This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

Goatse illegalized in USA

edited July 2006 in News
Alright, I'm pissed. The Senate has passed and Bush has signed a bill making goatse and any similar sites illegal.
(a) Whoever knowingly uses a misleading domain name on the Internet with the intent to deceive a person into viewing material constituting obscenity shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.
(b) 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.
(c) For the purposes of this section, a domain name that includes a word or words to indicate the sexual content of the site, such as “sex” or “porn”, is not misleading.
If that doesn't threaten free speech I don't know what does. As much as I hate the idea that somebody would do this, they have the right to.

EDIT: Forgot the link

Note: Those that do not know what Goatse is can safely read the Wikipedia entry on it.

Comments

  • edited July 2006
    So you would support putting visible pornography in the children's section of a bookstore? I don't think this is terribly different than placing pornography on www.disneey.com (I'm making this up as an example).

    I anticipate the response that it is up to the parents to use Net Nanny or to keep a closer eye on their kids. I do have some sympathy for this argument. However, nobody is saying that the porno site can't be out there - they just can't actively troll their images towards unwilling (and/or illegal) viewers. I don't see the terrible harm there - especially when their right to post the material is not being infringed upon. This is similar to the telemarketer "do not call list," in my opinion. It allows me to enforce my right as a consumer to choose what images I wish to view. After all, there is no rational reason that a porno site has to be located at www.whitehouse.com. Nobody in their right mind can tell me that such a website is anything other than pushing porno through deceit and/or confusion.

    As an aside, I love these net restrictions. I am sure the owner of the porno site that is based in Latvia is shaking in his boots now!
    Post edited by Kilarney on
  • My real problem with this is the vague wording. It's now illegal for me to trick my friends into seeing the inside of a man's anus. If that's wrong, I don't want to be right. ^_~
  • My main worry is that people who are not peddling to kids are going to get nailed for it. I mean seriously, are there any porno sellers out there trying to lure in little kids by using www.kidstoys.com or anything? Seriously. Someone with a site like www.funbutttoys.com is going to get hosed by this law when they haven't done anything wrong.

    I don't necessarily have a problem banning people from trying to trick minors into looking at and buying porn. My problem is that any law that does so seems to be too broad and infringes upon rights that should not be restricted. Take for example Megan's Law. People can be convicted as sex offenders by simply peeing in the woods where a kid could possibly see. Not good.
  • Another good reason for the .xxx domain name. That would make it easy to stay away if I so chose. Akin to my telemarketer opt-out example.
  • edited July 2006
    Take for example Megan's Law. People can be convicted as sex offenders by simply peeing in the woods where a kid could possibly see. Not good.
    Your paranoia runs rampant. What the heck does Megan's Law have to do with peeing in the woods? Megan's Law is a sex-offender registry and notification law.

    Any time you guys bring up criminal jurisprudence, I usually start banging my head into a wall. (Fortunately, I live in a padded room.) Some states have public urination statutes. (Vermont does not.) However, for urination to be a "sex offense," there must be something in addition that is lewd and/or lascivious. Urination alone is never enough.
    Post edited by Kilarney on
  • Masturbating?
  • http://forums.fark.com/cgi/fark/comments.pl?IDLink=1556262

    That's the stuff I'm talking about.
  • edited July 2006

    Any time you guys bring up criminal jurisprudence, I usually start banging my head into a wall. (
    My favorite is when Rym talks about what to say to a cop. In my view, you run a 50/50 chance of getting cuffed and stuffed (and maybe a bonk on the head for good measure).
    Post edited by Apreche on
  • http://forums.fark.com/cgi/fark/comments.pl?IDLink=1556262

    That's the stuff I'm talking about.
    That's fine, but Megan's law has nothing to do with they guy being convicted. Megan's law is just the registry that must happen after a conviction.

    In any event, the link to the article was broken. I can't see how one case out of millions that are brought each year should make up your mind about sex offenses. I'm sure there is more to this story. This would not fit the sexual assault statute in my jurisdiction - that much is clear.
  • I thought the topic said "goatees illegalized in USA" and I thought 'man, that's a good idea'.

    I really think that there is less porn on the net than these lawmakers think there are, well maybe not less but its definitely not a visible as the hype seems to suggest. I've never stumbled upon porn, no even when looking for more results in Google image search I change the settings to whatever the lowest is. I think parents are finding porn on their teenagers computers and the kids are saying 'I didn't search for it mum it just came up, they tricked me into it' and the parents are getting pissed off and writing their members of parliament.

    Although there was something in the news recently, the government introduced a net-nanny type thing to all Australian schools, it was a big deal and there were politicians in schools with cute kids and media. It was a nice little fluff piece, look how the government is helping the kiddies, and one of the kids managed to bring up a list of all the words that were banned. I can't find the link now but it was pretty funny.
  • Parents: "I'm outraged everytime my child types in Goat Sex, he gets porn!"
  • All I'm saying is this. I agree with the intent of laws like this, most of the time. However, very often the actual scope of the wording of these laws reaches far beyond the intent. Inevitably, someone will be persecuted for violation of these laws who has done no wrong. Even the judges and the writers of the law will agree, but nothing can be done because the law goes in as written. The problem is if they narrow the scope of the law's wording, it leaves loopholes making the law useless. Thus, far reaching laws are passed and rights are lost. I'd rather have no law than a broken law.
  • People don't seem to understand that the internet is not a babysitter.

    Also this law doesn't seem to apply to websites that are created and hosted in foreign lands.
  • All I'm saying is this. I agree with the intent of laws like this, most of the time. However, very often the actual scope of the wording of these laws reaches far beyond the intent. Inevitably, someone will be persecuted for violation of these laws who has done no wrong. Even the judges and the writers of the law will agree, but nothing can be done because the law goes in as written.
    I think the intent argument isn't terribly strong, since judges are supposed to effectuate the intent of the legislature and nothing more. A statute is interpreted using the plain and ordinary meaning of its language.

    A better argument is that the word "obscenity" is vague. This argument has been litigated unsuccessfully, but it's an argument one can make with a straight face.
  • This is one case where I really respect my home state of Michigan. (Believe me, there are many other cases where I do not ^_~)

    A man flipped his canoe in a river, swearing up a storm as he tried to right it. There were some children with their parents on the shore, and they brought charges against him on some anti-obscenity law. He fought it. The courts eventually ruled that his speech was not indeed obscene, for it conveyed meaning, in this case his displeasure.

    I'm generally against any legislation that attempts to prevent "obscenity:" my freedom to say what I wish is more important than your freedom not to be offended.

    The .xxx domain, as it was proposed, was a terrible idea. Who gets to decide what is pornography and what isn't? Whose definition should we use? People in Utah would generally consider things pornographic that other people would not. What if I find the idea of showing a woman's ankle to be pornographic? Should a site that does so be forced to relinquish their purchesed domains in order to migrate to a new, government-mandated one? Who will enforce this? Is violence or hate speech subject to it? What about redirects?

    One of the reasons DNS works so well is that it is, for the most part, completely unregulated. People should have the freedom to use whatever domain names they desire. The .xxx domain was a terrible solution to an ill-defined problem.
  • I think I need to make a website now showing pictures of hot ankle action.
  • image

    Here's a teaser. You'll have to pay to see the rest. ^_~
  • ZOMG! Where did you say that paypal link is?!
  • Nothing turns on anyone faster than ankle stripping. ;)
  • edited July 2006
    Rym, you whore!
    Post edited by Ametto on
  • I'm so offended I let my child roam free on the Internet and poor little...um...Jimmy's mind has been ruined by sights of pornographic feet! I shall sue the pants off you.
Sign In or Register to comment.