House bans misleading domains

**beatz** · 04-03-2003, 01:26 PM

So it's one step further towards Orwell-ism already:

http://www.msnbc.com/news/892194.asp

If msnbc's quote is correct then "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."

Note the word "traffic" instead of "person" or "minor".

Hope this ridiculous bill doesn't get through.

**RON2** · 04-03-2003, 01:38 PM

It will get through because it's attached to a bigger child endangerment bill

**DomainPairs** · 04-03-2003, 01:52 PM

I wonder how they will be able to determine unsuitable names. For example "Whitehouse" is the name of an established pornographic magazine in the UK. It has nothing to do with America, it is named after Mary Whitehouse, the ant-pornography campaigner.

I don't really understand why someone would want to attract children to porn sites. The idea of porn sites is to make money, and children don't have credit cards.

**Banned: timechange.com** · 04-03-2003, 04:41 PM

There's 2 threads already about this.

**GeorgeK** · 04-03-2003, 05:29 PM

There's no bread at www.buns.com -- I was shocked!

**MillerTyme** · 04-04-2003, 06:18 PM

me thinks this would be a very bad thing for the domain reselling industry.

**beatz** · 04-04-2003, 08:10 PM

It would be a bad thing not only for resellers but even more for webmasters, webdesigners, artists, Hosting companies etc.

Besides, to me it means a violation of free speech.

It's just the govt trying to regulate something which just can't be regulated, at least not in such a simple and dumb, unrealistic manner.

I bet if the bill gets through the way it is worded, thousands of trials, suits and countersuits will be the result.

**Banned: timechange.com** · 04-04-2003, 10:42 PM

It'd definitely cause a double-standard issue for owners outside the US.

**DaddyHalbucks** · 04-22-2003, 10:46 AM

Does anyone have a handy link to the text of this bill?

When is this due to become law?

Would any of the lawyers on the board care to comment on this legislation?

Will it be an example of a totally unenforceable, unconstitutional law that will have a very short lifespan?

Would the law apply to a page that has text only, no images, perhaps only text links to porn sponsors?

Suppose you re-directed an "innocent" domain name traffic to Yahoo, which has adult content, could that be a violation?

How could any law possibly circumscribe "innocent-sounding?"

**StockDoctor** · 04-22-2003, 12:25 PM

I like the legislation. Maybe it will clean up some of the web. I think the practice of misleading surfers and directing them to a porn site stinks on ice. It gives the legitimate domain market a bad rap. Pretty frickin sleazy. Not only would these guys sell their Mother for a buck, they'd send her C.O.D.

**beatz** · 04-22-2003, 01:27 PM

Originally posted by Stocdoctor
Not only would these guys sell their Mother for a buck, they'd send her C.O.D.

Sure.....so what?
Although 1 buck would be a little bit too less

I'm against that law btw....

**Harry** · 04-22-2003, 01:33 PM

Originally posted by Stocdoctor

Not only would these guys sell their Mother for a buck, they'd send her C.O.D.

**************************

Wrong - they will not send, they will make sure and deliver her themselves.

**actnow** · 04-22-2003, 10:16 PM

So, what happens if we turn over the management of our website such as DeluxeToys.com , ToyTrucks.net or CookieStore.net to domainSpa.com and they direct it to a questionable website?

So, do they come and handcuff me?

**Lew** · 04-23-2003, 02:57 PM

I think they should just make all porn websites have the words "sex", "porn", "fu ck"or "xxx" in the URL. Any domain that directs to porn that doesn't have one of those should be removed from the owner and back into the pool of available names. Very simple solution that is easy to enforce.

You cannot go to a website that has one of those terms in the URL and NOT think you are visiting an adult site.

**DaddyHalbucks** · 04-24-2003, 12:53 AM

I think they should just make all..
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Is that compatible with the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution?

**boychik** · 04-26-2003, 09:45 AM

I guess I'll have to open up a restaurant at freshsushi.com

**MillerTyme** · 04-30-2003, 03:15 PM

Just read that the President has signed the Amber Alert Bill.... Was the ban against misleading domains included in it ??
I'm all for it by the way.
Sick and tired of innocuous sounding names going to lurid sites.
not what i want for my kids.

http://news.yahoo.com/fc?tmpl=fc&cid...ssing_children

**MillerTyme** · 04-30-2003, 03:21 PM

Originally posted by DotComCowboy
I think they should just make all..
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Is that compatible with the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution?

Well since the domains go to porn, which is obscene and obscenity isnt protected by 1st amendment, I dont think thats protected

**pam** · 05-01-2003, 01:08 PM

Originally posted by MillerTyme
Just read that the President has signed the Amber Alert Bill.... Was the ban against misleading domains included in it ??
I'm all for it by the way.
Sick and tired of innocuous sounding names going to lurid sites.
not what i want for my kids.

http://news.yahoo.com/fc?tmpl=fc&cid...ssing_children

What's wrong with a parent taking responsibility for their child and monitoring their Internet usage?

If your kid is surfing and ends up at zoovisits.com (as an example) and there are graphic images of bestiality without any morphing, then I see things your way. However, if the site has 2-3 pages of disclaimers/warnings with NO images whatsoever, if your kid chooses to then still go into the site, it's your responsiblity to take action against them, not up to the DOJ to slap the website owner.

I have several adult websites that do not have 'sex' or 'porn' in the name, but I am not INTENTIONALLY DECIEVING anyone into going to the site and each site has lots of warnings and disclaimers.

I do believe this law is GOOD in that it will stop websites like whitehouse.com --- NO warning page, go there and there are breasts right in your face, so to speak. THAT to me is intentionally deceiving people into thinking it's not a porn site.

Gee, ya think I have strong opinions on this?

**MillerTyme** · 05-01-2003, 03:27 PM

Originally posted by pam

What's wrong with a parent taking responsibility for their child and monitoring their Internet usage?

If your kid is surfing and ends up at zoovisits.com (as an example) and there are graphic images of bestiality without any morphing, then I see things your way. However, if the site has 2-3 pages of disclaimers/warnings with NO images whatsoever, if your kid chooses to then still go into the site, it's your responsiblity to take action against them, not up to the DOJ to slap the website owner.

I have several adult websites that do not have 'sex' or 'porn' in the name, but I am not INTENTIONALLY DECIEVING anyone into going to the site and each site has lots of warnings and disclaimers.

I do believe this law is GOOD in that it will stop websites like whitehouse.com --- NO warning page, go there and there are breasts right in your face, so to speak. THAT to me is intentionally deceiving people into thinking it's not a porn site.

Gee, ya think I have strong opinions on this?

Sure warning pages are okay, wasnt alluding to those types of sites.

Im talking about if a child types in something hellokitty and comes up with a first page of T & A & C.

I dont know of a lot of parents who can watch their kids 24/7 and even wiht net guardians, stuff still gets by.