal adult age. 

 

Same as here, though the age of sexual consent is 16.

+ 1

 

Age of sexual consent is diffrent from legal adult age in many countries. Heck even in some (just in some though) states in USA is lower than legal adult age.

In some countries it is even taken far.  For example age of sexual consent depends on what age second peerson you have sex is.

Cause it is uterrly (imho) stupid for in example 18 year old go to prison & punished for having sex with other person which is for example 16-17 year old.

 

In some countries it is done like for example:

- legal age - 18

- general age of sexual consent - 16 (but under more law protection till 18 , ie law is sticter towards predator if some problem arise)

BUT 

- age of sexual consent can be f.e 15 if second person is 17-18 ,etc 

 

Law obviosuly have to give boundaries but at same time it have to be sane. Cause punishing very severely one person of sleeping with "minor" when diffrence between them is like 1-3 years is dumb in first place. 

 

End of rant.

 

 

you may think it's dumb but as a parent i would not want my 15yr old daughter having relations with an 18yr old.  and i would press charges and send his child molesting ass to jail.

I live in the EU but i think kids are kids.... 

I have a pretty decent nightlife... the most girls i see getting shared at parties or end up getting 2 boys/men at night are the ones who had very strict parents. My theory is they bottle up everything and when they get legal it`s like opening a well shaken champagne bottle... 

Some stop after a while some don`t and some are happy that way and i`m not a parent so maybe my advice isn`t worth anything, but i`ll still give it: give your kids some freedom when they grow up or they will get it all at once and they might not know how to handle it.

As for the sex predators... if it means an 18y old boy with a 17y old girl, i think it`s ok... even if one is of "legal" age and one is not. (after all it`s not uncommon to see couples where the age difference is much bigger like Madonna, Jennifer Lopez and well, millions of people)  A line should exist, but if two 16y olds want to have sex, why stop them... 

You allow(in the US i mean) 16y olds to drive, potentially killing many people when they speed... but you don`t allow them to have sex with their 18y old bf/gf? 

Also google found this: 

Additionally, Vermont is one of few states in the nation that allow citizens younger than the age of 21 to carry. In Vermont, anyone age 16 or older can carry handguns openly or concealed. For youths under the age of 16, parental consent is needed before a handgun can be carried.

Vermont is one of only three states in America that allows anyone to carry concealed weapons without a permit. The other two states are Alaska and Arizona.

So... they can drive, carry a gun, but no sex.... clearly sex can kill more people compared to the first two. ^.^ 

That said, if by predators they mean child molestors, i say put them on an island or lock them for life so they are never near a child again. And clearly keep them away from video games, a lot of children play them...

There was a story about a guy that was charged and registered as a sex offender because someone else pants'ed him in public. People hear "sex offender" and automatically assume there are children involved, but that's not always the case. Like many laws in the US, the terminology is ambiguous and allows too much room for error on the part of prosecutors, whether truly in error or simply a matter of people wanting to win a case.

I have no problem with NY doing this if it takes the actual "crime" into account, but considering the amount of sex offenders, that seems very unlikely. It will more than likely be a blanket law that affects everyone, including people who were questionably charged as sex offenders and any family they have living with them.

Also @ above, the age of consent varies throughout the US. In most states, it's 16, 14 if the sexual partner is less than 5 years of age, but in several states it is 17/18. I ~vaguely~ remember reading that if you are within 2-3 years of the age of your partner that it's not something typically prosecuted unless the parent pushes, but don't quote me on it. Bottom line, keep your hand out of the cradle. And don't get pants'ed.

Originally posted by Starpower

Considering what it takes to be a registered sex offender this is pretty stupid. If you were caught by a cop, getting a bj from your girlfriend behind some bushes in a park a late evening then you can become a registered sex offender. That's just one out of many ways one can get on that list. Not every sex offender is a child predator

I heard back when people were streeking, that is considered a sex offense.  They should put child sex offenders in a special category for this. Better, put them in jail and never let them out.  If they have to register everytime they move then they shouldn't be in public.

Originally posted by DarkPony

Originally posted by Nadia

related article from 2009

Sex laws
Unjust and ineffective
America has pioneered the harsh punishment of sex offenders. Does it work?

http://www.economist.com/node/14164614?story_id=14164614&source=hptextfeature

A report by Sarah Tofte of Human Rights Watch, a pressure group, found that at least five states required men to register if they were caught visiting prostitutes. At least 13 required it for urinating in public (in two of which, only if a child was present). No fewer than 29 states required registration for teenagers who had consensual sex with another teenager. And 32 states registered flashers and streakers.

Ugh ... exactly what I meant. The gaming industry rolling along with that kind of populist, draconic (and frankly INSANE) lawmaking makes me want to file a complaint at Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and the UN too.

It's good to live in the good old EU when I read things like that.

 

I must say EU does have many things right. I wish the US was more open to things the EU take for granted. Like sex, nudity, casual drug use, ect.

And no I am not advocating drug use or child molestation. But some guy who smokes a doobie and drops $50 on a hooker should not be in prison and labeled a sex offender.

I was born and raised in the US and even I can see just how crazy those examples Pony listed above are.

And to address the above post claiming this community is defending child sex criminals. Really? you cant tell the difference in child predators and some 18 y/o having sex with his 17y/o gf? or the guy who made a bad call and pissed somewhere in public? Or the college guy who streaked through the commons area on a dare?

Just because some political asshats think laws are a good idea does not make them right. Prosecute the real sex criminals. Leave the drunk pissers and college streakers out of it.

And cutting off someones WoW account wont make a difference. Someone who has intentions of harming someone or molesting a child will just visit the local playground, or hop on Facebook, or Twitter, or walk around the block.

The nuns are taking over. But these company's that have joined up aren't state maintained. It's the consumer who decides who should be in business, not any government. If you don't like it then vote with your wallets to make your opinion known.

lol sex offenders.. in the Us if you look to some girls breasts you can be accused of beeing a sex offender.

Stupid people hehe.

Originally posted by EduardoASG

lol sex offenders.. in the Us if you look to some girls breasts you can be accused of beeing a sex offender.

Stupid POLITICIANS hehe.

Fixed that for you. That would be like me judging all of EU based on what the British Prime Minister decides should be law.

There is nothing wrong with this rule and I wish all states would implement it. Rules are rules, if you don't want to become a sex offender, follow them all. That means if you are 21, don't have sex with a 17 year old. Pretty simple actually. I only wish that when someone is put on the sex offender list there would be something that showed the "level" at which they were put on there. That way people could see the list and say, okay even though he/she's a registered sex offender, I don't have to worry about my children. It was a lesser offense.

Just my opinion.

Because American law wasn't enough of a vaudeville show already. 

Originally posted by WhySoShort

Because American law wasn't enough of a vaudeville show already. 

That comment sums it up better than any other mentioned here.

/thread