Zuccarini Arrested in Florida

[LewR]

Originally posted by jberryhill
"What would this guy's legal defense be?"

He was arrested in Florida. Maybe he knows a good :evil: FL lawyer....

Man, you live on the edge... ROFL

Question though - with a new law - the burden is on the defense? I would have thought it would be on the prosecution, "proving" that the law was valid/constitutional.

(That's why I hire lawyers....LOL)

 

[Ari Goldberger]

>What would this guy's legal defense be?

First, here is the law that he is charged of running afoul of. If you haven't read it, you should.

"Whoever knowingly uses a MISLEADING DOMAIN NAME on the Internet with the INTENT TO DECEIVE a minor into viewing material that is harmful to minors on the Internet shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 4 years, or both."

While I am conscious of the risk of being attacked for arguing the defense for someone apparently unpopular at least to many participating in this thread, I would ask you to take a close look at the law and the facts and not be so quick to throw someone in the slammer. Just because the government charges you with a crime and spins it a certain way at a news conference to get the press to condemn you before the public does not mean you're guilty of a crime. Last time I checked -- at least in the U.S. -- you are innocent until proven guilty and are entitled to a trial by jury of your peers. I'd ask you to try that here and listen to what I have to say with an open mind.

Let me be very clear: I am NOT defending using typos to point kids to sites that offer porn. But, believe it or not, that is NOT what the law makes a crime. The crime is using typos (misleading domains) with the "INTENT TO MISLEAD" children into seeing pornography.

Zuccarini's typos would pop-up http://hanky-panky-college.com which you should SEE FOR YOURSELF AND DRAW YOUR OWN CONCLUSION. In addition, a non sex site pop-ups: yes-yes-yes.com. No other sex pages pop-up and if you close hanky-panky-college.com, it is gone and there's no other porn offerings of any kind.

Take a look at hanky-panky-college.com. It is filled with "Warnings," and messages that it is not for anyone under 18 and the page says exactly what one will see if they click on the enter button. There is no picture of any kind on that page or even a bad or salacious word. It is only if someone clicks enter that they see porn, and they are warned in advance. At the bottom of this message, I reproduce the entire text from the Hanky-panky-college page.

Judge for yourself, and try to be objective regardless of your anymosity to the defendant. How can such prominent warnings of what content one can expect on the site show an "intent to deceive."

Again, it matters not whether you think it's wrong that Zuccarini put this "offer" of porn in front of people and kids. That may be reprehensible, but it is not an "intent to deceive." Kids can easily see pornography if they want to see it on the Internet. All they need to do is type "tits" in Yahoo or Google. But it is not illegal for Yahoo or Google to offer porn to kids. That law was declared unconstitutional.

Condemn Zuccarini for being a typosquatter. That's fair. But this is a tough business with loads of grey ethical areas. But put Zuccarini in jail because you don't like him, without conducting a reasoned and balanced application of the law. Well, that's not fair.

The question for this jury is as follows:

1- Did John Zuccarini "use a MISLEADING DOMAIN NAME on the Internet?" and

2 - Did John Zuccarini have the "INTENT TO DECEIVE a minor into viewing material that is harmful to minors."

You may answer yes to 1, but with the warnings on hanky-panky-college.com, I do not see how you can say he "intended to deceive" anyone. The page says exactly what you get if you click, and if you don't click, you don't see porn. If the typos automatically pointed to porn without a warning and a requirement that the user take affirmative steps to get the porn, then the law would arguably be violated. However, with the warning and with not the least bit of an indiscreet picture being shown on hanky-panky-college.com, there can be no "intent to deceive," just an "intent to offer" porn.

Read the text below from the hanky-panky-college.com page. Look at the page yourself. Ask yourself, is there an "intent to deceive." I'm curious to hear the opinions of this board.

In conclusion, I know I've taken an unpopular position here. I believe in standing up for what is right and speaking up for those who are in need, and I hope this audience -which has respected my opinion on other areas of domain law, will respect my opinion here as well.

Thanks,

Ari

TEXT FROM HANKY-PANKY-COLLEGE.COM PAGE


HANKY-PANKY-COLLEGE!!
As Seen on the HOWARD STERN SHOW!!!
WARNING: ADULTS ONLY
WARNING
This Website contains sexually-oriented adult content which may include visual images and verbal descriptions of nude adults, adults engaging in sexual acts, and other audio and visual materials of a sexually-explicit nature.
Permission to enter this Website and to view and download its contents is strictly limited only to consenting adults who affirm that the following conditions apply:
1. That you are at least 18 years of age or older, and that you are voluntarily choosing to view and access such sexually-explicit images and content for your own personal use.
2. That you intend to view the sexually-explicit material in the privacy of your home, or in a place where there are no other persons viewing this material who are either minors, or who may be offended by viewing such material.
3. That you are familiar with your local community standards and that the sexually-explicit materials which you have chosen to view and/or download from this Website are well within the contemporary community standards of acceptance and tolerance of your community for sexually-explicit materials of that nature.
If all of these conditions apply to you, you are given permission to ENTER. If any of these conditions do not apply to you, you are not given permission to enter and view the contents of this Website and you should now EXIT.
These web pages are not intended to be viewed by minors. If you are a parent and you want to block this site, please contact one of the following:
RSAC Cyber Patrol CYBERsitter Safesurf SurfWatch Websense SmartAlex Labelled with ICRA

ENTER SITE

 

[LewR]

Ari,

You make some very good points. I will go on the premise you are defending legal interpretation, not the person involved.

The site you highlight does indeed appear to cover itself - and I doubt any small kid could even type the URL in. So I ask this - is a warning page enough? I can't say - but I know this: My friend has a small boy, about 3 and a half years old. He can turn on the computer, and type in nickjr.com - then start clicking so that games come up. He knows to click for the next item - but he does not know what a disclaimer page means - and certainly does not know to type in ass, tits or anything else. Will he then click on the "enter" link without knowing it if he was to typo the URL? (which, I would think would happen regularly). I know - parents should be supervising - etc. So why then do we have poison centers? I am sure you get my drift. So is it typo's of kids sites or any site that should be considered? Or does a 4 year old even know what they are seeing? I am no prude by any stretch, nor one of these hypocritical puritans preaching fire and brimstone, but there needs to be a line of decency drawn somewhere. I know you cannot legislate good manners or moral character, but society should do something.

I am posing more questions than answers, true. I think this guy is a low life, true. But your legal view is respected, and appreciated. I will tell you this though, I feel this case will set the "rules" for everyone, and will be watched very closely by every legal entity in the country. He may get tons of free legal advise and representation - he may have a staff of pro bono lawyers representing their own ideals through his problems - who knows... These cases bring out the best - and the worse.

Personally, a little Jersey Justice and exile to France should be sufficient...LOL

 

[Ari Goldberger]

Lew-

Your example of the 3 1/2 year old on nickjr.com unwittingly clicking enter is a good one -- if the prosecution could prove that Mr. Z. intended this result, which is a bit far-fetched. "Intent" is a difficult standard. It is not enough that such a result could occur, the defendant had to intend for this to occur. Since 3 1/2 year olds would not make good customers for Mr. Z., it is highly doubtful this was his intent. It is more likely that the hanky-panky-college.com site was simply the same page offered on all of Mr. Z's domains along with his other ad programs -- not just domains kids might type. The intent was to make money, and your not going to make money off of kids.

(Incidentally, I don't think the 3 1/2 year old can truly type nickjr.com -- perhaps click a button.)

Society definitely can legislate morals. Governments can pass whatever laws they want provided they are constitutional. The only question here, however, is whether Mr. Z. broke any laws and should be punished for breaking them.

Thanks for your balanced and intelligent comments.

Ari

 

[smoothlime]

I agree with Ari, good points.

Even though, like many, I don't like what Zuccarini did with his typo domains, I hope he will shell out some big bucks and get some good lawyers.

Why?

Because, this new domain law is very vague. If Zuccarini doesn't fight back full-force and ends up getting maximum sentence, this case will serve as a precedent, and all subsequent cases will be affected by it.

Which means, the gov't can easily go after the owner of WhiteHouse.com (which in essence, is the same as going to a Zuccarini domain -- "misleading domain" with a warning) and thousands of other adult webmasters who happen to have domains not containing the word 'sex' and 'porn' in it. Having vague laws like this is very bad! (they need to first fix the laws, make them specific, then prosecute ...)

This news has gone on TV, with headlines like 'Child Porn Bust' < O'Reilly. It's disgusting how the media twists the news.

Does anybody think that maybe they'll also charge him with other crimes? Maybe ignoring the prelimary injunction by FTC? Etc?


My 2 cents, ............ not an attorney

 

[avs162]

occasionally the law and justice collide maybe this will be one of them

hurting or endangering children is anathema and i have no pity for anyone who does and they deserve the consequences after due process hope judge ito has a full calender

 

[beatz]

Gawd, i'm so happy to live in Europe when it comes to these kind of things...no way such a vague law would ever have the chance to be established here (germany).

Btw - You just don't let a 3 year old kid sit in front of the internet alone.

Seems a law like this is making the wrong folks responsible.

It's the parents that are to blame - who said the internet is a safe place for kids? It isn't and will never be and WHY SHOULD IT?

It's not like you let your 3 year old watch TV alone in the middle of the night, is it?

Because you know there might be movies on that are not good for your kid, right?

So why then do you expect the internet to be a safe place?

Although i strongly dislike Zuccarinis business practises, i hope he successfully will defend himself.

This law is just nuts.

 

[Momentum]

It's the parents that are to blame - who said the internet is a safe place for kids?

Nothing like blaming the victims, eh?

So let me get this straight, unless you are 18+ then you should not even be on the internet.

Or if you are on the internet and under 18, then your parents need to watch every keystroke to make sure that you don't misspell cartoonnetwork.com or britneyspears.com because otherwise you will end up in porn popup hell.

Yeah, that sounds pretty reasonable.

Or here is another idea. How about we start providing minimal protection to children to stop them from being purposely assaulted with obscenity. In fact I am pretty sure that we already have laws about purposing exposing underage children to pornography.

It is really sad that they even had to make a law for this purpose. What kind of sociopath would you have to be in order to redirect a cartoon network typo or disney typo to a pornography site?

 

[pam]

Ari, you definitely brought up some valid points worth thinking about.

The news media made it appear that if you typed in "dinseyland.com" you were auto directed to blatant porn sites with multiple popups and for each click MrZ was paid 10-25 cents. Each article I've read stated they were auto directed to porn sites without warnings.

Has the warning page been there all along, or was it recently added?

I'm waiting to see how this plays out in court, a challenge to a new law is always interesting.

I have always had warning pages, even when people have said it was no protection. To me it shows I'm serious about wanting anyone under 21 (sorry, I don't buy this 18+ stuff) out of my adult websites, even the r-rated sites.

As I now state ... "Regarding Public Law No: 108-21; Section 2252B refers to adult websites. You are about to enter a website that is for adults, age 21 and older, only. While the domain name does not have 'porn' or 'sex' in it, THIS IS AN ADULT WEBSITE WITH SEXUAL CONNOTATIONS. Capice?? I'm not misleading you into coming here, you know damned well it's an adult web site. "

 

[HOWARD]

When the Pennsylvania District Court Judge ordered me to provide Zuccarini's phone number ( I did not have his address) or go to jail, I complied with the order. They still were unable to serve him with process, but that didn't stop the court from entering a judgment against him for $500,000. There were due process and jurisdictional problems throughout the case, but the Court was going to get him no matter what.

 

[Ari Goldberger]

>Has the warning page been there all along, or was it recently >added?

It looks like it was there prior to the passage of the law based on an archive.org search of http://hanky-panky-college.com for February 2003 and December 2002.

 

[pam]

Wasn't he barred from doing this a year ago? I pulled up this story which clearly implies he was doing more than sending users to a single website with a warning page:

"Court Order Bars Typosquatter From Hijacking & Mousetrapping
May 24, 2002

Notorious typosquatter John Zuccarini struck out in federal court for the third time. After suffering federal court judgments of $89,109 and $610,000 in the 2001 lawsuit season, Zuccarini's latest setback includes a judgment against him for $1,897,166 and a sweeping court order intended to prevent Mr. Zuccarini from exercising his typosquatting and mousetrapping talents in the future.

A U.S. District Court has ordered the perpetrator of an Internet scheme to halt his illegal practices. The defendant employed more than 5,500 copycat Web addresses to divert surfers from their intended Internet destinations to one of his sites, <b>and hold them captive while he pelted their screens with a barrage of adult-oriented ads</b>. At the request of the Federal Trade Commission, the court permanently barred the defendant from diverting or obstructing consumers on the Internet and from launching Web sites or Web pages that belong to unrelated third parties. The court also has barred the defendant from participating in advertising affiliate programs on the Internet, and has ordered him to give up more than $1.8 million in ill-gotten gains.

In October 2001, the FTC charged that the defendant, John Zuccarini, was registering Internet domain names that were misspellings of legitimate domain names or that incorporated transposed or inverted words or phrases. For example, Zuccarini registered 15 variations of the popular children's cartoon site, www.cartoonnetwork.com, and 41 variations on the name of teen pop star, Britney Spears. Surfers who looked for a site but misspelled its Web address or inverted a term - using cartoonjoe.com, for example, rather than joecartoon.com - were taken to the defendant's sites. They then were bombarded with a rapid series of windows displaying ads for goods and services ranging from Internet gambling to pornography. In some cases, the legitimate Web site the consumer was attempting to access also was launched, so consumers thought the hailstorm of ads to which they were being exposed was from a legitimate Web site.

Once consumers were taken to one of the defendant's sites, it was very difficult for them to exit. In a move called "mousetrapping," special programming code at the sites obstructed surfers' ability to close their browser or go back to the previous page. Clicks on the "close" or "back" buttons caused new windows to open. "After one FTC staff member closed out of 32 separate windows, leaving just two windows on the task bar, he selected the "back" button, only to watch the same seven windows that initiated the blitz erupt on his screen, and the cybertrap began anew," according to papers filed with the court. The FTC alleged that the practices were unfair and deceptive, in violation of federal law.

The court order permanently bars the defendant from: redirecting or obstructing consumers on the Internet in connection with the advertising, promoting, offering for sale, selling, or providing any goods or services on the Internet, the World Wide Web or any Web page or Web site; and launching the Web sites of others without their permission. The defendant will be required to give up $1,897,166 in ill-gotten gains. The court also ordered certain bookkeeping and record-keeping requirements to allow the FTC to monitor the defendant's compliance with the court's order."

 

[DaddyHalbucks]

It was all so unnecessary. John Zuccarini has many fine non-infringing/ generic domains. He destroyed alot of his hard work and investment by poaching trademarks.

 

[Ari Goldberger]

I agree that sticking to generic and descriptive domain names is the best course of action. Also, never use a non-sex sounding domain name for an adult site. If the term is ambiguous (e.g. breasts.com), make sure there is a clear warning with an exit page to a non-sex site.

 

[jberryhill]

Whoa, this thread took off in a hurry.

Yes, a law passed by Congress and signed by the president is presumed Constitutional. That's why the burden of that avenue of attack is on the defense. The burden of proving the elements of the offense, in contrast, are on the prosecution.

As Ari points out, the fact that a minor might end up looking at porn is a separate question from whether there was an intent to *deceive* that minor, given the interposition of a warning page along that path. That's a fact question for a jury to decide, unless you can get a judge to rule as a matter of law that the warning page obviates intent. If you can't, then you're going to need a perhaps unusually objective-minded jury to make the distinction between a confusing domain name that leads to a warning page about porn, and a full-blown deceptive intent to cause a minor to actually view porn.

The FTC matter is entirely separate from the charge under this particular law. In point of fact, while he was ostensibly arrested for violating this particular law, it may be some time before a detailed set of charges is made, and because of the recent vintage of this law, the prosecutors should consider scrounging around to find what other charges they might join, if they can.

As for German speech regulation, I can assure our friend Beatz that Americans find various German hate-speech laws which, among other things, prevent the legitimate sale of historical artifacts on sites such as eBay in Germany, to be as odd to our way of thinking as he finds this American law.

 

[jberryhill]

"What kind of sociopath would you have to be in order to redirect a cartoon network typo or disney typo to a pornography site?"

And that is the primary difficulty to be faced in persuading a jury that the warning page obviates intent. Intellectually, it is a valid question. Emotionally, it is a difficult sell.

 

[LewR]

I now have even more questions.

Since MrZ has a long history with the justice system, do you think the new law was written to target him specifically? or just with him in mind?

Was the fact that children may be involved the "sway" that allowed the law to be popular? (vs. regular typo regulations).

Is this the "Al Capone" special - we know he is dirty, and we agree he should be in jail, but we need ANYTHING to convict, so lets find SOMETHING to put him out of business, or at least slow him down while we find more? IRS/Amber ...

Will the disclaimer page prove to be the "get out of jail free" card?

Does the law state that the "mousetrapping" is illegal even if it does not contain adult material?

Curious ...

 

[Ari Goldberger]

The Complaint:

http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/cyberlaw/uszuccarini82903cmp.pdf

 

[Deleted member 4749]

Originally posted by DotComCowboy
It was all so unnecessary. John Zuccarini has many fine non-infringing/ generic domains. He destroyed alot of his hard work and investment by poaching trademarks.

You better speak of yourself.

 

[Deleted member 4749]

Originally posted by Ari Goldberger
>What would this guy's legal defense be?

First, here is the law that he is charged of running afoul of. If you haven't read it, you should.

"Whoever knowingly uses a MISLEADING DOMAIN NAME on the Internet with the INTENT TO DECEIVE a minor into viewing material that is harmful to minors on the Internet shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 4 years, or both."

While I am conscious of the risk of being attacked for arguing the defense for someone apparently unpopular at least to many participating in this thread, I would ask you to take a close look at the law and the facts and not be so quick to throw someone in the slammer. Just because the government charges you with a crime and spins it a certain way at a news conference to get the press to condemn you before the public does not mean you're guilty of a crime. Last time I checked -- at least in the U.S. -- you are innocent until proven guilty and are entitled to a trial by jury of your peers. I'd ask you to try that here and listen to what I have to say with an open mind.

Let me be very clear: I am NOT defending using typos to point kids to sites that offer porn. But, believe it or not, that is NOT what the law makes a crime. The crime is using typos (misleading domains) with the "INTENT TO MISLEAD" children into seeing pornography.

Zuccarini's typos would pop-up http://hanky-panky-college.com which you should SEE FOR YOURSELF AND DRAW YOUR OWN CONCLUSION. In addition, a non sex site pop-ups: yes-yes-yes.com. No other sex pages pop-up and if you close hanky-panky-college.com, it is gone and there's no other porn offerings of any kind.

Take a look at hanky-panky-college.com. It is filled with "Warnings," and messages that it is not for anyone under 18 and the page says exactly what one will see if they click on the enter button. There is no picture of any kind on that page or even a bad or salacious word. It is only if someone clicks enter that they see porn, and they are warned in advance. At the bottom of this message, I reproduce the entire text from the Hanky-panky-college page.

Judge for yourself, and try to be objective regardless of your anymosity to the defendant. How can such prominent warnings of what content one can expect on the site show an "intent to deceive."

Again, it matters not whether you think it's wrong that Zuccarini put this "offer" of porn in front of people and kids. That may be reprehensible, but it is not an "intent to deceive." Kids can easily see pornography if they want to see it on the Internet. All they need to do is type "tits" in Yahoo or Google. But it is not illegal for Yahoo or Google to offer porn to kids. That law was declared unconstitutional.

Condemn Zuccarini for being a typosquatter. That's fair. But this is a tough business with loads of grey ethical areas. But put Zuccarini in jail because you don't like him, without conducting a reasoned and balanced application of the law. Well, that's not fair.

The question for this jury is as follows:

1- Did John Zuccarini "use a MISLEADING DOMAIN NAME on the Internet?" and

2 - Did John Zuccarini have the "INTENT TO DECEIVE a minor into viewing material that is harmful to minors."

You may answer yes to 1, but with the warnings on hanky-panky-college.com, I do not see how you can say he "intended to deceive" anyone. The page says exactly what you get if you click, and if you don't click, you don't see porn. If the typos automatically pointed to porn without a warning and a requirement that the user take affirmative steps to get the porn, then the law would arguably be violated. However, with the warning and with not the least bit of an indiscreet picture being shown on hanky-panky-college.com, there can be no "intent to deceive," just an "intent to offer" porn.

Read the text below from the hanky-panky-college.com page. Look at the page yourself. Ask yourself, is there an "intent to deceive." I'm curious to hear the opinions of this board.

In conclusion, I know I've taken an unpopular position here. I believe in standing up for what is right and speaking up for those who are in need, and I hope this audience -which has respected my opinion on other areas of domain law, will respect my opinion here as well.

Thanks,

Ari

TEXT FROM HANKY-PANKY-COLLEGE.COM PAGE


HANKY-PANKY-COLLEGE!!
As Seen on the HOWARD STERN SHOW!!!
WARNING: ADULTS ONLY
WARNING
This Website contains sexually-oriented adult content which may include visual images and verbal descriptions of nude adults, adults engaging in sexual acts, and other audio and visual materials of a sexually-explicit nature.
Permission to enter this Website and to view and download its contents is strictly limited only to consenting adults who affirm that the following conditions apply:
1. That you are at least 18 years of age or older, and that you are voluntarily choosing to view and access such sexually-explicit images and content for your own personal use.
2. That you intend to view the sexually-explicit material in the privacy of your home, or in a place where there are no other persons viewing this material who are either minors, or who may be offended by viewing such material.
3. That you are familiar with your local community standards and that the sexually-explicit materials which you have chosen to view and/or download from this Website are well within the contemporary community standards of acceptance and tolerance of your community for sexually-explicit materials of that nature.
If all of these conditions apply to you, you are given permission to ENTER. If any of these conditions do not apply to you, you are not given permission to enter and view the contents of this Website and you should now EXIT.
These web pages are not intended to be viewed by minors. If you are a parent and you want to block this site, please contact one of the following:
RSAC Cyber Patrol CYBERsitter Safesurf SurfWatch Websense SmartAlex Labelled with ICRA

ENTER SITE

All valid points..