Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Should Innocently-Named Porn Sites Be Illegal?

Posted by timothy on from the sights-vs-sites dept.

Folic_Acid writes "CNET News.com's Declan McCullagh is reporting that the U.S. House of Representatives is scheduled to vote on an amendment to a bill dealing with child abduction that would make it a crime to use an innocent-sounding domain name to drive traffic to a porn website." I can't wait to see the counter-bill that would illegalize naughty, filthy names that lead only to inoccuous content.

1 of 165 comments (clear)

  1. Re:There's more by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting
    The premise of child-porn laws (if I recall correctly), is that the demand for such stuff endangers kids because they're needed to actually produce the stuff. This seems logical -- how can a nude 5-year-old be filmed in some sexual context without it actually happening to the child.

    Virtual porn involves no such children.

    If you wish to argue that child porn (virtual or filmed) endangers kids because it might entice the sick f*cks who watch the stuff to try it for real, that's different.

    There's also the classic "slippery slope" attack against such laws. If "virtual" is banned, how long before simple literature is banned (such as Lolita or Romeo and Juliet). After all, these children don't exist.