Sex offender? No World of Warcraft for you!

So, I ran across something interesting today regarding video games and sex offenders that I hadn't expected and wanted to share it with ATS. Please understand while reading this that I have a very low tolerance for pedophilia but being classified as a sex offender by the state does not in any way shape or form automatically make you an evil child raping monster. Every case is different and I think some people would be surprised to find out what or how little can earn you that title.

That said, lets take a look at what the newest trend is from law enforcement, video game and internet technology companies as it pertains to sex offenders. You be the judge.

2,100 more sex offenders banned from online games

The main point of the article is that they are not allowing people that have been deemed to be sex offenders to play online games such as Age of Conan, Guild Wars 2 and games that have a persistent online community it would seem.

THQ, NCSoft, Gaia Online, and Funcom join growing list of companies agreeing to remove New York's registered sex offenders from online platforms.

These are all major gaming companies, no doubt they are looking to limit there perceived risk of liability should something happen involving a sex offender but the thing I find odd here is that Funcom, the makers of "Age of Conan" which is an online role playing game that ironically features topless female characters and NPCs and depicts female sex slaves, females chained up and prostitution. IE: Sex offenses.

An additional 2,100 registered sex offenders have been removed from online gaming platforms in New York, attorney general Eric T. Schneiderman announced today through his website. The bannings are part of the "Operation: Game Over" initiative, which earlier this year removed more than 3,500 sex offenders from online networks in the state.

New York sure is "progressive".

New York had the cooperation of five new game companies for its latest round of sex offenders purges, including THQ, Funcom, NCSoft, and Gaia Online. The fifth company was not named. These publishers join a growing list of firms agreeing to remove sex offenders from their online networks that includes Microsoft, Apple, Blizzard Entertainment, Electronic Arts, Disney Interactive, Warner Bros., and Sony.

So, the thread title is indeed accurate as Blizzard is mentioned in the participating companies list. If you are considered a sex offender and live in New York, you will NOT be playing World of Warcraft unless you create an account with somebody else's name (But that's a crime too).

"The Internet is the crime scene of the 21st century, and we must ensure that online video game platforms do not become a digital playground for dangerous predators," Schneiderman said in a statement. "That means doing everything possible to block sex offenders from using gaming systems as a vehicle to prey on underage victims."

Now, I see where their coming from and it is tempting to want to agree in the name of keeping children safer but I question the legality and constitutionality of this legislation and I am just not convinced this is something the government is competent enough to develop and oversee properly. Largely because they do not care for things on an individual basis and like to throw a huge blanket over everyone they want to classify into a single category.

As part of New York's Electronic Securing and Targeting of Online Predators Act (e-STOP), convicted sex offenders must register all of their e-mail addresses, screen names, and similar identifiers for the purposes of limiting their access to certain online networks. Operation: Game Over represents the first time the law has been invoked relative to online gaming.

Yeah, I think having to submit this kind of information to the government for every person they deem as a sex offender is overly intrusive. I can see the direction they want to take the law but I think it comes as too high a price. I can also definitely see this infrastructure and system being used in the future for offenders of different types as well.

What should be done in my opinion is New York should spend of those resources on more accurately labeling offenses in this category. I do not wan't to see young adults that have been charged and convicted of "sexting" lumped into the same category as child molesters and have the state tell me they are the same and deserve equal continued degradation of their rights.

For me at least, the fact that the state does this is almost as offensive to me as some of the things they list as crimes that can have you labeled a sex offender for in the first place.

SOURCE

Originally posted by Helious

I do not wan't to see young adults that have been charged and convicted of "sexting" lumped into the same category as child molesters and have the state tell me they are the same and deserve equal continued degradation of their rights.

It's already happening. People who get cited for pissing behind a bush can end up lumped in the same category as serial rapists if they're unlucky enough to get a monster prosecutor and a hateful judge.

America loves its scarlet letters and it loves to dish out hate fueled revenge.

That's not going to change anytime soon.

Is this actually a law? Or is it an effort by gaming companies? If it's just the companies joining an effort, I don't see any problem, although I do agree that many people who are considered "sex offenders" don't belong on that list...

reply to post by Helious
I agree that there are many on the registered sex offender list that absolutely do not belong there, but I understand why companies would be trying to do this. The world of online gaming provides ample opportunity for pedophiles to interact with children as usually parents let their kids play unsupervised. If the companies did nothing I'm sure many parents would be raising a fuss, and it would be my guess that lawsuits have been threatened already for such action to be taken. It is unfortunate for those who are on the registered sex offender list for questionable reasons but it comes down to the "bottom line" and these companies covering their backsides.

reply to post by thisguyrighthere

It's already happening. People who get cited for pissing behind a bush can end up lumped in the same category as serial rapists if they're unlucky enough to get a monster prosecutor and a hateful judge. America loves its scarlet letters and it loves to dish out hate fueled revenge. That's not going to change anytime soon.

Exactly, and that is what troubles me about this drive by the government. They do not possess the resources to address these kinds of situations on a case by case basis and that leads to what amounts to cruel and unusual punishment to people on the lower end of the "sexual offender spectrum".

I speak from personal experience as when I was 17 I was convicted of "retaining a stolen financial transaction device" because I had a credit card that turned out was stolen (never used) and I pleaded guilty because I was young and didn't understand what a felony conviction meant at the time. So now, despite never being in any other kind of trouble, I am labeled a felon and even at 36, having a family a clean record and being a productive part of society, I can never own a gun and that felony label follows me to every job I have had or will ever have.

It is incredibly destructive to label people with these kinds of things without putting in the effort to determine who is actually deserving of it and who is just lumped in because government is too lazy, too busy and too corrupt to care. I would submit that they would love nothing more than to lump every single person into these type of categories as often as possible and they mostly likely will unless we fight to change it.

reply to post by thisguyrighthere


And yet, those are the exceptions not the rule.

I'd venture a guess 99% of the offenders on the list NEED to be on the list. So while I too worry about potential abuse of the list process, I also like the idea of keeping offenders off the games where children may be found.

reply to post by loam


That's a fundamental difference in people I've noticed.

People are either okay with sacrificing a few to the mill for the system or they are not.

I am not. One wrongful imprisonment/branding/charge is too many. I have to side with liberty over "safety" every time.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Is this actually a law? Or is it an effort by gaming companies? If it's just the companies joining an effort, I don't see any problem, although I do agree that many people who are considered "sex offenders" don't belong on that list...

The best I can tell, it is somewhere in between in that there are laws that force you to disclose that you would have an online role playing account to the government and from there, law enforcement pushes gaming companies to cooperate in banning such accounts.

As part of New York's Electronic Securing and Targeting of Online Predators Act (e-STOP), convicted sex offenders must register all of their e-mail addresses, screen names, and similar identifiers for the purposes of limiting their access to certain online networks. Operation: Game Over represents the first time the law has been invoked relative to online gaming.

What I surmise from that is that you are by law required to disclose all information that would be associated in playing such games, among many other things.

My problem is that I can see this for convicted child molesters or those convicted of child related sexual crimes but I think the initiative is too far reaching, too broad and too obtrusive for everyone under the umbrella they label as sex offenders and more over, I fear that this type of categorization of citizens by the government is becoming to regular and is not under enough scrutiny as to the guidelines people are labeled such.

I personally think its a good decision but I hear what people are saying about the list.

A friend of mine went for after work drinks a few years ago with some colleagues, one of them started talking to group of girls and after buying them drinks all night ended up taking one home, it turned out she was 15!!!

The girl stayed at the guys house and when she got home the next day her parents went ballistic and the police got involved, long story short the guy did 8 months in jail, lost his job and is now a registered sex offender, he was only 22.

Dirty yes, sleazy maybe but a peado or sex offender no.
Alot of genuine sickos would probably use the same excuses he did, she told me she was 18, I met her in an overage club etc etc.

unfortunate that a few nerds out there wont get to get their WoW on because of stupidity or over zealous judges/prosecutors but on the whole seems like a good move

reply to post by Helious


I guess the thing to do is consider NOT becoming a sex offender if you like playing online games...

reply to post by thisguyrighthere

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
That's a fundamental difference in people I've noticed.

People are either okay with sacrificing a few to the mill for the system or they are not.

I am not. One wrongful imprisonment/branding/charge is too many. I have to side with liberty over "safety" every time.

Rubbish.

My support of this has nothing to do with my concern about improving the process.

Under your logic no government process would be possible, as abuse and unintended consequences appear in EVERY government process.

Should we do away with all prosecutions of crime because innocent people occasionally get convicted?

Of course not.

My point is merely this: 99% of the people on the list NEED to be on the list.

Should we fix the 1%? Absolutely. No arguments from me on that one. But good for these companies meanwhile that they are doing something to protect the children who play their games.

Originally posted by loam
reply to post by thisguyrighthere

 

And yet, those are the exceptions not the rule.

I'd venture a guess 99% of the offenders on the list NEED to be on the list. So while I too worry about potential abuse of the list process, I also like the idea of keeping offenders off the games where children may be found.

edit on 21-2-2013 by loam because: (no reason given)

Yep, as I said before, having children myself I am tempted to agree because it seems to be an obvious choice, except.........

You see, I keep hearing these stories of mild infractions that led to listing on the sex-offender registry alongside child molesters, rapists and abusive spouses. There's the girl who bared her ass out a bus window in college and pled guilty to indecent exposure -- and then couldn't become an elementary school teacher because of her sex offense.

Then there's the guy who peed on a bush in a park and was convicted of public lewdness, a sex offender because he couldn't find a bathroom.

But then I remember that substitute teacher Julie Amero faces up to 40 years in prison for … well, no one is really sure what for anymore, but it has to do with pornographic pop-ups appearing on the classroom computer and whether she did enough to protect the children. (She is scheduled to be sentenced on April 26.) That she was charged with a crime at all is just as ridiculous as branding a college student a "sex offender" simply for being nakedly obnoxious.

All of these things can get you branded as a sex offender. Sexting can get you branded as a sex offender. I can't find statistics on how many sex offenders in New York are for what and I don't care to dig through the registry but I don't think if I did I would find 99% of the people there deserved to be on it. I could be wrong but I highly doubt it and I doubt it because laws like that are draconian and usually operate under a zero tolerance guideline in my experience.

reply to post by loam

My point is merely this: 99% of the people on the list NEED to be on the list.

Respectfully, if that is your point, you should really look into that assumption and supporting statistics because I highly doubt the validity of the 99% estimation.

5 years ago, when "Second LIfe" was new, I was exploring it and found what I think was a bondage club on it.

I could see keeping registered sex offenders out of there.


Why doesn't the state keep two lists; they differentiate between statutory offenses and forcible assault when it comes to the prison population.....

reply to post by Helious


I can say with a great deal of confidence that on a nationwide basis the legitimate registrants statistically render meaningless the examples you cite. However, like I said, should they be fixed? Absolutely. But their numbers don't persuade me that the entire process should be sacked.

In fact, I'd say a bigger issue is that the number of registrants who SHOULD be on the list and are not.

Many convicted sex offenders don't find it that hard to avoid the list.

Originally posted by tovenar

5 years ago, when "Second LIfe" was new, I was exploring it and found what I think was a bondage club on it.

I could see keeping registered sex offenders out of there.


Why doesn't the state keep two lists; they differentiate between statutory offenses and forcible assault when it comes to the prison population.....

Second life would never comply with the governments request, it is a cesspool of sexual deviance. That is most certainly not a game for kids but for adults.

Very thought provoking.

I only popped into this thread because my adult kids actually play online mmorpg's...I used to play Final fantasy 11 myself.

It's an odd thing. While I am all for punishment that suits the crime...I agree with another poster above and will side with Liberty every single time. If someone commits a crime and pays their debt to society either through fines or incarceration...their debt is paid, leave them alone and allow them to live a normal life. They should not have to live out the rest of their life with a sword hanging over their head.

If there was someway to prove that someone was a continuing threat...a serial sex offender or such...that is another thing...but a dude that takes a whizz behind a bush or a girl that shows her ass out of a bus window...is not..in my book...sex offenders. Poor social skills or bad decision makers...maybe...but not criminals and should not be treated as such.

This further illustrates...to me...the dangers of the Police/Nanny state. Label someone and then it is easy to regard them as less than human and far easier to strip their rights and humanity away...scary implications in my book.

Originally posted by Helious
Respectfully, if that is your point, you should really look into that assumption and supporting statistics because I highly doubt the validity of the 99% estimation.

It's not an assumption.

I've looked at the numbers myself for a commercial reason that unfortunately is not public.

But you can check for yourself. Go to SexOffender.COM and randomly pull as many examples you like- the more the better- and see how many you can mark that might fall into the category you deem questionable.

I think that will make my point nicely.

Originally posted by loam
reply to post by Helious

 

I can say with a great deal of confidence that on a nationwide basis the legitimate registrants statistically render meaningless the examples you cite. However, like I said, should they be fixed? Absolutely. But their numbers don't persuade me that the entire process should be sacked.

In fact, I'd say a bigger issue is that the number of registrants who SHOULD be on the list and are not.

Many convicted sex offenders don't find it that hard to avoid the list.

edit on 21-2-2013 by loam because: (no reason given)

Yeah, I won't pretend to have an intimate knowledge of how the process works exactly, only knowledge from the research that I have done in the hour I spent reading about it this morning before the post but I am assuming that it works a lot of the same ways being a felon does and based on that assumption is where I make the claim of the 99% being inaccurate because I know that 99% of felons should not be labeled as felons. Especially for life.

I do agree with most of the rest of what you said though but what I would do to fix the problem is that I would reassess what crimes could potentially land somebody on that list and if it defied my common sense then I would amend that process.

In that last statement is the problem though, I haven't known many legislators in government to have an abundance of common sense when it comes to applying law. Balancing crime and punishment within established criminal guidelines by a judge is one thing. Assessing long term effects, personally, socially and professionally that being put on such a list subjects people too is quite another and one that I don't feel is being done completely responsibly in my opinion. As it pertains to the low end of the spectrum regarding sex offenders.

Originally posted by loam

Under your logic no government process would be possible, as abuse and unintended consequences appear in EVERY government process.

Should we do away with all prosecutions of crime because innocent people occasionally get convicted?

Of course not.

A lot of them. Likely most of them.

We can start very simply and easily by abolishing pre-crime and non-crime where no person or property is harmed and ending nonsense like registries and complete atrocities like capitol punishment.

Registries are abhorrent. The debt is paid isnt it? Latching people to registries inhibits the process of returning to society. If we dont really want them to return to society then why arent we just honest about and lock them all up for life?

I am in full support of tearing this mess of a "justice" system down and starting over.