Congress OKs Internet Porn Restrictions

Mike AI · 04-11-2003

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.

04-11-2003	#15
Mike AI Administrator Want to see your own Advertising Here! Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 11,618	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. __________________ Make big money on your Domains! Why wait 40 days to get paid with the other guys? Parked.com pays the most for your traffic, and cuts checks twice a month!