new porn bill - question?

With the new porn bill protecting children & enforcing domain naming etiquette for porn sites - will sites like igallery's 'ten.com' fall under this catagory? I know there are dozens of others, even perhaps teensex.com, 69.com, pink.com - it does pose the question what will happen to many of these bastions of traffic?

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



Last edited by meatloaf at Apr 15 2003, 05:34 PM

[Winetalk.com]

Originally posted by meatloaf@Apr 15 2003, 08:32 PM
With the new porn bill protecting children & enforcing domain naming etiquette for porn sites - will sites like igallery's 'ten.com' fall under this catagory? I know there are dozens of others, even perhaps teensex.com, 69.com, pink.com - it does pose the question what will happen to many of these bastions of traffic?

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

they all selling their domains to me

[Hooper]

my opinion if you care, is that the wording of the bill specifically refers to "luring" children. I believe that the law will at least initially be enforced against cybersquatters who redirect very obviously child targeted domains to adult sites. The word "lure" is very indicative imho.

Perhaps someday this law will be abused by a jesus happy prosecutor.

the alternative for domains of question to have them owned by offshore companies AND hosted on offshore servers.
but like everything if YOU own or control the domains and you live in the US it's a bad game of russian roulette (sex.com, JoeE & Jb's spat to name a few).

ask yourself the question: www.pink.com (as an example) - should that domain be pointing to adult material?

Pink the singer, very large & very young fan base? Pink the colour (a colour typically linked with kids)? Does it have that much to do with porn?

or does the domain owner have the free right to choose what he publishes or links to?



Last edited by meatloaf at Apr 15 2003, 06:04 PM

[cj]

the word pink always makes me think pussy

not sure if this industry has influenced that any?



good question meatloaf, an answer i'm also hoping will come soon ...


Hooper, i agree about 'lure' being the keyword ... it is going to come down to interpretation, and there are lots of domains like 'pink' (who is a well known teeny bopper singer) which technically shouldn't be going to adult according to this new rule ...

What law applies in the case of pink.com? the 'lure' law or the 'free speech' law?

[Peaches]

As an example: ARS's justtoons.com Now, it's under the Global umbrella which is located in Canada and not legally "owned" by ARS.

Personally, I think that's a perfect domain to watch to see what happens: Big company, could be construed as "leading kids", and it's a company that's outside the US.

I think the same thing!

but telling the judge: "Your honour, when you think pink, what comes to mind?"

Judge: "Muff son, Muff!"



Last edited by meatloaf at Apr 15 2003, 07:19 PM

schoolgirls.com - another big operator ....

2003 - the year of the squeeze. the year of the moral police.

the other issue is, if the US impose this policy what will they do to enforce cross border issues. We know they hate getting slapped in the face with the offshore out of bounds issue, perhaps they may institute blocking? or ultimately shift the responsibility to ISP's.

lots of interesting questions

then we have the issue of US based 3rd party processors, providing payment solutions to domains deemed to be an "amber alert" risk to children located outside the US.

this would provide a public relations nightmare to some. Even with the EU processing options.

[Torone]

Wondering the same thing about bobsdomain.com...