The question is - will this survive a First Amendment challenge in court. On one had it is doubtful that it will because private corportations are not necessarily subject to first amendment rights. But on the other hand, since this is a government induced and assisted program, it might very be a worthy legal battle to take on.

The greater challenge might be from someone whose sex crime had nothing to do with sex, or anything to do with children - as the state of New York is sterotyping all sex offenders into one category, e.g. child molestors, when that is clearly not the case.

I think it interesting that the article talks about the different levels of SO but still grouped them as if they are all the same. That is a significant issue to me. In a response to one of the articles it said:
I think there are a lot of misconceptions. One of the biggest is that child porn would not exist if there was no one to buy it. Believe me, it would still exist. Children that are raped, sold, tortured would still exist even if no one ever bought another photograph. Using the same brush to paint all is dangerous. It focuses the public on a huge range of sex crimes instead of focusing them on the violent offenders. The dilution of focus has cost this country much in both expense and effectiveness of protecting our children.

It gets more ridiculous and more dangerous to society by the day. I can imagine that there are some people who are so angry that they can't play their games anymore that they want to do something about it. And these forms of social outcast and isolationism fly directly in the face of what sex offender treatment programs teach us is safe behavior.

Yet another example of how our society increasingly puts itself in greater danger in the name of public safety. Oxy Moronism at its best.

Coming soon to a state near you - perpetual, life-time timeout for all RSO's. It will be like when you were a kid and you were told to put your nose in the corner and not say a word to anyone.

Thats ridiculous! How in the world does this make children safer??? In the case they talk about: The 19 yr old WASNT on the registry. And where were the 12 yr olds parents? When are parents going to be held responsible for NOT parenting their children and letting them spend countless hours online playing games.

Whats next?? SO's cant mow their yards, or mail a letter. Its complete BS and makes me madder than a wet hen.

WOW!!!! are they for real??? i know i would have a fit bcause i have a ps2 about 65 ps2 games not to mention my ps3 and i do play games online with my sons i also have about 25 ps3 games at 60 bucks a pop i would be damned if they told me i could not play my games online i paid for it i should be able to use it for what it was ment to be used for play on or off line!!!!!!

The problem is that they want to impose blanket restrictions on anyone every convicted of a sex offense rather than creating responsible policies that prohibit inappropriate behavior from anyone. It is like the policy I'm currently under with being out on bond - even though the Court didn't order it the "pre-trial release" office prohibits anyone with a sex offense in their history from even accessing any social network. Their policy SHOULD be that it is a violation of your bond to attempt to communicate with a minor using such social networking sites rather than a blanket restriction - but that would be too much work.

There are three things that concern me very much about this occurring.

First, it completely blurs the line between government and private corporations. It puts them all in bed with each other to the point that when (and not if) something goes wrong who is going to be left to investigate them? Nobody, that's who.

Second, where does this sort of thing stop. These acts are based on hypothetical situations occurring in that a sex offender might come across a child. But this rationale can be applied to practically everything in society. So, where does it end?

Third, it furthers the notion that parents do not need to take any sort of responsibility for parenting their children, nor be held accountable when things go wrong. In our techonological quest we are doing a great deal of damage.

In review of individual state laws related to the legal age to consent, states vary between the legal age being 16 to 18. Though many states have exemptions that allow someone in their underage teens to have sex with another so long as the have sex with someone who is within a 3 to 5 year age range.

In other words, in Alabama if you are 55 years old you can have sex with a 16 year old legally, yet, if you live in California, and are 55 you can only have sex with someone that is 18 for it to be legal and thus, by the standards of California, those who live in Alabama and have sex with a 16 year old are sex offenders.

The problem is, the public opinion of those in California influence those who live in Alabama by virtue of federal laws, even though the public opinion in California is based on an entirely different set of so-called moral beliefs and laws from what exists in Alabama.

The point being here is that we are a nation of hypocritical beliefs and contradicting avocations.

LegalG, I agree with all of your points. And the state age of consent differential is also exacerbated by the federal laws that make certain things illegal if a person is under 18 regardless of the state's age of consent. In my last case I served 57 months in federal prison for having a conversation with a 16 year old about a modeling offer I knew nothing about other than someone said you could earn $10,000. Ultimately there was nothing done beyond the conversation - and when I found out from some 3rd party that for that amount of money it PROBABLY (their pure speculation) would have involved pornography I told him he could NOT have done it.

The legal age of consent in Kansas (where the conversation occurred) is 16 - I could have had sex with this person legally. How ridiculous is that????

They create these so called online games like wizard 101 and neopets online thinking there safe for kids to play not knowing there are predators out there who also go on these sites praying on kids as well i my self won't allow my nephew on these sites i believe instead of blamming offenders blame the parents for not monitering there kids internet actvity and who they talk to online when playing online games don't blame us

The biggest issue I have with these sort of policies is that they are totally ignorant. Anyone can create a fake profile on any network. Someone putting their true identity out there is either REALLY stupid to try to prey on children or (more likely) is not going to do so.

That's true

Let us keep in mind that this was not done by a "law being passed" but rather by an agreement with the New York Attorney General's Office.

That said, whether it is an agreement or a "law" they tend to give a false sense of safety because anyone wishing to victimize children by such online gaming can easily create false email addresses, user names and so forth.

Of course one could argue that if government were genuinely concerned they would pass laws that criminalize the actions of corporate officials who do not take measures to protect children from online preditors - just as they would criminalize the actions of parents who do not use parental control to help ensure the safety of their own children.

But like so many things in politics, sex offenders have become the new photo op to get elected.

Do you know that Facebook has a similar policy? If a RSO creates a personal account they will ultimately remove it - it is against their policy for any RSO to have a Facebook account.

And what is even more ridiculous to me is that my federal "pretrial release" officer demanded that I not even GO TO Facebook because it is against their policy for me to have an account there - like the federal probation office is now charged with enforcing Facebook's rules??

These things really get my goat.

How many of us are on facebook I remember when they closed my facebook account a few days later there was article in the paper and online saying facebook violated first amendment rights by banning sex offenders so I created in new facebook account and I have not had any problems ever since I believe you can use facebook as long are you don't use it to pray on children and you only add people that you know personally and calls in you
r life including family's and friens and you grown up with and avoid people you do not know