Is anyone shutting down their "misleading domains"? - Page 2 - GoFuckYourself.com

eroswebmaster · 05-02-2003, 03:05 PM

However PK, I think it's been brought up in this thread already about the MO of conservatives throughout the history of porn and that is to lock you up in court battles that cost a lot of money.

Are you willing and prepared not only financially, but physically and mentally to fight a battle that COULD happen.

We all live day to day in this biz with the possibility of the gov coming in and giving us a royal fucking, but this law makes it a bit easier.

IMO I think this law will eventually be turned over in the supreme court once a case is brought up there. However how many wm's from rich to those that live paycheck to paycheck will this law leave broke?

UnseenWorld · 05-02-2003, 03:18 PM

"(a) Whoever knowingly uses a misleading domain name with the intent to deceive a person into viewing obscenity on the Internet shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.

"(b) Whoever knowingly uses a misleading domain name with the intent to deceive a minor into viewing material that is harmful to minors on the Internet shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 4 years, or both."

"Intent" is a difficult thing to show, especially for a person who cannot benefit from minors viewing porn.

The defense is, "How could I INTEND to show porn to minors when there is no benefit to me, monetary or otherwise? They don't spend money," I'm not sure what the prosecution's answer to that could be.

Now, of course, there are fuck-ups who intend to do harm or are just reckless. If you set up a page of hardcore porn on a domain like maryhadalittlelamb.com you should be thrown in the slammer for sheer stupidity, if nothing else.

Adult Site Traffic · 05-02-2003, 05:17 PM

I wonder what about content providers?

I've never heard of xxxsexporncontent.com before, and I know some of them allow access to sample images without passwords.

I suppose they're screwed too...

AST

Bastian · 05-02-2003, 05:32 PM

Persian Kitty-

You're speaking like a sane, logical person. But let me tell you, you could still be at risk.

The intent of the law is not the scary part. Read the Washington Post article. It says:

"Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) has voiced concerns that prosecutors could misinterpret the legislation."

The scary part is that it gives power to fanatics. It doesn't matter whether you think your domain is misleading or not. If it doesn't have pornographic language in it, it's going to be arguable. If you're standing in front of a judge who is conservative and frowns on pornography he may say that the simple fact that you were aware of the law and you kept using the domain is "knowing" or reckless disregard. Your definitions don't matter. Theirs are the ones with the power. It's not the law itself that is scary. It's the fact that people will be able to use this law to administer their prejudices against porn.

Being big or profitable or well-known isn't going to save you if your are targeted. There is a reason why the law is written the way it is. It goes so far as to list the specific words that qualify as pornographic and I ain't seein' Persian Kitty on the list. Maybe in the long run this won't last. Maybe if you're willing to go through the hell it would be to put up a fight and appeal it all the way, you can use your above defense and be the one to get the law changed. But in the meantime you better hope some little girl doesn't want to know some interesting facts about her new persian kitten. Or to be more realistic, what if someone wants to start a site about their persian kitty and oops that domain is already registered, and maybe that's how they run across you. You're in the same boat with everyone else.

If a scenerio can be conceived within the allowances of this law, then in my opinion it is perfectly possible and maybe even likely that it will occurr. It's a threat. That's my point of view.

Bastian · 05-02-2003, 05:33 PM

By the way, you think everyone who is posting in this thread has a file at the FBI now?

Bastian · 05-02-2003, 05:38 PM

Unseenworld,

How about

"(a) Whoever knowingly uses a misleading domain name with the intent to deceive a person into viewing obscenity on the Internet shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.

You could profit from that.

Forget kids, it's any person.

AlienQ - BANNED FOR LIFE · 05-02-2003, 05:50 PM

Whats in a word?

Whats misleading depending on point of view, perspective and expression of what one thinks?

It is important for domains to be established as property I think in the eye of the law MAYBE! But it could be a nightmare.

If Domains were determined as property things could get much worse.
For example?
A domain could be taxed for example as soon as politicians see the opportunity in the taxation of domains as property... I am sure that would give many a webmaster the piss shivers with added symptoms of Syphilus. Sigh.

tony286 · 05-02-2003, 06:07 PM

Domains cant be property because you lease them , you dont own them. Stop paying your domain fee its not yours anymore. Its very vague but I can see unless you sending spam that says get free quotes and it goes to a porn site or its macrosoft.com. How can they say you are misleading if you arent attached to anything is that not nonadult? I think also it helps if they do go after you if your home page is a disclaimer with nothing graphic on it. Because to prove you are misleading someone to porn The argument is stronger if they type in the domain and the first thing they see is a girl giving head or a spread open pussy shot. Then you have a problem.

sacX · 05-02-2003, 07:17 PM

If you have a warning page that says what follows, then surely you're not deceiving anyone into viewing obscene material?

The big problem is the lack of clarity. I feel sorry for the first person to best dragged before the court on this issue.

AlienQ - BANNED FOR LIFE · 05-02-2003, 07:43 PM

"Domains cant be property because you lease them , you dont own them. "
THank god for that

And certainly have to agree with Sacx on the warning page. Its not misleading with info provided on the subjact matter before entering.

theWatsonian · 05-02-2003, 07:54 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sacX
If you have a warning page that says what follows, then surely you're not deceiving anyone into viewing obscene material?

The big problem is the lack of clarity. I feel sorry for the first person to best dragged before the court on this issue.

That's my line of thinking, as well.

gornyhuy · 05-02-2003, 09:46 PM

IMHO A warning page is not sufficient unless it is the only possible path into your content (i.e. htaccess checks the referer and if the viewer didn't come through the warning page then they get redirected there)

Otherwise, anyone who is deeplinked into your site past the warning page can easily have been misled into your porn.

On the positive side, doesn't this law imply that a warning page is NOT necessary at all, so long as your domain name contains sex or porn or sufficiently descriptive sexual terms in the domain name?

Peter Romero · 05-02-2003, 09:51 PM

uh... my site is not very misleading.

www.povporn.com

Honeyslut · 05-02-2003, 10:41 PM

I am so glad that almost all of my sites have either sex , porn, xxx, fetish or sluts in the title.

sacX · 05-02-2003, 10:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by gornyhuy
IMHO A warning page is not sufficient unless it is the only possible path into your content (i.e. htaccess checks the referer and if the viewer didn't come through the warning page then they get redirected there)

Otherwise, anyone who is deeplinked into your site past the warning page can easily have been misled into your porn.

On the positive side, doesn't this law imply that a warning page is NOT necessary at all, so long as your domain name contains sex or porn or sufficiently descriptive sexual terms in the domain name?

Well if someone has deeplinked into your site. Then it surely would be the person who linked that is responsible, because it's them who is responsible for the deception.

sacX · 05-02-2003, 10:57 PM

One thing that kind of annoys me about this law is that it puts all the onus on the webmaster and none on the parents or browsers.

There are probably some decent simple client side solutions that would work well and be more effective, but they've gone for this it's ALL the webmasters problem.

booker · 05-02-2003, 11:15 PM

I think that, unfortunately, in a business where maintaining legitimacy is so very difficult, it is almost necessary to comply with the legislation, even though it may not be quite "fair" or consistant with the Constitution, which I feel is the case.

If you ask me, it is a bandaid on a more important problem, that of poor parenting. Parents who let their kids run rampant with the internet, do not supervise their use and instill in their kids the proper morals.

Yet another case of treating the symptoms and not the disease.

Honeyslut · 05-02-2003, 11:34 PM

We have to take the fall because the majority of Americans are too LAZY to watch and raise their children right.

This pornographer has a 16 and almost 15 year old teen girls who still watch the Disney channel..

Honeyslut · 05-02-2003, 11:37 PM

Solutions....

Make it a law that parents have filters for their kids. Hell, they have to have car seats for safety...
The government can have a free filter program available...

Visa problem= Credit card companys state that they will not allow charge backs for porn.. Problem solved..

shrugs.....

booker · 05-02-2003, 11:45 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Honeyslut
We have to take the fall because the majority of Americans are too LAZY to watch and raise their children right.

Amen!

tony286 · 05-03-2003, 09:08 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by gornyhuy
IMHO A warning page is not sufficient unless it is the only possible path into your content (i.e. htaccess checks the referer and if the viewer didn't come through the warning page then they get redirected there)

Otherwise, anyone who is deeplinked into your site past the warning page can easily have been misled into your porn.

On the positive side, doesn't this law imply that a warning page is NOT necessary at all, so long as your domain name contains sex or porn or sufficiently descriptive sexual terms in the domain name?

No actually if you read it also says they want us to voluntarly clean up our front pages (no graphic sex)

05-02-2003, 03:05 PM	#51
eroswebmaster March 1st, 2003 Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Seat 4 @ Venetian Poker Room Posts: 20,295	However PK, I think it's been brought up in this thread already about the MO of conservatives throughout the history of porn and that is to lock you up in court battles that cost a lot of money. Are you willing and prepared not only financially, but physically and mentally to fight a battle that COULD happen. We all live day to day in this biz with the possibility of the gov coming in and giving us a royal fucking, but this law makes it a bit easier. IMO I think this law will eventually be turned over in the supreme court once a case is brought up there. However how many wm's from rich to those that live paycheck to paycheck will this law leave broke? __________________ For rent - ICQ 127-027-910 Click here for more details

05-02-2003, 03:18 PM	#52
UnseenWorld Confirmed User Join Date: May 2001 Location: Portland, OR, USA Posts: 5,279	"(a) Whoever knowingly uses a misleading domain name with the intent to deceive a person into viewing obscenity on the Internet shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both. "(b) Whoever knowingly uses a misleading domain name with the intent to deceive a minor into viewing material that is harmful to minors on the Internet shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 4 years, or both." "Intent" is a difficult thing to show, especially for a person who cannot benefit from minors viewing porn. The defense is, "How could I INTEND to show porn to minors when there is no benefit to me, monetary or otherwise? They don't spend money," I'm not sure what the prosecution's answer to that could be. Now, of course, there are fuck-ups who intend to do harm or are just reckless. If you set up a page of hardcore porn on a domain like maryhadalittlelamb.com you should be thrown in the slammer for sheer stupidity, if nothing else. __________________ SIG TOO BIG! Maximum 120x60 button and no more than 3 text lines of DEFAULT SIZE and COLOR. Unless your sig is for a GFY top banner sponsor, then you may use a 624x80 instead of a 120x60.

05-02-2003, 05:17 PM	#53
Adult Site Traffic Confirmed User Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: South-East of the Border of Disorder Posts: 5,093	I wonder what about content providers? I've never heard of xxxsexporncontent.com before, and I know some of them allow access to sample images without passwords. I suppose they're screwed too... AST __________________ ALL Domains and Websites are GOING AWAY NOW! Ask me! Many great domains, mainstream and adult, some complete sites with databases, some names with traffic and PR, some investment quality names. Come take a look! { Traffic Orders: Please go here } .:: SHARPEN the Elite - BURN the leftovers! Ooh-Rah!! ::.

05-02-2003, 05:50 PM	#57
AlienQ - BANNED FOR LIFE best designer on GFY Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: IALIEN.COM - High Definition Video and Photographic Productions -ICQ 78943384 Posts: 30,307	Whats in a word? Whats misleading depending on point of view, perspective and expression of what one thinks? It is important for domains to be established as property I think in the eye of the law MAYBE! But it could be a nightmare. If Domains were determined as property things could get much worse. For example? A domain could be taxed for example as soon as politicians see the opportunity in the taxation of domains as property... I am sure that would give many a webmaster the piss shivers with added symptoms of Syphilus. Sigh. __________________ NAKED HOSTING FTW!11 I'm On The INSANE PLAN $9.95/mo! \| The Alien Blog Adult News Worth Reading Updated Daily \| Content For Sale! 641 PICS 216 MINUTES OF VIDEO $350.00 \|ICQ: 78943384 \|

05-02-2003, 07:43 PM	#60
AlienQ - BANNED FOR LIFE best designer on GFY Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: IALIEN.COM - High Definition Video and Photographic Productions -ICQ 78943384 Posts: 30,307	"Domains cant be property because you lease them , you dont own them. " THank god for that And certainly have to agree with Sacx on the warning page. Its not misleading with info provided on the subjact matter before entering. __________________ NAKED HOSTING FTW!11 I'm On The INSANE PLAN $9.95/mo! \| The Alien Blog Adult News Worth Reading Updated Daily \| Content For Sale! 641 PICS 216 MINUTES OF VIDEO $350.00 \|ICQ: 78943384 \|

05-02-2003, 05:32 PM	#54
Bastian Confirmed User Join Date: Jul 2001 Posts: 140	Persian Kitty- You're speaking like a sane, logical person. But let me tell you, you could still be at risk. The intent of the law is not the scary part. Read the Washington Post article. It says: "Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) has voiced concerns that prosecutors could misinterpret the legislation." The scary part is that it gives power to fanatics. It doesn't matter whether you think your domain is misleading or not. If it doesn't have pornographic language in it, it's going to be arguable. If you're standing in front of a judge who is conservative and frowns on pornography he may say that the simple fact that you were aware of the law and you kept using the domain is "knowing" or reckless disregard. Your definitions don't matter. Theirs are the ones with the power. It's not the law itself that is scary. It's the fact that people will be able to use this law to administer their prejudices against porn. Being big or profitable or well-known isn't going to save you if your are targeted. There is a reason why the law is written the way it is. It goes so far as to list the specific words that qualify as pornographic and I ain't seein' Persian Kitty on the list. Maybe in the long run this won't last. Maybe if you're willing to go through the hell it would be to put up a fight and appeal it all the way, you can use your above defense and be the one to get the law changed. But in the meantime you better hope some little girl doesn't want to know some interesting facts about her new persian kitten. Or to be more realistic, what if someone wants to start a site about their persian kitty and oops that domain is already registered, and maybe that's how they run across you. You're in the same boat with everyone else. If a scenerio can be conceived within the allowances of this law, then in my opinion it is perfectly possible and maybe even likely that it will occurr. It's a threat. That's my point of view.

05-02-2003, 05:33 PM	#55
Bastian Confirmed User Join Date: Jul 2001 Posts: 140	By the way, you think everyone who is posting in this thread has a file at the FBI now?

05-02-2003, 05:38 PM	#56
Bastian Confirmed User Join Date: Jul 2001 Posts: 140	Unseenworld, How about "(a) Whoever knowingly uses a misleading domain name with the intent to deceive a person into viewing obscenity on the Internet shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both. You could profit from that. Forget kids, it's any person.

05-02-2003, 06:07 PM	#58
tony286 lurker Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: atlanta Posts: 57,021	Domains cant be property because you lease them , you dont own them. Stop paying your domain fee its not yours anymore. Its very vague but I can see unless you sending spam that says get free quotes and it goes to a porn site or its macrosoft.com. How can they say you are misleading if you arent attached to anything is that not nonadult? I think also it helps if they do go after you if your home page is a disclaimer with nothing graphic on it. Because to prove you are misleading someone to porn The argument is stronger if they type in the domain and the first thing they see is a girl giving head or a spread open pussy shot. Then you have a problem.

05-02-2003, 07:17 PM	#59
sacX Confirmed User Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: New Zealand Posts: 2,998	If you have a warning page that says what follows, then surely you're not deceiving anyone into viewing obscene material? The big problem is the lack of clarity. I feel sorry for the first person to best dragged before the court on this issue.

05-02-2003, 09:46 PM	#62
gornyhuy Chafed. Join Date: May 2002 Location: Face Down in Pussy Posts: 18,041	IMHO A warning page is not sufficient unless it is the only possible path into your content (i.e. htaccess checks the referer and if the viewer didn't come through the warning page then they get redirected there) Otherwise, anyone who is deeplinked into your site past the warning page can easily have been misled into your porn. On the positive side, doesn't this law imply that a warning page is NOT necessary at all, so long as your domain name contains sex or porn or sufficiently descriptive sexual terms in the domain name? __________________ icq:159548293

05-02-2003, 09:51 PM	#63
Peter Romero Long time no happy ending Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: San Diego CA Posts: 10,578	uh... my site is not very misleading. www.povporn.com __________________ POVCash [email protected] See them all here: http://www.Petergirls.com

05-02-2003, 10:41 PM	#64
Honeyslut Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Ass Valley, Ca Posts: 6,436	I am so glad that almost all of my sites have either sex , porn, xxx, fetish or sluts in the title. __________________ http://nakedlunchnews.comWhat's up ? Naked Lunch News !

05-02-2003, 10:57 PM	#66
sacX Confirmed User Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: New Zealand Posts: 2,998	One thing that kind of annoys me about this law is that it puts all the onus on the webmaster and none on the parents or browsers. There are probably some decent simple client side solutions that would work well and be more effective, but they've gone for this it's ALL the webmasters problem.

05-02-2003, 11:15 PM	#67
booker Confirmed User Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Baltimore Posts: 1,370	I think that, unfortunately, in a business where maintaining legitimacy is so very difficult, it is almost necessary to comply with the legislation, even though it may not be quite "fair" or consistant with the Constitution, which I feel is the case. If you ask me, it is a bandaid on a more important problem, that of poor parenting. Parents who let their kids run rampant with the internet, do not supervise their use and instill in their kids the proper morals. Yet another case of treating the symptoms and not the disease. __________________ Xanadu024 (aim) or 286785389 (icq) "Hard work beats talent when talent doesn't work hard."

05-02-2003, 11:34 PM	#68
Honeyslut Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Ass Valley, Ca Posts: 6,436	We have to take the fall because the majority of Americans are too LAZY to watch and raise their children right. This pornographer has a 16 and almost 15 year old teen girls who still watch the Disney channel.. __________________ http://nakedlunchnews.comWhat's up ? Naked Lunch News !

05-02-2003, 11:37 PM	#69
Honeyslut Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Ass Valley, Ca Posts: 6,436	Solutions.... Make it a law that parents have filters for their kids. Hell, they have to have car seats for safety... The government can have a free filter program available... Visa problem= Credit card companys state that they will not allow charge backs for porn.. Problem solved.. shrugs..... __________________ http://nakedlunchnews.comWhat's up ? Naked Lunch News !