This brings into question whether you have a fundamental right to the internet and related network communications and whether that is actually "assembling" in the protected sense. While I do agree that it is a bit cruel and probably unnecessary, is it really much different than not allowing RSO's to go hang out at Chuck E. Cheese, or live near elementary schools. Is it shitty, yes it is, is it a human rights violation? I'm not so sure.

That is an excellent point. Many people have brought it up in the comments here that RSO's are unfairly subjected to constraints that many other offenders are not subjected to. Habitual shoplifters can still go in Wally etc. I think it is the nature of the category of their offense that makes people allow this kind of treatment of offenders. Really if the people have done their jail time why are they still having to conform to a system that is penalizing them considering they have supposedly paid their debt to society? I still don't think it's a human rights issue though.

it's cool, you're good man.

I could see this if it was a random crackdown. and I want to re-iterate that I don't necessarily agree or disagree with this. It is unfair, but by whose definition is it unfair?

I never stated any statistical significance. I never said there were only 3 cases either. I provided 3 links that point to articles that point out that "sexual offenses" are not always pedophiles or rapists. Since you're so bad at reading and good at making assumptions, why don't you go drink some bleach. No quotes, literally, go drink some bleach.

Unless of course someone happens to see you and report you. You don't have be flagrant about it, you just have to be reported.

How is any of that really a human rights violation though. You don't have a fundamental right to slay dragons or shoot other people in a virtual world, those are first world conveniences. I'm not saying it's not completely dick, but its far from a human rights violation.

Now this is an interesting point. Many online games require a subscription fee. Now if you're paying a fee for the subscription shouldn't it really be up to the company that maintains the environment to determine who can and will associate? Its not a public meeting place but a private one, how does this work out as a definition of freedom of assembly?

That is exactly where you are incorrect. Here are some references for you
Article 1
Article 2 Check the section about sexting
Article 3 Here is a good article about how most people on sex offender lists are not dangerous pedo rapists.

Literally took me 5 minutes on google to find these.

Lets not try to bring rationality into this argument sir, we're talking about the safety of our children!

I'm curious to see your reasoning for that. I'm kind of swiss on this whole issue, but I want to know exactly how kicking someone off of an online game is a violation of their fundamental rights as a human being.

This is the most accurate post here so far. You need to make sure that you are getting a good card manufacturer more than the chipset designer. The chipset is only as good as the cards they are bundled with.

I think it would be more akin to someone smearing shit on your clean windshield.

Maybe he's reached the end of his usefulness at Google and they just didn't care if he left. I'm not trying to imply anything, I'm just stating one possible scenario.

navigating may be easy, but storing it will be the real issue.