Congress OKs Internet Porn Restrictions

[Mike AI]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2003Apr10.html


Congress passed legislation today that would give jail time to online pornographers who deliberately mask their sites behind innocuous domain names.








By David McGuire
washingtonpost.com Staff Writer
Thursday, April 10, 2003; 7:40 PM


Congress passed legislation today that would give jail time to online pornographers who deliberately mask their sites behind innocuous domain names.

The House and Senate overwhelmingly approved the Child Abduction Prevention Act, which strengthens penalties for pedophiles, provides funding for a national child-abduction alert system and bolsters prohibitions against child pornography. The proposal is frequently referred to as the "Amber Alert" bill.

"America's children will be safer when this bill becomes law," House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas) said today.

The bill also bans the distribution of "virtual" child pornography -- legal pornographic images of adults that have been digitally altered to look like children having sex.

Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.), who first introduced the misleading domain name bill in 2002, said he was surprised and pleased that Congress included it as an amendment in the bill that passed today.

"You can't have a fraudulent storefront on the Internet and have kids walk in and find themselves in the adult section -- triple X -- when they came in looking for Hardy Boys," Pence said. "We're not telling you to tear down your store. What we're saying is that you can't have a storefront saying that you're for kids and be for adults."

The bill says that online pornographers who include terms like "sex" and "porn" in their domain names would not be prosecuted.

Civil libertarians nevertheless have expressed concerns about the bill.

"There was no debate on it in the Senate, there was essentially no debate in the House," said Center for Democracy and Technology Policy Analyst Robert Courtney.

Depending on how prosecutors interpret the legislation, Web site operators who feature sexually oriented art or graphic safe-sex demonstrations could face criminal prosecution if their Internet addresses are deigned misleading, noted Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.).

Pence said he attempted to sidestep these concerns by restricting false advertising, rather than banning types of speech. "This is not [Internet] regulation. This is a fraud bill," he said.

The attempt to ban virtual -- or "morphed" child pornography -- also has encountered opposition from free speech advocates.

Last April, the Supreme Court in a 6-3 decision struck down portions of the Children's Internet Protection Act, which outlawed the possession and distribution of pornography containing computer-generated images showing children apparently engaged in sex acts.

The White House said that President Bush would sign the legislation.

[Peaches]

And who decides if the name is "misleading? Yes, there are some that are clear, but a simple name like "Amateur Index" - some kids could think it's an American Idol type site. Georgia Girls - there's nothing "sexual" about that. The Wetlands - some kid decides to do a report on the wetlands, finds this site and it's doomed? It's just too arbitrary, IMHO.

Not to mention all the sites that AREN'T in the US......



Last edited by Peaches at Apr 11 2003, 10:57 AM

[Mike AI]

Peaches, Sig and I were just talking about the same thing. It will be very interesting... I would hate to be prosecuted for AmateurIndex, or some of my domains that are just girls names. Most of my domains do not have "Sex" or "porn" in it. ( I wonder how that would have worked with the litigation for the sex.com trademark thing? haha)

Off hand I think this will be tossed out by Federal Courts... I hope so anyway.

Also I would have to read the law, and see the language.... deliberately is a pretty strong word legally. Obviously this is focused on sites like "Whitehouse.com"

[Almighty Colin]

The ever viligant ACLU will be on the case.

[MikeFold]

although there are appropriate sections that have merit, overall it is not a good bill/amendment.....

my beef is the way it was "piggybacked" to a bill that no one would dare vote against (the amber thingy)

[sextoyking]

Mike,

I am a little surprised it passed, but fold is right they had it on a another bill.

Ashcroft wins again for now, we will see what the courts say. I guess the bush admin gets pissed that most ppl goto whitehouse.com and they see adult content. This should get interesting.

I also can't believe they piggybacked that on a kiddie porn bill. There is no way something like tht could be defended against or prosecuted in courts. It will either be repealed or they will have to ammend it in my opinion. But realistically how can you make soemthing like that no be so arbitrative? You cant give a list of words that cannot be used. If they chose to they should you somewho stregthen the use of famous marks and trademark infringement clauses in other amendments. This might assist with issues like whitehouse.com and others obviously the target of this law.

[Mike AI]

The whole piggybacking of bill is shameful. There was all kinds of attatchments to the spending bill for the Military and National Defense - most of it pork, and other junk.

There should be a system of grouping together similiar bills.... lumping everything in allows for pork, confusion, and allows people to sneak bad laws in.

The Amber stuff is good, the KP stuff is good, but the domain thing is very shakey.

Todd - Maybe you can refresh my memory, I do not remember seeing Ashcrofts name in the bill or article at all. I wonder why? Hmmm maybe its because he is part of the Executive branch of the gov't NOT the Legislatie branch. Do we need some civic lessons? I imagine this bill was supported OVERWHELMINGLY - including by Democrats. I did not see any Democrat trying to filerbuster it....

[sextoyking]

Mike,

Either bills are sent from the admin, or started in the house, but belive me ashcroft, his cronies, and the whitehouse support this bill.

come on man, as they say in DC, it's all politics

[Mike AI]

Todd I think you just have Ashcroft on the brain.... Do you have dreams about him when you go to sleep?

[sextoyking]

It does upset me that it was a 98-0 vote. not 1 dem voted against it. but how could they, they added this to the amber aleart. That would of been political death, you voted against the amber aleart, good bye

[Mike AI]

Todd, lets face it most politicans care about getting re-elected. The porn industry has NO friends in Congress or the Whitehouse....

Politicans are politicians and will pander to their people... most are extremely IGNORANT as well when it comes to issues like the internet, and other things hi-tech.

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by sextoyking@Apr 11 2003, 12:47 PM
It does upset me that it was a 98-0 vote. not 1 dem voted against it. but how could they, they added this to the amber aleart. That would of been political death, you voted against the amber aleart, good bye

No one to blame now. <_<

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by Mike AI@Apr 11 2003, 12:50 PM
The porn industry has NO friends in Congress or the Whitehouse....

Man,

I agree with that. dems, reps. Not one of them will stand up for porn.

[Mike AI]

Details of the new law:

The amended section is at http://www.house.gov/rules/pence.pdf

The law would begin as follows:

"Whoever knowingly uses a misleading domain name with the intent to deceive a person into viewing obscenity on the Internet ...

The law would also prohibit the same, but is broader in that it applies to "material harmful to minors."

I don't think majorhost.com is a misleading domain per se. While the law does not define what a "misleading domain name" is, the lawmaker comments to the bill suggest that it would not apply to BM. BM is not trying to mask the site by stating we are offering family-oriented content, then hitting viewers with porn.

However, if the concerns are still there, we could put a warning on majorhost describing what could be viewed. At that point, I don't see how the domain would be misleading.

The only issue I would have is: (1) does the law look at the use of the domain to make the "misleading" determination or (2) does the law merely look at the registered name to make this judgment, or (3) is it a combination of both? The text of the law is not clear on this issue.

[VooMan]

Originally posted by Mike AI@Apr 11 2003, 11:47 AM
The whole piggybacking of bill is shameful. There was all kinds of attatchments to the spending bill for the Military and National Defense - most of it pork, and other junk.

There should be a system of grouping together similiar bills.... lumping everything in allows for pork, confusion, and allows people to sneak bad laws in.

Line Item Veto...

Peaches, say it isn't so... am I going to be carted off in handcuffs because of GeorgiaGirls? I wouldn't last a minute in jail! (sniffle)

[SykkBoy]

so much for my nunsfuckingsheep.com that might mislead someone

In a very very small way, I'm glad we have no friends in congress...let's remember, because what we sell is "taboo" it gains interest. What concerns me isn't that we don't have friends it's that we have a lot of enemies...