NY Moves to Ban Sex Offenders From Gaming Platforms

[notorious bum]

These arguments sound way too similar to the death penalty debates, and not in the good way.

It's like I'm on a major conservative forum all of a sudden.

I think that's a pretty big stretch to try to compare the two. The Sex Offender Registry isn't nearly as barbaric, flawed, or wasteful(in human life and financially) as the death penalty. The Registry is more about half-baked, ignorant legislation(with a dash of fearmongering) than it would be about outdated ideological views and vested interests trying to promote a corrupt system like death row.

[Suvhater]

Why are they even out of prison if they can't be trusted to be an honest, productive member of society? The idea that you have "Paid your debt to society" is long dead.

[RKenshin]

Saying the arguments are similar doesn't mean that the cases have to be too. Nor did I say or even imply that; of course they're completely different cases.

The point is that for both cases, on one side the focal points of the argument are:
- 'Perpetrators' must be punished.
- Victims must be empathized with.
- Behavior can't be condoned in any way.

And the other side, its:
- System is flawed.

Reductio ad absurdum back and forth, even though in reality the arguments involve completely different concerns.

Sound familiar?

[Yuri-G]

the sex offender registry reminds me fishing for tuna. in and of itself it's a great idea - tuna is good! sex offenders are bad! - but when the net is cast too wide, there are unintended consequences and casualties - dolphins get murdered , men and women (ok, mostly men) convicted of minor, non-threatening crimes have their lives ruined.

that said, I support this move if it only goes after people who have had contact with children. especially level 3 offenders; afaik they're the worst of the worst and deserve what they get. if the law applies to all offenders regardless of crime, it's just another example of a net being cast too wide.

also, multiple people have posited punishing all sex offenders equally, using logic like "well if you had sex with your drunk girlfriend or pissed behind a dumpster, too bad. you made the wrong choice and you should live with your punishment. video games are a privilege, not a right." I'd just like to say that's a disgusting oversight of how the penal system is supposed to work; we create different punishments based on the severity and type of the crime. banning the guy who pissed behind the dumpster from being online has nothing to do with his crime and is an inappropriate punishment, to say the least. why stop there? why not include people convicted of burglary or larceny or marijuana possession? sure, it would make no sense to ban them from playing video games, but they committed a crime and they deserve whatever they get, right? /sarcasm off

[Yugl]

Saying the arguments are similar doesn't mean that the cases have to be too. Nor did I say or even imply that; of course they're completely different cases.

The point is that for both cases, on one side the focal points of the argument are:
- 'Perpetrators' must be punished.
- Victims must be empathized with.
- Behavior can't be condoned in any way.

And the other side, its:
- System is flawed.

Reductio ad absurdum back and forth, even though in reality the arguments involve completely different concerns.

Sound familiar?

I was agreeing with you, but now I'm not so sure. It seems that "The system is flawed" is an incomplete expression of the opposing side and that the consequence of the system being flawed is the full picture. Otherwise, it seems that you can apply that set of argument to any punishment if we ignore the consequence. Thus, in the case of capital punishment, you could apply those set of arguments to life sentence. You can apply them (And people on BG have applied them) to speeding fines. You can apply them to minimum jail time. You can apply them to community service. In every case, the system will have flaws. In each case, the behavior is not condoned. In each case, the perpetrator/victim retain their level of "deserved" enmity/empathy.

That said, I'll probably end up agreeing with you anyways. The opposition recognizes that sex offenders includes an overly broad category and instead of attempting to narrowly define the line of perpetrators, they knowingly encompass "casualties" because they simply don't care about the problems of other people. As long as you can whip them with the label of "minority", it's all good, apparently.

Edit: Realize that I write the first paragraph knowing that you mentioned the Reducio ad Absurdum problem.

[RKenshin]

I was being overly brief, but yeah, I agree with your correction.

[Greatguardian]

I don't like the system. I just think it's fairly pointless to be upset about an extension of a messed up system when the majority of arguments focus on the sex offender database and not the actual prohibition of sex offender communication with children.

If the sex offender database was overhauled and treated people in a way that was deemed more fair, would people still have a problem with this law?

[Yugl]

If instead of targeting sex offenders, they targeted people convicted of a specific set of crimes (Narrowly defined), would you oppose?

Edit: Let me be fair and answer your question. Do I think people would have a problem with the law if the system were perfect at nailing the criminals? I think there would be a split. You would have to define "fair" first and foremost. Even then, I cannot speak for "the people" of one side of the debate.

[Greatguardian]

That depends on what benefits such a method would engender. I don't place much value on the right to play console video games over private services, but there is no reason to impose unnecessary restrictions on personal freedom if there are no quantifiable benefits to doing so. In a similar vein, we already have restrictions on consumers under the age of 13 playing video games online.

If, however, they were to implement such a system while simultaneously shifting to a model wherein people would be required to be online in order to play any games or use the system that they have purchased, then I would have an issue with it as it would be effectively disabling someone's personal property.

In general, I think trying to play off the PSN and XBL as "Seedy yahoo chatrooms filled with pedophiles" as a law like this might suggest is a bit disingenuous. I think our time would be better spent educating both parents and children about the responsible use of the internet. But I don't see much difference between this and barring sex offenders from being able to use school playground equipment.

[hey]

If the sex offender database was overhauled and treated people in a way that was deemed more fair, would people still have a problem with this law?

No.

[Greatguardian]

If the underlying question becomes, "Are you okay with restricting some personal liberty when it is necessary to ensure quantifiable benefits for society?", in general I am. But when doing so I have to ask the counter question, 'Why are such restrictions necessary in the first place?'

As I said, in this case I would be much happier with measures that increase education for both parents and children in the responsible use of the internet. If kids knew that going to meet strangers they met on Madden was a no-no, then we wouldn't have a need for these sorts of restrictions in the first place.

Stamping out pedophilia would be nice too but is much less realistic.

[Yuri-G]

I don't like the system. I just think it's fairly pointless to be upset about an extension of a messed up system when the majority of arguments focus on the sex offender database and not the actual prohibition of sex offender communication with children.

If the sex offender database was overhauled and treated people in a way that was deemed more fair, would people still have a problem with this law?

can't speak for anyone else, but I would not have a problem with it at all.

[Sera]

Why do we care if kidnappers and felons are allowed to play on XBL? Fuck em!

[Niiro]

Well, if there was ever a group of kids that deserved to be molested.....just sayin'.

[Greatguardian]

Not even funny. Get the fuck out.

[Sepukku]

I find this whole thing a quite problematic example of how justice is handled in the United States of America. Besides the fact that a large portion of our government doesn't see the value in social programs for people under 65 (aka keeping them off drugs, not stealing for food, etc), the prison system is not set up for reform. In fact, the way people are labeled and ruined for life gives people in prison little reason to even WANT to reform and prove they're a better, more-fit-for-society new and improved self. Not even sex offenders, but simply felons have a massively steep hill to climb in the face of the current system. I liked the suggestion that resources are better spent educating parents and children about the dangers and responsibility of online communication in any medium.

[Niiro]

Not even funny. Get the fuck out.

I disagree.

[Greatguardian]

I disagree.

No. Seriously. Get the fuck out. Child molestation is never funny.

You're not hip. You're not cool. You're not edgy. Get the fuck out.

[Niiro]

I'm deeply saddened that you did not find that funny.

Truly.

edit: also, never? really? you didn't think the pilot in Airplane was funny? wow

[Cream Soda]

No. Seriously. Get the fuck out. Child molestation is never funny.

You're not hip. You're not cool. You're not edgy. Get the fuck out.

People always make it seem like its so much worse because children are involved. If you had just said molestation and left "child" out, I'd have probably agreed.