Use misleading domain name, go to jail? - GoFuckYourself.com

hershie · 03-26-2003, 01:07 PM

Use misleading domain name, go to jail?

By Declan McCullagh
Staff Writer, CNET News.com
March 26, 2003, 11:23 AM PT

WASHINGTON--The U.S. House of Representatives is scheduled to vote Thursday on a proposal that would criminalize using misleading domain names to lure unsuspecting people to sex sites.
Under the proposal, a last-minute amendment to an unrelated child abduction bill, people who knowingly use an innocent-sounding domain name to drive traffic to a sexually explicit Web site could be fined and imprisoned for two to four years. An example of an innocuous-sounding domain name with pornographic content is WhiteHouse.com, which is not sponsored by the Bush administration.

A second amendment that is scheduled for a floor vote at the same time renews Congress' campaign to outlaw "morphed" or virtual child pornography. Last year, the U.S. Supreme Court slapped down Congress' first attempt to ban nude images of computer-generated minors and underage teens, saying the 1996 law violated the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of expression.

The current proposal would ban the creation or possession of "a digital image, computer image, or computer-generated image" that is "indistinguishable" from a real minor.

The House Rules committee late Tuesday adopted a procedure that permits both amendments, and six others, to be considered during debate over an unrelated bill to create an "Amber Alert" notification network for child kidnapping cases. The Amber Alert bill encountered modest opposition when House Judiciary chairman James Sensenbrenner, R-Wisc., decided to turn it into a broader proposal addressing criminal penalties, sex tourism and wiretapping.

The amendment related to domain names is sponsored by Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind., and is similar to a bill he introduced during the last session of Congress and reintroduced this year.

Pence's amendment says 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. It applies to any Internet domain name, including those in non-U.S. country codes like .uk or .nl, and a congressional source predicted it would pass easily during the expected floor vote.

Marv Johnson, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union, says his organization has not taken a position on the Pence amendment.

Johnson said, however, that the ACLU has reviewed the child pornography amendment and believes it to be unconstitutional. "It still allows prosecution for virtual child porn," Johnson said. "That flies in the face of Ashhahahahaha vs. Free Speech Coalition."

In that case, decided in May 2002, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that Congress' attempt to ban any image that "appears to be" an unclad youth was akin to prohibiting dirty thoughts. "First Amendment freedoms are most in danger when the government seeks to control thought or to justify its laws for that impermissible end," the majority said. "The right to think is the beginning of freedom, and speech must be protected from the government because speech is the beginning of thought."

http://msnbc-cnet.com.com/2100-1028-...&subj=cnetnews

Juggernaut · 03-26-2003, 01:10 PM

More lovely work by the Attorney General.

"An example of an innocuous-sounding domain name with pornographic content is WhiteHouse.com, which is not sponsored by the Bush administration."

Funny.

Dawgy · 03-26-2003, 01:13 PM

they sure would get a lot more accomplished on capitol hill if they wouldnt attach completely unrelated bullshit to the end of important laws theyre trying to pass.

clickpimp · 03-26-2003, 01:16 PM

so would 'theonion.com' be in trouble since this political satire website doesn't have much to do with onions?

webgurl · 03-26-2003, 01:16 PM

Oh Yeah ,,,

Hmmm.. interesting point Hershie , Check this domain out
http://www.whitehouse.com/

stocktrader23 · 03-26-2003, 01:18 PM

And none of this would be happening if some idiot hadn't put a porn site on whitehouse.com.

Lane · 03-26-2003, 01:20 PM

Bush is a dickless idiot.

Vote for him again and porn will be banned in the US.

rossiya2 · 03-26-2003, 01:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Juggernaut
More lovely work by the Attorney General.

"An example of an innocuous-sounding domain name with pornographic content is WhiteHouse.com, which is not sponsored by the Bush administration."

Funny.

As I said last week, the trigger for a domestic onslaught of bushite will begin with an attack on whitehouse.com.

Is whitehouse.gov one of the imps lurking on this board?

Giorgio_Xo · 03-26-2003, 01:25 PM

This law would lose in any appeals court. People have a right to name whatever they want with whatever name they feel fit.

chupacabra · 03-26-2003, 01:33 PM

Quote:

The Amber Alert bill encountered modest opposition when House Judiciary chairman James Sensenbrenner, R-Wisc., decided to turn it into a broader proposal addressing criminal penalties, sex tourism and wiretapping.

this entire thing stinks to the heavens... the whole idea of 'innoculous domain names' being banned for our industry is going to be a seriously dangerous thing if this goes through... who is to judge what is innoculous or not? can i help it if those who are doing the judging haven't ever heard of a "bukkake" and equate it to something akin to "Pokemon"..???

and as for what is mentioned in the quote above... what the hell does the 'Amber Alert Bill' have to do w/ Sex Tourism!?!? amerika is really getting shot down the tubes by the politicians and current administration in my opinion. people are giving up, or having snatched away, freedoms on which this country was supposedly based. pathetic..

oh. and, webgurl, i *love* you..!

tony286 · 03-26-2003, 01:36 PM

Does that mean if your domain isnt cocksuckingfreaks.com they can go after you? For example a site like Tori'slair or like Ninaknowsbest can they go after you for that since they dont have a porno reference to them?

chupacabra · 03-26-2003, 01:39 PM

Quote:

Does that mean if your domain isnt cocksuckingfreaks.com they can go after you? For example a site like Tori'slair or like Ninaknowsbest can they go after you for that since they dont have a porno reference to them?

i think thats exactly what they mean... danger will robinson, danger..

tony286 · 03-26-2003, 01:40 PM

So how much more is the cost of living in Amsterdam compared to Atlanta lol ?

chupacabra · 03-26-2003, 01:41 PM

Quote:

So how much more is the cost of living in Amsterdam compared to Atlanta lol ?

heh... good question. but, keep in mind the reference to "Sex Tourism" posted above... perhaps you will be arrested at the airport for trying to visit a locale known for being a good place to get your dick wet..

hershie · 03-26-2003, 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by tony404
Does that mean if your domain isnt cocksuckingfreaks.com they can go after you? For example a site like Tori'slair or like Ninaknowsbest can they go after you for that since they dont have a porno reference to them?

stock tip: invest in prison construction companies as the system will need a lot more space if this flies!

Kat - Fast · 03-26-2003, 01:50 PM

Quote:

Use misleading domain name, go to jail?

By Declan McCullagh
Staff Writer, CNET News.com
March 26, 2003, 11:23 AM PT

It applies to any Internet domain name, including those in non-U.S. country codes like .uk or .nl, and a congressional source predicted it would pass easily during the expected floor vote.

Dear USA, you <u>don't</u> own the internet...

chupacabra · 03-26-2003, 02:00 PM

Quote:

Dear USA, you don't own the internet...

haha, someone try to tell them that... this is just bizarre, i call *shenanigans*..!

webgurl · 03-26-2003, 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by chupacabra

oh. and, webgurl, i *love* you..!

*sigh* you still do ? Why ?

chupacabra · 03-26-2003, 02:30 PM

Quote:

*sigh* you still do ? Why ?

you are the only moon in the nightsky of my minds eye, webgurl..

hershie · 03-26-2003, 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by chupacabra

you are the only moon in the nightsky of my minds eye, webgurl..

have you ever met her?
we had dinner a couple of week's ago and she is a serious hottie and a nice gal to get to know.

chupacabra · 03-26-2003, 02:36 PM

Quote:

we had dinner a couple of week's ago and she is a serious hottie and a nice gal to get to know.

ahh! horrid jealousy racks my fevered brow, i'm literally stewing in my own juices... webgurl makes me quiver whenever she brings fingertips to heated keyboard..

Sarah_Jayne · 03-26-2003, 02:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by chupacabra

haha, someone try to tell them that... this is just bizarre, i call *shenanigans*..!

hang on whilst I get my broom.

StacyCat · 03-26-2003, 02:49 PM

Congressmen and women do this all the time. They take a highly popular bill (such as the amber alert) and throw all sorts of BS behind it, because no one wants to be known as the person who voted against the Amber Bill.

I think it would be thrown out in the first court case.

NetRodent · 03-26-2003, 02:55 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by StacyCat
I think it would be thrown out in the first court case.

It might get thrown out, but it will still make life difficult for whoever is lucky enough to be its first "victim".

rossiya2 · 03-26-2003, 03:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Lane
Bush is a dickless idiot.

Vote for him again and porn will be banned in the US.

Everything will be ok. He seems to have trouble finding people hiding in caves and the NorthWest has many stocked with food, icewater and bear skeletons.

tony286 · 03-26-2003, 03:17 PM

So how is the cost of living in Canada compared to Atlanta ? lol

KRL · 03-26-2003, 03:23 PM

That'll have a very short shelf life if it passes. The Democrats will be back in power soon anyway.

BRISK · 03-26-2003, 03:30 PM

They are assuming that all domains are hosted in the US.

I'd like to see them apply that law to a domain hosted in another country.

Solution = host in a different country (Canada, Netherlands, UK, etc...)

goBigtime · 03-26-2003, 03:34 PM

The whitehouse.com guy was in a legal fight with Cheney. He had some pics of Cheneys wife up there talking shit about her I guess.

[edit] hrm.. maybe that was another site??

goBigtime · 03-26-2003, 03:40 PM

But if they are really worried about the children being corporate prey & exposed to things they shouldn't be....

I wonder how many deaths porn is responsible for yearly.

Antonio · 03-26-2003, 03:41 PM

Oh boy, I've got couple of domains with horny ducks, camels, and cockroaches in their names. Better start looking for pictures before I get sent to jail

tony286 · 03-26-2003, 03:44 PM

So I guess freecandy.com is out lol.

rossiya2 · 03-26-2003, 04:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by hershie
...the U.S. Supreme Court slapped down Congress' first attempt to ban nude images of computer-generated minors and underage teens, saying the 1996 law violated the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of expression.

http://msnbc-cnet.com.com/2100-1028-...&subj=cnetnews

How is the age of a computer generated minor determined? Will saggy tits and a dour expression make it legal?

Mr.Fiction · 03-26-2003, 05:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by goBigtime
The whitehouse.com guy was in a legal fight with Cheney. He had some pics of Cheneys wife up there talking shit about her I guess.

[edit] hrm.. maybe that was another site??

That was Whitehouse.org.

This law is unconstitutional and a direct attack on the First Amendment.

hershie · 03-26-2003, 05:35 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by rossiya2

How is the age of a computer generated minor determined? Will saggy tits and a dour expression make it legal?

Indeed, that does punch a huge hole and flaw in being able to enforce that if it ever becomes law.

PhotoShopGuy · 03-26-2003, 07:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Lane
Bush is a dickless idiot.

Vote for him again and porn will be banned in the US.

Nobody voted for him the first time

Scootermuze · 03-26-2003, 08:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dawgy
they sure would get a lot more accomplished on capitol hill if they wouldnt attach completely unrelated bullshit to the end of important laws theyre trying to pass.

So true! and this is why Clinton wanted the line item veto.. so he could get rid of the bullshit from bills that were important.

All these fuck heads are doing is telling the American people that they aren't interested in seeing kids rescued.. They're more interested in trying to get bullshit bills slipped through.

Pretty childish, unprofessional and a bit sickening..

TheJimmy · 03-26-2003, 08:09 PM

04 can't get here soon enough....

I'll wait it out until then....if he and his buddies are still running the show at that time, it's time for me to find a new country...

Brujah · 03-28-2003, 09:14 AM

Well the fucking thing passed the House.
-------------------

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. It applies to all domain names around the globe, even those in other countries and ending in suffixes such as .nl or .uk.

http://news.com.com/2100-1028-994460.html?tag=fd_top

arg · 03-28-2003, 09:38 AM

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!"

StacyCat · 03-28-2003, 10:21 AM

Yeah, it passed the house. So, its passed the Senate in its original form, the House added a whole bunch of idiot stuff to it, now it goes to committee.

I just hope whomever is on the committee is smart enough to take it down to its bare minumum, and get the Amber alert passed!

"Still, 188 Democrats joined 222 Republicans in voting for the measure. Some privately said they dared not appear to oppose efforts to protect children. Watt was among the 14 nay votes, as was Rep. Ron Paul, R-Surfside. "

http://www.austin360.com/statesman/e...y/news_10.html (link is probably only good for today)

I wonder what a bill requiring bills be about a single subject would do?

tony286 · 03-28-2003, 10:36 AM

Quote:

I think worries about "ninaknowsbest.com" are overstated

How do you know that? Its that type of attitude that got us in this position. I can do this noone will care, nobody ever got caught. If someone had a hard on(no pun intended) for Nina and wanted to go after her and had nothing else. They could say Nina knows best kids would think this a information site. My daughter was doing her homework and she wound up there. It gives them a tool to us against you. To go after 2 billion dollar industry you really cant go head on because 2 billion dollars means alot of people like it so you go after it in less obvious ways . The Visa thing, now the domains this the start and we can thank the webmasters who dont give shit and only cares about what brings them money because soon noone will be making money lol. We have to start policing our own people or there will be no adult porn industry in the USA.

Mr.Fiction · 03-28-2003, 06:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Brujah
Well the fucking thing passed the House.
-------------------

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. It applies to all domain names around the globe, even those in other countries and ending in suffixes such as .nl or .uk.

http://news.com.com/2100-1028-994460.html?tag=fd_top

These congresspeople should be fined or thrown in jail for two years themselves for repeatedly passing unconstitutional bills.

What's worse - running a porn site on Whitehouse.com or repeatedly intentionally trying to override the United States Constitution?

marty · 03-28-2003, 07:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Lane
Bush is a dickless idiot.

Vote for him again and porn will be banned in the US.

Wouldn't it suck if everyone had to work for money again?

foreverjason · 03-28-2003, 07:36 PM

Quote:

they sure would get a lot more accomplished on capitol hill if they wouldnt attach completely unrelated bullshit to the end of important laws theyre trying to pass.

They would but you forget this is the government.

DemonWolfe · 03-31-2003, 03:15 AM

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?

03-26-2003, 01:07 PM	#1
hershie Confirmed User Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 4,642	Use misleading domain name, go to jail? Use misleading domain name, go to jail? By Declan McCullagh Staff Writer, CNET News.com March 26, 2003, 11:23 AM PT WASHINGTON--The U.S. House of Representatives is scheduled to vote Thursday on a proposal that would criminalize using misleading domain names to lure unsuspecting people to sex sites. Under the proposal, a last-minute amendment to an unrelated child abduction bill, people who knowingly use an innocent-sounding domain name to drive traffic to a sexually explicit Web site could be fined and imprisoned for two to four years. An example of an innocuous-sounding domain name with pornographic content is WhiteHouse.com, which is not sponsored by the Bush administration. A second amendment that is scheduled for a floor vote at the same time renews Congress' campaign to outlaw "morphed" or virtual child pornography. Last year, the U.S. Supreme Court slapped down Congress' first attempt to ban nude images of computer-generated minors and underage teens, saying the 1996 law violated the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of expression. The current proposal would ban the creation or possession of "a digital image, computer image, or computer-generated image" that is "indistinguishable" from a real minor. The House Rules committee late Tuesday adopted a procedure that permits both amendments, and six others, to be considered during debate over an unrelated bill to create an "Amber Alert" notification network for child kidnapping cases. The Amber Alert bill encountered modest opposition when House Judiciary chairman James Sensenbrenner, R-Wisc., decided to turn it into a broader proposal addressing criminal penalties, sex tourism and wiretapping. The amendment related to domain names is sponsored by Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind., and is similar to a bill he introduced during the last session of Congress and reintroduced this year. Pence's amendment says 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. It applies to any Internet domain name, including those in non-U.S. country codes like .uk or .nl, and a congressional source predicted it would pass easily during the expected floor vote. Marv Johnson, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union, says his organization has not taken a position on the Pence amendment. Johnson said, however, that the ACLU has reviewed the child pornography amendment and believes it to be unconstitutional. "It still allows prosecution for virtual child porn," Johnson said. "That flies in the face of Ashhahahahaha vs. Free Speech Coalition." In that case, decided in May 2002, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that Congress' attempt to ban any image that "appears to be" an unclad youth was akin to prohibiting dirty thoughts. "First Amendment freedoms are most in danger when the government seeks to control thought or to justify its laws for that impermissible end," the majority said. "The right to think is the beginning of freedom, and speech must be protected from the government because speech is the beginning of thought." http://msnbc-cnet.com.com/2100-1028-...&subj=cnetnews

03-26-2003, 01:13 PM	#3
Dawgy Confirmed User Join Date: Jul 2001 Posts: 5,856	they sure would get a lot more accomplished on capitol hill if they wouldnt attach completely unrelated bullshit to the end of important laws theyre trying to pass. __________________ the revolution is coming.

03-26-2003, 01:16 PM	#4
clickpimp Confirmed User Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 1,159	so would 'theonion.com' be in trouble since this political satire website doesn't have much to do with onions? __________________ eventually, earth will lose. enjoy it while it lasts.

03-26-2003, 01:18 PM	#6
stocktrader23 Let's do some business. Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: The dirty south. Posts: 18,781	And none of this would be happening if some idiot hadn't put a porn site on whitehouse.com. __________________ Hands Free Adult - Join Once, Earn For Life "I try to make a habit of bouncing my eyes up to the face of a beautiful woman, and often repeat “not mine” in my head or even verbally. She’s not mine. God has her set aside. She’s not mine. She’s His little girl, and she needs me to fight for her by keeping my eyes where they should be."

03-26-2003, 01:20 PM	#7
Lane Will code for food... Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Buckeye, AZ Posts: 8,496	Bush is a dickless idiot. Vote for him again and porn will be banned in the US. __________________

03-26-2003, 01:10 PM	#2
Juggernaut Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Brisbane, Australia Posts: 753	More lovely work by the Attorney General. "An example of an innocuous-sounding domain name with pornographic content is WhiteHouse.com, which is not sponsored by the Bush administration." Funny.

03-26-2003, 01:16 PM	#5
webgurl Confirmed User Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Clouds with Carebears Posts: 7,954	Oh Yeah ,,, Hmmm.. interesting point Hershie , Check this domain out http://www.whitehouse.com/

03-26-2003, 01:25 PM	#9
Giorgio_Xo Confirmed User Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Las Vegas, NV Posts: 4,263	This law would lose in any appeals court. People have a right to name whatever they want with whatever name they feel fit. __________________ Make Levees, Not War

03-26-2003, 01:36 PM	#11
tony286 lurker Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: atlanta Posts: 57,021	Does that mean if your domain isnt cocksuckingfreaks.com they can go after you? For example a site like Tori'slair or like Ninaknowsbest can they go after you for that since they dont have a porno reference to them?

03-26-2003, 01:40 PM	#13
tony286 lurker Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: atlanta Posts: 57,021	So how much more is the cost of living in Amsterdam compared to Atlanta lol ?

03-26-2003, 02:49 PM	#23
StacyCat Confirmed User Join Date: May 2002 Location: Texas Posts: 1,167	Congressmen and women do this all the time. They take a highly popular bill (such as the amber alert) and throw all sorts of BS behind it, because no one wants to be known as the person who voted against the Amber Bill. I think it would be thrown out in the first court case.

03-26-2003, 03:17 PM	#26
tony286 lurker Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: atlanta Posts: 57,021	So how is the cost of living in Canada compared to Atlanta ? lol

03-26-2003, 03:23 PM	#27
KRL Entrepreneur Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: USA Posts: 31,429	That'll have a very short shelf life if it passes. The Democrats will be back in power soon anyway.

03-26-2003, 03:30 PM	#28
BRISK Too lazy to set a custom title Join Date: Feb 2003 Posts: 12,240	They are assuming that all domains are hosted in the US. I'd like to see them apply that law to a domain hosted in another country. Solution = host in a different country (Canada, Netherlands, UK, etc...) __________________ I post on GFY so that when people ask me what I do, I can tell them that I work with the mentally retarded.

03-26-2003, 03:34 PM	#29
goBigtime Confirmed User Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 7,761	The whitehouse.com guy was in a legal fight with Cheney. He had some pics of Cheneys wife up there talking shit about her I guess. [edit] hrm.. maybe that was another site??

03-26-2003, 03:40 PM	#30
goBigtime Confirmed User Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 7,761	But if they are really worried about the children being corporate prey & exposed to things they shouldn't be.... I wonder how many deaths porn is responsible for yearly.

03-26-2003, 03:41 PM	#31
Antonio Too lazy to set a custom title Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Spartaaaaaaaaa Posts: 14,136	Oh boy, I've got couple of domains with horny ducks, camels, and cockroaches in their names. Better start looking for pictures before I get sent to jail

03-26-2003, 03:44 PM	#32
tony286 lurker Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: atlanta Posts: 57,021	So I guess freecandy.com is out lol.

03-26-2003, 08:09 PM	#38
TheJimmy ICQ- five seven 0 2 5 5 0 Join Date: Jan 2001 Posts: 10,747	04 can't get here soon enough.... I'll wait it out until then....if he and his buddies are still running the show at that time, it's time for me to find a new country... __________________ Investor with 5m - 15m USD to invest. Do you have a site or network of sites earning 50k - 200k a month income? Email your contact and preliminary data to: domain.cashventures (at) gmail.com....Please...no tire kickers...serious offers and inquiries only.

03-28-2003, 09:14 AM	#39
Brujah Beer Money Baron Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: brujah / gmail Posts: 22,157	Well the fucking thing passed the House. ------------------- 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. It applies to all domain names around the globe, even those in other countries and ending in suffixes such as .nl or .uk. http://news.com.com/2100-1028-994460.html?tag=fd_top __________________ Free Premium Domain Lists and Tools at Clickmojo.com For Sale: Obscenity.com

03-28-2003, 09:38 AM	#40
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!"

03-28-2003, 10:21 AM	#41
StacyCat Confirmed User Join Date: May 2002 Location: Texas Posts: 1,167	Yeah, it passed the house. So, its passed the Senate in its original form, the House added a whole bunch of idiot stuff to it, now it goes to committee. I just hope whomever is on the committee is smart enough to take it down to its bare minumum, and get the Amber alert passed! "Still, 188 Democrats joined 222 Republicans in voting for the measure. Some privately said they dared not appear to oppose efforts to protect children. Watt was among the 14 nay votes, as was Rep. Ron Paul, R-Surfside. " http://www.austin360.com/statesman/e...y/news_10.html (link is probably only good for today) I wonder what a bill requiring bills be about a single subject would do?

03-31-2003, 03:15 AM	#46
DemonWolfe Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: World Traveler Posts: 261	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? __________________ Sorry, no signature today. Please come back tomorrow.