Truth in Domain Names Act

[OzKaNoz]

This is a reply I did to a post on another board but thought I would post it here also. Were you aware of this? What are your thoughts on this? What well you do?
.................................................. .

Truth in Domain Names Act of 2003 (Introduced in Senate)

S 800 IS


108th CONGRESS

1st Session

S. 800
To prevent the use of a misleading domain name with the intent to deceive a person into viewing obscenity on the Internet.


IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

April 7, 2003
Mr. HATCH introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


A BILL
To prevent the use of a misleading domain name with the intent to deceive a person into viewing obscenity on the Internet.


Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

The Act may be cited as the `Truth in Domain Names Act of 2003'.

SEC. 2. FALSE OR MISLEADING DOMAIN NAMES ON THE INTERNET.

(a ) IN GENERAL- Chapter 110 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 2252A the following:

`Sec. 2252B. False or misleading domain names on the Internet

`(a ) Whoever knowingly uses a misleading domain name with the intent to deceive a person into viewing obscenity on the Internet shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.

`(B ) Whoever knowingly uses a misleading domain name with the intent to deceive a minor into viewing material that is harmful to minors on the Internet shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 4 years, or both.

`© For the purposes of this section, a domain name that includes a word or words to indicate the sexual content of the site, such as `sex' or `porn' , is not misleading.

`(d ) For the purposes of this section, the term `material that is harmful to minors' means any communication that--

`(1) taken as a whole and with respect to minors, appeals to a prurient interest in nudity, sex, or excretion;

`(2) depicts, describes, or represents, in a patently offensive way with respect to what is suitable for minors, an actual or simulated sexual act or sexual contact, actual or simulated normal or perverted sexual acts, or a lewd exhibition of the genitals; and

`(3) taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value as to minors.'.

(B ) CLERICAL AMENDMENT- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 110 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the time relating to section 2252A the following new item:

`2252B. False or misleading domain names on the Internet.'.

....................
The above is as it is printed on http://thomas.loc.gov
I think as long as you have something like:
Sex
Porn
Pussy
Nude
Erotica
Erotic
and so on in your domain name you should be fine.

But I don't think that the other domains have a chance if there small and don't have something of a bold sexual nature in the domain it's self.
There are a lot of porn sites that with domains like bobs-used-links or bobs-galleries. I think their screwed.

And a thought on you folks that are hosted outside the U.S. and think this won't effect you.
Your wrong, domains can be blocked from reaching the U.S.

Since the U.S. has the biggest market for porn your bottomline will drop if you don't comply with this.

I'm not saying I agree with this but there are merits to the what the Gov is trying to do.

The sky is not falling, life is not over. But there are a lot of webmasters that will be forced to clean up their acts.

Oz



Last edited by OzKaNoz at May 2 2003, 06:32 AM

[Almighty Colin]

Hey Oz,

These questions are unsolvable in such a way as to make everyone happy.

That being said, I would rather see a big push to get .kids going rather than legislation like this. Make a safe playground for kids instead of a separated one for adults.



Last edited by Colin at May 2 2003, 12:58 PM

[RawAlex]

Oz, I suspect this one will fail the stink test again - it's way general. Pics, pictures, images, mpeg, files, and many other words have something to do with adult as well as non-adult. I would, at this point, only worry if you are using typo domains from non-adult sites, or using non-adult phrases such as "play" or "game" or "toy" or other words that very well could be aimed at minors.

If you are running an anime site, I would be double extra careful - I have a feeling this could be hit early.

Other than that, i am willing to wait for caselaw before I make any changes to anything I am doing.

Alex

[Mike AI]

Yeah I cannot see this getting past the courts...

We need more gridlock in Washington...

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by Mike AI@May 2 2003, 02:52 PM
Yeah I cannot see this getting past the courts...

We need more gridlock in Washington...

I love gridlock.

Mike,

Are you saying it's time to get rid of Bush or get a Democratic Congress? ;-)

[XXXPhoto]

Personally, I think main issue they are pissed over is sites like whitehouse.com being a porn site... Bush, AG, and current crop of Congress just doesn't see the humor in it... If lady justice's nipples get their panties in a twist, what do you think having their names/landmarks ect associated w/ porn does to them?

That and whatever riders they can also attached to this bill are only reasons it's on the table...

[RawAlex]

This is another fine example of tacking crap onto a bill that nobody wants to vote against. Amber Alert is a good idea, something that no politician would want to be seen voting against. However, a bill like this attracts crappy tack ons, riders, and provisions that allow otherwise unpassable laws to get passed.

I think this domain law was written specifically to be shot down, was put in place only to make some people look like "they are doing something", and it will all be forgotten in a pile of first amendment arguements and "vagueness" issues. The politicians can say "we tried", the deal makers can say "you had your shot", and everyone can keep on like normal.

Anyway, based on where the economy is going, I somehow don't see Asscroft and his goon squads being around for another 4 years... so they won't even be around to see this one do the courts.

Alex

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