View Single Post
Old 03-28-2003, 09:38 AM  
arg
Confirmed User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 1,164
I think worries about "ninaknowsbest.com" are overstated...the bill's intent is directed at sites like whitehouse.com, which most people (i.e. a jury) would agree is innocuous-sounding and somewhat deceptive. I think the grayer areas are going to be with sites like girls.com, which are innocuous but aren't really deceptive - girls.com has girls. Whatever its intent, I don't think the law will withstand a constitutional challenge. If it's like some of the past attempts at this sort of thing, the ACLU or a similar party will get an injunction against enforcement until challenges can be heard by the courts.

Hopefully the amber alert part of the law won't be held up by the unconstitutional parts. When Elizabeth Smart was recently found in the Utah kidnapping case, her father implored legislators to drop their other agendas from the amber alert bill, as it's been delayed for years as lawmakers keep trying to attach their pet projects to the bill. I think he called the pet projects "well intentioned but misguided," which was putting it charitably. Lawmakers may oppose the tacked-on bullshit of the bill, but if they vote against it, then next election season their opponent will say "so-and-so voted against a federal amber alert system, he doesn't care if your kids are kidnapped!"
arg is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote