Whitehouse.com owner could go to jail for 2-4 years... - DNForum - Domain Sales, Domain Forum, Domain Appraisals, Domain Registrars

**morel** · 03-29-2003, 07:06 PM

...if this new law is passed:
http://news.com.com/2100-1028-994460.html

An amendment to the Amber bill states that:
"anyone who knowingly uses an innocent-sounding domain name to drive traffic to a sex site could be fined and imprisoned for two to four years". The measure passed 406-15 in the House.

Banned: timechange.com · 03-29-2003, 07:15 PM

The method of passing crap laws like that in times of crisis when the public's attention is diverted to a war, is well-known. Politicians are worse than the lowest scum.

Also see http://www.dnforum.com/f17/news-com-thread-25575.html

**beatz** · 03-29-2003, 07:41 PM

Unbelieveable.

And again, who is to decide what "innocent-sounding" is?

Geez govt to rule the world...?

**adoptabledomains** · 03-29-2003, 11:12 PM

I doubt it would apply to names registered before the law took effect.

Also, the law is so vaguely written at this point that I think it's problably virtually unenforceable. I do think it will be revised and refined before eventually passing in some form.

In theory, I'm for it since ANY type of fraudulent or misleading activity continues to give the internet and those in the domain name field a bad name.

**DaddyHalbucks** · 04-01-2003, 07:34 PM

This bill is truly absurd.

Laws cannot solve all of society's problems, nor absolve parents of their inherent responsibility TO BE PARENTS.

Parents need to monitor their kids when they use the net. Period.

Banned: bidawinner · 04-01-2003, 07:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by DotComCowboy
This bill is truly absurd.

Laws cannot solve all of society's problems, nor absolve parents of their inherent responsibility TO BE PARENTS.

Parents need to monitor their kids when they use the net. Period.

That way they can can discover TOGETHER that whitehouse.com is a porn site?

The family that porns together is the family that .. yuck..

Is that the idea.. If people would just parent better their kids wont type in obvious porn sites like whitehouse.com

**dataware** · 04-02-2003, 08:37 AM

Democracy
Freedom

USA

????

From a fellow Canadian

Lorenzo

**DaddyHalbucks** · 09-23-2003, 11:51 PM

NBC10.com: Your Child Could Be Internet Victim In Minutes

Convicted Predator Warns Parents To Keep Eye On Children

http://www.nbc10.com/news/2008660/detail.html

**DotLeader** · 09-24-2003, 12:29 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by DotComCowboy
This bill is truly absurd.

Laws cannot solve all of society's problems, nor absolve parents of their inherent responsibility TO BE PARENTS.

Parents need to monitor their kids when they use the net. Period.

thats just silly..

the parents type in a well known charity as there kids are doing a school project on charitys and they get porn

nothing can be done but to put the assholes and scumbags who redirect names such as a charity name or disney etc to porn

**DaddyHalbucks** · 09-24-2003, 01:09 AM

Many charities are phonies.

Many charities think the world OWES them.

Many charities mismanage their intellectual property.

Some have been proved to channel money to terrorists.

One of the largest charities in the world has paid for legal defenses of accused child molesters (its ministers).

Some charities collected money for 9/11 relief and diverted it, failing to help victims.

Many are holier than thou. Many waste donor money. Many spend lavishly on salaries, offices, and perks --fleecing and cheating donors.

Many charities are political organizations masquerading as charities. Many do not really qualify for tax exemption, but improperly obtain it.

The religious charities are the most detestable.

Many charities SUCK! Many charities are SCUM!

**DotLeader** · 09-24-2003, 01:13 AM

ummm ok

but that still doesnt make the SCUM that redirect there domains to porn does it?

**NexSite** · 09-24-2003, 10:44 AM

scum is in the eye of the beholder. To redirect whitehouse.com to porn is more about greed in my opinion. I also think this guy is grandfathered as far as the law is concerned. That story is way old. How many people type in gamelink.com looking for porn email sevice?

**URLtrader** · 09-24-2003, 02:25 PM

And what to do with the "innocent looking" Priests , Politicians ,
CEOs etc ?

**JMJ** · 09-24-2003, 04:05 PM

He's not redirecting, the name of his site is whitehouse.com. He's not driving trafic with the name, it is the name. Repetitious but true in both cases.

**DotLeader** · 09-24-2003, 05:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by JoltHost
whitehouse.com. He's not driving trafic with the name, it is the name.

yes it is the name...
but it is not true thatalot of his traffic is coming from type-ins, most probably not looking for a porn related website

**beatz** · 09-24-2003, 08:57 PM

That's one popular myth (especially with the media etc) :

The redirection myth.

How often have i read "users were redirected to porn" when in fact it was just the site's content and no "redirection" at all.

Like in every case where joe public doesn't expect porn they of course MUST have been redirected - preferably through a "innocent sounding" domain, of course.

As JoltHost said, just because Joe Dumb isn't able to imagine that a domain like whitehouse.com doesn't automatically have to be the gov site or that it could be in use for other purposes (art, porn, whatever) doesn't mean he has been "redirected" or that anything illegal has happened.

Gawd, how i hate dumbness.

Banned: adoninet · 10-02-2003, 11:24 AM

you can't claim grandfather protection for a crime

the law made something criminal, that means anyone doing it is liable

the law will be struck down by the supreme court it's way too broad

the whole patriot act will be struck down the supreme court once there is some distance from 911

anyway, the answer is simple

FILTERS

you own a name you can send it where ever you want

that's how the courts will look at it

they'll say minors should have filters

they'll say freedom of speech

courts don't protect kids much

parents should

you have the net get a FILTER

parents should have filters for the net and they should have a program to trap everything they are doing on a key board

if they did a better job raising the kid, they would be able to say DONT DO THIS or GET ME WHEN YOU SEE THIS

filters keep out the obvious porn

a keyboard ghost lets you see if you need to what they're really doing

by the time a kid is able to chat or something in a chat room they should be told, look the net is like a stranger

you don't go up to strangers and talk

so if you have friends YOU KNOW from school and want to PM them or if you want to start a little chat circle for PEOPLE YOU KNOW it's okay

STAY AWAY FROM UNKNOWN CHAT ROOMS

just like you warn them about STAY AWAY FROM STRANGERS

now if you have a kid looking for friends on the net, you did something major wrong

they should use the net as tool to network with their existing network of friends

lobby their school to do a web site JUST FOR STUDENTS

control who gets in the front door

STUDENTS ONLY

kids don't need to be accessing most of what is on the net

you let your kids play in a PUBLIC PLAYGROUND and you don't LOOK AFTER THEM then the parent is at fault

did you or do you leave a small child in a public park unattended?

NO

I would hope that is your answer

when your 11 to 15 year old walks out the door do you say WHERE ARE YOU GOING what's the number?

why has responsible parenting changed with the net?

what are you doing, where are you going, I have a safety check on the computer (name of child) so once in a while I will be checking where you are going

NO CHAT ROOMS that we don't know about

put a filter on the box and lay down some rules

oh that's right, I'm talking about parents BEING RESPONSIBLE, the same group that works 40to80 hours a week, that barely sees their kids, that drops them off at schools and day cares to be raised