Originally Posted By dshyates "Well of course they were born that way. " Constance, don't respond to obvious trolls. This was a not so thinly veiled attempt to equate homosexuality with child predators. It is a sickly common tactic of the low information conservative butt wipes.
Originally Posted By FerretAfros Like Trippy, I've never been charged with or convicted of any crime, but I am curious to see where this goes. While it's easy to claim that there's a differentiation, it's also easy to see what this could snowball into. Convicted of gun violence? No Toy Story Midway Mania for you. Convicted of drug possession? No Journey Into Your Imagination for you. Convicted of a traffic violation? No driving on our property. It's easy to extrapolate a much wider-ranging impact from this precedent, especially when we start talking about all companies, not just Disney. Maybe I have mixed feelings about the sex offender list in general. I'm often baffled by how some people attempt to 'shame' others into doing certain things; it almost never works (like the anti-gun lobby's response to the US Senate's recent decision), and the list seems to be an extension of that tactic. Obviously what they did was wrong and shouldn't be repeated, but I question how much good the list really does. Obviously this question is much bigger than what's going on at WDW, and unlikely to change any time soon, but I think it's interesting to ponder I'm also confused about Disney's policy itself. Is it publicized anywhere? They post rules for the theme parks (no running, no adults in costumes, etc) in relatively easy to find locations, but I've never heard of this rule before reading the article
Originally Posted By RoadTrip It concerns me that we seem to be increasingly restricting American's privileges based on what "Those People" might do. That used to be pretty much the domain of conservatives, but now liberals are joining in too. All well and good... until you become one of "Those People"...
Originally Posted By FerretAfros >>"Well of course they were born that way." Constance, don't respond to obvious trolls.<< But isn't it fair to assume that some people are predisposed to it for some reason? Studies have shown that shoplifters are more likely to have what most people would call "thrill issues", doing it for the adrenaline rush. I can only assume that there is some sort of similar imbalance with sex offenders. Clearly it's not something that any sane or logical person would do, so why are we not allowed to think that they were genetically predisposed to it? Of course, this is all with the note that I really am not trying to defend sex offenders, nor am I trying to equate it to homosexuality, but rather to really analyze what's going on.
Originally Posted By CuriousConstance "Constance, don't respond to obvious trolls. This was a not so thinly veiled attempt to equate homosexuality with child predators. It is a sickly common tactic of the low information conservative butt wipes." Oops. I can't keep up with whose a troll and whose not. On a side note, I don't get anyone thinks that it would work to try and equate homosexuality with child predators. All you have to do is have half a brain and know how to do a general search online to prove that false in two seconds.
Originally Posted By FerretAfros >>Oops. I can't keep up with whose a troll and whose not.<< He's not a troll. He's been posting on LP for years, and (I think) was just trying to expand the discussion. If it were true trolling, I'm pretty sure the "ducks and covers" would have been missing from the comment, since it acknowledges that it's a touchy subject
Originally Posted By Princessjenn5795 From the article, I don't think it is a well publicized rule, probably because they do it on a case by case basis. Based on the low number of people they have turned away for this, my guess is they base that decision on the crime they committed. Convictions are public records, and it is easy enough to find out what the people on the sex offender registry were convicted of. There is also no evidence that Disney is going to start arbitrarily banning everyone convicted of a crime. First of all, they are matching names to the sex offender registry, not running background checks on people, so drug convictions or other crimes would not show up. Secondly, Disney seems to be handling this very well, quietly letting individuals know that because of their specific offense they are not welcome in the parks, rather than publicly announcing who they are not allowing in or why. It does not seem as though they are trying to shame anyone, just protect the thousands of children visiting the parks on any given day. Since there have been cases of kids getting molested at the parks, especially the water parks, I think it is a smart decision to try to minimize the likelihood of that happening in any way they can.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip This is an extreme (and controversial) example, but it can be fairly easily shown that Black people are charged with and convicted of violent crimes at a higher rate than others. Does that mean they should be subjected to extra scrutiny when they enter a theme park? I'm generally not a fan of "slippery slope" arguments, but when I see the changes we have all readily accepted over the past decade or so, it makes me wonder where it all will stop. Already we have accepted that purchasing airfare makes us a potential terrorist. Even if we are a 75-year-old woman or a 7-year-old child.
Originally Posted By Princessjenn5795 "This is an extreme (and controversial) example, but it can be fairly easily shown that Black people are charged with and convicted of violent crimes at a higher rate than others. Does that mean they should be subjected to extra scrutiny when they enter a theme park?" Again, they are not running background checks on everyone buying a ticket. That would cost them an absolute fortune. They are simply running names against the sex offender registry, and choosing not to allow people convicted of sexually assaulting children into their parks. There is a reason slippery slope arguments are considered logical fallacies, and it is because they really make very little sense if you stop to think about them. Some of the arguments being made here, like Disney may decide to start scrutinizing all black people, are perfect examples of that.
Originally Posted By CuriousConstance "Clearly it's not something that any sane or logical person would do, so why are we not allowed to think that they were genetically predisposed to it?" I really do think it's a genetic predisposition. That's either always there or brought out by some event. And I will recognize that these people probably have almost zero control over their actions. No matter how hard they tried. And I can imagine how terrible it would be to have that impulse and not be able to control it if you wanted to. But I could say the same for serial killers. Doesn't mean they should be allowed to roam free in society.
Originally Posted By FerretAfros >>Again, they are not running background checks on everyone buying a ticket. That would cost them an absolute fortune. They are simply running names against the sex offender registry, and choosing not to allow people convicted of sexually assaulting children into their parks.<< But with the ever-increasing availability and ease of comparing records, how long will it be before a private company can simply run a name check against a database? And how much does it cost them to do it now? The article mentions about 80 people who have been turned away, but how many names did they search through to find those names? And who ultimately made the decision to not allow them to enter Disney property? This wasn't simply an automated system that checked the name and address on the credit card and came back with an immediate error message; there were real people behind the scenes making decisions. Clearly they have been willing to invest some energy into this in the past, so why won't they continue to do the same in the future?
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<There is a reason slippery slope arguments are considered logical fallacies, and it is because they really make very little sense if you stop to think about them. Some of the arguments being made here, like Disney may decide to start scrutinizing all black people, are perfect examples of that.>> I wish I were confident of that. But when they start talking about requiring drug tests to receive unemployment compensation (as they have in Missouri), I start to wonder.
Originally Posted By WilliamK99 Again, they are not running background checks on everyone buying a ticket. That would cost them an absolute fortune. They are simply running names against the sex offender registry, and choosing not to allow people convicted of sexually assaulting children into their parks.<< and if your name is John Smith from Miami and you are mistaken for another John Smith from Miami who is a sex offender, you are basically screwed right?
Originally Posted By Princessjenn5795 "I wish I were confident of that. But when they start talking about requiring drug tests to receive unemployment compensation (as they have in Missouri), I start to wonder." Again, this argument is not at all logical. You are comparing a state government requiring drug tests for unemployment benefits to a private company choosing not to allow a few convicted sex offenders on their property. The two are in no way the same thing. For one thing, the people Disney excluded from their property were actually convicted of crimes. Beyond that, most people convicted of sexually assaulting children are not allowed at schools or playgrounds or other places where there a lot of children as condition of their release. It is very possible, even probable, that the people Disney kept from their property were not actually supposed to be there in the first place.
Originally Posted By FerretAfros >>It is very possible, even probable, that the people Disney kept from their property were not actually supposed to be there in the first place.<< If that were the case (I honestly don't know either way), then wouldn't Disney be legally required to report that those individuals had been on their property? It seems like they should be. Yetfrom the sounds of the article, they were simply told that they were not wanted on WDW property and given a warning, rather than any sort of hard legal action
Originally Posted By RoadTrip We are coming at this from two totally different sides. One side worried about a specific class of crime. The other side worried about the increasing government and private business scrutiny of our lives. Two valid points of view, but probably not much chance of finding common ground.
Originally Posted By CuriousConstance I get both sides, I really do. And to be honest, I have very strong opinions on sex offenders and the very fact that they are even allowed to enter society again, often times so quickly after commiting the offense(s) to begin with. I do get that a 18 year old kid could be wrongly put into this group, which is a whole other topic. But I just can't bring myself to become upset with not allowing sex offenders in DW.
Originally Posted By Mickeymouseclub Does anybody know the legal requirements a convicted child predator must legally follow upon release from prison? I think they are legally required to register every year but after a certain length of time they can pay to keep their name off the public list if they have not been convicted again. I assume there are other rules like Don't volunteer in a school or don't live near a school perhaps? Anyway maybe WDW has had some recent occurrences that necessitate this enforcement. I think they discontinued single rider on ToyStory because of a problem... Remember they just recently starting to enforce the age requirement for young children to enter the parks without an adult so I am guessing something has happened and WDW is enforcing new rules. I think they should be applauded.
Originally Posted By dshyates The new rules about children entering the parks has to do with prenatal consent, child privacy laws, and MM+ program. And Constance, It is not just some random 18 year old that can wrongly get put on the list. There are literally thousands of false molestation charges that are brought against fathers during bitter divorce proceedings. And if the Mother has warped the child with anger, there is a good chance the charges will stick even though they are complete fabrications of a bitter ex.
