Christmas ruined for 2,100 sex offenders booted off online games Thousands of online gaming accounts linked to convicted sex offenders were shut down in the US this month. Operation: Game Over resulted in the closure of 2,100 accounts registered through Gaia Online, NCSOFT, Funcom, THQ and other gaming platforms. Earlier this year 3,500 accounts were deleted from Microsoft, Apple, Blizzard …
There are 3 levels of sex offenders.
Level 3 sex offenders are those who have been convicted of a predatory sex offence which, the last time I looked, doesn't include peeing in public. New York has 8596 sex offenders who fall into this category.
It is only these level 3 sex offenders who have been targeted. In order to be a level 3 offender you must have a victim.
quote: "It is only these level 3 sex offenders who have been targeted. In order to be a level 3 offender you must have a victim."
It still means that those level 3 sex offenders are unable to play online games, though, regardless of whether they were trying to groom anyone or not.
Guilty until proven innocent?
Also the article mentions "shut down" and "deleted" for these accounts. What remedial measures were in place to re-imburse these people for any money they had spent on the games? XBox Live points, XBLA games etc. are paid for product, and I'm guessing from the wording used that the content is no longer available to the person. Have they been reimbursed? Or is that paid-for content considered confiscated?
The implications I'm seeing here are that sex offenders are felt to be constantly guilty, in perpituity. If that is the case, why the fuck are they not still in prison? The linked article states "8,596 are level 3 registered sex offenders (high risk of repeat offense and a threat to public safety exists)" yet these people are not locked up. Why is that?
Oh yeah, they have already served their sentence for the offense(s) that they have committed. So either they have paid their debt to society, or the sentence was not long enough. If level 3 offenders are considered a threat to public safety for the rest of their life, it begs the question of why the sentence for a level 3 offense is not "life without parole".
I'm firmly in the "paid their debt to society" camp, so I have to wonder who decided they could trample over those people's rights, to deny access to online entertainment based on previous convictions?
If you murder someone then once you've served your sentence that's it, subject to a few fixed restrictions.
If you're a sex offender then once you've served your sentence they will keep thinking up and adding on extra punishments, and it is NEVER over.
> Guilty until proven innocent?
They have been found guilty of a predatory sex offence. Whether you like it or not, part of the punishment for that offence involves abiding by the restrictions placed upon you as a result of your offence. All NY has done is brought the restrictions into the 21st century. Level 3 sex offenders are not allowed to hang out where their potential victims might hang out and NY has decided that this also includes online areas.
Sex offenders are not the only criminals who have restrictions placed upon them. A murderer who is sentenced to life and then released on parole (after serving many years behind bars) has to report to the parole office for the rest of their life and has restrictions on their movements.
> Oh yeah, they have already served their sentence for the offense(s) that they have committed.
The punishment for a crime isn't just the time served, it is also the restrictions placed upon them when they are released. It is part of the release agreement. The sex offender can always decide not to abide by that agreement and go back to jail.
quote: "Whether you like it or not, part of the punishment for that offence involves abiding by the restrictions placed upon you as a result of your offence. All NY has done is brought the restrictions into the 21st century. Level 3 sex offenders are not allowed to hang out where their potential victims might hang out and NY has decided that this also includes online areas."
I would disagree that "the internet" is a viable definition for "where their potential victims might hang out", unless you also include "the United States" for the physical geographical definition. Parents often bring children with them to stores, so are you suggesting that level 3 offenders are never allowed to enter any store, ever again, and have willingly agreed to this? Along with not being able to internet shop, as they cannot hang out on the internet?
That is not viable, my anonymous friend. So why have XBox Live accounts been deleted, when XBox Live allows adults to play Black Ops 2 (an 18 rated game, so no children should be present)? That is perfectly acceptable and does not break any parole agreement, the same way going to a bar (also age restricted) should not violate any agreement, as far as I am aware.
Unless the agreement is "you will never go out in public again, ever" in which case my argument falls down flat on it's face, or course.
quote: "Sex offenders are not the only criminals who have restrictions placed upon them. A murderer who is sentenced to life and then released on parole (after serving many years behind bars) has to report to the parole office for the rest of their life and has restrictions on their movements."
I'm genuinely interested; as a limey I'm only familiar with movie and TV American law. Does a fixed felony sentence (e.g. 10 years for vehicular manslaughter, 15 years for drug dealing) have the same lifelong parole requirements and restrictions, or only life sentences? Are predatory sexual offences (i.e. level 3 ones) fixed or life?
Because the dichotomy I seem to be seeing is that people abhor predatory sexual offences, but the sentencing seems to be rather light compared to the perceived subsequent threat of reoffense. Even the terminology used by the NY governers office ("threat to public safety") implies that they don't think these people should be back out on the streets. That suggests to me that the sentencing for those crimes should be reassessed (read: massively increased), which would obviate the need for confiscation of property which could have been used to facilitate reoffense. Not was used, by the way, just could have been.
I'm going to blatantly straw man this and suggest that since people have sex in beds, maybe they should also consider confiscating any beds that level 3 offenders purchase? Do they also stop convicted murderers from buying kitchen knives or baseball bats, or anything else that could be used as a weapon?
> I would disagree that "the internet" is a viable definition for "where their potential victims might hang out", unless you also include "the United States"
Are you intentionally misinterpreting what I said or do you have comprehension difficulties? "Online areas" does not mean the entire internet.
> So why have XBox Live accounts been deleted, when XBox Live allows adults to play Black Ops 2
No idea. Why not ask Microsoft? Although I suspect that whilst Microsoft can stop children from accessing areas marked as adult only, they can not stop adults from accessing areas not marked as adult only. The permissions might not be fine grained enough to allow it or it might be something they never considered they would have to do.
> I'm genuinely interested; as a limey I'm only familiar with movie and TV American law. Does a fixed felony sentence (e.g. 10 years for vehicular manslaughter, 15 years for drug dealing) have the same lifelong parole requirements and restrictions, or only life sentences? Are predatory sexual offences (i.e. level 3 ones) fixed or life?
Some offences have prescribed periods of time, others are at the discretion of the judge at sentencing. Judges have a lot of latitude when it comes to sentencing, they could, in theory, sentence you a day in jail followed by lifelong parole for shoplifting but neither the judge nor the sentence would be likely to survive an appeal.
quote: "Are you intentionally misinterpreting what I said or do you have comprehension difficulties? "Online areas" does not mean the entire internet."
"Online areas" does not mean anything, or it could mean everything. You have not qualified the term enough to draw anything but inference from it. The inference I drew was that you were implicitly agreeing that complete removal of access to multiple online titles, as well as removal of online access via games consoles was included, and I would go on to assume any and all online fora that children might belong to (e.g. Disney right through to Facebook). You will note that while I have provided some definition here it is by no means complete either.
So you tell me, how should I have comprehended such a vague term? I chose to interpret it as vaguely as, say, a lawmaker might when deciding if somebody's activity could have breached it, i.e. "XBox has kids therefore delete XBox / internet has kids therefore delete internet". How specific (or vague) is the physical geographical exclusion that this online exclusion is intended to mirror?
Schools - obviously
Playgrounds - obviously
Stores - not obvious, but could (and usually do) contain children
Bars - not obvious, they are considered an adult location but can (and in the UK often do) contain accompanied children during daytime hours as parents take them out for a "pub lunch"
so 2 obvious ones, and then you hit a couple of locations that could contain children, and therefore would arguably be ones that the level 3 offender has already agreed to avoid (using the "locations that might contain children" wording from earlier). A level 3 offender would find it difficult to know if going to the store for groceries would be a violation of their parole restrictions... or at least I certainly would, were I one of those sick fuckers instead of the fine upstanding citizen that I am.
"The internet" contains kids all over it, especially in places that they are not supposed to be. Going back to Black Ops 2 on XBox, the online game is full of whiny 12+ year old racist homophobes (as well as the old farts like me). It is an 18 rated game. So something online, created for adults and intended to only be accessed by adults, is demonstrably a place where kids hang out. Deleting XBox accounts is the only way to be sure that a peado won't interact with kids via XBox, but deleting XBox accounts is also depriving someone of access to paid-for content, and depriving them of (potentially) several hundred dollars of paid for content. How does US law handle those situations, where ex-felons are deprived of property that has not been tied to any offense, but that could be used to reoffend if the ex-felon wanted to? How often does that actually happen?
I understand the wish to prevent reoffense wherever possible, and I understand the abhorrence parents feel for any kiddie-fiddling sicko. But I am also worried that the "land of the free" has decided to come down on the positively authoritarian side of the line, when deciding what freedoms and rights to curtail for one who has ostensibly already served enough time inside, and been rehabilitated. I would argue that if they have not been rehabilitated, then they should still be inside. Make it obvious they they still have no right to continue with a normal life, rather than dangle a carrot in front of them to distract them from the massive stick approaching from the blindside.
P.S. your other answers were fine, thank you :)
There are several thing you should read to get all of the definitions and intricacies of the law :
"Conditions of probation and of conditional discharge." http://ypdcrime.com/penal.law/article65.htm#p65.10
"Sex Offender Registration Act" http://www.criminaljustice.ny.gov/nsor/claws.htm
"Electronic Security and Targeting of Online Predators Act" http://criminaljustice.state.ny.us/legalservices/ch67.htm
But this might be enough:
(b) When imposing a sentence of probation or conditional discharge upon a person convicted of an offense for which registration as a sex offender is required pursuant to subdivision two or three of section one hundred sixty-eight-a of the correction law, and the victim of such offense was under the age of eighteen at the time of such offense or such person has been designated a level three sex offender pursuant to subdivision six of section one hundred sixty-eight-l of the correction law or the internet was used to facilitate the commission of the crime, the court shall require, as mandatory conditions of such sentence, that such sentenced offender be prohibited from using the internet to access pornographic material, access a commercial social networking website, communicate with other individuals or groups for the purpose of promoting sexual relations with persons under the age of eighteen, and communicate with a person under the age of eighteen when such offender is over the age of eighteen, provided that the court may permit an offender to use the internet to communicate with a person under the age of eighteen when such offender is the parent of a minor child and is not otherwise prohibited from communicating with such child. Nothing in this subdivision shall be construed as restricting any other lawful condition of supervision that may be imposed on such sentenced offender. As used in this subdivision, a "commercial social networking website" shall mean any business, organization or other entity operating a website that permits persons under eighteen years of age to be registered users for the purpose of establishing personal relationships with other users, where such persons under eighteen years of age may: (i) create web pages or profiles that provide information about themselves where such web pages or profiles are available to the public or to other users; (ii) engage in direct or real time communication with other users, such as a chat room or instant messenger; and (iii) communicate with persons over eighteen years of age; provided, however, that, for purposes of this subdivision, a commercial social networking website shall not include a website that permits users to engage in such other activities as are not enumerated herein.
quote: "As used in this subdivision, a "commercial social networking website" shall mean any business, organization or other entity operating a website that permits persons under eighteen years of age to be registered users for the purpose of establishing personal relationships with other users, where such persons under eighteen years of age may: <etc.>"
XBox isn't a website, and the above only prohibits "communicate with other individuals or groups for the purpose of promoting sexual relations with persons under the age of eighteen", not "for the purpose of playing an interactive electronic title". The only bits elsewhere elsewhere that would include "commercial gaming network or networked game" would seem to be Article 65.10 - 5a (Conditions of Probation and Conditional Discharge):
the court may require that the defendant comply
with a reasonable limitation on his or her use of the internet that the
court determines to be necessary or appropriate to ameliorate the
conduct which gave rise to the offense or to protect public safety,
provided that the court shall not prohibit such sentenced offender from
using the internet in connection with education, lawful employment or
search for lawful employment.
If deleting XBox, WoW, EVE and other accounts prior to reoffense could be construed as "a reasonable limitation on his or her use of the internet" then fair enough. I would not call it reasonable, though, or even fair or proportional. It looks like the only truly protected uses of the internet are for eduation and the search for employment.
P.S. they really need to add a boilerplate copy of subsection 4(b) (as 4(c) most likely) which replaces the term "commercial social networking website" with "commercial gaming network or networked game" (my phrasing) and slightly alters the bit about allowing minors to create accounts etc. If they did that it would be obvious that the mass deletions were in fact legally sanctioned, and that paedos are prohibited from playing online games or using consoles online for as long as the probation conditions hold. Without it, it just looks like game companies abusing the one-sided TOS agreements to remove users without reimbursing them for lost product.
> XBox isn't a website, and the above only prohibits "communicate with other individuals ....
I think you misunderstand.
They are banned from "access a commercial social networking website" for any purpose, not just for communicating for the purpose of promoting sexual relations with persons under the age of eighteen.
A "commercial social networking website" shall mean any business, organization or other entity operating a website that permits persons under eighteen years of age to be registered users for the purpose of establishing personal relationships with other users. where such persons under eighteen years of age may: (i) create web pages or profiles that provide information about themselves where such web pages or profiles are available to the public or to other users; (ii) engage in direct or real time communication with other users, such as a chat room or instant messenger; and (iii) communicate with persons over eighteen years of age; provided, however, that, for purposes of this subdivision,
Gaming sites fall into this category because you can create profiles and chat with other users in real time.
There is nothing to stop them from playing with the XBox offline so the game console itself isn't prohibited.
and herein lies the issue: are we merely being punitive - such as a parking fine is, or are we trying to keep children safe. If its the latter, is deleting accounts effective?
I'm slightly less concerned with the rights of pedophiles than with the fact the politicians are picking easy scapegoates and creating lazy punishments on the fly.
Not all "Predatory" offenses are directed at children, and that's the problem with this law. Here is a list of offences that require registration:
http://www.criminaljustice.ny.gov/nsor/sortab1.htm
sexual misconduct (which can be interpreted widely enough to include public urination)
patronizing a prostitute in the second degree (good to know jonhs won't be playing WOW)
promoting prostitution in the second degree (nor pimps, because all pimps are pedophiles)
disseminating indecent material to minors in the first degree (and inattendent porno shop operators)
Do you really think that every offense on this list really means you are likely to target children?
Re: Oninoshiko
What you have listed are not level 3 offences (the site you give even lists some of them as misdemeanours). These require you to register as a sex offender but your name is never publicly released. If you are convicted of one of these then your neighbours will never even find out about it.
Just to make it clear that inattendent porno shop operators are safe here is a description of the offence of "disseminating indecent material to minors in the first degree": http://www.nycourts.gov/cji/2-PenalLaw/235/235.22.pdf
Under our law, a person is guilty of Disseminating Indecent Material to Minors in the First Degree when, knowing the character and content of the communication which, in whole or in part, depicts or describes, either in words or images actual or simulated nudity, sexual conduct or sado-masochistic abuse, and which is harmful to minors, he or she intentionally uses any computer communication system allowing the input, output, examination or transfer, of computer data or computer programs from one computer to another, to initiate or engage in such communication with a person who is a minor, and by means of such communication he or she intentionally importunes, invites or induces a minor to engage in sexual intercourse, oral sexual conduct or anal sexual conduct, or sexual contact with him or her, [or to engage in a sexual performance, obscene sexual performance, or sexual conduct for his or her benefit].
> sexual misconduct (which can be interpreted widely enough to include public urination)
Bullshit.
Here is the appropriate law (article 130 section 20 of the Penal Code)
A person is guilty of sexual misconduct when:
1. He or she engages in sexual intercourse with another person without such person`s consent; or
2. He or she engages in oral sexual conduct or anal sexual conduct with another person without such person's consent; or
3. He or she engages in sexual conduct with an animal or a dead human body.
Sexual misconduct is a class A misdemeanor.
http://ypdcrime.com/penal.law/article130.htm
> patronizing a prostitute in the second degree (good to know jonhs won't be playing WOW)
A person is guilty of patronizing a prostitute in the second degree when, being over eighteen years of age, he patronizes a prostitute and the person patronized is less than fourteen years of age.
Patronizing a prostitute in the second degree is a class E felony.
> promoting prostitution in the second degree (nor pimps, because all pimps are pedophiles)
A person is guilty of promoting prostitution in the second degree when he knowingly:
1. Advances prostitution by compelling a person by force or intimidation to engage in prostitution, or profits from such coercive conduct by another; or
2. Advances or profits from prostitution of a person less than sixteen years old.
Promoting prostitution in the second degree is a class C felony.
> The more they abuse the sex offender registry for petty offenses,
This action isn't taken against those convicted of petty offences. It is being taken against those who have been convicted of a level 3 offence. A level 3 offence is a predatory offence. In other words there must be a victim. You might consider rape and paedophilia to be petty offences, but others do not.
> So peeing in a public place won't get me on a sex offenders register...... okay.
It depends upon the offence. Piss in a public place, in the middle of the day, in front of children, then you might end up on it However it will be a level 1 offence. Nobody will be able to find your name via a search. You will not be banned from playing games online. You will not be banned from living near schools.
It depends upon the offence. Piss in a public place, in the middle of the day, in front of children, then you might end up on it However it will be a level 1 offence. Nobody will be able to find your name via a search. You will not be banned from playing games online. You will not be banned from living near schools.
The problem is that you shouldn't need to sign anything that says 'sex offenders register' on it whatsoever.
All this talk about category 1 offenses needs to be dropped, only victim related offenses need to be on it full stop.
It depends upon the offence. Piss in a public place, in the middle of the day, in front of children, then you might end up on it However it will be a level 1 offence. Nobody will be able to find your name via a search. You will not be banned from playing games online. You will not be banned from living near schools.
Why do you keep posting this as AC? do you work or promote these registers or something?
> Why do you keep posting this as AC?
So your real name is Anonymous Сoward then? I post as AC because I wish to.
> do you work or promote these registers or something?
No. I'm not even an American citizen, nor do I live there.
Commentators say ridiculous things like pissing in public will mean you can't play online games or using the services of a prostitute gets you on the sex offenders register when the reality is pissing in public gets you a slap on the wrist and you only get on the sex offenders register if the prostitute is under 14 years of age.
Do you think I should just ignore ill informed opinion or do you think I should share what little knowledge I have gained through a few minutes of research?
Do you think I should just ignore ill informed opinion or do you think I should share what little knowledge I have gained through a few minutes of research?
By all means share, but at least use your real El Reg handle, using AC isn't a very good thing reputation wise.
Just saying.
That's 2100 in the whole US? But just the state of New York has 34,000 registered offenders?
Either, a lot of them didn't list _all_ their online aliases/emails or hardly any sex offenders play video games. Which would seem contrary to the belief that violent games lead to violent behaviour in the players.
I believe those removed were only those who were required to submit the info as they were subject to the new york state law, so whilst the accounts were with companies across the US, the people removed were only from NY.
As mentioned this is in addition to the other 3k odd. As to why it is so low, not entirely sure but there are many possible reasons, not least that many of the 34000 may be restricted from using the internet in the first place, many of them may still be in prison and also a number may simply not go online anyway.
As to kicing them offline, I can see the logic, not entirely sure I agree with it considering the breadth of offenses which can get you listed. I guess the law prohibits unwarranted 'spying' on them to find out if they are up to no good. Whilst it might be labour intensive it would mean any seriously nasty people could be caught 'in the act' and sent back to the clink and those that aren't a danger can continue to kill elves. Just kicking perverts offline won't make them any less of a pervert, they will just find another way.
> being a sex offender does not automatically mean they are a pedophile.
No, not if a teenage girl can be considered a sex offender by the law for daftly sending pictures of herself to her boyfriend. However, there maybe be studies as to how well (or not) the more dangerous individuals are able to control their urges...
In an ideal world, there would be two online gaming environments- one for children, one for adults. The main advantage would be that adults can play without encountering racist, homophobic 15 year-old 'squeakers'. Protecting said 'squeakers' from predatory adults would be a bonus.
There is no cure. People are who they are. Ex: People that like to drive fast will always drive fast no matter how many speeding tickets they get, the "good" ones will simply learn how to recognize trap areas and better evade detection.
Any "treatment" you give them will just be BS'd through and nothing will change except how they go about venting their desires.
Completely agree, there are crimes that would put you on the sex offender list but would not mean you were a threat to anyone i.e. a teenager who took pornographic images of themselves,something I don't think should be a crime, just because their teenagers it does not mean they have any less rights than an adult imho, the world constantly treat teenagers like babies and not like people, the US was the worst I encountered...
if parents took an interest in their children this would not be an issue....
I'll ensure my kids rely on me for their views of right and wrong and come to me if they have any questions, no matter what the topic!
"Either, a lot of them didn't list _all_ their online aliases/emails or hardly any sex offenders play video games. " And now ALL of them will have at least one alias/email that's not listed so they can play online games, way to go. Now from having a way they can check and track offending users by obtaining online game company logs they have nothing.
I call bs on that. Convicted felons can own firearms. States can and do restore rights to felons.
18 U.S.C. 921(a)(20) provides:
"Any conviction which has been expunged, or set aside or for which a person has been pardoned or has had civil rights restored shall not be considered a conviction for purposes of this chapter, unless such pardon, expungement, or restoration of civil rights expressly [or implicitly as a matter of state law] provides that the person may not ship, transport, possess, or receive firearms."
participate in the BBC owned Lonely Planet chat room that was closed down at Christmas as they detected some 'inappropriate language', whatever the hell that means where four letter words are more the norm.
Just think about it, is there any other time when travel chat rooms are more needed?
Well done, Beeb, well planned.
Whilst it's blatantly obvious that sex offenders should be caught and appropriately punished, I'm a little uneasy about this article. If they've been through the courts, where is the authority to cut them off from gaming? Smacks of arbitrary censorship or summary execution added on to the original court sentence but not by the court. Isn't that what they're for? On that basis, the Attorney General could surely decide, on a whim, to cut them (or anyone else, come to that) off from anything else in every-day life? Can he do that? Doesn't sound quite right to me, looking at it from a UK viewpoint.
The reason I'm asking is that the article quotes what is presumably the worst case they could find.
In 2011, a 19-year-old man in Monroe County, NY, was indicted on sexual abuse charges after allegedly meeting and abusing a 12-year-old . . .
This was certainly not good, but I question calling a 19 year old a man in this context. People do mature at different rates, but at 19 most have a lot of growing up to do, and most actually do. In other words the article is not talking about older, set in their ways, and perhaps downright evil, people. They're talking about stuff in their imagination - and having a hard time justifying their conclusions.
Why didn't you teach your daughter not to act like a slut, dress like a slut, talk like a slut, and be a slut? Oh she was raped on the way home from school? Why did you let her walk home alone? You can't drive her because you are busy working? Why did you decide to have children you cannot care for? It seems like a vicious cycle. Why not do your offspring and the world a favour and break that cycle? (That's a rhetorical question, BTW.)
Here in the States, the laws and times served for killing someone vary greatly by state, and by the type of murder committed. I once saw a statistic [yea, I know, liars lie etc] that said the average time served, in prison, for killing someone was six years.
I DO know that I once had a tenant in Wisconsin who had been in a bar brawl and his opponent died, I don't know what his eventual charge or sentence were, but he served eight years, then upon release a short time on parole, than he was completely free for the rest of his life. He became my tenant when he was in his sixties, and I will say that he was one of the few tenants that I could trust to pay on time and to treat me decently, as I treated all my tenants.
I believe it was in the state of Washington, back in the nineties, that they changed the law for 'sex offenders' so that upon the END of their time served, a committee would meet to decide if this person 'might offend again' and if it was decided to they MIGHT do so, that person could be kept locked up indefinitely - despite his sentence having been served in its entirety.
Of course people said "Great! They shouldn't ever get out!" not thinking that today it may be the horrible 'Sex Offenders' but next year it could become simple petty thieves, and yet later down the road, anyone who has run a red light, or been late paying child support. Its a slippery slope people!
Boo, in the RepubliK of Texas, in Good ol AmeriKa
There is a Human Right that you can only charged with an offence, _and given a penalty_ that was legislated at the time of the crime. But the constant harrassment of criminals that have served their time is nothing more than political opportunism, it does more to promote the electoral prospects than protecting children. Only criminals who have a history of grooming children need to have this penalty legislated, and it should only be applied at the direction of court.
It disturbs me that people have so much faith that only the guilty get convicted.
It bothers me as I watched a good friend get done over for an sexual assualt on an Adult, by biased police investigation, he was then imprisoned awaiting trial, while CCTV evidence that would have acquitted him was never retreived, left to be eventually overwritten. He was then given a succession of crap public defenders. He had to plead in the end. When he gets out he will have to deal with the ongoing stigma of being a sex offender, and the latest piece of vengence from politicians, when his true crime was not being able to afford a decent lawyer.
Parenting isn't just about care and protection. The point is to create independent and capable adults which won't magically happen at 18.
Parenting requires giving graduated freedom to children. That means that we need space outside the confines of the front garden in which they can make mistakes without the consequences being dire.
That being said, Pedophiles vs Online games vs (M)TV: Which one is pushing sexual activity to pre-teens the most? Why do kids' party organisers think the Macarena is appropriate for small children? Do people ever think through the meaning of the actions? The big dangers are usually brought into the home by parents.
Everything is vetted. No live TV, no unsupervised internet, no unchecked music lyrics or dance moves. Very little modern "culture" makes it into my house and it makes me rather angry that so much non-educational content ends up being force-fed to children at school. I can see no good reason for my 7 year-old to be able to recite the name of Harry Potter's school for her homework.
Bah humbug.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
