Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.
Goatse illegalized in USA
Alright, I'm pissed. The Senate has passed and Bush has signed a bill making goatse and any similar sites illegal.
EDIT: Forgot the link
Note: Those that do not know what Goatse is can safely read the Wikipedia entry on it.
(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.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.
(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 “pornâ€, is not misleading.
EDIT: Forgot the link
Note: Those that do not know what Goatse is can safely read the Wikipedia entry on it.
Comments
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!
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.
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.
That's the stuff I'm talking about.
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 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.
Also this law doesn't seem to apply to websites that are created and hosted in foreign lands.
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.
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.
Here's a teaser. You'll have to pay to see the rest. ^_~