Use misleading domain name; go to jail

[beatz]

Well it's just ridiculous this bill is extended not only to minors but to "persons" in general as well.

Another "Don't take responsibility for yourself, we do that for you" attempt.

Again, who is to decide what exactly "misleading" would be ?

Then again, what do i care - i'm not a US citizen so that law would not apply for me anyway...

 

[DomainGoon]

Originally posted by bidawinner


See that's the problem..people think freedom of speech means there is no PRICE for that speech..

You can be sued and even thrown in jail for saying certain things..

I half agree with you. You can be sued for anything and everything. You should not, under the U.S. Constitution, be thrown in jail for speech which is legal and constitutional.

If people could be jailed for legal speech which other people don't like, then how do you argue that free speech exists at all?

Unpopular speech is precisely the speech which the first amendment was designed to protect. You don't have to protect popular speech, because it's popular.

 

[adoptabledomains]

Originally posted by beatz
Again, who is to decide what exactly "misleading" would be ?

Okay, let's say we have a domain called disneymuseum.com, or someelementaryschool.org and it's pointed directly at photos of hard porn. it dosn't take a rocket scientist to see that this is misleading.

Then again, what do i care - i'm not a US citizen so that law would not apply for me anyway...

But then again you could be wrong. If your domain is .com/net/org, it is served off a US based root server, and likely supplied by a US based master registry. If this were found to make it subject to US law, some scenarios could range from only losing your domains to living in a country with an extradition treaty with the US, or actually being convicted subject to arrest upon ever entering a US territory.

Here is a story of domain being confiscated for criminal activity.
http://money.tbo.com/money/MGA5JLWMTDD.html

You could do this with a .nl, .de or .bz domain, but com/net/org all have a potential tie to US nexus and are potentially subject to US law.

 

[timechange.com]

This country is failing because of conservatism that allows violence to dilute the young minds and opposes to anything related to sex.

 

[jberryhill]

"Again, who is to decide what exactly "misleading" would be ?"

A jury.

Juries do that sort of thing all of the time. If they find evidence of an intent to mislead, then they'll probably find it was misleading.

 

[timechange.com]

My domain, timechange.com has nothing to do with time.


Or does it?

 

[beatz]

What a poor bill that is.

What if i'm an artist and i do erotic photographs but as i'm an artist i use a completely unrelated domain like say TVisboring.com - will the jury than also decide what is art and what is not or will the bill (as a side effect so to speak) regulate that from now on domains are only allowed in descriptive ways (at least when it comes to porn) ?

Will the jury also rule i have to use a domain like eroticart.com and if i don't get hold of such a descriptive name, hey, bad luck ?!

What a lousy bill i say.

 

[jberryhill]

"What if i'm an artist and i do erotic photographs but as i'm an artist i use a completely unrelated domain like say TVisboring.com - will the jury than also decide what is art and what is not or will the bill (as a side effect so to speak) regulate that from now on domains are only allowed in descriptive ways (at least when it comes to porn) ?"

No. The jury will decide whether you had an intent to mislead minors into viewing visual depictions of the type described in the statute (should it become one).

The bill does not require domain names to be descriptive. It prohibits the deliberate use of misleading ones, which is not the precise converse of requiring descriptive ones.

 

[beatz]

Originally posted by jberryhill

No. The jury will decide whether you had an intent to mislead minors into viewing visual depictions of the type described in the statute (should it become one).

Yeah.

We all know that's the theory.

In real life it's gonna be like "hey, the name doesn't say sex or porn or alike - so it's misleading".

Plus - again - the bill is not just about misleading "minors" but also "persons" which makes it even worse.

 

[DomainGoon]

Originally posted by jberryhill
"What if i'm an artist and i do erotic photographs but as i'm an artist i use a completely unrelated domain like say TVisboring.com - will the jury than also decide what is art and what is not or will the bill (as a side effect so to speak) regulate that from now on domains are only allowed in descriptive ways (at least when it comes to porn) ?"

No. The jury will decide whether you had an intent to mislead minors into viewing visual depictions of the type described in the statute (should it become one).

The bill does not require domain names to be descriptive. It prohibits the deliberate use of misleading ones, which is not the precise converse of requiring descriptive ones.

Being that this is internet related, what are the government's options when trying to prosecute a case based on this unconstitutional law? Can they find a jury in some extreme conservative religious town in Alabama to go after some adult company in free speech friendly Los Angeles, or do they have to use a jury in the same area?

 

[beatz]

Btw - a) mentions "obscenity" - again, who is to decide what is obscene and what not?

Thought there were even different laws in that regard depending if you're in Texas or in California for instance.

 

[timechange.com]

I own GreekWay.com

Should I offer maps or guides to anal sex?

 

[jberryhill]

"Btw - a) mentions "obscenity" - again, who is to decide what is obscene and what not?"

The bill does not refer to "obscenity", it refers to "a visual depiction of sexually explicit conduct".


"Plus - again - the bill is not just about misleading "minors" but also "persons" which makes it even worse."

No, the bill applies to persons who use "a misleading domain name with the intent to attract a minor". There are two things required there. The domain name must be misleading, and it must be used with the intent to attract a minor.

It would seem to me that if someone is using a domain name to attract people to a site requiring a credit card in order to subscribe, then it is pretty obvious they lacked an intent to attract minors, since minors don't generally have credit cards.

I am curious about some of the comments concerning the constitutionality of the statute. Misleading commercial speech is not constitutionally protected. Indeed, we have an entire law enforcement body, the FTC, which regularly prosecutes intentionally deceptive commercial speech.

 

[timechange.com]

Excellent analysis John. Please forgive my comments

 

[zouzas]

Originally posted by timechange.com
I own GreekWay.com

Should I offer maps or guides to anal sex?

tikanis,,

In developing Greek.us i went to get ideas from greek.com ,,yup big porn site,,,i think thats what the law is designed to stop,

 

[bidawinner]

Originally posted by zouzas

tikanis,,

In developing Greek.us i went to get ideas from greek.com ,,yup big porn site,,,i think thats what the law is designed to stop,

Exactly..

 

[DomainGoon]

Originally posted by jberryhill
"Btw - a) mentions "obscenity" - again, who is to decide what is obscene and what not?"

The bill does not refer to "obscenity", it refers to "a visual depiction of sexually explicit conduct".


"Plus - again - the bill is not just about misleading "minors" but also "persons" which makes it even worse."

No, the bill applies to persons who use "a misleading domain name with the intent to attract a minor". There are two things required there. The domain name must be misleading, and it must be used with the intent to attract a minor.

It would seem to me that if someone is using a domain name to attract people to a site requiring a credit card in order to subscribe, then it is pretty obvious they lacked an intent to attract minors, since minors don't generally have credit cards.

I am curious about some of the comments concerning the constitutionality of the statute. Misleading commercial speech is not constitutionally protected. Indeed, we have an entire law enforcement body, the FTC, which regularly prosecutes intentionally deceptive commercial speech.

Does the law specifically require the speech to be commercial?

 

[Ari Goldberger]

Not sure if this has been mentioned, so forgive me if it's a repeat. One way I feel of protecting yourself from the law is to simply have a splash page pointing to a clearly marked adult site as well as a non-adult alternative. This avoids the issue of intent to mislead. In many cases, you are probably leaving money on the table by sending everyone to porn with a non-porn link, so it makes sense to have the alternative from a business point of view.

One good example is my nice neighbor who went to Dicks.com looking for the sporting goods chain of that name. Needless to say, she was unable to find the ping pong table she was looking for, and had an interesting introduction to our world of domains.

 

[timechange.com]

LOL she was asking for it

 

[beatz]

Originally posted by jberryhill

The bill does not refer to "obscenity", it refers to "a visual depiction of sexually explicit conduct".

No, the bill applies to persons who use "a misleading domain name with the intent to attract a minor".

Uh are we talking about the same bill ?!

Take a look here:

http://www.house.gov/rules/pence.pdf?tag=nl

You may wanna read the *whole* proposal and then tell me again it doesn't also say "obscenity" and "person" - i'm referring to paragraph "a)" whereas you seem to refer to paragraph "b" only.

But maybe it's me who's missing something here?