Use misleading domain name; go to jail

[pam]

Good point on the splash page, Ari. I have many adult websites but all have at least one if not two warning pages. One of my sites shares a name with a trademarked product and I know people have gone looking for that product and ended up at my site! [and yes, my site name is being trademarked as an adult site and we can share the name since we have two vastly different products].

I have an adult toy store with a name that could confuse kids into thinking they can buy 'normal' toys there. However, they have to pass through one clearly-labeled text warning page, then one with graphics and more warnings. I "may" put a reference to this new bill and add yet a third page stating this site is for adults only and is not meant to mislead etc

From the way I read this bill, they simply want to protect kids from porn, something a parent should be doing. And, I assume this is for sites that DON'T have a disclaimer, i.e. if I had 'softfluffytoys.com' and it went right to images of plushophilia and had no disclaimers or warnings ....

 

[beatz]

Originally posted by pam
From the way I read this bill, they simply want to protect kids from porn, something a parent should be doing. And, I assume this is for sites that DON'T have a disclaimer, i.e. if I had 'softfluffytoys.com' and it went right to images of plushophilia and had no disclaimers or warnings ....

Unfortunately, *if* in fact we're talking about the same bill, it's not only about kids but "persons" as said;
also, the bill doesn't state anything about disclaimers.Which could mean although you have a disclaimer they still could say your name is misleading.

 

[pam]

So -- if I go to amazon.com and I see it's a store selling stuff and not a website on amazon women, they've mislead me and I can sue them?

 

[jberryhill]

"Unfortunately, *if* in fact we're talking about the same bill, it's not only about kids but "persons" as said;"

No. We are talking about the Truth in Domains Names Act, which was introduced in the House of Representatives, and is the only bill of its kind. Go to thomas.loc.gov and search on "Truth Domain Names". It is an express and material provision of the bill that the proscribed actions must be done with an intent to cause "a minor" to see visual depictions of explicit sexual conduct. I don't know why you keep saying otherwise.

"also, the bill doesn't state anything about disclaimers.Which could mean although you have a disclaimer they still could say your name is misleading."

Yes, beatz, anyone can say anything. However, the real bill states that the actions must be done with the *intent* to cause a minor to view the recited visual depictions. The presence of an express statement to the contrary certainly provides evidence suggesting that one does not have such an intent.

"I have an adult toy store with a name that could confuse kids into thinking they can buy 'normal' toys there."

The question is not whether you are selling that type of merchandise, the question is whether you have an intent to cause a minor to view a visual depiction of explicit sexual conduct.

And, if you think about "visual depiction of explicit sexual conduct" - that is much narrower than what a lot of people might otherwise consider to be "pornography". A depiction of conduct is a depiction of someone *doing something*.

 

[jberryhill]

"Take a look here

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

No, beatz, you are looking at the wrong thing. That is not the text as it was introduced in the House. You should be looking at this:

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=108_cong_bills&docid=f:h939ih.txt.pdf

By the way, this bill has been referred to a subcommittee, and it is going to be quite a while before it goes anywhere else.

 

[pam]

Well, my toy store has no one doing 'something' or 'anything' at all. I follow another attorney's advice (a lawyer who specializes in adult law) and have NO explicit images on tours of my paysites, toy stores or anything else. I don't even use images and then morph out the 'good stuff'!

I've always erred on the side of caution and though years ago people told me I was too cautious, now many say I was right. A lot of things I refused to sell years ago are now 'illegal' in many places.

But -- to be completely safe, I'm closing that 'toy store' site and have moved it to a domain name that can NEVER be confused with misleading 'persons' into thinking what they will see is not sexual.

 

[jberryhill]

Pam,

We're talking about a bill that was introduced in the House and referred to a committee.

If you recall your Schoolhouse Rock correctly, you will realize that, to become a law, the bill has to survive the committee report (including referrals to any other committee), pass the House, pass the Senate, survive a joint committee to resolve any differences in amendments offered in both houses, pass the House again, pass the Senate again, and then make it to the President's desk.

But for now... it is still... just a Bill.

 

[pam]

Schoolhouse Rock was waaaaaaaaaaaay too many years ago for me to remember

I'll keep 2 toy stores, can't hurt ... but the new domain has a much better name anyway