This law is a content-based scheme of speech regulation that will inevitably be struck down as infringing the First Amendment. In fact, reading these posts here makes me more comfortable making this prediction. The comments all imply that someone would have to make the call as to what is a misleading name, and what isn't.
If I were a first-grader, "Pussy.com" might be misleading to me, leading to surprisingly discoveries when I decided to get curious about kittens. Isn't that the audience we're worried about, after all? Regardless where you set the standard, anyway, you need to have "domain name judges" to apply the law.
When you have to have a tribunal judging domain names for their misleading content, that law's a dead duck. And of course the law is vague and overbroad, as evidenced by the bewilderment of businesspeople like the posters, trying to figure out how to apply the law. Once could argue that the law is stupid, and will force the "filthification" of net language. To avoid prosecution, entrepreneurs could opt for extremely explicit names only.
I'm not saying there'll be no prosecutions. But there is a saying that "the best remedy for unwise legislation is vigorous enforcement."
The current Supreme Court has been surprisingly diligent in protecting rights of free speech. Must be the media lobby controlling the agenda.
Cheers,
Charles Carreon
Offered as comment in public discussion only, not as legal advice.www.onlinemedialaw.com
Last edited by charles at May 4 2003, 04:25 PM