Use misleading domain name, go to jail?

[Blankman71]

Under the proposal, a last-minute amendment to an unrelated child abduction bill, people who knowingly use an innocent-sounding domain name to drive traffic to a sexually explicit Web site could be fined and imprisoned for two to four years. An example of an innocuous-sounding domain name with pornographic content is WhiteHouse.com, which is not sponsored by the Bush administration.

A second amendment that is scheduled for a floor vote at the same time renews Congress' campaign to outlaw "morphed" or virtual child pornography. Last year, the U.S. Supreme Court slapped down Congress' first attempt to ban nude images of computer-generated minors and underage teens, saying the 1996 law violated the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of expression.

More here:

http://news.com.com/2100-1028-994201.html

[MrLinus]

I think they are referring to sites that would encourage young people to visit but in fact, be porn sites. I think I remember one being called "girlsroom" or something like that and it was advertised as a place for girls to hang out. Turned out it was a child porn site.

Don't think it's a bad idea in some regards.

[Blankman71]

Originally posted here by MsMittens
I think they are referring to sites that would encourage young people to visit but in fact, be porn sites. I think I remember one being called "girlsroom" or something like that and it was advertised as a place for girls to hang out. Turned out it was a child porn site.

Don't think it's a bad idea in some regards.

I'd have to say you're spot on in that regard, Ms. Mittens. I'm sure there have been plenty of instances of young children going to whitehouse.com looking for some government information and being treated to unfortunate content. I'd just like to see instances like that minimized as much as humanly possible.

[MIDnightKAO]

Everybody has a right in the U.S. to make whatever domain name they choose if its not already taken. Yes i agree its not good to have children visit those sites looking for something and then suprised at seing something completely different. If they take away that right, then whats next? Fines for domains with an "innocent" name containing explicit language?

An example of an innocuous-sounding domain name with pornographic content is WhiteHouse.com, which is not sponsored by the Bush administration.

lol. I found that funny how they said that. Makes it sound like the clinton administration did. heh.

[HTRegz]

I don't agree with this at all...

The internet is an entity that knows no boundries. It is contained by no one government and cannot be policed by a government. I agree that it's sad that children stumble across these sites innocently... but it is not the responsibility of the US government to police this, it's another example of them sticking their noses where they don't belong. The internet is about freedom of speech, if someone wants to put up a porn site at www.lollipopscandyandotherhappythings.com they should be allowed to... Computers in places that are knowingly accessed by children - libraries and schools - should have filters placed on them to block this content.. and if it's happening at the home, then parents should be supervising what their children are doing on the internet....

[MrLinus]

How would they block the content at libraries? Parents should monitor where children go but libraries can only do so much.

I don't think it's right that a website entice a child or mislead someone.

[HTRegz]

I don't think it's right for websites to entice children or mislead either.... i guess it all comes back to my feelings that the US seems to want to rule the world. I don't think it's their place to rule on issues such as this...

There are plenty of filters available that libaries could place on their systems..

If policing of this is going to take place.. it should be done by ICANN, not by a Government

[MrLinus]

The problem with the filters is that they don't pick up properly. The site I mentioned didn't trigger off filters and wouldn't. Meanwhile, the filters can block things like Oracle's knowledge-base (why they use xxx in their knowledge-base urls is beyond me).

I don't think filters are the answer either. I do think that if a site is misleading, deliberately and knowingly, they should be removed.

[HTRegz]

Then remove it.. I can agree with that... but a fine and jail time... that's not right....

That's why like i said previously let ICANN police it..... they can remove the name if it falls under specific criterion.... but jailing people for a misleading domain name is just wrong..

[Blankman71]

I'd have to agree with you two, MM and HT. Removing the offending page, fine. A fine? That's iffy, but jail time? That just seems unnecessary.