The news article here:
http://news.com.com/2100-1028-994460.html?tag=fd_top
says this
"Pence's amendment said that anyone who uses a misleading domain name to try to lure people into visiting an obscene Web site faces up to two years in prison, and anyone who tries to lure a minor to a sexually explicit site that is "harmful to minors" faces up to four years in prison."
Notice the 2 year sentence doesn't include children in it at all. It simply says "who uses a misleading domain name to try to lure people into visiting an obscene Web site faces up to two years in prison"
That could be used by prosecuters for a slew of adult websites, such as these very large sites:
thehun.com
elephantlist.com
pichunter.com
easypic.com
book-mark.net
absolut-series.com
thumbzilla.com
mmm100.com
cowlist.com
call-kelly.com
persiankitty.com
and MANY MANY MANY THOUSANDS MORE.
Please NOTE that I am only mentioning these sites because they are well known adult sites, which better illustrate my example. I know many of the owners of these sites and with 1 exception they are all very nice people.
My point is those domains (and thousands others) could be considered misleading, and could fall prey to this law.
I still don't understand why a childrens net was never approved? It seems pretty simple to me.
More to the point, this law uses the old "protect children" guise to put something on the books.
On the other hand I do happen to agree that using popular kid terms (like pokemon) to get visits to porn sites is not only wrong, but also stupid.
Why would an adult site want children to visit it in the first place?