Should Innocently-Named Porn Sites Be Illegal? 165
Folic_Acid writes "CNET News.com's Declan McCullagh is reporting that the U.S. House of Representatives is scheduled to vote on an amendment to a bill dealing with child abduction that would make it a crime to use an innocent-sounding domain name to drive traffic to a porn website." I can't wait to see the counter-bill that would illegalize naughty, filthy names that lead only to inoccuous content.
There's more (Score:1)
Re:There's more (Score:2, Insightful)
From the article:
I support the protection of children, and banning real child porn BUT this proposal which bans pictures of anyone who looks like a minor is ridiculous. Some 16 year old girls look 36, and some 25 year old girls look like they are 15.
The bill is too subjective to be fair, or useful. If someone takes pictures of a mi
Re:There's more (Score:2)
Moderators note: Funny -1
Re:There's more (Score:2)
Re:There's more (Score:2)
Re:There's more (Score:2, Interesting)
Virtual porn involves no such children.
If you wish to argue that child porn (virtual or filmed) endangers kids because it might entice the sick f*cks who watch the stuff to try it for real, that's different.
There's also th
Re:There's more (Score:2)
That sounds like a valid argument on the surface and I think it is the argument used in some places to ban violent video games but the jury is still out on whether it actually has any influence. Plus some claim that such games actually reduce violence.
Similar arguments have been made that media influence has caused violence and been thr
Re:There's more (Score:2)
Or not. Despite what some might want to believe, there is a growing body of evidence suggesting that there is a link between exposure to violence and violent behaviour, at least as far as children are concerned. You don't have to take my word for that though, check out the American Psychological Association [apa.org] and see what they have to say about it.
Plus some cla
Re:There's more (Score:2)
I didn't make the claim. I saw it made on TV and it had something to do with observations of siblings hitting each other less when they could take their agression out on each other in console games. I don't know if controlled studies have been done. Probably not because people like you have already made up their minds without objectively testing their hypotheses. This subject has been discussed many times here on Sl
Re:There's more (Score:1)
Hehe, that's pretty funny, you should have posted it logged in, but that aside, it's not protected speech.
Under current law, it could be considered a form of libel, since basically you are communicating things that are untrue and damaging about someone. No additional law is needed, the libel laws are enough.
Dammit (Score:1)
Well... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Well... (Score:2)
Re:Well... (Score:1)
Re:Well... (Score:2)
What out the .porn TLD (Score:1)
Re:What out the .porn TLD (Score:2)
Re:What out the .porn TLD (Score:1)
I'm not advocating anything, but what about sites that consider themselves artistic rather than raw?
Given, it's easier to draw the line as some points, but what about where the line is gray? Does display of nipples automatically engage the adult high-level requirement?
Re:What out the .porn TLD (Score:2)
Re:What out the .porn TLD (Score:1)
The largest problem with this idea, amongst a great great many others, is the subjectivity of the issue. If you can get a half dozen randomly selected people, representing a decent demographic cross section, to agree on where to draw the line, I'll give you 5 bucks.
Does intercourse shots constitue pr0nography? How about just nude shots? Just shots of a topless woman? what if it's on a site discussing self exams for breast cancer? but hey, it's still a nipple right? Site
Re:What out the .porn TLD (Score:1)
I think that generally speaking, it's pretty obvious when you come to a porn site. Porn sites generally have one or more of the following features:
I hate to be so bloody liberal but... (Score:3, Insightful)
Smut shops have always hung huge lit signs that say "News." This isn't exactly the same as a pr0n store called "toys for kids," bt the same kind of thing.
A businessman has the right to call his business whatever he chooses.
Re:I hate to be so bloody liberal but... (Score:2)
Oh really? What if a businessman decided to name his business "Microsoft"? Or what about "Ford Motor Corporation"? Obviously, you can't use the name of another business for the purposes of your own.
Now that we've established the precident of limiting business names, let's go one step further. Should a business be allowed to use false statements to entice people to visit their premises? Can a grocery store advertise "New BMWs for onl
Re:I hate to be so bloody liberal but... (Score:1)
If we were to grant the supposition that business names should be somehow limited, the only way to even open the door to such legislation without inviting a first amendment challenge (and it would certainly fail such a challenge, any
Re:I hate to be so bloody liberal but... (Score:2)
No. The statement that "no business name should mislead customers into thinking it's something else" does not translate into the statement that "all business names must be unambiguously clear". I do not make the claim that all business names must accurately describe the nature of the business. I am making the claim that the business name must not mislead customers in order to
Re:I hate to be so bloody liberal but... (Score:2)
Furthurmore, suppose we *do* allow companies to call themselves whaqtever we want, and we get a grocery store who's name advertises cheap sports cars. What do you think will happen if we allow this? Do you think the store will last five seconds in business that way? Of course not! You're saying "you can't call your business something misleading," but I think that calling your business something misleading equals ba
Re:I hate to be so bloody liberal but... (Score:2)
As I mentioned in another post [slashdot.org],
Read it more closely next time.
Re:I hate to be so bloody liberal but... (Score:2)
How does misleading a customer gain them business? Presumably someone who is mislead would not become a customer.
Re:I hate to be so bloody liberal but... (Score:1)
That's not intended to deceive. It's there, because "Nudes" would not be very tasteful and the city (usually) will not allow that. In some sense it's a well-known code, a euphemism, to say "News". If the sign said, "Beer" or worse "Candy", that would be a better analogy.
Before you attack me, I think any such law would be ruled too vague by the courts.
Re:I hate to be so bloody liberal but... (Score:1)
inoccuous content (Score:1)
There was a "bird watching" site with the domain name "nice-tits.org" (its down now). It wasn't really a bird watching site, but funny none-the-less.
Re:inoccuous content (Score:2)
In other, fewer, words, it's ho
The reason vendors _don't_ want this... (Score:2)
Re:The reason vendors _don't_ want this... (Score:1)
Unless the store did in fact sell "Fuzzie Kitties". The exact meaning thereof is left as an exercise for the reader...
More to the point though, most brick-and-mortar porn shops do have fairly innocuous names. Usually they're billed as some sort of video store and have only a small sign stating "Adult Novelties" near the door. The same
Re:The reason vendors _don't_ want this... (Score:2)
Although, to use Frank Zappa's words, this bill seems to be trying to cure dandruff with decapitation, I can understand the frustration that leads to this
Closed down? (Score:2)
If I had a brick-and-mortar store called "Freddie's Fuzzie Kitties" and people walked in to find a hardcore porn store, it would be closed in 10 minutes, and rightly so.
Maybe I'm a bit naive, but I find it hard to believe that there are laws on the books that would allow police to close down an establishment solely based on the premise that the name is deceptive. Please, someone, tell me this isn't so.
I understand your frustration about children being exposed to smut. And you're probably correct that
Re:The reason vendors _don't_ want this... (Score:2)
Sounds innocent enough, but when you walked inside there were a large assortment of Cindy's (SEX) toys prominently arrayed for all to see. You see, the store was a shop that sold sex accesories, paraphenalia, and such.
Surprisingly, the sign stayed the same for almost 6 months (maybe a little longer! Can't exactly remember). Eventually it was changed to reflect the type of store it is more accur
Re:The reason vendors _don't_ want this... (Score:2)
[OT] What is it with the US legislative system? (Score:2)
Why the hell is this allowed? Why should things that have nothing to do with the original bill be included in a vote to pass it into law? And why are laws often voted on without representatives even reading the bill?
It is completely ridiculous.
Here in Australia *every* proposed piece of legislation must be considered and debated *on its o
Re:[OT] What is it with the US legislative system? (Score:2)
Of course this isn't going to happen any time soon.
Re:[OT] What is it with the US legislative system? (Score:2)
The line item veto was enacted by congress (amazingly) in 1996, and was used by clinton 82 times on 11 bills to save 2 billion dollars over the course of the year before it was declared unconstitutional. More info here [cato.org], or through your friendly google affiliate.
Re:[OT] What is it with the US legislative system? (Score:2)
Line Item Veto at the Presidential level was declared Unconstitutional, so it will never happen.
Re:[OT] What is it with the US legislative system? (Score:2)
Good luck finding 3 US congressmen who can read.
Re:[OT] What is it with the US legislative system? (Score:2)
Re:[OT] What is it with the US legislative system? (Score:2)
Re:[OT] What is it with the US legislative system? (Score:2)
Of cours
Re:[OT] What is it with the US legislative system? (Score:2)
Re:[OT] What is it with the US legislative system? (Score:2)
Re:[OT] What is it with the US legislative system? (Score:2)
A. Because they've always got that finger up in the air to see which way the wind is blowing.
Re:[OT] What is it with the US legislative system? (Score:2)
YES! YES! A THOUSAND TIMES YES! I have been saying that same damn thing for over 2 years now, I've written about it, I've suggested legislation to Congress, The Pres, and anyone else who would listen, and you know what? It fails. Why? Porkbarrel politics. See that's where these people make t
What determines what is innocently named? (Score:2)
Strangely, I don't find this a problem (Score:3, Insightful)
I can see a really strong argument that such as misleading site name is fraud in a sense - deliberately taking someone somewhere they don't want to go. How this is supposed to make such as site more profitable is beyond me. Kind of like how bait-and-switch is illegal for stores, bait-and-switch in website names can arguably be made illegal as well.
Re:Strangely, I don't find this a problem (Score:2)
Is Geocities committing fraud? I was looking for information on geologically-interesting cities, and they misled me -- here it's actually a place where you can get a free website.
Frankly, the domain name system isn't perfect; domain names get assigned to things that have nothing to do with the actual n
It may be something to concern... (Score:2)
I do believe there has to be some degree of control for things like this, but I don't trust the bureaucrats to get it right either.
It's not easy to just arbitarily decide which names are "innocent sounding" and thus can't be used for a porn site and whi
Re:It may be something to concern... (Score:2)
I was redirected to a domain called "goat.se" or something or other.
After replcing my eyeballs I have taken up a crusade to stop this type of activity on the net. No one should have to bathe in holy water and take antipsychotic drugs just because they want to be well informed about the news.
Re:It may be something to concern... (Score:2)
There's a group at Carnegie Mellon working on something to kill the trolls who post disturbing links like that goat.se thing. Basically it's a collaborative filter, where if you see something truly unfit for a set of normal eyeballs you flag it and after a certain number of flags by different users, the fi
Re:It may be something to concern... (Score:2)
I'm not trying to call the author a bad parrent, but the Internet is not a baby-sitter....
It's like letting your kid run wild in the largest bookstore on the planet, knowing full well that innapropriate material is available.
That said, I'd welcome a
new .porn (Score:2)
Just a thought.
Re:new .porn (Score:1)
Use .kids instead (Score:2)
I remember a good example of this years ago. Newsweek decided to put an artistic nude on its front cover for a story on the arts, and a lot of people were outraged at it. Meanwhile far more people were shocked at these knuckle-walkers gettin
What's an innocent name? (Score:3, Insightful)
More to the point, why criminalise something? Next they'll criminalise other information they find undesirable. To stop it, all the USgovt need do is register some trademarks and defend them. Furthermore, I believe the US & states attorneys can sue for trademark infringement even without the involvement of the trademark owner [consumer protection].
This is where you lose us. (Score:3, Insightful)
The bottom line is that there are many porn sites out there that *deliberately* seek to attract people who were not seeking porn. The most notable example, of course, is "whitehouse.com". Ultimately, this is a truth in advertising issue: if I open a can that says "peanuts", it should contain peanuts. If I order a "real, fully functional sailboat" it shouldn't be six inches high. And, in the world of information, if I buy a magazine entitled "Home Wine Making", it should contain information on wine making. Imagine if it were a tract against drinking from some benighted fundamentalists? You'd be pissed, wouldn't you? You'd want your money back, wouldn't you?
The problem, of course, with domain-name-spamming, is that once I've given you my eyeballs, I can't take them back. There is no way for me to demand a refund. Furthermore, these sites are often deliberately deceptive. "Whitehouse.com" was not founded at that address because he thought it would be a good way to found his business: it was founded because he wanted to trick people who would otherwise not want to view his warez into viewing them. This is false and deceptive, and is nowhere near legitimate free speech. Why don't you focus your energy on something that matters?
(And, please, spare me the slippery slope conspiracy theories.)
Should deception be illegal? (Score:2)
However, some kinds of speech are illegal, such
Re:Should deception be illegal? (Score:2)
And, yes, deception *should* be illegal. In fact, it's always been illegal in many contexts -- they call them "cons". Why shouldn't it be illegal here?
Re:Should deception be illegal? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Should deception be illegal? (Score:1)
LOL, you may have missed a turn -- this attitude is coming from a tech-oriented lawyer, quite aware of the law's limitations in making subjective calls, and the less often it is forced to do so the better. The slippery slope's fine, but don't hop out there if you don't have to.
The post title was rhetorical. That's why I pointed to existing law of fraud etc. as appropriate and adequate.
Re:Should deception be illegal? (Score:2)
Re:This is where you lose us. (Score:2)
Firstly, I completely agree with your position - the sort of domain spamming under discussion is sick, illegitimate and inexcusable. There are dozens, if not hundreds of examples, and they soil and degrade the internet as a whole.
However, with specific regard to Whitehouse.com, you
Re:This is where you lose us. (Score:2)
Why should there be a specific internet law for something that's already illegal? Why should there be a specific porn law for something that's already illegal?
Re:This is where you lose us. (Score:2)
The whole point of the 1st amendment is to protect speech others may not find 'legitimate'. Repeat after me: popular speech doesn't need to be protected! And flase and deceptive are hardly relevant here since, as another poster pointed out, you don't pay *anything* to stumble onto a site. OK, 5 seconds of your life, then you learn to use a search engine and not just type 'common-word-or-brand' into the location bar because it's not 1
Why is porn so special? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm having trouble understanding why there seem to be seperate laws and exceptions being proposed for porn.
I don't find porn sites particularly offensive. What I do find offensive is landing on religious sites using deceptive names. Or domain squatters. Especially domain squatters.
Why the focus on porn? Why are porn merchants any different from other merchants? I find many cosmetic company pages pretty darn nasty. Church pages... don't get me started...
What *should* one expect to find at www.cats.com ? Why is that ok and www.pussy.com not ?
- MugginsM
Re:Why is porn so special? (Score:2)
In the early internet days, (I work in schools) I was in a lab randomly checking for where kids have been. I would open the
Re:Why is porn so special? (Score:2)
What were you expecting on the other end of a porn add?
Re:Why is porn so special? (Score:2)
The reason that porn is so special is that it is a controlled visual stimulus. In other words, you have to be a certain age to buy it in the USA. Playboy, Penthouse, Hustler, etc. cannot be purchased at the corner store by those under the age of 18/21 depending.
In other countries this may not be so. I mean, maybe elementary children in Europe can buy hardcore-fisting-scat mags at the school store. However, in the USA we have laws about this type of m
Re:Why is porn so special? (Score:2)
I find it humorous that someone considers a pro-life web site, one that presumably talks about being open to new life, as one that is not about family planning. That's precisely what planning a family is all about.
What twisted definitions we've wrapped ourselves with...
Re:Why is porn so special? (Score:2)
An anti-abortion political website's relation to "family planning"--that being, the parents having control of when they do or do not have children--is equivalent to the relation of a cracker web site and Computer Security.
What twisted definitions we've wrapped ourselves with...
I agree. "Fam
Re:Why is porn so special? (Score:2)
I'm gonna have to disagree here.
I'm going to use the word "anti-abortion", though that's not quite an accurate description of what I mean.
The anti-abortion viewpoint is that killing a fetus should not be one of the legal ways of choosing when to have children. That falls squarely into
Re:Why is porn so special? (Score:1)
Re:Why is porn so special? (Score:1)
No, not really. Why try to save the lives of 683 criminals [about.com] when you can try to save 40 million unborn children [abortiontv.com]?
And before you mention the fact that it's even slightly possible that perhaps one of those put to death via capital punishment is innocent, let me remind you you're comparing them to 40 million unborn children. Aren't the children innocent?
Great idea, but underly broad (Score:2)
Anywhere else this would be considered a misleading business practice. MacDo
Re:Great idea, but underly broad (Score:2)
You see, that's a large part of the problem: you don't need a business licence to register and run a domain name.
A Hot, Slippery Topic (Score:5, Funny)
Re:A Hot, Slippery Topic (Score:2)
Sorry I couldn't give 'em to you.
Re:A Hot, Slippery Topic (Score:1)
Misleading Advertising (Score:1)
Consider .porn (Score:2)
-Sean
Q: Why Not Require V Rated Tags? (Score:2)
So after all the V-chip things going on, I have to wonder why there simply isn't a move by ICANN to require any registered domains that serve up HTML to include tags for browsers to tailor their display
I know that some consensus would be hard to achieve between people with vastly different ideas of what is proper (repressive governments, for example, would want more tags for outlawing
Re:Q: Why Not Require V Rated Tags? (Score:2)
stoooopid (Score:2, Funny)
What about bambi, nurses, cheerleaders, milk, feet, etc... They are all innocent words, but would make perfect porn domains.
Think of the children! (Score:1)
In a sense, it already is... (Score:2)
Therefore, no further -and more to the point, no special- legislation should be necessary. This law is not needed.
That's part of the problem with legislative bodies: they're always looking to make new laws without bothering to do any real research as to whether or not an existing law can be considered applicable. IANAL, of course, but I t
whitehouse.com isn't named after the house in D.C. (Score:4, Informative)
Trivia: Whitehouse.com is NOT named after the Whitehouse in Washington DC, but after Mary Whitehouse, an Anti-Porn fanatic.
Reference: Google search [google.com]
Not the way (Score:2, Insightful)
The aim of this is perfectly reasonable, but I have real problems with using legislation. Basically, I do not see "the internet" as a public utility that should be regulated by lawmakers
I would be more sympathetic to a more general law that prohibited "advertising obscene content in a misleading way" or something (it would have to be worded a lot more tightly than that, but you see what I am driving at). Pulling up a consensual, commercial system like DNS and slapping laws on it just is the wrong way to
While I see some points. (Score:2)
The problem is that there are two issues under discussion here. The first is, what constituted "adult material?" and the second is "what constitutes misleading terms?"
Congress has tried again and again to define "Adult materials" but every attempt has been fraught with some difficulty. Most people would agree that pictures of one man eating crap or gr
Re:OT: Why is moderation turned off in this thread (Score:1)
Re:OT: Why is moderation turned off in this thread (Score:2)
Re:OT: Why is moderation turned off in this thread (Score:1)
Re:OT: Why is moderation turned off in this thread (Score:1)