New "Adult" Law

[Donna Mahony]

With the new law requiring a porn url to be obviously porn......how would a domain such as MilfHunter.com hold up in court?

[Spider]

it's very obvious to me. Question is who does it have to be obvious too?

[DaddyHalbucks]

It might hold up very well.

The law is clearly unconstitutional.

[jberryhill]

"The law is clearly unconstitutional."

We've been here before, and perhaps someone will simply link the colorful discussion we all had on this.

Beware those who state any legal conclusion by starting with the word "clearly".

Deceptive commercial speech is, and has long been, subject to all sorts of perfectly legal regulation.

There are all sorts of speech, and it is not at all an established , or "clear", principle that a domain name constitutes speech.

[DaddyHalbucks]

The law is clearly unconstitutional, but do you want to drop $50,000 on criminal defense attornies to be the test case?

And as JB alluded, every court case is a crap shoot.

So play it safe.

[DomainGoon]

Originally posted by jberryhill
"The law is clearly unconstitutional."

We've been here before, and perhaps someone will simply link the colorful discussion we all had on this.

Beware those who state any legal conclusion by starting with the word "clearly".

Deceptive commercial speech is, and has long been, subject to all sorts of perfectly legal regulation.

There are all sorts of speech, and it is not at all an established , or "clear", principle that a domain name constitutes speech.

It would be difficult for the government to tell you what you can't name your company based strictly on the "offensive" content of your business. You would also have to assume that owning a relevant domain is being deceptive in business, even if that name is related to the business that you're doing, just because some people may not immediatly associate it with your type of business.

"Playboy" is not an adult term (in fact, you could argue that it has to do with little boys playing), but it is the name of their business. By being called Playboy, they are not being deceptive. Pointing "hotgirls.com" to a porn site is not deceptive. In fact, not pointing it at a porn site might confuse more people.

If the court were to tell someone that they couldn't use the name of their company (or of a product they produce) as a domain name just because they don't like the kind of content that they sell, that seems to be infringing on their free speech rights.

Anything is possible in the courts, of course, but it seems questionable.

I think that the key to this law is "intent" and it's not hard to establish that your intent wasn't to trick people into visiting adult content.

[beatz]

What i am wondering about:

- Has that bill become law already ?
- How will it affect "misleading" domains owned by people or companies *outside* the US ?

Last time i checked, US law was US law only and it's not like for instance german law is affected by US bills, neither does the US own the internet or the .com extension for that matter - so i doubt this law would affect a german guy who lives in germany and is not a US citizen.

Just as an example.

[DomainGoon]

Originally posted by beatz
What i am wondering about:

- Has that bill become law already ?
- How will it affect "misleading" domains owned by people or companies *outside* the US ?

Last time i checked, US law was US law only and it's not like for instance german law is affected by US bills, neither does the US own the internet or the .com extension for that matter - so i doubt this law would affect a german guy who lives in germany and is not a US citizen.

Just as an example.

True. And many of the high volume domain owners seem to have addresses outside the U.S these days.

[HOWARD]

I think that this is just the start of ultraconservative legislation sponsored by the Bush Administration. There will be more restrictions to come. I believe that any domain that is not obvious adult material domain name will require some kind of opening "non-offensive" page warning the user that it is a porn site.

[jberryhill]

"I think that the key to this law is "intent" and it's not hard to establish that your intent wasn't to trick people into visiting adult content."

Bingo.

Prosecutors choose which cases to go after based on the pereived likelihood of obtaining a conviction. It would be tough to say that someone with "toy store" for an adult toy store was trying to deceive anyone, but when my kid ends up looking at a porn site because he slightly mis-spelled the popular children's site "homestarrunner.com", then the credibility factor heads south pretty fast.

[pam]

All my adult sites have always had a disclaimer page, and now some have 2 (especially those that can be misconstrued as 'normal' toy stores).

I've also included the following paragraph in all warning pages

"Regarding Public Law No: 108-21; Section 2252B refers to adult websites. You are about to enter a website that is for adults, age 21 and older, only. While the domain name does not have 'porn' or 'sex' in it, THIS IS AN ADULT WEBSITE WITH SEXUAL CONNOTATIONS. Capice?? I'm not misleading you into coming here, you know damned well it's an adult web site. "

[DaddyHalbucks]

- Has that bill become law already ?
+++++++++++++++

Yes.