New US law makes it a crime to use "misleading" words in a website

[jimbaggs]

http://www.politechbot.com/docs/adam...ion.072106.pdf

(a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 110 of title 18, United
States Code, is amended by inserting after section 2252B
the following:
‘‘§ 2252C. Misleading words or digital images on the
Internet
‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—Whoever knowingly embeds words
or digital images into the source code of a website with the
intent to deceive a person into viewing material consti-
tuting obscenity shall be fined under this title and impris-
oned for not more than 10 years.
‘‘(b) MINORS.—Whoever knowingly embeds words or
digital images into the source code of a website with the
intent to deceive a minor into viewing material harmful
to minors on the Internet shall be fined under this title and
imprisoned for not more than 20 years.

[beatz]

"..Whoever knowingly embeds words
or digital images into the source code of a website.."

Yeah sure.

Please show me how to embed digital images into the source code.

The law probably means "embeds digital images into a website" or "embeds code for displaying digital images" but exactly that's what the law does NOT say.

They don't even get the technical facts straight.

[jimbaggs]

They don't even get the technical facts straight.

I agree, Congress is stooopid.

But "words" are pretty clearly defined unless you want to agrue that what appears in a website arn't actually "words" but digital codes. And "20 years" is something that's not altogether opaque. The way this law is written ANY content that ever becomes "deemed harmful to minors" could land a person in one helluva pickle should any words also in the site be judged to be "deceptively attractive".

One legislative more brick on our way to totalitarian hell.

[Beachie]

"material constituting obscenity"
It only applies to tricking people into seeing porn. It's the Zuccarini law.

[NavySeals91]

"material constituting obscenity"
It only applies to tricking people into seeing porn. It's the Zuccarini law.

What about deceiving people that your website is porn and get them to go to your nice little content adsense site

[Beachie]

What about deceiving people that your website is porn and get them to go to your nice little content adsense site

That would be legal

[jimbaggs]

"material constituting obscenity"
It only applies to tricking people into seeing porn. It's the Zuccarini law.

Wrong. This isn't the truth in domains act (the zuccarini law), this bill was signed into law on the 27th, 3 days ago.

Read section B again. Doesn't only apply to porn. Any material deemed harmful to minors. Much wider gate than obscenity. For that matter "obscenity" isn't neccesarily porn either. A couple of guys where just sentenced to 5 and 8 years in federal custody for nipple piercing vids that contained no sexual content.

[beatz]

A couple of guys where just sentenced to 5 and 8 years in federal custody for nipple piercing vids that contained no sexual content.

Incredible if this is true.

Sounds more like China or North Korea, not US.

Btw - besides the Cayman Islands i'm wondering if it's not a good business idea to offer Hosting of both domains and webspace here in Europe for US webmasters that have adult websites but fear the US government taking their sites down for some silly reason.

I know quite some adult webmasters that have just done that.

NOTE: This is OF COURSE not meant in any way as a suggestion for websites that support kiddie porn etc neither for those that expicitly try to trick underage youngsters in signing up their sites - just meant for general adult webmasters that want to feel safer.

Whatcha think ?

[QuantumBeam]

wow.....

[Bender]

A couple of guys where just sentenced to 5 and 8 years in federal custody for nipple piercing vids that contained no sexual content.

I simply cannot believe this - could you show the source?

[Beachie]

Wrong. This isn't the truth in domains act (the zuccarini law), this bill was signed into law on the 27th, 3 days ago.

Read section B again. Doesn't only apply to porn. Any material deemed harmful to minors. Much wider gate than obscenity. For that matter "obscenity" isn't neccesarily porn either. A couple of guys where just sentenced to 5 and 8 years in federal custody for nipple piercing vids that contained no sexual content.

It only applies to links that intend to deceive minors into seeing obscene content. If you put a link that says "nipple piercing videos here" instead if "finding nemo pics" then this law would simply not apply.

Can you please provide a reference for the case you stated?

[pam]

The misleading domain names law went into effect in December, 2003. This is more about keywords

[jimbaggs]

I simply cannot believe this - could you show the source?

I got the sentence wrong, it was only 30 and 34 months, not quite the 5 and 8 years I remembered it as. But the rest of it is accurate. Apparently nipple-piercing is considered obscene by the Federal Judge in Dallas. What else could be obscene too?

http://www.avnonline.com/index.php?P...tent_ID=272586

"DALLAS - Clarence Thomas Gartman and his partner (and brother-in-law) Brent Alan McDowell were sentenced in federal court in Dallas Thursday to, respectively, 34 and 30 months in prison, after having been found guilty in a five-day trial in March for having mailed obscene material and "aiding and abetting." Additionally, Gartman was found guilty of conspiracy to mail obscene material.

The case revolves around a retail website, forbiddendreams.com, in which Gartman allegedly had ownership. The Justice Department charged that Gartman, McDowell and another defendant had shipped a video known as BVM 24 across state lines, and that the video was allegedly obscene. The video depicted nipple piercing, but not explicit sex.

The sentences were handed down by Judge Barefoot Sanders of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, based on a sentencing hearing which had recommended that Gartman be sentenced consistent with level 26 of the federal sentencing guidelines, which would have resulted in a sentence in excess of five years. "

It only applies to links that intend to deceive minors into seeing obscene content. If you put a link that says "nipple piercing videos here" instead if "finding nemo pics" then this law would simply not apply.

Can you please provide a reference for the case you stated?

How many times do I need to say go back and read the law again?

Section 'a' refers to obscenity. Section 'b' only refers to "harmful material". It would be much easier to prove something "harmful" than "obscene".