Is anyone shutting down their "misleading domains"?
 

What the fuck? Its officially US law now? Yeah yeah, people will counter sue, bitch complain, etc, but in the meantime a lot of people are very vulnerable to prosecution.

Any one actually going to take down their domains that don't contain "sex" or "porn" in the root domain?

:helpme


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2003Apr30.html

no

This is great news for all you expired domain buyers! Eh SEGuru?? eh? eh? *wink*

As time goes on, I envy you non-US based webmasters more and more...

Land of the free... right.

I've taken down a few arguable domains for the time being, waiting to see how it plays out. Maybe paranoid, but I figure it'll cost 5% of my income to sleep easier, and in a few months I'll reassess based on charges and challenges filed.

Don't take them down. Push them to a dating sponsor.

I just eased some of my potentially sensitive ones to softer stuff.

Our primary corp is outside the US and so are our servers. But its always better to be safer than sorry these days.

But for sure if you have a domain like CubScoutsCampingAdventures.com going to a hardcore gay twink site, I'd change that faster than pronto.

:1orglaugh

I've let a few expire

Amen to that!!!

Come on guys, give me a break!

I've consulted a ton of companies who just don't have a clue about the web. Surely this crowd gets there there are vast numbers of people out there that just don't get the web yet!

The one great thing about this country, is that laws get changed everyday when they are found to be unconstitutional or outdated.

Granted there's a ton of them that need attention, but as with the one signed into Law by George...it too will get challenged and modified.

This has nothing to do with the expired game.

What the government is trying to get to, to make people understand...is relevance.

I mean how many times to I have to say that word...relevance.

Be real, do the right thing, and target the appropriate audiences...and you can do business until you are blue in the face.

Be misleading...and you get what you you have coming to you!

My $.02

I will hold domains for people. Just have to work out a contract.

"As time goes on, I envy you non-US based webmasters more and more...

Land of the free... right. "


what about the obsenity bust in vancouver and germany shutting down ogrish

Well don't leave us hanging...give us an example.

I mean let's say you have teengirls.com ( I don't own it) going to a hardcore teen site.

Is that "relevant?" or is it "misleading?" or is it BOTH?

someone used this example up above:
CubScoutsCampingAdventures.com

that's pretty clear cut, a 10 year old cub scout and his dad getting reading for thier first jamboree just might happen upon a site like that.

But what about a young teen girl going online looking for sites that are relevant to her age? Would teengirls.com be misleading and get you into trouble?

I know you can't answer exactly just that...but don't just scream relevance and misleading without giving some sort of example and without it having some word that would be just so clear cut in it.

The concern here would be what do they mean by "innocuous?"

Main Entry: in·noc·u·ous
Pronunciation: i-'nä-ky&-w&s
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin innocuus, from in- + nocEre
Date: 1598
1 : producing no injury : HARMLESS
2 : not likely to give offense or to arouse strong feelings or hostility :


HARMLESS, would most likely be their definition.

That really covers too much ground.

Let's just take for example ARS' site list:
allpetite (could be sites for petite girls to find clothes etc)
amateur freedom (nothing implies sex here)
amateur university (nothing implies sex here)
average girls (girls looking for sites about low self esteem...LOL)
babesncars (could be porn, then it could be like a "lowrider" magazine concept.)
cheer tryouts (maybe some young girl wants to learn about cheerleading tryouts)
just toons (cartoons)
ladies secret (there is a victoria's secret...could be a rip off clothing line)
legs and feet (could be selling stockings and dr. scholl's products)


The list goes on...and we could do this with so many other programs.

Now, correct me if I'm wrong but the law says "Whoever KNOWINGLY uses a misleading domain name with the intent to deceive a person into viewing obscenity"

Now that would inply to me that HOW a person stumbles on to the site would be the crux of whether you would be prosecuted or not. I mean if they find it through a search engine and all of your keywords are pornographic in nature, then the search engine will file it under the appropriate adult content warnings, and thus, they would have been warned. Now, if you allow it to come up when someone types in "boyscouts" then they will probably see that as "knowing" because you had control over your meta tags.

Otherwise, if your posting to sexual oriented sites, then you are not knowingly catering to people not looking for porn.

O.k. let's say someone posts your site in a non sexual chat room or forum and kids or people not looking for porn click on it. Well, then it seems to me that whomever posted it is the one who would be prosecuted since he was the knowing one and you weren't.

When a prosectutor tries to come after somone, he is going to have to explain how the site was found by the minor or person that wasn't looking for porn. So unless that person just happened to type in your domain, as long as you weren't irresponsible, you should be o.k.

That's my 2 cents. Maybe I'm wrong. Is there anyone with a law background who could say if I've overlooked something?

Which ones?':winkwink: i'll pick em' up

I'm going to agree with you! GREY AREA is going to exist everywhere in all laws which require definition.

The grey areas, are those that we as individuals have to decide if we want to take those battles on. It is our basic right to do so.

However, I believe their intent was to go after the blatant misleading without regard to the GREY AREAS.

As an aside, it is a Republican WhiteHouse! Hense, if as a blanket they can throw over all of the ugliness by "allowing" these grey areas to exist and to automatically suck it into long drawn out litigation.

This has long been a tactic of the conservative leaders in our country.

anyone have a link to the actual bill that was passed?

I can't seem to find it.

Hmmm

who operates www.whitehouse.com

I assume a lot of kids go their to do their schoolpapers........

It seems to come down to how broadly the "misleading" clause is interpreted. Consider the following 5 domains:

1) new-york-tourism.com
Obviously, this would be misleading if it led to a porn site. This has absolutely nothing to do with porn.

2) new-york-girls.com
While this domain is not overtly porn related and it could be used for mainstream purposes, it implies an adult relation.

3) new-york-anal-fisting.com
This domain is not explicitly excluded from the law since it doesn't contain the word "sex" or "porn" but it is obviously hardcore adult.

4) new-york-porn.com
Of the five this is the only domain that is explicitly ok.

5) playboy.com

There is nothing inherent to the word "playboy" that means adult. (playboy - n : a man devoted to the pursuit of pleasure [syn: man-about-town, Corinthian]) However, because of its use by a magazine, it has been co-opted to imply "naked women".

IMHO It is going to be pretty straight forwared:

1)Does the site have porn content
2)Does the name contain any keyphrase to signify porn content (notably "porn" or "sex")
3)If 1=yes and 2=no then you are in violation of the law, you are going to jail.

I don't think it will matter who links to you, what are keywords, how a viewer got there, or is there a warning page or not. I don't think there will be any subjective touch feely evaluation of "misleading", simply yes or no.

Furthermore, this law was tacked on to Amber Alert so that nobody would have the balls to vote it down. Now its in there and the conservatives are going to use it as a tool to go after the "evil doers", so I wouldn't expect any leniency or reasonable discussion. IMHO its going to get serious quick.

:2cents

Yes, but I can guarantee you that some prosecutor in some ultra conservative place will try to go after someone for a borderline domain and that's when all the "People vs Larry Flint" stuff will start.

gornyhuy

Well, they can try, but due to the lettering of the law and the fact that by the law's definition the person must KNOWINGLY be doing it, then the defense will be to question the definition of the word "knowing."

I need to shut down DeepAnal, after a judge reviewed the site he ruled that unless the penis is inserted at least 6 inches into the rectum it cannot be considered DeepAnal.

LOL

Just put a redirector on there and send the traffic to mediumanal.com... No problem.

Bastian, the danger is in the interpretation of "knowingly". They could easily argue that by putting porn on persiankitty.com, pk KNEW that the domain didn't explicitly have sex in the title and they KNEW they were putting porn on there, so by definition that is a "knowing deception."

Basically I'm saying that once you open the flood gates like that, the shit could potentially really hit the fan hard.

I agree that right now there will be some very unhappy people that get caught up by this. Just remember, though, it's not enough for a prosecutor to just flip on his computer and start marking who he's going to go after. Someone has to file a complaint and each prosecutor is going to look at the case and decide whether or not there may be problems in getting a conviction. So hopefully they will concentrate on the clear cut ones.

I still think it will come down to some sort of reckless disregard.
As one other poster said, they're not going to go after Playboy or Penthouse even though they don't have sex or porn in their names. I think it's going to hinge on HOW the individual receives it.

I only hope there are a handful of laywers who want to make a name for themselves that will confront the flaws in the law and maybe eventually get it ammended.

yeah, you are probably right. I just don't want to be the one that is made into an example.

Its likely that only the big players (not big like playboy or hustler, but big in the "newer" online porn world) will be targeted first since a) they have the most exposure to the public through high traffic and affiliates and b)they have the most money to fine so it will be worthwhile to go after them.

I guess that means the biggest US based TGPs and freesites.

when they reg .org/.gov(not sure which is the right one)but the shouldv'e reg the .com,it don't take a genius to figure that one out, "they" will be coming for his ass soon

Yeah, I wouldn't be surprised if they were the first to go. Couldn't have picked a higher profile site with the wrong right wing evangelist in power.

Clinton probably jerked off to that shit in the oval office, but Bush is going to cleanse the heathens.

I think "CoedsInHeat.com" is clear enough.

Thats true, its a site about female college students in studying during the summer, right?

The wording of it is pretty scary to me, not nearly clear enough. But, I took a step back and thought of it from a non porn point of view and it definitely makes sense in some respect. The whitehouse.com one is just blatant and stupid. If I were the parent of a 10 year old doing a homework assignment and typed in whitehouse.com for them (while sitting with them in front of the computer cause they shouldn't be suring alone).. I would be outraged. I don't think seeing boobs is harmful to kids, just there are certain things you don't do. I don't think the heat will come off of online porn until people stop pushing it into the faces of people who don't have any interest in it, not just minors. Not everyone wants to see tranny anal fisting... why can't people get that thru their thick heads?

My lawyer said he was to learn more on til he can advise me. Probably until the first person gets clipped who knows what the law means. One person I had read on a board said they can save it as add on when they arrest you for obsenity, so they have you for multiple things. Also they can make all the laws in the world, it still has to go to a jury and all a defense lawyer has to show is reasonable doubt. I do think alot of free tours have to be cleaned up if larry flynts tours is pretty tame and he has deep pockets and the best 1st amendment lawyer in the world. That tells you something.

Right wing conservative prosecutors think like this.

The more laws we have on the books to fuck with these pornographers the bigger our arsenal and nailing them for one thing or another and winning a conviction.

There is no doubt in my mind that we are on the verge of the A s h c r o f t indictments at any moment.

I barely made it through the Ed Meese era. Our stuff was out there with headlights on it. Only had one situation we had to deal with and it came on State level not Federal fortunately.

Don't think it can't happen to anyone in here.

Respect the law and the DOJ or they will ruin your business.

LARRY! hit that speed dial! we've got another 1st amendment case for you to fix for us! =)

Do text links to porn count as porn?

Good question actually...

What is the forbidden content anyway?

Can you just link up to all your new compliant URLs from your old misleading URLs with descriptive links or even a redirect?


Where do they draw the line?

Truth in Domain Names Act of 2003 (Introduced in Senate)

S 800 IS


108th CONGRESS

1st Session

S. 800
To prevent the use of a misleading domain name with the intent to deceive a person into viewing obscenity on the Internet.


IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

April 7, 2003
Mr. HATCH introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


A BILL
To prevent the use of a misleading domain name with the intent to deceive a person into viewing obscenity on the Internet.


Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

The Act may be cited as the `Truth in Domain Names Act of 2003'.

SEC. 2. FALSE OR MISLEADING DOMAIN NAMES ON THE INTERNET.

(a) IN GENERAL- Chapter 110 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 2252A the following:

`Sec. 2252B. False or misleading domain names on the Internet

`(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.

`(c) For the purposes of this section, a domain name that includes a word or words to indicate the sexual content of the site, such as `sex' or `porn' , is not misleading.

`(d) For the purposes of this section, the term `material that is harmful to minors' means any communication that--

`(1) taken as a whole and with respect to minors, appeals to a prurient interest in nudity, sex, or excretion;

`(2) depicts, describes, or represents, in a patently offensive way with respect to what is suitable for minors, an actual or simulated sexual act or sexual contact, actual or simulated normal or perverted sexual acts, or a lewd exhibition of the genitals; and

`(3) taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value as to minors.'.

(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 110 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the time relating to section 2252A the following new item:

`2252B. False or misleading domain names on the Internet.'.

....................
The above is as it is printed on http://thomas.loc.gov
I think as long as you have something like:
Sex
Porn
Pussy
Nude
Erotica
Erotic
and so on in your domain name you should be fine.

But I don't think that the other domains have a chance if there small and don't have something of a bold sexual nature in the domain it's self.
There are a lot of porn sites that with domains like bobs-used-links or bobs-gallery. I think their screwed.

And a thought on you folk that are hosted outside the U.S. and think this won't effect you.
Your wrong, domains can be blocked from reaching the U.S.

Since the U.S. has the biggest market for porn your bottomline will drop if you don't comply with this.

I'm not saying I agree with this but there are merits to the what the Gov is trying to do.

The sky is not falling, life is not over. But there are a lot of webmasters that will be forced to clean up their acts.

Oz

How are they going to make this distinction:

---------
(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.
-------

I guess this second paragraph is specifically targetting people who have harrypotterstuff.com pointing to hard core? However this could EASILY be used as a tool to impose harsher penalties on anyone with the word 'teens' or 'cheerleaders' or 'school girls' or any thing even remotely of interest to a younger population.

Thats when the power of interpretation becomes pretty scary and potentially far reaching.

As an example: some would say that the word "kitty" is a child-like phrase that is intentionally seeking the interest of a younger audience.

I see it a little differently. To me that says if you include the word sex or porn in a 'grey area' domain like cheertryouts.com to make it cheertryoutsporn.com.. now it isn't misleading, where as before it could have been. But not all domains without the words sex, porn, erotica, etc are misleading. Not all grogs are weebles, but all weebles are skings? ; )

What T F?!
I understood you until that part. Sorry but you did lost me there.
:(

Oz

Hmm..

I wonder if it counts if you just own them, or if they actually have to be in use.

We have a lot of domains and I feel most of them are all clear, some may however be in a "gray area", but are far form "misleading" (I feel).

However, all of these domains have had the content removed from them, and are currently redirected.

Any thoughts?

AST

Tough call... could be construed as you "misleading" people by sending them to porn from an otherwise innocent domain. You are the one sending them there after all, so you are the one doing the deception.

Shame on you!

Do you think it would be enough to just put all of your html files into a directory called /porn/? Or name your pages that way?

Damn, I guess I'll have to get rid of http://www.adultblues.com then

When one looks objectively at the spirit of this law it becomes clear it is pointed at those who are directly misleading surfers into entering adult content sites.

Some good examples of this are the notorious .biz Google spammer, and those who use misleading titles and domains in email spam.

However I am sure there are those who will evaluate it in a more literal sense and see its purpose as forcing a disclaimer on all adult sites.

Very frightening....If say Cogents lawyers advise compliance with this to their clients half of adult traffic would shortly disappear.

Actually, doesn't the .biz spammer have a lot of descriptive terms like sex and porn in his domains? I thought that was half of his algorithm for high PR...

My gut feeling is that the 'spirit' of the law won't stop the conservatives from using this to go on the attack, not just to put up disclaimers, but to fine, imprison, and shutdown anyone who is not in their little cage of explicit domain names.

The question that will really keep you awake tonight:

Will the billers (and by proxy Visa USA) operating in the USA process for domains that can be seen to be breaking this law?

But there in lies the rub in that a child my search for 'kitty' but not persian kitty. Also a key thing here is intent and the burden of proof is on the government to prove the intent. In the case of my domain, it is well documented from years gone by that my online nickname from 1994 on has been "Persian Kitty". When the links site was started it only made sense to call it "Persian Kitty's Adult Links". Believe me in late 1995, I could have had my pick of tons and tons of choise names. The phrase is trademarked and has been for years and it's existence on the web is very well known. "Persian Kitty" is a brand no different then "Playboy" "Penthouse" "Hustler" "Mattel" "Sony", etc. (not that put myself up with the likes of any of them). If you do an SE on any search engine for "Persian Kitty" you get hardly anything but adult websites or sites making reference to mine. Why do you think that is? Because "Persian Kitty" is such a lucrative lure to draw in little children without credit cards to look at porn sites on a list? Of rather because the brand is so known that people who have heard of the site go to search engines looking for it and similar and it's that branding that makes it lucrative to trademark infringers? Turn on a 'family filter' on any of the SEs and search for my site. You won't get it as a response. Yeah sure some parents don't have a clue what their kids are doing on the net and don't bother with the filters. Even with the filters on a search for "Persian Kitty" doesn't yield the lucative end result of sites with info about persian cats. There's a rare one here and there in the results, but most of the results are adult webmaster scammers who haven't been filtered yet, etc. Search for "Persian Cat" and you won't find me at all? Why wouldn't I take advantage of the fact that a kitty is a cat and use that to my advantage in the search engines. Because I know damn well that my site is not known as Persian Cat and that people looking for persian cats are going to use those keywords. Why would I want to trick anyone to come to my site. They aren't going to want to be there. They aren't going to stay. AND they certainly aren't going to buy.

I also doubtful except possibly in the case of "whitehouse.com" that they will single out individual domains but rather look at an individual or companies body of work as a whole. If they are in the pratice of using misleading domains to gain SE and type ins for things a minor might search for.


Sorry for my rant.