Congress vs Misleading Meta Tags

Krishna Dagli writes "The U.S. House of Representatives on Tuesday approved a bill that would make it a federal felony for Webmasters to use innocent words like "Barbie" or "Furby" but actually feature sexual content on their sites. Anyone who includes misleading "words" or "images" intended to confuse a minor into viewing a possibly harmful Web site could be imprisoned for up to 20 years and fined, the bill says." Terrible news for the Barbie/Furbie fetishists out there, to say nothing about being completely impossible to enforce globally.

Comments

So?

[smitth1276]

Just because it's impossible to enforce globally doesn't mean we shouldn't codify it here. That's sort of a non sequitor.

Re:So?

[Billosaur]

What? It's precisely because it can't be codified globally that it's pointless to do anything about it here. Do you honestly think that anyone outside the US is going to voluntarily conform to this law? Do you think anyone inside the US can't get around it by moving their content outside the US?

As usual, Congress is meddling in things it does not understand. They want to look like they are doing something to protect children, yet at every turn the things they come up with are ludicrous. And they've also dropped the ball on the whole Net Neutrality issue. It's clear Congress doesn't understand what the Internet is ("a series of tubes" said the learned Congressman) or how it works, or the fact that it's a global resource, far outside the realm of their ability to control it.

Re:So?

[NewWorldDan]

And as we've learned, occasionally people switch planes in the US on the way to Costa Rica.

Re:So?

[Anonymous Coward]

Um, the US internet porn industry is not going to move their company and server contents overseas because of laws like this. All porn companies need a local US server in order to effectively deliver their product to US consumers.

Also, I dont know why you slashbots keep making fun of the "tube" analogy for the internet. The internet is basically routers connected to "tubes" (in network engineering they are frequently referred to as "pipes").

Re:So?

[smitth1276]

You, like the OP, are dealing in non-sequitors. I suppose it is to be expected on slashdot, where faux intellectualism and superficial points lacking in substance are the norm.

So are you implying that we should repeal all anti-spam laws and let the spammers that have been convicted out of jail? We should go ahead and make wire fraud legal? Afterall, we can't necessarily enforce that outside of the US. Should we also make terroristic threats legal? Someone could call anyone from outside of the country where we couldn't enforce it and threaten someone's family. Should we make producing narcotics legal since those can be produced in other nations?

If you follow your logic to its conclusion, it becomes unworkable.

And for what it's worth, the whole "series of tubes" thing is actually a pretty good metaphor for use in the net neutrality debate, even if it was horribly misused.

Re:So?

[Roody Blashes]

Actually, within the context of networking, "pipe" has a very specific meaning, and when used to generically describe connections between networking hardware, it's merely a general way of referring to those connections, not any attempt - as was the case with our friend the blowhard Senator - to make any sort of analogy.

If you don't understand why trying to make an analogy involving network transfer and plumbing-style piping is ludicrous, you don't understand networking and you're obviously no more justified in harangueing slashbots that assault Stevens' braindead speech than Stevens was in making the speech in the first place.

Spoilers: Collision detection, fragmentation, and retransfer is the key.

Re:So?

[smitth1276]

"Pipes" are a very good metaphor for explaining the situation to the general public. They don't know what "pipes" are withing the context of networking, and won't be the least bit confused. You obviously don't get out much, and are a perfect example of why I am perfectly justified in "harangueing" slashdotters.

Re:So?

[TheGreek]

It's clear Congress doesn't understand what the Internet is ("a series of tubes" said the learned Congressman) or how it works

It's clear you don't know how Congress works.

Ted Stevens is a United States Senator.

You're clearly not qualified to choose your own elected representatives. You should just give up.

Re:So?

[Anonymous Coward]

Er, so calling it a "tube" instead of a "pipe" in a speech to laypeople because he didn't also mention jitter and other networking effects makes it laughable?

"Pipe" only is a general term that we use that describes the connection between two networking elements. Thats it. As in: "They have a OC12 pipe to their peering router". "Tube" describes the same concept.

Oh yeah and "retransfer" isn't a networking term that I have heard of and I am a networking engineer. Perhaps you are talking about retransmission. So I guess I just busted you and made you look like a fool to everyone here on Slashdot.

Re:So?

[Roody Blashes]

...where faux intellectualism and superficial points lacking in substance are the norm.

I like how you make that statement as if you're some sort of bastion of intellectual debate, then go on in your second paragraph to make up a whole string of extremist opinions that nobody except you posited, which you then apply to the other poster in an attempt to discredit him using speech he never actually put forward. Oh, yes, that's TERRIBLY intellectual and I can't imagine why just assigning our opponents new opinions wasn't considered a valid tactic in debate theory...

I'll open up the betting on how long it takes you to start misattributing logical fallacies to people based on the definitions of those fallacies that you found on Wikipedia.

Re:So?

[DrXym]

The main question being why the hell codify it at all?

Re:So?

[Billosaur]

So are you implying that we should repeal all anti-spam laws and let the spammers that have been convicted out of jail? We should go ahead and make wire fraud legal? Afterall, we can't necessarily enforce that outside of the US. Should we also make terroristic threats legal? Someone could call anyone from outside of the country where we couldn't enforce it and threaten someone's family. Should we make producing narcotics legal since those can be produced in other nations?

Wire fraud is enforced globally because we have the cooperation of foreign banks. Terroristic threats made from outside the country are also enforceable with the cooperation of other countries. This is a one-sided attempt to tell people what they can and can't put in their META tags. Your arguments are specious, because you are comparing criminal acts to what someone puts as web content on a web site. If someone choses to advertise their porn with false meta data, hoping to lure children to their site, then they will be found out by one of the enforcement agencies in this country, using existing laws. Trying to legislate META tag content is a stupid idea.

Re:So?

[Roody Blashes]

Oh, yes, you exposed me. I didn't use the strict networking term, instead using a word that outside of networking jargon is a perfectly acceptable synonym. Gee, I'm just so deeply embarrassed that I'm completely doubting myself at my very core now, because even though I got the concept perfect, I just didn't use the right jargon to identify it.

Oh, wait, no. This is coming from a random, trolling AC who doesn't understand the difference between pipe as a generic term for a connection and pipe as an analogy.

Go stuff a whole bunch of bits down your T1 and STFU. When you can get electrons jammed up in copper wire the way you can get strands of hair jammed up in a piece of PVC pipe, you can come back and argue with me. Until then, you're just an idiot, you're obviously NOT a network engineer, and you're also pretty obviously getting all your "knowledge" out of a Wikipedia abstract.

Re:So?

[smbarbour]

Since the Senate and the House of Representatives are both part of the United States Congress, and Congressman is a valid term for referring to members of either, calling Ted Stevens a Congressman is a correct statement.

Re:So?

[Mr. Underbridge]

What? It's precisely because it can't be codified globally that it's pointless to do anything about it here. Do you honestly think that anyone outside the US is going to voluntarily conform to this law? Do you think anyone inside the US can't get around it by moving their content outside the US?

Not really. The sickos aren't luring kids to nasty sites for the pageviews. They're typically luring them there to establish a relationship, and possibly lead to a real-world meet-up. Which, from the US perspective, is largely only a threat from criminals within the US. Also, the US makes up a ton of traffic. If you can solve 25% of the problem, why not do it?

Re:So?

[hobo sapiens]

WOW.

I don't think you can compare laws governing meta tags to wire fraud laws. Meta tags are essentially web site content. I can change meta tags at will. I can claim someone defaced my site. How many different words in the meta tags are too many? Which ones really are irrelevant to my site's content?

Of course this legislation is going after those knuckleheads who put lists of unrelated words with the sole purpose of garnering search results. These cases are pretty obvious. But I guess the problem is that it is a slippery slope. The law may be enforcable, however, it is quite ambiguous. Just another law that may have the best of intentions but in reality would end up unenforced because lawyers will find loopholes. Why? You are not checking for a quantifiable condition.

I agree on the whole tubes thing. Ted Stevens should start writing the next TCP/IP RFC.

If you cannot read this, you may need to clean your innernet tubes with Drano. Or it may be next week until this innernet gets to you. Either way, remember: this particular innernet is not a pick-em-up-truck; it's more of a canoe floating down a tube. And the paddles are like the wires or something. And there are ducks in them tubes. You can't shoot at em, cuz you might bust a tube. Then the innernets can get out.

Re:So?

[Billosaur]

It's clear you don't know how Congress works.
Ted Stevens is a United States Senator.
You're clearly not qualified to choose your own elected representatives. You should just give up.

And it's clear that you don't know semantics: Congress is divided into two branches: the Senate and the House of Representatives. A member of the Senate is a "Senator", while a member of the House is a "Representative". Any member of Congress is considered a "Congressman," althought the term has come to be generally to be equated with the House. And no, I don't go in for all the PC crap, so if you're female you are still a "Congressman". And Ted Stevens is still ignorant, no matter what you choose to call him.

Re:So?

[JasonKChapman]

It's clear Congress doesn't understand what the Internet is ("a series of tubes" said the learned Congressman) or how it works

It's clear you don't know how Congress works. Ted Stevens is a United States Senator. You're clearly not qualified to choose your own elected representatives. You should just give up.

If you two are finished tossing verbal grenades, you might want to stop and notice that you're both right -- and both wrong. Congressman as a noun means a member of congress. That applies to both senators and members of the House. As a title, it refers specifically to a member of the House, as in Congressman Foo (as opposed to Senator Bar). That makes the GP right and you wrong.

Having said that, the GP capitalized the word which, while wrong in the specific usage, at least implies the word's use as a title. That makes you right and the GP wrong.

In the long run, I suppose it doesn't really matter. This is /., which makes it far more interesting to dip each other's hair in inkwells, or shoot spitballs, or whatever the hell the drive-by jerk behavior d'jour is. By all means, stay as far as hell away from a meaningful discussion of the topic as possible.

Re:So?

[Roody Blashes]

No, they're not. You cannot jam up electrons in a piece of wire like hair in PVC, and when you put too much refuse in your sink disposal, it does not spit all but one of it back out, then start taking them back in one at a time until it's all gone.

If you don't understand networking, don't try to explain it to the public. If it weren't for clueless sods like you who only THINK you know what you're talking about, maybe the general public wouldn't have such moronic conceptions of technology.

Re:So?

[MECC]

It's precisely because it can't be codified globally that it's pointless to do anything about it here.

There are lots of things codified into law here that aren't elsewhere. Even at the local level, its a commonplace thing.

What it means is that if webmasters in another country violated such a law, if it were to pass as such, would be advised not to travel to the US.

Now, as to the question of whether or not misleading tagging of the sort refered to in the legislation were to be affected, well, that's another issue entirely.

Re:So?

[smitth1276]

WOW. ... I don't think you can compare laws governing meta tags to wire fraud laws.

I guess that you (and a couple of the others who responded to that post) didn't read the whole thread. The OP,to which I was replying, argued that it was a silly law because it couldn't be enforced. I simply illustrated the stupidity of that position. Many laws that can't be enforced internationally are successfully enforced domestically, and many laws that originally couldn't be forced internationally are enforced internationally now with the cooperation of foreign governments. That's why I labeled the argument as a non-sequitor, because it is.

Re:So?

[Gerzel]

Well there is also the problem of what words are "innocent" as many words in the English language have alternate meanings. This will be one that will give a very interesting court case if it goes through and is enforced.

Re:So?

[smitth1276]

No, [pipes] are not [pretty good metaphors for descibing the net neutrality debate to the public]. You cannot jam up electrons in a piece of wire like hair in PVC, and when you put too much refuse in your sink disposal, it does not spit all but one of it back out, then start taking them back in one at a time until it's all gone.

Do you actually understand what the "net neutrality" debate is about?

Re:So?

[Jaysyn]

So who will be the first sex-shop busted for having the word TOY in their Meta-tags? Another stupid, worthless law from our stupid, worthless government.

Jaysyn

Re:So?

[MECC]

Porn servers work about as well overseas as they do here, a significant portion of the time. Not always, but often enough.

As to the constant ridicule of the tubes analogy, it isn't as much about whether or not the tubes analogy accurately describe the "Internet", as the ridiculous context in which the analogy was made. When you read/hear the speech, it becomes clear that the quasi-honorable senator stevens is swapping analogies like a two year old playing with pudding. His point was that any given individual connection anywhere on the internet has limited capacity. He could have just said that, instead of revealing how ignorant he really is.

"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt."
- Abraham Lincoln

Re:So?

[Roody Blashes]

The debate itself is completely irrelevant, and drawing it into the conversation only makes you more wrong anyway. Whether he'd have been speaking about something else or not is immaterial, because clogged pipes is not a valid metaphor and very badly misconstrues the supposed "problem" of bandwidth and transfer hogs.

If you absolutely must make an analogy to explain the problem, try using the analogy of two-way city streets full of four way stops. You can then convey, in an extremely simplified manner, the concept of electrons interacting on the basis of "collision" whereby all but one must stop and then go in order, and if one route to the destination is too backed up, the packets can try a different one.

Save for some failure in the system (e.g. - a road surface collapse blocks a path), data transfer can NEVER "clog up", it can only slow more and more as new data/cars enter the system.

Be sure, of course, to mention the fact that in this analogy there are literally hundreds of thousands of miles of closed road (dark fiber) that nobody will let all these "clogged up" cars travel on, and that if the people who owned these roads would sell them off for commuters to use, road capacity would be increased by many orders of magnitude and there would be no cause to charge people driving by themself bundles of money to use certain roads while people who car pool can use the regular roads for free.

In fact, ironically, using a more valid analogy, net neutrality is like charging people in the car pool lane extra money while letting everyone else drive on the now less-congested streets for free.

Re:So?

[Roody Blashes]

...net neutrality is like...

That of course should read "opposition to net neutrality is like...".

Re:So?

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh, I don't think that anyone is claiming that a OC3 connection is exactly like a water "tube" or a "pipe" and that electrons jam up inside the wire. However for his purposes the effect is the same. You can "jam up" a connection by sending too many packets through. Of course this happens at the router, not inside the wire (or fiber) itself.

A "tube" (or a "pipe") effectively describes a networking connection. Packets flow from one interface to another interface via this "tube". There is a maximum number of packets per second you can get through this "tube" (its called throughput). A "tube" can get full if the interface is overutilized and the router is unable to buffer incoming packets. If this happens packets wont go through, and may get dropped, much like there is a maximum rate you can get water to flow through a tube. As a matter of fact, most introductory networking books use water pipes as an analogy in chapter 1.

Re:So?

[smitth1276]

Save for some failure in the system (e.g. - a road surface collapse blocks a path), data transfer can NEVER "clog up", it can only slow more and more as new data/cars enter the system.

To the general public, an imposed/enforced/practical limit on bandwidth is perfectly analogous to a pipe with a maximum capacity (no need to get into flux and whatnot for the general audience). When people start talking about allocating or measuring bandwidth for certain types of data, pipes work.

You're thinking of this from a really technical POV, and from that POV I agree with you. Unfortunately, these sorts of legislative debates have a public, nontechnical component... and in that regard pipes get the point across sufficiently. I think that the 4 way stop description--while much more technically accurate--would confuse people.

Ultimately, though, I don't care how you describe it. I was just pointing out that I think the Senator's references to pipes could have been used differently so that it was actually a suffiecient description of the debate for the general public's consumption.

Re:So?

[paralaxcreations]

So, what's the running bet on how long before the US censors Internet content more than China?

Re:So?

[WilliamSChips]

You can't just pile analogies on a speech for Congress. It's not a truck.

Re:So?

[DavidTC]

The idiotic tubes analogy wasn't anything to do with 'water pipes', and the fact the flow of data through pipes works somewhat like the flow of electrons through wires doesn't have anything to do with net neutrality, which is routers (Which don't even have an analogy in plumbing.) choose what 'types of water' (again, no analogy in plumbing) to through in what amounts. About the closest device I can think of to a router is a hot/cold faucet, and I can't figure out any sort of sane analogy from that.

It wasn't a plumbing analogy, it was a physical-objects-through-tube analogy, as show by the fact, in his world, things can slow down and get 'jammed'. But even if it was a plumbing analogy, it still made no sense.

And, the sad thing is, there is a fairly good analogy, as someone pointed out: Freeways, and police at on-ramps only directing certain kinds of traffic onto the freeways. You have to explain that, in the middle of these on-ramps, there are mediums-sized parking lots that everyone stops for a bit and the police can pick out anyone who's already arrived to go next, along with the fact that all internet traffic is basically six states away and contains four interstate switches and two sets of surface streets, but it will convey the concept to the layman. (And, technically, the roads can't be overloaded, everyone drives at exactly 65 mph or whatever, and trying to 'overload' the road just means you're trying to put two vehicles in the same place, resulting, obviously, in a crash that destroys both the vehicles. Luckily, on 'the internets', when the vehicle doesn't arrive, they send for another identical one.)

Re:So?

[DavidTC]

You hit the bullseye on the nose.

Re:So?

[DavidTC]

No, it's you who are wrong. There is absolutely nothing that would not make, under any circumstances, a Senator not a 'Congressman'.

The reason we call Senators Senators is that the Senate is consider 'more important', and it's certainly more selective, than the House.

But 'Congressman' isn't a title. It does not even exist in the Constitution. The correct titles are 'Senator' and 'Representative'.

We have started using it as a title of both houses of the legislature, but there's no magical offical definition that excludes Senators as you seem to assert. The Constitution quite clearly says that both the HoR and Senate together are 'Congress', and that one is properly referenced to as 'the House' with 'Representatives' in it, and the other is 'the Senate' with 'Senators' in it.

The way it refers to both is 'Members of the legislature', or 'Members of either house', so a more 'offical' term than 'Congressman' might be 'Member of Congress'. However, Congressman has, and has as long as it's been used, been how we refer to them both.

It's only idiots who hear 'Senator' and 'Congressman' on TV that think Senators aren't Congresmen. They use that, because like I said, being in the Senator is 'more important' and we wouldn't want to imply they were the same as lowly Representatives.

It's the difference between 'surgeons' and 'doctors'. People call the doctors who see them for a broken leg 'doctors', when a more specific title is 'general practioners', whereas they almost always call surgeons 'surgeons'. That doesn't mean that a surgeon isn't a doctor, it's just in one case we use a specific name and one case we use the general.

Re:So?

[DavidTC]

Okay, I'm sorry, but this is fucking offensive to me.

Porn sites are not, in general, fronts for child molesters, you fucktard. You can argue they exploit women, you can argue with a good deal more sense they exploit men, you can call them perverts and say they're going to hell and wish they didn't exist at all. Hell, you can even argue that some of them are trying to, despite laws to the country, sell their products to 14-18 year olds.

But child molesters? Are you serious?

Re:So?

[Anonymous Coward]

The sickos aren't luring kids to nasty sites for the pageviews. They're typically luring them there to establish a relationship, and possibly lead to a real-world meet-up.

Do people use websites for that? I thought paedophile grooming generally took place in kids' chatrooms and kid-oriented message boards. You know, places where kids actually want to hang around and chat with this nice man who's going to let them come round some day and ride his pony, rather than sick porno sites that the average kid is going to take one glance at, say "ewww", and go somewhere else fast.

Well, actually it usually takes place in the kid's actual bedroom while mom's out (and daddy too, if the sicko is an uncle or family friend), with very few strangers being involved. But on the Internet, it's mostly chatrooms and MySpace, isn't it?

Don't get me wrong, I shan't complain if they catch some more pedo scum with this law, and I hope they get the punishment their foul deeds deserve. I just can't help wondering whether there might not be more effective ways to protect our children, like having better security at schools and introducing more counselling programs to make it easier for kids to come forward if they've been abused.

Re:So?

[Mr. Underbridge]

Porn sites are not, in general, fronts for child molesters, you fucktard.

Pay attention with however few braincells you have. I didn't equate mainstream porn with pedophilia. This story isn't even about mainstream porn. How many damned legitimate pornsites have meta tags including the word "Furbie" do ya think? None? What legitimate porn site is trying to lure children - and I mean 5-10 year olds - to their sites? That's what is targeted here. I'm waiting for your spirited defense of furbie porn.

Re:So?

[Mr. Underbridge]

"Do people use websites for that? I thought paedophile grooming generally took place in kids' chatrooms and kid-oriented message boards. You know, places where kids actually want to hang around and chat with this nice man who's going to let them come round some day and ride his pony, rather than sick porno sites that the average kid is going to take one glance at, say "ewww", and go somewhere else fast."

I'm not intimately familiar with the practice. However, if there's a porn site with meta tags like "Furbie","My little pony", and the like - can you think of a legit reason?

Re:So?

[BalanceOfJudgement]

You owe me a new keyboard. Slashdot is no place for hilarity, mister!

Re:So?

[Anonymous Coward]

I love US policy. Lets keep wasting taxpayer money to create laws making it not the parents responsibility. Afterall parents don't raise kids anymore right? That's everyone else's problem except the parents.

Re:So?

[lgw]

There is this set of annoying poeple on the web who take *any* commonly searched-for term and constuct "amubush sites" full of porn banner ads, spyware installs, whatever, and then try to get their ambush sites ranked high on Google. This is a highly automated process, and the assholes doing this don't are *what* the terms are. It would be nice if we could outlaw this annoyance, but it has nothing to do with children.

I don't understand this whole "trick kids into seeing porn" - where's the profit in that? What's the motivation? It doesn't begin to make sense. I suspect there are parents who are upset that seeming innocent search terms yeild porn results becasue they don't understand how teh Intarweb works.

Also, theres bound to be a site out there offering "My Little Pony" porn, as there is for evey cartoon ever made (people seem to like to draw porn cartoons, go figure), and I'm not sure where that fits in the debate.

Re:So?

[Mr. Underbridge]

"There is this set of annoying poeple on the web who take *any* commonly searched-for term and constuct "amubush sites" full of porn banner ads, spyware installs, whatever, and then try to get their ambush sites ranked high on Google. This is a highly automated process, and the assholes doing this don't are *what* the terms are. It would be nice if we could outlaw this annoyance, but it has nothing to do with children."

I'm aware those sites exist. I think the premise here is that there are other sites that do this intentionally to draw kids in to porno sites, who are just old enough to find the concept interesting. Potentially by then having a guestbook, etc one would establish a relationship with the kid that would lead to Bad Things. That's the theory, anyway, and that's what they seem to be trying to prevent.

However, if you're right, and it's just passive, then the argument is that an ambush site that ends up with a kid looking at porn is more destructive than usual and should be banned.

"Also, theres bound to be a site out there offering "My Little Pony" porn, as there is for evey cartoon ever made (people seem to like to draw porn cartoons, go figure), and I'm not sure where that fits in the debate."

The argument of the people sponsoring this bill would likely be that such things should be illegal seeing as it has significant potential to draw in kids to porn. Figuring out a way to reconcile that with the first amendment is left as an exercise for the reader.

Re:So?

[izam_oron]

No, it's you who are wrong. There is absolutely nothing that would not make, under any circumstances, a Senator not a 'Congressman'.

So what you're saying is that there is absolutely something that would not allow a Senator to be a Congressman at the same time?

Re:So?

[AaronHorrocks]

And local, state, and federal governments pass laws to further restrict firearm selections, sales, and ownership, under the arguement of terrorism.

Thing is, the bad guys already have all the full auto AK47s, AK74s, heavy machine guns, rocket propelled grenades, missile launchers, artillery, and tanks that they can handle.
I really doubt that they're going to follow any laws passed here.
Actually, they probably feel safer knowning America is disarming itself. Maybe one day when guns are illegal, they'll invade and slaughter the infidels with little to no resistance.

Re:So?

[sgt_doom]

OH WOW....the US Congress going on about someone misleading!!!!! Who would have thought it????

I mean after all, this is the august body which a little while ago voted for fences to be built on our southern border with Mexico --- then the same clowns voted down the financial appropriation for the fences --- thus rendering their first vote a complete fraud --- but then, those criminal clowns are consistent about that. Didn't they just pass the US-Oman Free Trade Agreement - allowing any foreign government, foreign government-owned corporation (can you say Dubai Holding?) and foreign corporation to buy up any and all of American's sensitive infrastructure (ports, utilities, etc.).

Plus, it further financially encourages the offshoring of the remaining jobs, new loopholes for further importation of foreign replacement workers for laid-off American workers --- and supports a country (Oman) which has been repeatedly cited for the trafficking in human slaves?????

Re:So?

[sgt_doom]

This is simply the beginning felony-backed internet laws which will seek to control -- or privatize -- the web....

Re:So?

[blackest_k]

"What? It's precisely because it can't be codified globally that it's pointless to do anything about it here. Do you honestly think that anyone outside the US is going to voluntarily conform to this law? Do you think anyone inside the US can't get around it by moving their content outside the US?"

http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/business.cfm? id=1067592006

David Carruthers (a scot probably a british citizen) was arrested in florida for breaking american laws. in costa rica and the uk he wasn't guilty of breaking these countrys laws.

looks like travelling through american territory can get you held and arrested.

Extradited gary mckinnon broke usa laws by 'hacking' us military computers. There are british laws against this sort of thing however I am not convinced that britain for example would not hand over anyone to the american legal system even if it wasn't the case. If the death penalty is involved I believe britain has/had problems with that (rotting in a jail cell isn't a problem).

however just to show you how law doesnt matter anymore in the uk check this out
http://skegnesstoday.co.uk/ViewArticle2.aspx?Secti onID=809&ArticleID=1652470
Skegness a uk seaside resort has been given an ASBO.

The order gives police the power to disperse two or more people from the designated area.
It also allows the police to take home unaccompanied youngsters under the age of 16 found in the area after 9pm.

"If they fail to comply they are likely to be arrested and could face six months' imprisonment and/or a fine of up to £5,000."

so now being in a public area and a police officer or a community police officer (not a police officer just somebody allowed to dress in a police uniform and act unpaid as if they are a police officer) can subject someone not guilty of any crime to a fine or prison sentence! for any reason, no reason, what so ever!

Re:So?

[DavidTC]

No, you person with a reading comprehension problem, I'm saying a Senator is a Congressman. Senators are a subset of Congressmen. All members of the group 'Senator' are included in the group 'Congressmen'(1). There is no defination of 'Congressman' that excludes 'Senator' in any law or even tradition, and assuming 'Congressman' means 'Man who is in Congress', the Constution is quite clear on who is 'in Congress', even to the point of referencing to a group of both Representatives and Senators as 'Members of Congress'.

1) Or, obviously, Congresswomen, but that's an entirely different debate.

Re:So?

[DavidTC]

You, frankly, are a complete idiot.

Why? Because you can't lure prepubescents with porn, you twit.

There probably are sickos out there using terms children search on to lure them into something, although I have to point out that there are a hell of a lot fewer than them than people think there are, and most of them prey on children they have legitimate access to, not random kids they'd have to kidnap.

But, anyway...why the hell would they have porn on their page? Little kids do not want porn. And putting porn there is a great way to get some parent to notice what's going on.

The best way to lure a little kid would be to make an actual site about things kids were interested in, with a discussion board with private messaging or something.

The reason there are porn sites with 'child' keywords is that there does not exist a fetish so weird that it can't be marketed to. However, porn sites don't want children, either, and usually have ICRA ratings, which web browsers can block on.

It will also be punishable...

[Billosaur]

...to use the META tags "Congress" and "intelligent" on the same web page.

Re:It will also be punishable...

[andrewman327]

Not punishable, just a lie.

Re:It will also be punishable...

[kesuki]

my opinion, meta tags are kinda bogus anyways.

as to enforcability, just wait til the death star comes flying along trying to enforce this thing. cause frankly, that's the kind of weapon congress would need to enforce this galactically.

is the bill intended to be good? yeah, but it's no substitute for parents actually taking an active role in their kids life. personally if i were speaking for jesus i think I'd have to say that barbie dolls are as evil as porn. do little girls need a plastic figurehead of 'beauty' and 'fashion' any more than they need access to a triple x porn site? I sick of people calling little pink boxed pieces of plastic and calling that 'good.'

now speaking for myself i'd have to say that plastic dolls are quite an ironic way to 'preserve' and 'expand' an empire of 'pretending to do good things for girls' try asking a little girl if she'd rather have a parent or family member at home, being there for them, or if they'd rather have a piece of plastic. frankly i think that for every barbie doll sold, that question needs to be asked at least once.

Re:It will also be punishable...

[kesuki]

well, as you can tell, that was nowhere near the kind of post i thought it should be.

but IMO this whole fucking system is in severe need of an overhaul.

anyways. good luck.

Re:It will also be punishable...

[ericspinder]

and the META tags which should be associated with that bill should be "pandering"

Re:It will also be punishable...

[The Real Toad King]

*changes meta tags on website* http://4q.cc/ Fedal felony, here I come!

Re:It will also be punishable...

[jkrise]

What about using a meta tag like bush , and implying a fetish for pubic hair on an adult site?

Re:It will also be punishable...

[lar3ry]

Well, how about "sexual congress," a legitimate description of a sexual act? (As Allan Sherman once said about such phrases, "nine months after a couple engages in 'sexual union,' does the woman go into 'organized labor?'")

All kidding aside, how about legimate uses for such words in sexual sites. I remember a pair of models called the Barbie Twins about 5-10 years ago. Would webmasters not be allowed to use that just because Barbie is a toy? How about a Chippendales dancer in rip-off fatigues who markets himself as G.I. Joe?

I think if a web site uses LEGITIMATE keywords, including those of toy names, AND uses the voluntary web filtering keywords, they have a case that they are giving the people the ability to screen.

A more basic problem, one I think they were trying to solve, is the problem of misleading keywords. Why should I get a useless link farm page with ad banners when I am doing research on something completely unrelated just because the person that put up the page wants more banner downloads?

Of course, if you outlaw misleading keywords, people will work around the rules to achieve the same end goals.

The only thing this legislation does is give politicians a way of saying "Look! I'm being proactive about this!" (when they are being stupidly reactive in truth... isn't that misleading as well? Can we outlaw misleading political statements???)

Re:It will also be punishable...

[Anonymous Coward]

Not to sound paranoid, but it actually makes perfect sense. It's a weapon, not a safeguard. It gives the ability to prosecute a [pron] website that they can't find anything else on. Perfect for your up-and-coming politician with a vendetta against illicit websites. The thought would be "They're bad people, we gotta nail them with something..."

Re:It will also be punishable...

[Anonymous Coward]

No matter what meaning you give to it, it will always be an offense, as Bush stays a dick.

Re:It will also be punishable...

[Anonymous Coward]

"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." - Mark Twain

Re:It will also be punishable...

[smitth1276]

The law specifically and explicitly requires an "intent to deceive", which the article mentions prominently. Did you follow the link and read the article?

Re:It will also be punishable...

[jez9999]

When you look for bush, you're always gonna get Dick.

What about all the other Barbies?

[mopslik]

Does this imply that any porn star named Barbie has to change her name (again) before starting up a web site?

Re:What about all the other Barbies?

[Billosaur]

Well, if this passes, there's your first test case. Anyone know a porn star named Barbie with a web site?

Re:What about all the other Barbies?

[Anonymous Coward]

Does this imply that any porn star named Barbie has to change her name (again) before starting up a web site?

From the summary:

Anyone who includes misleading "words" or "images" intended to confuse a minor into viewing a possibly harmful Web site...

I hilited the key word there, "intended". So a porn star named Barbie (which is like what, 25% of them all?) would be fine as long as there wasn't other material there (say the word Matel, intentionally mispelled to catch kids who might not know how to spell it). Also, I think exactly what gets linked to will play a key role here. So if you google for "barbie and ken" and a link takes you to a porn site, if the page you land on is a "this is an adult site ...." type of page, you could make a reasonable argument that you weren't trying to ensnare a minor. However, if it takes to directly to a page with, well, you know, then you are opening yourself up (no pun intended) for getting nailed (oh, there I go again) by this law.

That said, this is one of those laws that can really lead to problems as you can imagine all sorts of "legit" uses of various words (Barbie, Ken, toys, dream house) on a porn site. But again, I think if the webmasters make a reasonable attempt to make it clear that the 12" action figure you are about to see refers to all of Ken, or just a specific part, then the site should be ok.

Re:What about all the other Barbies?

[neonprimetime]

Does this imply that any porn star named Barbie has to change her name (again) before starting up a web site?

What about all the pron stars named Furby?

Re:What about all the other Barbies?

[Intron]

I am just imagining a porn star named Furby.

Re:What about all the other Barbies?

[Tx]

Canadian Lanny Barbie springs to mind (official site). Although "Barby" seems to be the primary spelling of her name, she's often credited as Lanny Barbie, and that spelling is prominently displayed in the keywords on her site.

Re:What about all the other Barbies?

[Anonymous Coward]

The obvious case is Lanny Barbie.

Re:What about all the other Barbies?

[ettlz]

Wouldn't that be a trademark violation... or something... anyway?

Re:What about all the other Barbies?

[ComaVN]

Lanny Barbie

Re:What about all the other Barbies?

[mobby_6kl]

> I am just imagining a porn star named Furby

Small and furry? Try searching for "french porn"

Re:What about all the other Barbies?

[stokes]

"Barbie" is a real, albeit dated, contraction of Barbara that predates the fashion doll. There shouldn't be any problem so long as the web site isn't selling a toy of that name.

Re:What about all the other Barbies?

[truthsearch]

I am just imagining a porn star named Pokeman. Oops, now I wish I wasn't...

Re:What about all the other Barbies?

[Anonymous Coward]

But again, I think if the webmasters make a reasonable attempt to make it clear that the 12" action figure you are about to [emphasis mine] see refers to all of Ken, or just a specific part, then the site should be ok.

Search engines don't work that way. They index content, not stupid click-through pages. If somebody's searching for something, a search engine usually takes them directly to the content pages. This is normal operation and the way it's supposed to work. The web would be a lot worse off if search engines just linked to the homepage of every website and let you find your own way to the actual content you were searching for.

Re:What about all the other Barbies?

[ultranova]

Anyone who includes misleading "words" or "images" intended to confuse a minor into viewing a possibly harmful Web site...

I hilited the key word there, "intended".

I draw retouch with a computer and render with 3D-software erotic images as a hobby and because it provides sufficient motivation to scale the Himalaya-like learning curve of 3D programs. They aren't good enough yet to put up anywhere, but they'll likely be someday. So, I'll likely have an erotic website someday.

When I put the pics up, where can I get a list of what specific words I'll have to avoid, and how much time do I have to update my page when the word list changes (as it must, to keep up with the latest fads in youth culture) ? And if I happen to be on a vacation when the list changes and don't get back before the deadline, and get charged, is the difference between walking free and spending 20 years in the jail whether the judge happens to like my face or not - because I don't think he can read my intentions from my mind, even if he is honest and not drunk on power or on some kind of personal crusade against filthy porn ?

Disclaimer: I don't live in the USA, but you know as well as I do that the rest of the world is going to copy this bad law, just like they did the US-style copyright laws.

That said, this is one of those laws that can really lead to problems as you can imagine all sorts of "legit" uses of various words (Barbie, Ken, toys, dream house) on a porn site. But again, I think if the webmasters make a reasonable attempt to make it clear that the 12" action figure you are about to see refers to all of Ken, or just a specific part, then the site should be ok.

No, this leads to problems for everyone who's website acknowledges the existence of human sexuality. Ironically, it has the potential of increasing the profits of for-pay porn sites, since they can afford to hire people to keep watching the wordlist for changes, and are at least somewhat shielded from personal responsibility by incorporation; it's the free sites that are going to be hit by this.

This is an extraordinarily stupid idea for a law, even for the US congress.

Re:What about all the other Barbies?

[1u3hr]

I am just imagining a porn star named Pokeman. Oops, now I wish I wasn't...

images.google.com/images?q=pokemon+xxx

Re:What about all the other Barbies?

[Anonymous Coward]

What about all the pron stars named Furby?

Who cares about MALE pr0n stars?

Or... ewwwww...

Re:What about all the other Barbies?

[Xtravar]

What about a porn star named "Optimus Prime"?

Re:What about all the other Barbies?

[tehcyder]

Lanny Barbie

Wow, there's another reason that Wikipedia is better than the Encyclopedia Britannica.

Re:What about all the other Barbies?

[Anonymous Coward]

Search engines don't work that way.

Ahh, but websites can work this way. A simple way would be to simply force ALL users to login or validate in some manner, the site checks for a cookie, if it doesn't it exist, they get forwarded to the warning page, you click "ok" on the warning page and it sets the cookie, problem solved. Just because a search engine has a deep link doesn't mean that the site has no control over where a users goes when they get a direct link.

Re:What about all the other Barbies?

[sootman]

Mattel already takes care of that. barbieflasher.com is now blondeflasher.com. Sorry, I'm at work & can't provide good links for proof, but a little googling should turn up something.

Re:What about all the other Barbies?

[Anonymous Coward]

A simple way would be to simply force ALL users to login or validate in some manner

And how would search engines get to the content to index it?

Re:What about all the other Barbies?

[KDR_11k]

I think they are more worried about kids accidentally googling for "furry".

Imagine the uproar should some unsuspecting toy manufacturer call his newest product "yiff".

Re:What about all the other Barbies?

[freeweed]

Don't tell Mattel that.

They repeatedly have tried to sue any business using the word "Barbie" in their name - Barbie's hair salon, Barbie's knick-knack store, you name it.

We've seen a couple of these cases in Canada in the past couple of years alone. The courts are starting to rule against Mattel (sanity in the legal system, who woulda thunk?) but some of these businesses are drowning in legal bills as a result.

Barbie isn't that dated of a term, btw. I know many people under 30 who go by that.

Re:What about all the other Barbies?

[tonyr1988]

More importantly, what about porn starts that shove Barbies up their Furby?

I need to know - it's very urgent...

Re:What about all the other Barbies?

[edmicman]

I believe I will start an adult film agency called He-Man pictures, and as directory and primary actor my film name will be Ken. The first starring actress' name will be penned "Barbie Matel". Then I will build a website. Buwahahahaha!

Re:What about all the other Barbies?

[kimvette]

A trade mark is in effect only for the very specific industry niche for which it is registered and used in. If Mattel (is Mattel now part of Hasbro?) is in the pornography business with models named Barbie, then the porn site can be infringing. However, Mattel cannot just file a trademark and squat on it, nor can they file the trademark if a porn site has already established even a common-law trade name in that specific industry. So sad, too bad.

This is why if you wanted to make a toilet tissue named "microsoft" with a picture of a nerd wearing glasses, or boxer shorts with a similar theme, you can legally do so (presuming Microsoft is not producing personal hygiene items). However, if you make that nerd look too much like Gates, then you can get into hot water for bad faith and likeness issues, but for the trademark itself legally you'd be in the clear (but in for a legal battle because Microsoft Corp. has the money and power to tie you up in the courts for years until you either run out of money and drop the suit, but if you have the fortitude to follow through you'd eventually win. You'll be broke, but you'll win.).

Re:What about all the other Barbies?

[shotfeel]

Better, how about Barbie twins!
You could try image 10 for a bit less coverage.

Re:What about all the other Barbies?

[Opportunist]

Well, the "toy" would prolly be called Ken, because ... well...

What was the question?

Re:What about all the other Barbies?

[Anonymous Coward]

When I put the pics up, where can I get a list of what specific words I'll have to avoid,...

What pisses me off about this is if the social conservatives weren't so greedy they could actually make this a workable system to help children avoid porn. All they would need to do would be identify a couple unique meta tags that could be used to indicate that a site did not contain porn and then make it illegal to include these meta tags in sites that did contain porn.

Instead, social conservatives make the law vague in an attempt to harass people that put up porn sites generally and in doing so they make the law worthless.

Re:What about all the other Barbies?

[ettlz]

Barbie's hair salon, Barbie's knick-knack store, you name it.

Barbie's Dream State Penitentiary.

Re:What about all the other Barbies?

[NewWorldDan]

I haven't read the actual text of the bill, but I don't think there is any specific list of banned words. For example, if the model's name was Barbie, it would be perfectly fair to have the word Barbie on the page. To be strictly constitutional, you would have to be somehow engaged in interstate commerce to be subject to this law. Unfortunately, the US Surpreme court, in some of its most idiotic decisions, has ruled that so long as anyone engaged in the activity is involved in interstate commerece, everyone engaged in the activity is involved in interstate commerece.

Disclaimer: I don't live in the USA, but you know as well as I do that the rest of the world is going to copy this bad law, just like they did the US-style copyright laws.

2 things: Not living in the US isn't a defense as we've recently learned. Also, don't blame the US for everything that's wrong with copyright. It's the damn French that gave us the concept of "moral rights" to a work. But I blame Disney for most of the rest of the problems we have.

Re:What about all the other Barbies?

[olego]

You'd gain quite a bit more popularity with "She-Man Pictures".

Re:What about all the other Barbies?

[Anonymous Coward]

There will be no list of words to avoid. On the other hand, you can be fairly certain that your page is not seen as "intentionally misleading" in this regard, if you inlcude a sufficient number of words that do indicate erotic pictures, pronography or sex. You may want to include those both in the meta tags and the title of the page, so that even in case someone google-bombs you with a combination of "innocent" words, the real contents are unmistakably clear from the excerpt shown by search engines.

Re:What about all the other Barbies?

[Shadowlore]

I hilited the key word there, "intended".

When Congress quits titleing bills in a way intended to make you think it is a good thing, or intended to make you think the title has something to do with the reality of the proposed legislation (you know, things like USAPATRIOT Act, Child Protection and Safety Act , et al.) maybe they'll get some modicum of credibility on the subject.

Until then, hands off.

Re:What about all the other Barbies?

[BrynM]

This is why if you wanted to make a toilet tissue named "microsoft" with a picture of a nerd wearing glasses, or boxer shorts with a similar theme, you can legally do so (presuming Microsoft is not producing personal hygiene items).

I did that once, but it was porody (totally different laws)... Micro-Soft TP

Re:What about all the other Barbies?

[SecurityGuy]

This is an extraordinarily stupid idea for a law, even for the US congress.

It's sooo cute when the furriners think better of our government than we do. :)

Step in the right direction

[andrewman327]

I think that something does need to be done about all of the misleading porn sites out there. I am 20 years old, but I am sick of typosquatters and mislabled keywords leading me to porn sites. I know that this is not enforceable around the world, but overall it is a good thing.

Re:Step in the right direction

[just_another_sean]

I agree with your sentiment but there are ways around the issue you describe without resorting to legislation.

For example in IE you can set an option on the Advanced tab to not search from the address bar. Or you could install NetNanny or something similar. I know these aren't perfect options but a little public education and parental responsibility seems to me to be a better place to start then passing laws like this.

Again the cries of "someone needs to think of the children" seem to drown out all common sense and parental responsibility. As long as people insist on Congress playing guardians to their children we will continue to see our rights eroded as legislation such is this is eventually used for other then the intended purpose.

Re:Step in the right direction

[Intron]

So ask your rep. to pass a law requiring a new TLD named '.xxx' and put all the porn sites there. Oh wait, they just blocked that.

Re:Step in the right direction

[tukkayoot]

I agree, everything that is annoying or offensive should be illegal.

Re:Step in the right direction

[Zemran]

I was mildly annoyed to see a child picking his nose recently but you never hear of congress doing anything about stuff that really matters.

Re:Step in the right direction

[pseudorand]

I agree completely. And what's worse is when I'm innocently looking for porn and I get to Mattel or Toys-R-Us. Do you know how embarresing that is for my co-workers to think I'm shopping for little girl's toys? They know I don't have a daughter. I have to lie and say I'm shopping for my niece.

Re:Step in the right direction

[tobiasly]

I think that something does need to be done about all of the misleading porn sites out there.

I couldn't agree with you more. For example, just the other day, I clicked on a link that said "Girl-on-Girl XXX Porn! Real Lesbian Sex!!", but I'm pretty sure it was just actresses playing lesbians. I mean, they were more interested in making sure their hair was out of the camera than they were in the other chick. What a ripoff!

And what's up with all these "Free Porn" sites that only have censored clips and then make you pay for the good stuff? Hello, Congress! Are you listening?!

Re:Step in the right direction

[deviceb]

Yes... lets put the children out of this picture & focus on improving the net. More standards not legislation involving the META system seems the direction to go. -I mean some of my sites have skeletor in the META tags. Why? becuase i like skeletor /shrug Am i at risk because i have a cartoon char. on my METAs? I have no porn sites but i do have adult content.

When we do a search, it should pull up things pertaining. Porn does not bother me, people trying to sell me something does when im looking for information. With more standards used when creating META tags we could dissolve this problem somewhat.
It would really take somebody to actually look at your site vs. META though -and that is too obtuse.
I have no solution /shrug

Re:Step in the right direction

[andrewman327]

"But I swear dear, I was looking for Kinky Kelly's website, not Barbie!"

Actually this reminds me an excuse from The Simpsons:
Agent: Now, before I give you the check, one more question. This place "Moe's" you left just before the accident. This is a business of some kind?
Brain: Don't tell him you were at a bar! Gasp! But what else is open at night?
Homer: It's a pornography store. I was buying pornography.
Brain: Heh heh heh. I would'a never thought of that.

Re:Step in the right direction

[andrewman327]

I agree that that was a dumb move to block .XXX but I doubt that typosquatters who intentionally fool people into thinking that they are innocent websites would have switched to the new TLD. After all, that would destroy their business model.

Re:Step in the right direction

[Anonymous Coward]

something does need to be done about all of the misleading porn sites out there

Yeah, it's dreadful that there's all those sites that claim ``amateur teen action!'' and just show skanky old pros. Oh, that's not what you meant. Or is it?

Re:Step in the right direction

[rastos1]

I agree, everything that is annoying or offensive should be illegal.

Um, I find your post to be "annoying and offensive" ... oops.

'Innocent' words

[MarkByers]

make it a federal felony for Webmasters to use innocent words ... but actually feature sexual content on their sites.

How do you define what makes a word 'innocent'? Are they going to make a list of all "innocent" words, or what?

The 163-page Child Protection and Safety Act represents the most extensive rewriting of federal laws relating to child pornography, sex offender registration and child exploitation in a decade.

Ah, I see...

Re:'Innocent' words

[halbert]

Does anyone else see the potential for a lawsuit? This is an obviously blatant attempt to circumvent the constitiution, with regards to the right to free speech.

I am not a pornographer, and I abhor pedophiles as much as the next non-pedophiliac, but I still will defend their right to say what they want on their website. I served honorably for 10 years in the US Army, and I did it for the freedoms that we enjoy in this country. I hate seeing those freedoms being eroded away daily, by a government that feels that the threat of terrorism gives them the right to do whatever they want, regardless of what our founding fathers wanted for this country.

This is absolutely despicable, even by Congress's standards.

Re:'Innocent' words

[Anonymous Coward]

While there are few willing to defend the rights of pedophiles, I think the worst part of this all is that this has nothing to do with pedophilia. Another poster asked "would a porn star named 'Barbie' have to change their name?" Who decides what's "innocent"? A judge? A vigilante like Jack Thompson? The Utah "porn czar"? If the government arrests you, shuts down your site, and seizes your property, only to lose to a jury of your peers who feels that a site featuring sex "toys" really isn't all that innocent after all, do you get to sue the government for damages with a reasonable expectation of being paid and having your property returned?

This is absolutely despicable, even by Congress's standards.

Agreed. I am sick and tired of the federal government's "Miller-test" laws where all they have to do is shop around for a federal court anywhere in the nation that the standards of decency are highest so that they can pull a jury of prudes. I am sick and tired of the SCOTUS chickening out and refusing to review injuntions against these laws because the person seeking the injunction hasn't been "harmed" (read dragged through the courts, imprisoned, drained of money, and publically shamed).

Re:'Innocent' words

[ArcherB]

I hate seeing those freedoms being eroded away daily, by a government that feels that the threat of terrorism gives them the right to do whatever they want, regardless of what our founding fathers wanted for this country.
Who is saying that porn peddlers are terrorists?
I don't think the Founders meant that free speech would include using the names of children's toys to intentionally and deceptively lure kids to porn sites. That's like saying that "Hey little girl, you want some candy? Step into my van." on the school yard is protected under free speech.

I too served in the Army, but it certainly wasn't to protect the rights of pedophiles and child pornographers. I served to protect the innocent and their rights, not those that would intentionally harm them.

Re:'Innocent' words

[PortHaven]

Simple....this is not a case of morality but rather of false advertising.

If I advertised a brand new BMW Z5 for $12,999 and you came to my dealership and found out that I only had Z5 Hotwheels for which I was asking the exhorberent price of $12,999 but I could show you a real nice Chevy Cobalt for $11,999. I'd be guilty of false advertising.

The other day I miss-typed Craigslist.com and found myself at an porn portal. With my wife beside me. Ooops!!! Luckily my wife is net-savvy enough to understand what happened. She commented that had it even been a gay-porn site with a bunch of models all named Craig then she'd think it made sense and was relevant. But it was completely irrelevant.

And that type of behavior should be punishable just like any other false advertising.

If I list $9.99 for a product in an advertisement but then when you get to my store I tell you that it's really $199.99 if you want the batteries and power cord and the motor. That's illegal. Likewise, so should be these false adverts.

Re:'Innocent' words

[JasonKChapman]

And that type of behavior should be punishable just like any other false advertising.

A domain name is advertising? How do you think that's going to work. I can think of a lot of sites that are currently guilty of this kind of false advertising. www.nytimes.com does not show a list of where to buy clocks in the state of New York. www.google.com is an intentional misspelling of the word googol, intending to mislead those who are looking for specific math information. www.apple.com has nothing about Fuji, Gala, Red Delicious, or any other kind of apple; misleading fruit lovers everywhere. www.yourpay.com had no information whatever on the details of my paycheck.

I could go on all day, but I think I've made my point. Treating a domain name as advertising is just plain silly. It would, once again, have to come down to subjective interpretations of nebulous guidelines and result in law that would be impossible to either comply with or enforce.

Re:'Innocent' words

[halbert]

I don't think the Founders meant that free speech would include using the names of children's toys to intentionally and deceptively lure kids to porn sites. That's like saying that "Hey little girl, you want some candy? Step into my van." on the school yard is protected under free speech. I too served in the Army, but it certainly wasn't to protect the rights of pedophiles and child pornographers. I served to protect the innocent and their rights, not those that would intentionally harm them.

Just because we have the right to free speech, doesn't mean that it is free of consequences.

Actually, saying "Hey little girl, you want some candy? Step into my van.", while despicable because of the possible intent, is still free speech, but the actions that take place after that are not. The burden in such a case falls on the authorities to protect the innocent, whether it is the teachers watching the children in the schools, the security guards on the school grounds, or the police patrolling the area, or the parents. I am not saying that this burden is handled properly by society, but words are still just words, and they should be protected by freedom of speech, with all of the consequences that involves.

As far as computer use by children, that is fodder for a different post, at a different time.

I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. ~Voltaire

or

If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.

George Washington

However, a more appropriate quote for you may be this:

If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all. ~Noam Chomsky

Re:'Innocent' words

[duranaki]

How stupid is this? How about word the law to say if you include 'innocent' words AND offer pornography, you MUST also include at least one pornographic keyword also (eg. Barbie + XXX). That makes it REALLY f'ing easy to hide all those "misleading" pages (read: legitimate fetish pages) through some kind of child-protective filtering software/hardware. Of course I'm willing to be that my rule is already followed voluntarily... yet another example of Congress making jobs for lawyers when technology already has the solution.

Re:'Innocent' words

[ArcherB]

I fully support the rights of young nubile 18+ women to show adults whatever they like (or even old fat guys if that is your thing). That is freedom of expression. However,to deceptively lure is not freedom of speech. Just like Bayer can not show an add saying that aspirin cures cancer. Under your definition of free speech, that's OK. How about if I call your dear old mom or grandma and claim to be their bank's manager... "I just need to account or credit card number for verification." Is that not free speech? If I were to stand of the far side of a busy street and call children to cross it, is that freedom of speech? They are just words, right?

Freedom of speech was intended to allow citizens to express grievences with the government, not for luring kids to porn sites. This is not a free speech issue. Truth in advertising maybe, but not free speech.

Re:'Innocent' words

[Biblin]

Clearly there will be a daily memo from the Computer. "Dear webmaster. Thankyou for desisting from using this, until recently non-innocent, word in your meta tags."

Re:'Innocent' words

[halbert]

I guess you just don't get it, despite what I put in my last post.

You stated that: This is not a free speech issue. Truth in advertising maybe, but not free speech.

Why do you think that there is a law about truth in advertising? It is because it is a consequence of that person's (or companies') free speech.

A true consequence for misleading keywords would be to filter all search engines to not allow porn sites, unless requested. I am sure "Furbie" or "Barbie" are not the only words on the site. Google already does this by default, so perhaps the other search engines should do the same.

Why create another law that is not going to be enforced except when it suits the government, or that can be misued by the government to harrass websites. The word "the" is an innocent word. Is that going to be targeted?

If it is false advertising, then there are already laws against that, just like there is a law against yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theatre.

There are always consequences to words spoken or written.

Mine is apparently to keep trying to explain that free speech is a right, that comes with consequences, as do all rights.

Including making laws that violate the Constitution of the United States.

'Nuff said.

Re:'Innocent' words

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is that there is no clear demarcation between "good" speech and "evil" speech.

I think you and I are both agreed that it is wrong to have sex with a child. But who is a child? Is it under-18s? Under-16s? In some countries, anyone over 12 is a legal sexual partner; you and I may think that's sick and wrong, but clearly the inhabitants of those countries have considered the question reasonably and decided that they are happy with it. (The laws that make it illegal for American paedophiles to take advantage of children in those countries are an example of good child-protection laws: they demonstrably harm nobody and prevent real abuse.)

Similarly, you and I may be agreed that it's wrong to present people below some age or other with sexually-explicit material. But what is sexually explicit? Is it anything with detailed pictures of people engaged in sexual activities? It can't be; I had books like that provided for me at junior school out of government funds, as part of my education. Is it thematic, perhaps -- maybe sex between married couples is OK, but incest is out? Oops, that would ban the Bible...

There are too many grey areas. This law will be used to silence charitable educational sites while rich Playboy gets off scot free with its fluffy-bunny theme.

Re:'Innocent' words

[Opportunist]

As George Carlin put it, it's all in the context. It's ok when you talk about the time when you pricked your finger but you better not mention it when you finger your prick.

Re:'Innocent' words

[bcarl314]

Don't you know the US government? Everythings going to be "innocent" until proven guilty.

Isn't it a bit late for that?

[91degrees]

I thought search engines stopped using meta-tags years ago because of this sort of problem.

Re:Isn't it a bit late for that?

[tuffy]

You're correct; no modern search engine uses meta tags for anything anymore. TFA doesn't mention meta tags either which makes me wonder how they got in the headline.

Re:Isn't it a bit late for that?

[hauntingthunder]

Indeed The META keywords tag was so abused and so google and the others just ignore them. A fact that a lot of webmasters havnt realised yet the Description and the geo location tags are usefull though.

Re:Isn't it a bit late for that?

[91degrees]

Good point...

I should have learned by now that I shouldn't trust Slashdot summaries.

Re:Isn't it a bit late for that?

[Supersonic1425]

correct. the only major meta tag that the main search engines use is the Description, which it shows on the results pages, below the page's title. there are others, like the robots tag, that have limited uses. the keywords tag is pretty much useless, and in fact, if used incorrectly, can actually harm a website's ranking.

this bill is nothing more than some politicians trying to show concerned parents that they have a purpose, when in fact they're about as useless as keywords ;)

Idiots

[Anonymous Coward]

Yet again American law makers show the world that they just don't understand tha intarweb.

Re:Idiots

[955301]

Sure they do. You see, it's a series of tubes...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Series_of_tubes

Ugh, I'm so ashamed!

Re:Idiots

[Anonymous Coward]

Ted Stevens would beg to differ. Send him an internet through the tubes (please, for the love of god, not on a truck!) and he'll sort this out by Monday, assuming the internet isn't blocked up with barbies and furbys.

Re:Idiots

[InsertCleverUsername]

Yup. These are the same idiots that thought having an .XXX domain would encourage porn on the Net --when moving it all there would be a helluva lot more workable than this stupidity.

Re:Idiots

[Cros13]

More specifically plonkers

Re:Idiots

[Anonymous Coward]

Sir, I believe you meant "The Internets", as intarweb doesn't even make any sense.

Idiot...

You probably think it's just a dump truck to throw things in. It's a series of tubes man! Tubes!

META

[certel]

This is something they should have done a long time ago. I think that all meta tags should be related to the content of the website. The use of improper meta tags could also generate non-content related ads from Google and other contextual advertisers.

Re:META

[HiddenL]

While using relevant and accurate META tags are good for everyone, should using inaccurate ones be illegal? Is it the job of congress to regulate how websites describe themselves?

If I wrote a classified ad of myself saying I was a 150 lb white guy when I was really a 500 lb black guy, should that be punishable by 10 years in prison?

Re:META

[Spliffster]

it's actually very hard (if not impossible) to fool google with meta tags (i guess you mean the meta keywords and meta descriptions).

google is weighting meta tags very low, the content and especially it's structure (headings, links, etc.) are much more important for the ranking.

Cheers,
-S

Re:META

[certel]

Of course it shouldn't be punishable by prison but there should be a way to regulate the just plain blatent inaccute ones that can have an effect on other companies/individuals.

Does it work the other way?

[Rob T Firefly]

Can costumed fetishist adults sue a 12-year-old girl for describing her pet puppydog as "furry" on her livejournal?

Re:Does it work the other way?

[Jugalator]

Humour (also spelled humor) is the ability or quality of people, objects, or situations to evoke feelings of amusement in other people. The term encompasses a form of entertainment or human communication which evokes such feelings, or which makes people laugh or feel happy.

The origin of the term derives from the humoral medicine of the ancient Greeks, which stated that a mix of fluids known as humours controlled human health and emotion.

A sense of humour is the ability to experience humour, a quality which all people share, although the extent to which an individual will personally find something humorous depends on a host of absolute and relative variables, including, but not limited to geographical location, culture, maturity, level of education and context. For example, young children (of any background) particularly favour slapstick, while satire tends to appeal to more mature audiences.

Re:Does it work the other way?

[Opportunist]

It better does! I'm getting sick of finding only pictures little wannabe-dogs humping some legs when I ... erh...

nevermind

Great, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

This seems like another of those unenforcable-due-to-ambiguity bills. When they come up with a concrete method for saying if something falls under these criteria, fine. Seems like a good way to keep youngsters from unintentionally coming across potentially traumatic and/or embarassing things.

Reality Distortion Field...

[__aaclcg7560]

Maybe Congress should apply a "truth in advertising" to itself this election year. Oh, wait a minute. Did that idea make sense?!

CAN-SPAM anyone ?

[galaad2]

hmm, why does this seem to me that it will suffer the fate of CAN-SPAM ?? what will they use to enforce this on a servers hosted outside the US ?? an ICBM ? so far the CAN-SPAM act only means that i can get more spam :(

Re:CAN-SPAM anyone ?

[ultranova]

what will they use to enforce this on a servers hosted outside the US ?? an ICBM ?

Why not ? Better that the child burns in nuclear fire than sees someones titties. And the surviving children will be too busy watching the fireworks on TV to think of sex either, the little deviants.

Show the hero shooting someone with a machine gun - PG. Show the hero fucking someone - AO. Show the hero's and hero's girlfriends kid walking in on them - DIE YOU PERVERT !!! This despite the latter two being far more common than the first in everyday life...

Every culture has topics that it has problems dealing with rationally, and sex happens to be that for the US.

Anybody want to start an over/under on how much...

[BlackCobra43]

how much PORK is/will be stuffed into this bill? You honestly believe anyone will vote against a bill named the "Child Protection and Safety Act"? The Senate won't even blink and it will saii right through, riders be damned.

Yup, it's an election year

[dkleinsc]

Certainly far easier to go after porn sites and sex offendors that dealing with, say, wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Gaza, and Lebanon. Oh, and dealing with N Korea and Iran.

Congress Once Again Addressing Our Biggest Problem

[digitaldc]

Congress, with all the problems in the world, focuses on THE most pressing problem right now - misleading meta tags.

With respectable, upright, and moral leaders like these, we will all be safe from accidentally looking at pr)n - we are saved!

The Actual Text of Section 703

[eldavojohn]

SEC. 703. DECEPTION BY EMBEDDED WORDS OR IMAGES.

(a) In General- Chapter 110 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 2252B the following:

`Sec. 2252C. Misleading words or digital images on the Internet

`(a) In General- Whoever knowingly embeds words or digital images into the source code of a website with the intent to deceive a person into viewing material constituting obscenity shall be fined under this title and imprisoned for not more than 10 years.

`(b) Minors- Whoever knowingly embeds words or digital images into the source code of a website with the intent to deceive a minor into viewing material harmful to minors on the Internet shall be fined under this title and imprisoned for not more than 20 years.

`(c) Construction- For the purposes of this section, a word or digital image that clearly indicates the sexual content of the site, such as `sex' or `porn', is not misleading.

`(d) Definitions- As used in this section--

`(1) the terms `material that is harmful to minors' and `sex' have the meaning given such terms in section 2252B; and

`(2) the term `source code' means the combination of text and other characters comprising the content, both viewable and nonviewable, of a web page, including any website publishing language, programming language, protocol or functional content, as well as any successor languages or protocols.'.

(b) Table of Sections- The table of sections for chapter 110 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 2252B the following:

`2252C. Misleading words or digital images on the Internet.'.

I was also worried about it not being well defined. And, of course, they can't come up with a list. But it is left to prosecutors to attempt to use this section of law to prove someone did it with this intent. Which would be difficult.

Re:The Actual Text of Section 703

[roman_mir]

(a) In General- Whoever knowingly embeds words or digital images into the source code of a website with the intent to deceive a person into viewing material constituting obscenity shall be fined under this title and imprisoned for not more than 10 years. - no more than 10 years in jail? Sounds super-reasonable, doesn't it?

Re:The Actual Text of Section 703

[tinkerghost]

Construction- For the purposes of this section, a word or digital image that clearly indicates the sexual content of the site, such as `sex' or `porn', is not misleading.

As far as I can tell, as long as the page that has barbie on it also has the word 'sex' or 'porn' on it you are safe in that you are by definition not misleading.

Re:The Actual Text of Section 703

[advocate_one]

`(a) In General- Whoever knowingly embeds words or digital images into the source code of a website with the intent to deceive a person into viewing material constituting obscenity shall be fined under this title and imprisoned for not more than 10 years.

hurrah... legislation that we can use against goatse trolls...

Re:The Actual Text of Section 703

['nother poster]

That sounds like your definition, not the prosecutors. 2252c(c) is pretty damn vague. It doesn't say that if those words are on your website you are exempt, it simply says that they can't consider those words as misleading.

Re:The Actual Text of Section 703

[pseudorand]

Your honor, my site, godschosensluts.com, clearly indicated the adult nature of its content with the meta-tag 'zune'. I have no idea why Microsoft chose that name for their music player, but the Hebrew languages pre-dates Microsoft by at lease 5000 years.

Re:The Actual Text of Section 703

[tomjen]

no because one does not embed a jpeg in a website source code - one ads a reference to it. An image does not consist of text or other charectors. It consist of a long binary string (technically so does ascii, as it is the viewers software that interpered the string of binary) and therefore does not constitute the websites source

Oops

[BlackCobra43]

Shoold have RFTA more carefully. It's ALREADY passed. Lovely.

How will this affect Barbie Linux

[MarkByers]

Related Stories
Linux: OMG BARBIE LINUX LOL!!1!!!!


I hope they remove the pictures of Linus Torvalds from the Barbie Linux ISOs after this announcement.

But..

[abscissa]

Will we still be able to use the Slashdot tagging system to... ... label Dvorak articles "idiot moron troll"? ... tag all articles with questions in the headline with "yes no maybe"? ... label gov't related articles with "facism bigbrother nasa"?

Meta tags? Does this even matter?

[jerkychew]

Honestly, who still relies on meta tags these days?

Re:Meta tags? Does this even matter?

[Supersonic1425]

the meta description tag can be very useful. it's the tag that search engines use to show the little blurb below the page's title on their results pages. e.g.

Slashdot (title) Source for technology related news with a heavy slant towards Linux and Open Source issues. (description)

the keywords tag is useless though -- and that's probably what you meant, I just wanted to clarify that for anyone reading your post.

Re:Anybody want to start an over/under on how much

[Chelloveck]

how much PORK is/will be stuffed into this bill?

I dunno, but I know a number of web sites that will show you lots of PORK being stuffed into things...

(I wonder if PORK is a forbidden meta-tag...?)

Give It Time, My Brother, Give It Time

[RobotRunAmok]

to say nothing about being completely impossible to enforce globally.

Now. Impossible to enforce globally now. Coupla pesky theocracies to overthrow, a handful of socialist democracies already undermining themselves needing just a teensy-weensy push, that oil/energy thing we got some of our best people working on, and then *BAM* our single global government is good-to-go. One Nation, Under Bilderberg.

Don't know about you, but I, for one, welcome our Barbie-Banishing Overlords.

Re:Congress Once Again Addressing Our Biggest Prob

[Billosaur]

Congress, with all the problems in the world, focuses on THE most pressing problem right now - misleading meta tags.

Well, web developers have been abusing them for years. I personally hope a lot of these web developing scum are locked up... to make the Internet safe for us application programmers.

They can block and/or punish consumption

[MarkByers]

far outside the realm of their ability to control it.

While it's true that they cannot control the content on the Internet, they can block certain websites at the borders and/or punish consumers of the content. Reminds me of another country that often appears in Slashdot headlines...

Of course, just because they can do it (and they can using terrorism / savethechildren as an excuse) doesn't mean that they should do it. Guard your rights carefully so that you lose them (phonetapping without warrant).

Re:They can block and/or punish consumption

[Roody Blashes]

Guard your rights carefully so that you lose them....

Hmmm... Charlton Heston you ain't.

Re:They can block and/or punish consumption

[smitth1276]

So, can you offer a single good reason why anyone would reasonably use "Barney" or "Barbie" or "Pokemon" as keywords for a site featuring a naked woman with semen all over her face? Do you realize how silly you sound defending that?

Re:They can block and/or punish consumption

[Moqui]

Barney and Barbie are a tough call, but I can see at least 100 applications of the term "Pokeman" in the sites you are describing. :)

Re:They can block and/or punish consumption

[Knuckles]

Yeah, or use "bad" if they really mean "good". It's unheard of! All words should only have one, government-proscribed, meaning. Think of the children!

Re:They can block and/or punish consumption

[truthsearch]

Maybe the naked woman's name is Barbie? I'm sure at some point in time a naked woman named Barbie has been in a picture such as this. And maybe a guy named Barney is providing the facial. These are real names, you know.

Do you realize how silly you sound not defending freedom of speech?

Re:They can block and/or punish consumption

[smitth1276]

Oh... what other meanings of "Barnie", "Pokemon", or "Barbie" do you regularly encounter that pertain to naked women with semen on their face? Are you actually being serious? Of course, as noted above, this is slashdot, so it wouldn't surprise me if you actually think you just said something intelligent. There are so many faux intellectuals here it is frightening.

Re:They can block and/or punish consumption

[Knuckles]

How is barbie a tough call for a site full of fake blondes with fake breasts that look 100% american?

Re:They can block and/or punish consumption

[Moqui]

Too easy, and I was trying to dance around the actual legal issue of what you just described. For Congress to pass something like this, can you imagine what the list would have to look like? And history has shown that inuendo is typically derived from mundane and juvenile things.

Using your example, why *shouldn't* an adult site webmaster be allowed to use the term "barbie" to describe "a site full of fake blondes with fake breasts that look 100% american?"

Re:They can block and/or punish consumption

[Knuckles]

Yeah, Barbie is certainly totally devoid of any sexual undertones. Are you deaf, dumb and blind?

Anyway, this is completely irrelevant anyway. Subcultures of any form will always use the majority language in unexpected ways. To legislate this is way over the threshold of being a police state. And even regular everyday use of words is ambiguous. What's next, legal teen porn sites can't use the word teen anymore?

Re:They can block and/or punish consumption

[Knuckles]

In case it wasn't clear I'm sarcastic: I am totally opposed to this new insanity of congress. See the adjacent subthread :)

Re:They can block and/or punish consumption

[Anonymous Coward]

What about a woman masterbating with a barbie with a furbe shoved up her ass while a guy in a barney outfit masterbates on her face?

Re:They can block and/or punish consumption

[1u3hr]

So, can you offer a single good reason why anyone would reasonably use "Barney" or "Barbie" or "Pokemon" as keywords for a site featuring a naked woman with semen all over her face? Do you realize how silly you sound defending that?

It's quite easy to find sites where Pokemon and pornography would be both quite valid descriptive tags. For instance, Google gave this: "www.rusmysl.ru/pics/pokemon.html" (NB: NSFW, may be infected with popups, etc, take care) as the first of 5 million hits for "pokemon nude". And note that it's in Russia....

Re:They can block and/or punish consumption

[smitth1276]

If it is a legal site with legal teens, the word "teen" would be fine, I'm sure. The problem (which I would have thought was very obvious and explicitly spelled out) is when people try to trick little kids into visiting pornographic sites by using meta keywords to trick them into thinking it is a site about Barney or Barbie or Pokemon. I'm don't think that it is a problem to use "Barbie" if it is a site about a pornstar who calls herself Barbie, but if the site has nothing to do with any "Barbie" of any sort, and yet uses "Barbie" and other child-oriented marketing terms in the meta tags, then they are scum and there is no reason that any reasonable person would defend that.

But, as I have been pointing out, people on slashdot aren't typically the most reasonable.

Re:They can block and/or punish consumption

[smitth1276]

If there is actually someone named Barbie or Barney, then it wouldn't be intentionally misleading, or not overtly so to the point that it is punishable as an attempt to lure kids into porn. I support free speech, just not attempts to violate little kids. There is a very clear difference to anyone who cares to look for it and understand what we are discussing.

Re:They can block and/or punish consumption

[Knuckles]

First of all, what kind of a phantasy is that? Why would a porn site "trick little kids into visiting pornographic sites by using meta keywords" in the first place? Little kids don't have credit cards. Plus, I can't speak for the US, but I would guess you already have laws against showing/selling porn to kids under a certain age.

And you seem to lack imagination. There is no way to legislate this because the English language simply has too few words to express all there is to express. What if it is a site where not the model is called Barbie, but it's about a person's fantasies about Barbie. What about the keyword "Hamster"? Knitwork? Farm? And so on and so forth. Go to the usenet binary groups some time to get an idea of how broad a field human sexuality is.

Re:They can block and/or punish consumption

[truthsearch]

There actually isn't a clear difference. That's why it's debated here online and in court. For example, porn stars don't usually use their real names. It could be argued that a porn star who picks the name Barbie is trying to lure kids into porn. Only the porn star really knows. Now she can be dragged into court for no other reason than the choice of her own name.

Free speech debates are never black-and-white.

Re:They can block and/or punish consumption

[Knuckles]

just not attempts to violate little kids

Quick, outlaw the contemporary standard family of 1-2 parents, 1-x kids, and the odd relative! Because, you know, the vast majority of child abuse happens within the family or by close family friends.

Re:They can block and/or punish consumption

[Zemran]

an block certain websites at the borders and/or punish consumers of the content. Reminds me of another country that often appears in Slashdot headlines...

So there could soon be the Great Wall of the United States, the two countries could collaborate as they are becoming so similarly represive politically.

Re:They can block and/or punish consumption

[rajafarian]

So, can you offer a single good reason why anyone would reasonably use "Barney" or "Barbie" or "Pokemon" as keywords for a site featuring a naked woman with semen all over her face?

You have to admit Barbie probably deserves it.

Besides, just because you don't have an imagination...

Re:They can block and/or punish consumption

[smitth1276]

If her name is Barbie, then the meta tags cannot arguably be untruthful. Period. Maybe she did name herself that to trick kids to going to her website... if someone is going to chose a career path so far fetched, more power to them I suppose... this discussion is about meta tags that are designed to mislead kids into visiting porn websites. It is very narrow and scope, and does not concern broad free-speech rights.

Re:They can block and/or punish consumption

[StarvingSE]

Barbie could very well be the name of some pr0n star or stripper, and who knows maybe some male pr0n star wants to call himself barney. The actual legislature is probably going to be so ambiguous in its wording that the gov could probably shut your site down for pretty much any meta keyword you include.

All the original poster is saying is that this is a slippery slope we're going down, the government is using "save the children" as an excuse to censor websites.

I'm not saying pr0n on the web is necessarily a good thing, and I'm not saying that children should be viewing it, but this is new legislature is not a good solution to the problem.

Re:They can block and/or punish consumption

[smitth1276]

That was a retarded point, and an obvious logical fallacy.

This particular law is more akin to making it illegal to lure kids into a car with candy with the intent to rape them.

Re:They can block and/or punish consumption

[Malakusen]

Do you really think the porn industry wants moneyless kids who can't buy any of their stuff as a target audience? So a 9 year old sees your porn website. He's not going to be able to buy the German Sick Fetish Video for 59.99 out of your store because he doesn't have a credit card! He can't pay for a monthly membership because he doesn't have a credit card! There's no point targeting a kid because they don't offer anything to you financially, and the production of and hosting of porn is not free so the goal is always to make money off it. Maybe you're thinking that porn, like cigarettes, are trying to hook them young? I didn't have a computer at that age, I did just fine with photography books at the library, books on sexuality at the library, National Geographic, underwear ads for Sears, and an old naughty swimsuit catalog from the 80s that somebody left in our attic before we moved in. You will not stop an adolescent boy from seeing boobies. What we need is some fscking responsibility from parents, we need them to teach their kids about sex and explain things to them so they don't get screwed up by what they find. Stop expecting Uncle Sam to parent for you, because if he starts, he won't stop and you've lost control as a parent. I'm no fan of a nanny state, regardless of whether it's moral majority conservatives pushing for it or easily offended liberals.

Re:They can block and/or punish consumption

[IngramJames]

Why would a porn site "trick little kids into visiting pornographic sites by using meta keywords" in the first place? Little kids don't have credit cards

I don't think it's the sign-up fees they are after. It'll be click-through links for which the site gets paid per click, or some such thing. It's the old trick of trying to appear in as many search results as possible. OK, so they were looking for Barbie, but this looks wierd! What's that woman doing with that? Groooosss! Click it! Ewwwwww!

Re:They can block and/or punish consumption

[penix1]

"It is very narrow and scope, and does not concern broad free-speech rights."

Horse shit.

It is called "the slippery slope" in case you haven't heard of it. All rights restrictive laws start out narrow and widen over time. First legislation to protect the children, then legislation to protect women, then legislation to protect the handicapped, etc...

This is just the beginning of the slide where this legislation is concerned.

B.

Re:They can block and/or punish consumption

[smitth1276]

It is called "the slippery slope" in case you haven't heard of it.

Yes, I've heard of it. It is a very widely known logical fallacy. :-)

I agree with the slippery slope idea in the abstract. This bill, though, does not ban any speech. It only bans speech that is used specifically on porn websites with the intent to deceive. There is nothing in this bill that threatens your free speech.

Should we make it legal to con little old ladies into giving away their entire life savings? Why not? Where do you see a difference, beyond the magnitude of the damage done? Both involve speech which has been determined to be illegal because it is intended to deceive.

I think it just makes you guys feel smart and important to get apocalyptic and pissed about everything.

Re:They can block and/or punish consumption

['nother poster]

I know I'm late to the party, but a Barney Fife/Barbie Benton fetish site. Oooh, that one's scary.

Re:They can block and/or punish consumption

[c_forq]

If there weren't porn sites that put these tags in it wouldn't be legislation. The porn sites in question don't give a shit about credit cards, they car about page views, spamming you with ads, and drive-by spy-ware/ad-ware installs. Also, I don't know any kids who search for knitwork or farm, and even more I don't know any who would use Usenet as a place to look. When using Google searching for farm, farm pictures, barnyard, or barnyard pictures doesn't give any inappropriate results, and no inappropriate pictures for the 10 pages of results I browsed through (with safe-search off, which shouldn't be the case with children).

Re:They can block and/or punish consumption

[kimvette]

What about Barbie spoof sites featuring Barbie dolls in, um, "interesting" situations?

Much like the couch porn and other spoof sites featuring inanimate objects in various positions.

Re:They can block and/or punish consumption

[voice_of_all_reason]

Democratic law is based on the principle that you don't make something illegal because you can't think of a good reason to do said action.

I see no logical reason to allow people to wear slippers and a clown suit when driving, should that therefore also entail 20 years in federal pound-me-in-the-ass-prison?

Re:They can block and/or punish consumption

[atokata]

Yeah, just keep trusting the government. They *care* about you and your children.

Re:They can block and/or punish consumption

[voice_of_all_reason]

Your proposal is doubleplus-good, citizen. We'll get right on it.

Re:They can block and/or punish consumption

[networkBoy]

"This bill, though, does not ban any speech. It only bans speech"

nice self contradiction there :-)
It does ban speech, maby a narrow vein of speech, but speech non the less.

AND:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

end of argument.
-nB

Re:They can block and/or punish consumption

[DavidTC]

What if it is a site where not the model is called Barbie, but it's about a person's fantasies about Barbie.

Those aren't different things. There's a reason why Barbie is a popular name for tall leggy blonde porn stars, and that's almost entirely that doll.

Re:They can block and/or punish consumption

[truthsearch]

Should we make it legal to con little old ladies into giving away their entire life savings? Why not? Where do you see a difference

When a little old lady gets conned it's quite obvious. When a porn star picks the name Barbie it's not clear if she's intending to deceive.

I think it just makes you guys feel smart and important to get apocalyptic and pissed about everything.

I think it just makes you feel righteous to "protect the children" and not realize there are negative consequences.

Re:They can block and/or punish consumption

[voice_of_all_reason]

You forgot the part where, as a result, the kid immediately bursts into flame and starts blaspheming in tongues while drawing pentagrams on kittens.

Read the bible, it's in there.

Re:They can block and/or punish consumption

[kimvette]

Well in that case the parents should be, you know, do actual parenting and supervise their children? Oh personal responsibility, wherefore art thou in this millennium? We miss you personal responsibility, please come back.

Or, the parents could, uh, oh, I don't know, use various filters to limit young children to G-rated web sites, or choose an Internet provider or proxy service which guarantees all content they provide access to is child-friendly?

The fact that some porn star might be named "Barbara," or "Barbie" for short, and there is a doll with the name Barbie should not make using the word "Barbie" to promote the site a felony, or any kind of criminal or civil infraction. Heck, even if some porn site were spoofing Barbie with real live models, it should be protected by the law as parody.

A law I WOULD agree with is requiring porn sites to include the meta tags which declare the rating of a site - the browser which has by far the majority share of the market and comes preinstalled on more than 85% of all computers shipped (or is it still >90%?) supports content filtering out of the box. This feature should be extended and should be offered by all serious browsers. Then, adults can choose to turn it on or off as they please, and they can choose to keep their kids protected. Sure, the kids could find a way around it, but if the kids are that determined to see porn, they're not going to search Google for "Barbie" but are going to search for "clit" or "cum shot" or "boobies" or "tits" and not for some kid's cartoon or toy name. To require porn sites (er, "adult entertainment") to implement such tags is not unreasonable, and does not abridge their freedom of expression in any way, shape, or form.

Re:They can block and/or punish consumption

[voice_of_all_reason]

This bill, though, does not ban any speech.
It only bans speech...

Your logical propositions are contradictory. Any further conclusion is invalid.

Re:They can block and/or punish consumption

[kimvette]

D'oh forgot to close the anchor. Sorry about that! I should have used preview. :(

One more thing I'd like to add: Where META tags hardly affect search results any more thanks to spammers' polluting the search engines and requiring Google, Yahoo, etc. to come up with new ways to calculate relevant search results and META tags only have a very slight effect, and only if they are actually related to the content, why are they wasting our tax dollars with this legislation? I know, most legislators are lawyers and don't give a crap about wasting others' money, but surely they have SOME semblence of a conscience? Oh, right, this is the American Congress we're discussing. Thank god November is coming up real soon. I'm voting Libertarian this time.

If they want to do something, they should legislate cloaking and linkfarms out of existence. I'm sure they'll be at least as effective as their solution for the spam problem has been. ;)

Re:They can block and/or punish consumption

[miskatonic alumnus]

Maybe we should outlaw Barbie dolls.

Re:They can block and/or punish consumption

[statusbar]

Would these rules also require that this site refrain from having 'Barbie' in the meta tags?

--jeffk++

Re:They can block and/or punish consumption

[Anonymous Coward]

Should we make it legal to con little old ladies into giving away their entire life savings?

Churches already do this.

Re:They can block and/or punish consumption

[Anonymous Coward]

Watch Barney Boner bang Barbie Boobies.

Re:They can block and/or punish consumption

[Anonymous Coward]

The site could put a small 10x10 gif of a backyard grill on the page and call it a barbie. Not misleading at all. The grill or barbie is there.
Since porn can not be banned outright, congress is trying everything they can to get around the lack of actual ban and is attempting to pass as many laws as possible that are close. Some law will be violated somewhere and will allow the law enforcement to act if it decides to.

Oddly enough, all cars sold in the US can exceed all states maximum posted speed limits and every car maker brags about speed, performance, and handling. I see no laws forcing car makers to limit speed.

Re:They can block and/or punish consumption

[Andy Somnifac]

That's it! Screw the kids, think of the kittens!

Re:They can block and/or punish consumption

[The Spoonman]

Yes, I've heard of it. It is a very widely known logical fallacy.

Only to people who keep their eyes closed and don't see that it happens all the time. One only has to look at "gun laws" to see proof that one wrong move often leads to worse wrong moves.

I agree with the slippery slope idea in the abstract. This bill, though, does not ban any speech. It only bans speech that is used specifically on porn websites with the intent to deceive. There is nothing in this bill that threatens your free speech.

"Does not ban any speech, it only bans speech"? Firstly, point me to a SINGLE instance where a porn website has been setup specifically to attract kids. It shouldn't be hard to do because if it existed, then there would be a record of the operator being taken to court for allowing kids into his site. Where is the incident that lead someone to think this is necessary? This is yet another law designed to make it seem like they're "protecting the children", but there is no evidence whatsoever that it's going to do anything. It's similar to the 2257 law last year that puts undo burden on porn producers for record keeping. These laws are designed solely to stamp out LEGAL pornography. Legitimate and legal porn producers already do a hell of a lot of self-policing to ensure children don't have access to porn, they don't WANT kids to have access. So, what is this helping? I'll tell you exactly what it's helping: to convince the mindless religous drones that the theocracy is doing good and reelect them. The only way your kids will be safe is if the power of the jesus is running the country. Ironically, to those who have brains, we see how fucked our kids will be.

I think it just makes you guys feel smart and important to get apocalyptic and pissed about everything.

Somebody has to do it. Our rights are being erroded on a daily basis, and it's not even being discussed in the mainstream media. It took the mainstream, what, a month to report on the AT&T records scandal? How much attention is it getting now? How much attention is THIS topic getting? If you wanna be another drone who thinks congress is smarter than you and is doing right by you, feel free. Me, I prefer to examine what they're doing.

Re:They can block and/or punish consumption

[Danga]

Would these rules also require that this site refrain from having 'Barbie' in the meta tags?

If this was a feeble attempt at a joke it was neither funny nor relevant since that would be a valid page to have "Barbie" in the meta tags since it is not missleading nor is it a porn page. You could have at least linked to a Barbie porn page so some boobs could have been seen to brighten up some slashdot readers day. Please refrain from wasting peoples time next time you post.

Re:They can block and/or punish consumption

[jimbolauski]

It's not as bad as it was a few yers ago but cornhole http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornhole_(game) was not a plesent topic to search or heven forbid a child try to do research on Washington's cherry blossoms. That is the only downside to the sidebar when searching

Re:They can block and/or punish consumption

[Anonymous Coward]

What about a serious web site about the infamous Klaus Barbie? Is the author going to wind up in the klink if it is misconstrued? Does the US government have such references on any of its web sites?

Re:They can block and/or punish consumption

[theStorminMormon]

Do you really think the porn industry wants moneyless kids who can't buy any of their stuff as a target audience?

This is kind of a stupid question. Of course they want to get moneyless kids into their porn. For the same reason the MS is happy to give huge discounts on software to schools: to get kids "hooked" on it. It's not like you lose money showing stuff to kids (they can't buy anyway) but if they develop a taste for what you're selling then it's money in the bank down the road.

You will not stop an adolescent boy from seeing boobies. What we need is some fscking responsibility from parents, we need them to teach their kids about sex and explain things to them so they don't get screwed up by what they find. Stop expecting Uncle Sam to parent for you, because if he starts, he won't stop and you've lost control as a parent. I'm no fan of a nanny state

I'm not a fan of the nanny state either, and in general I think parents should do the parenting. But if you have sites out there that are intentionally trying to disguise their sites in order to lure kids there or (more likely) at least seem innocuous at the first, then you've got people actively working against parents trying to be good parents.

I agree that if a kid really wants to see boobies, he will probably get the chance. But it doesn't follow from that that we should make it easy for them. If a kid really wants to score some meth, they can probably do that too. It doesn't follow that we should hand out instructions on school about how to build a meth lab just because the kids could get some anyway. Sure, they can probably find it on the internet if they look - so make them look! Don't make it easier for kids to get into stuff that they shouldn't be getting into. Don't make parenting harder for parents.

All the law says is this: you can't lie about having porno on your site. What, in principle, is so wrong with this statue, really? We label video games and movies to allow parents to do their job. We require labels on food so people know what they are seeing. When someone links to goatse on slashdot, someone is usually kind enough to point it out so unsuspecting readers don't melt their eyeballs out. So what is so controversial about saying you can't metatag something "seaseme street" if it's hard core porn?

Now speaking practically I'm not sure if it's a good idea in terms of enforceability and defining what breaks the statute, but in principle this should be about as non-controversial as it gets. The real issue is that a hefty proprotion of slashdotters are sensitive about anything that endangers, threatens, criticizes, or even just casts in a bad light their precious porno.

-stormin

Re:They can block and/or punish consumption

[mOdQuArK!]

It is a very widely known logical fallacy. :-)

But it's still a compelling argument to most people, since it fits their (instinctive or not) expectations based on observations of "typical" societal behavior.

Re:They can block and/or punish consumption

[p33p3r]

Nothing frightens me more than religion at my door - John Cale


Nothing calms me more than a 160 pound Rottweiller on my side of the door.

Re:They can block and/or punish consumption

[smitth1276]

Well, the law makes it very clear that it is only illegal to use language that is meant to appeal to children with the intent to deceive. That seems to be confusing a lot of you. No speech is being limited, no words are being banned... it's a specific act that is beling outlawed: the act of attracting children to pornographic websites through deception involving intentionally deceptive keywords.

Re:They can block and/or punish consumption

[smitth1276]

Your logical propositions are contradictory. Any further conclusion is invalid.

That isn't true... I worded my point in an unfortunate manner, but that doesn't make it less true. There is no speech being banned by this law, there are no words being forbidden to you. What is being banned is not speech at all, but a specific intentionally deceptive act which happens to involve a form of speech.

My previous example (somewhere or another) stands... this is no less a restriction on speech than are laws forbidding you from deceiving an old woman into giving you her life savings. Say "Barbie" all you want, just don't do it with the intent to trick little kids into looking at porn.

This is a very, very reasonable law which does nothing to erode your free speech rights, and I have yet to hear any reasonable objections to it from anyone who appears to have read the law, or even the article. Someone further down in the comments posted the actual text of the law if you'd like to read it.

Re:They can block and/or punish consumption

[smitth1276]

I agree with you, except for this...

The fact that some porn star might be named "Barbara," or "Barbie" for short, and there is a doll with the name Barbie should not make using the word "Barbie" to promote the site a felony, or any kind of criminal or civil infraction. Heck, even if some porn site were spoofing Barbie with real live models, it should be protected by the law as parody.

This quote shows that you haven't actually read the article. The law explicitly requires an "intent to deceive". If you are a porn star named Barbie, then this law does not prohibit you from using the word "Barbie" to promote the site. And the article mentions a spoof site exactly like the one you mention, which wuold appear to be just fine under this law, because it is not intentionally deceptive.

Re:They can block and/or punish consumption

[voice_of_all_reason]

Your first two paragaphs make perfect sense. I knew it had to be a miswording.

I have to take exception to your claim that "I have yet to hear any reasonable objections". There is a very big difference between your example and this law.

Deceiving old women out of their money is illegal because it is against fraud laws. In essence, you are prohibited from cheating people, which most people realize is a directly harmful act.

Now they want to make using certain words on websites illegal in and of themselves, because they may lead to a crime. If some guy's website has a frontpage offering a "disney newsletter" for sale and it turns out to be a porn subscription, that's already illegal.

Re:They can block and/or punish consumption

[Anonymous Coward]

There is nothing in this bill that threatens your free speech.

Huh? If you are defining places where free speech is allowed, then you are limiting free speech. Should free speech only be practiced in certain areas. Using your logic, your free speech rights are not limited even if you can practice them in the privacy of your own home. Saying you have free speech here but not there is NOT free speech.

Re:They can block and/or punish consumption

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it just makes you guys feel smart and important to get apocalyptic and pissed about everything.

I will decide what is safe and what my own kids should and should not see. I know what is on the internet. My kids have computers in their bedroom and I KNOW they will come across porn. In fact, my 14 year old son has in the past and it was not by accident. He was actively looking for it. I noticed it in my squid logs and he got a form of talking and punishment from me. He even tried to cover his tracks one time by booting up with a Knoppix disk thinking he would be safe but I have a transparent proxy for squid and the dhcp logs showing his mac address. My 15 year old daughter has a myspace presence that I am not too proud of. I know it is there, I know the exact address and I check it from time to time. She knows I know it is there as well and I have left her comments. Instead of banning myspace, we talk about it and I believe she knows about what is acceptable on the amount of personal information she puts there and to always keep her gaurd up. She has met people in real life that she first met on myspace. Yes, I let my 15 year old daughter meet someone she met on myspace. She came to my wife and I, asked if it was okay and we planned a cheap dinner at an IHOP at the mall and met the kid there together. A government mandate about meta tags is a freaking joke! I have a dialog with my kids and always have. You can be the parent that relies on others to discuss and filter things like myspace for you kids but do not be surprised when your daughter sneaks out at night to meet someone she met there because you think everything is fine and you are protected.

Re:They can block and/or punish consumption

[CreatureComfort]

Do your same safe-search-off GIS for Barbie. In the first ten pages of results there are no innappropriate results. 10 NSFW results, 1 pig, and 2 horses, but all of them appropriate as they depicted objects or people named Barbie, or doll based porn.

In what kind of messed up, burn the first amendment country are we living in, when you can't even use the word Barbie to describe risque pictures of the doll manufatured by Mattel?

Re:They can block and/or punish consumption

[plague3106]

I believe Barbie was a name used for women long before the doll came out. Barney is also the name of lovable Simpsons character. So far, two of those three names have a HUGE number ligitimate uses outside of searching for childrens topics. Pretty much why this bill is absurd to begin with.

And FWIW, I don't even know this is a problem today. Who is searching for pokemon and ending up with porn?

Re:They can block and/or punish consumption

[smitth1276]

I wasn't meaning to equate the severity of defrauding an old woman of her savings to the act of luring kids into pornographic websites--that is debatable. I was simply meaning to show that free speech wasn't being restricted. I view the necessity of the law, which seems to be targeted at an act which is very rare at best, as a separate issue. I was just responding to the apocolyptic, panicked tone that was coming from so many people on slashdot, most of which don't seem to have read the article.

Just look at the hyperbole in some peoples' posts... many of them even started comparing this to China's ban on political speech and whatnot. And, unfortunately, due to my frustration with the tendencies of so many on slashdot to make such absurd statements, I became unfairly combative to many of you before... for that I apologize.

I do agree that the impetus for such legistlation seems to be pretty weak (although I don't know the exact circumstances that led to it), but I don't think that it effectively restricts anyone's free speech rights.

Re:They can block and/or punish consumption

[plague3106]

So what do you think accounts for the fact that alot of them call themselves Bambi?

Re:They can block and/or punish consumption

[voice_of_all_reason]

Agreed

Re:They can block and/or punish consumption

[N3wsByt3]

"This bill, though, does not ban any speech. It only bans speech that is used specifically on porn websites with the intent to deceive."

So...ermm...it does ban speech?

You *do* realise, I hope, that your statement is contradictory.

Anyway, you are mistaken: you can say to old ladies whatever you want, it's when you make them sign deals based on misleading information that is illegal.

Thus, a more accurate analogy would be: websites may use whatever words they want, it's when they are offering porn to kids that it becomes illegal. For that to be the case, it would have to be demonstrated that 1)kids go to that site, 2)the site didn't do any effort in restricting access to kids (which is usually done by commercial pornsites by asking for your VIsa-number). And, in fact, 3)it's in the first place the parents who have to watch what their kids do.

None of these - albeit reasonable - things, is being asked for... instead, the 'think-of-the-children'-senators(&ilk) go for the easy one-liner-way, and try to forbid using the words itself.

In conclusion, you are confusing the content with the principle of free speech, as is often the case. We *all* want free speech, don't we? Exept, ofcourse, when it's really, really, really awful and vile, and corrupts the youth (I believe Socrates was already sentenced to death on those grounds 2000 years ago) and what not. What doesn't seem to get though is that forbidding some (narrowly, limited, etc.) free speech...is still forbidding free speech. I don't care what the reason is websites use certain words (for instance, it can be just to get higher on the google ranking); it's doesn't mean I agree to it, but I still allow them to 'say' what they want.

So countering this with "There is nothing in this bill that threatens your free speech. " doesn't make any sense: it threatens part of free speech, even if it's not *my* free speech. Anti-racist-speech laws, as is common in europe, don't threaten my free speech neither, because I'm not a racist... it still doesn't mean no free speech is being curtailed, however. Making speech itself illegal is never a good sign, and is always a ban on (some part of) free speech. That's why you can tell that old lady what you want, it only counts as being illegal if you make her sign an agreement based on false information. That's the ACT, that is illegal, not the speech.

For the same token, it should be (and is, no doubt) illegal to knowingly grant kids access to porn sites, but it isn't (and shouldn't) be illegal for pornsites to place whatever words they want to in their metatags.

Hope I made the difference clear; I tried to give a logical reasoning for my stance, so as to make your opinion about "I think it just makes you guys feel smart and important to get apocalyptic and pissed about everything." seem like the misplaced generalisation that it is, even to yourself.

Re:They can block and/or punish consumption

[Anonymous Coward]

I see in your post that you said "Screw the kids". I'm a bored 15-year old who wishes to correspond with older men. If you are interested, please email me at:

kristy@imreallyateen.fbi.gov

Looking forward to hearing from you.

Re:They can block and/or punish consumption

[CrankyOldBastard]

I recall a time in the late '90s when the top result on Google for "Teletubbies" was a Teletubbie porn site. Now I agree that toddlers don't have credit cards, but I had (and still have) a major problem with something like that. I don't believe that toddlers need to see that kind of stuff. Note that the porn in question was reasonably hardcore.

Re:They can block and/or punish consumption

[Knuckles]

Well, the law makes it very clear that it is only illegal to use language that is meant to appeal to children with the intent to deceive. That seems to be confusing a lot of you.

You seem to miss my point, sorry if I haven't made myself clear. The point is that language is so difficult and full of meanings that are clear to one group, but completely oblivious to the next, which makes it impossible to legislate this.

In this post you yourself deliver proof for how braindead this law is. How do you propose that the law (which, according to you, is "clear") defines "meant to appeal to children with the intent to deceive", so that in court it can be shown that this intent was there beyond reasonable doubt?

Let me tell you a secret: when porn sites advertise "Barbie" the do NOT appeal to children. They appeal to sexual people (teens, adults, whatever) who have phantasies about women adopting the same style as the Barbie doll, which is a highly sexually charged fetish of western culture.

The fact that you and the law makers don't get this, is proof of my point. Thank you.

Re:They can block and/or punish consumption

[Knuckles]

Exactly. so why again should the porn sites be forbidden to use this meme?

Re:They can block and/or punish consumption

[Knuckles]

Thank you! :)

Re:They can block and/or punish consumption

[Knuckles]

Um, what are toddlers doing on the Google website unsupervised? And I might be odd in this respect, but I am convinced that the real Teletubbies are more harmful.

Re:They can block and/or punish consumption

[metamatic]

So, can you offer a single good reason why anyone would reasonably use "Barney" or "Barbie" or "Pokemon" as keywords for a site featuring a naked woman with semen all over her face?

Umm, the fact that there are dozens of porn stars called Barbie, a couple of porn stars named Barney and a couple of directors named Barney?

There's probably Pokemon Hentai too, even if the owners of the trademark don't want it used to describe same.

Should it be a felony for Lanny Barbie's official fan site to use her name in their meta tags?

This points to the whole reason why the law is pointless: it's clearly going to fail a basic First Amendment test.

Re:They can block and/or punish consumption

[Anonymous Coward]

Now please explain how the kid was harmed by that experience.

Re:They can block and/or punish consumption

[spectral]

http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=192223&cid =15783662 this person.

Re:They can block and/or punish consumption

[CrankyOldBastard]

In this case it was a 10 year old doing a search for a toddler, to "show them some teletubbies". And as for TT being harmful to toddlers, it's probably as harmful as The Faraway Tree, Noddy and The Famous Five.

Re:They can block and/or punish consumption

[Knuckles]

Sorry, but IMO TV for toddlers is the tool of the devil.

Re:They can block and/or punish consumption

[nebaz]

This seems kind of scary to me. "meant to appeal to children with the intent to deceive" can be interpreted differently by different people, and could be opem for lots of abuses, IMHO.

Re:They can block and/or punish consumption

[Knuckles]

If anything, yes. They are probably more harmful to kids than porn. Nearly all kids have contact with the Barbie doll, unlike porn. It can be argued that the Barbie doll instills a sick image of physical perfection in them, contributing to anorexia/bulimia in teenage girls and unability to handle real, non-plastic bodies in boys.

Re:They can block and/or punish consumption

[plague3106]

Ya, and he had to type in 'nude' to get those results as well. Try the search again with JUST pokemon, and see what you find.

http://www.google.com/search?q=pokemon&start=0&ie= utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en -US:official

I looked at the first three pages of results, and found NOTHING adult.

Re:They can block and/or punish consumption

[spectral]

So? The other sites are more popular, fine. Just beacuse I narrow down the searches doesn't mean that if I search for pokemon, the results he found aren't in there SOMEWHERE. Name a search engine that 1) listens to meta data and 2) will find a site when you say "pokemon nude", but doesn't list it at all when you say "pokemon" and go through 100 pages of results.

Google's crawler (does it even look at meta tags like that?) sees META KEYWORD="pokemon anime fetish porn nudity misty brock ash pikachu sex anal butt", says "This page has these keywords, I'll add it to the list of links for each individual one"

I can see the lawsuit now: "Your honor, I typed pokemon in to Google, with the safe search off, and went to the 28th page and I saw this: . These people have to be stopped!"

the 'nude' filtered out the results that DIDN'T have nudity, but NOT including 'nude' did nothing to filter the results WITH nudity (unless google's really smart about selectively deactivating SafeSearch when you intentionally search for unsafe words). It's just that there's so many BETTER ranked sites.

So, in conclusion, who the hell is doing this, and is it helping them? If I only list META KEYWORD="pokemon anime misty brock ash pikachu", and then have hardcore porn on there.. guess what, I'm still not likely to be any higher than that link on the 28th page of results that I mentioned.

Re:They can block and/or punish consumption

[DavidTC]

Because almost no one actually watches the movie, and thus almost no one realizes Bambi is a boy?

Actually, I have no idea on this one. I suspect there was some other famous Bambi between that Bambi and present day, but I do not know who. Bambi, at some point, became a stereotype name for an even-dumber Barbie, and it's kinda weird.

Re:They can block and/or punish consumption

[belarm314]

If there weren't porn sites that put these tags in it wouldn't be legislation.

Just like there wouldn't be a call for an anti-flag burning amendment were there not a movement, nay, an epidemic of flag-burning sweeping the nation, to the point of endagering citizens...

Re:They can block and/or punish consumption

[c_forq]

I never said that it is an epidemic or a widespread problem, just that it happens.

Does it happen all that much?

[goatan]

How common is it to visit a porn site when you where really looking for Barbie dolls or anything else for that matter? It's not something that has ever happened to me. The only time I see porn on the internet is if I go look for it.

Re:Does it happen all that much?

[Rinzai]

Perhaps you weren't paying attention. The idea is that children who have reached a level of web proficiency that allows them to type "Barbie" or "Furby" into Google or Yahoo! Search still won't be sophisticated enough to tell which websites in the resulting link list will be toy stores, collector sites, as opposed to porn sites trying to glom the unwary.

I realize it's a subtle point, but perhaps you aren't a parent. I'm the parent of a high-functioning autistic nine-year-old child, and as much as I want to be in the room all the time when he's using the computer, sometimes I just have to leave for biological reasons. Apparently innocent links on Google Video or YouTube can lead to pages with links that aren't so innocent, and I've already had to intervene multiple times when I'm there with him. (Not for porn. Mostly for "stupid people doing stupid things and ending up injured" kinds of videos. He doesn't need to see idiot skateboarders losing teeth or breaking jawbones, either.)

Purveyors of adult material who deliberately attempt to attract underage traffic are contemptible and deserve whatever force we can bring to bear against them. This measure isn't designed to stop adults, and any of the responders to this particular thread who pound on that point are missing the gist of the thesis.

To answer the direct question: yes, it does happen all that much--a lot more than you think. (Except, apparently, you didn't think.)

Re:Does it happen all that much?

[edmicman]

How many adult sites actively hope children view their pages? Really, I think the pron industry is there to make money, and kids don't have it. "Mom and Dad, can I have $$ to subscribe to this adult site?". No, it's the adults who have disposable income to actually spend on that content. Why would they want to attract kids to their sites - what would it gain them?

Re:Does it happen all that much?

[goatan]

I never questioned the reson behind i just asked how common it is because i have not had it it happen to me.

I don't deny it happens because i have heard it happen to others. This is why I asked the question rather than make a satement that it doesn't happen just because i havent seen it, something you seem to think i did.

PS thanks for remembering to answer my question.

Re:Does it happen all that much?

[Danse]

Perhaps you weren't paying attention. The idea is that children who have reached a level of web proficiency that allows them to type "Barbie" or "Furby" into Google or Yahoo! Search still won't be sophisticated enough to tell which websites in the resulting link list will be toy stores, collector sites, as opposed to porn sites trying to glom the unwary.

First, I'd think that most kids searching for "Furby" don't have credit cards, so why would the porn sites want to attract them anyway? Second, prohibiting the use of common names like "Barbie" is just dumb.

Mostly for "stupid people doing stupid things and ending up injured" kinds of videos. He doesn't need to see idiot skateboarders losing teeth or breaking jawbones, either.

Might actually be good to let him watch those. It could, perhaps, discourage such behavior.

Re:Does it happen all that much?

[goatan]

Something that slipped my mind earlier, maybe I'm being naive (well thats almost garunteed) why would porn dealers want to attract children to there site it's not just morally wrong but it's bizarre it's not like they have a credit card to make money off. I just know I must be missing something maybe there weirdo's who like the idea of children looking at there site.

Re:Does it happen all that much?

[Spacejock]

Maybe they're hoping little Johnny will nick his mum's credit card and run up a few grand before anyone notices.

Re:Does it happen all that much?

[talmai]

I agree, it does happen. My 5-year old sister (she can't read but she uses mouse like an adult) plays flash games on newgrounds and similar web sites and i've seen her watching a preview of hentai and even some video pr0n (they have ads to such sites on the dress-up games page). She used to even immitate girls and telling stories from pr0n crap. THe first thing to do was the sex talk at a dinner all the family had, because this is one of the possible solutions. You tell your children that's how it is when two people love each other and it's nothing bad. My sister later asked me if mum and dad do this also. I also told her that the pr0n thing she'd been watching is bad, while those girls are doing it for money and don't enjoy it quite so much usually, while it's not about love. I don't know but since then my sister doesn't surf pr0n anymore, i still have some FireFox security but only passive (i can see what sites she's been to, but they're not auto blocked). You (especially americans) may say she's too young for that kind of conversation but i think the best solution is to make it clear so that nothing stays secret. I think my sister is very responsible. You can't treat your child like he is stupid and hide the truth from him, specially about things he will come to sooner or later. (I have 3 younger brothers and a sister - i'm a bit of a parent, too)

Re:Does it happen all that much?

[lawpoop]

This is the problem with this type of law.

Nobody in the porn business is trying to show porn to children. They're in it to make money, and they want adults with credit cards to join their sites.

However, adults with credit cards tend to have wives, children, significant others, etc. that might not think to highly of them spending their hard-earned money on porn. It's the same fear that keeps them out of dirty book stores and movie theaters -- shame and embarrassment.

So what porno companies have to do is 'advertise' in such a way that their users could say "Oh, honey, I was just surfing around and happened to click on this link that happened to be porn. I would never, ever visit a porn site out of my own volition."

So then some kid run into these quasi-innocent adverts and end up seeing a lot of things that will scar their retinas. Mom finds out and hits the roof. She think that the evil perverts who make this stuff are deliberately trying to corrupt the youth -- why else would it be so easy to stumble across pornography on the internet?

Then, congresspeople who need votes to maintain power write acts like these to protect children from evil, corrupting pornographers, and mom votes for them in the fall. Except that they're not targetting children, they're just trying to give dad some cover.

So, I don't know what the right answer is.

Re:Does it happen all that much?

[BRSQUIRRL]

Why would tobacco companies want to appeal to minors with their advertising? Kids are prevented by law from buying cigarettes anyway, right? What could they possibly gain from doing so?

I'll leave the answer to this not-so-rhetorical question as an exercise for the reader.

Even better..

[Rob T Firefly]

..it will become illegal for members of Congress to use misleading terms like "tubes" to describe worldwide packet-switching networks.

Re:Even better..

[Billosaur]

I doubt they'd go for it... they'd hate to have their "tubes" tied.

Re:Even better..

[Opportunist]

C'mon, when you forbid a politician to voice his opinion about things he doesn't have a clue about, you're pretty much condemning them to silence.

Then again... thinking about it... where do I sign the petition?

Re:Even better..

[martinkb]

No, they don't know about the tubes, they still think it's a dump truck.

Re:Even better..

[Surt]

I keep hearing the internet is not a series of tubes, yet the last time I looked, nearly all of it was carried by fiber or copper wound in rubber or plastic tubing. Only a small percentage of internet traffic is not carried by a series of tubes.

Re:Even better..

[Rob T Firefly]

If you want to split hairs, the tubes aren't doing the carrying, the wire is. You could say the Internet is a series of wires, and sound like less of a total loon than Ted Stevens.

Of course, you could express a desire to replace your toes with grapes and eat nothing but mittens from now on, and sound like less of a total loon than Ted Stevens. But my point is that his entire analogy of trucks and tubes and "an Internet" being sent to his office being slowed down by your Netflix discs being squeezed through the tubes for you getting in the way, was entirely screwed.

Re:Even better..

[Atzanteol]

If you want to split hairs, the tubes aren't doing the carrying, the wire is. You could say the Internet is a series of wires, and sound like less of a total loon than Ted Stevens.

How is tubes far different from the common term 'pipes' that is used by geeks?

Re:Even better..

[RevAaron]

But wait a second here... I thought politicians were respected experts in their field? I mean, aren't they the ones we choose to run things because the rest of us are too dumb to?

Well, I think that is BS and subscribe more to the position of CLR James. I definately recomend reading his pamphlet Every Cook Can Govern. And frankly, a lot of the regular schmucks I know seem more intelligent, more level headed, less power hungry and money greedy than your average politician... but that's just me.

Re:Even better..

[Opportunist]

Politics, or elections, rather, is not choosing the best for the position but rather the least inept. If they were actually experts, they'd be in business, not politics.

What we have today is lazy, greedy politicians that only care about their own wallets. Yes, they could hire experts to teach them what matters and what problems arise with laws that are about to be discussed. But it is less work and more profit to just listen to some lobbyist.

The sad truth of this law will be...

[Tsagadai]

...There will never be another false hyperlink goatse joke. Goodbye old gaping, your misrepresented link humour will be mourned. This law will bring the end of an era for internet humour.

Re:The sad truth of this law will be...

[blindd0t]

Thanks for the reminder first thing in the morning jackass. I nearly saw the coffee I just finished drinking again.

=)

Probably should post this as AC...

[Chrontius]

But this is going to be a sad day for fans of My Little Pony porn.

Re:Probably should post this as AC...

[Quiet_Desperation]

Isn't *every* day a sad day for the furry porn folks?

Re:Probably should post this as AC...

[greenreaper]

Not once we get our daily VCL hit!

Soooo last millennium...

[idontgno]

to say nothing about being completely impossible to enforce globally

National sovereignty. How quaint.

Re:Soooo last millennium...

[ultranova]

National sovereignty. How quaint.

National sovereignty is no match of the power of the globalized economy. And national governments of a lot of countries have already proved that they pass whatever legislation the US asks of them.

It would take the revival of nationalism to restore nation-states to their proper place as an instrument capable and willing of protecting their citizens from the predations of global corporations and foreign governments. But unfortunately nationalism lead to militariaism the last time, so now everyone is too scared to try it again.

And perhaps they are right to fear it, but all I know is that the US government passes bad laws that affect me without me being able to do anything about them, thanks to the spineless cretins who hold power here and use it to ensure they get a good retirement, even if no one else will...

So no, national sovereignty doesn't mean anything nowadays. There are no sovereign nations, just different markets.

Nice example - What about the Barbie Twins?

[Anonymous Coward]

Such a silly example. Go tell playboy they can't advertize the barbie twins with the word barbie.

Good news

[Moby Cock]

All those Furby messages were clogging up my internets tubes anyways. Now I'll be able to send my proper and non-pornograpgic internets easier.

But Barbie means..

[DarkDragonVKQ]

A young (18-25?) Skinny Blonde in porno. :(

Re:But Barbie means..

[Anonymous Coward]

With huge boots to boob.

Um ... at least something like that.

Re:But Barbie means..

[Supersonic1425]

haha, you really do learn something every day.

tell me, what does furby mean?

actually, don't tell me.

*shudder*

the internet is not a big truck!

[silverkniveshotmail.]

What about my personal internets? Who's looking out for it?

Congresscritter mentality

[Valacosa]

Disclaimer: I am in Canada.

From the wording in the summary, this speaks to the mentality of the congresscritter. I mean, some right-wingers have this idea stuck in their head that the pr0n on the internet is there for the children, that people are trying to lure kids to the porn sites for some reason which I (nor they) cannot imagine. What benefit is there in that for anybody? It's not as if the kids have any purchasing power! Hell, it's not even as if webmasters can capture some parents income with porn!

"Daddy, will you buy me a membership to this website! It's only $2.99 for three days!"

Valacosa to congress: children are not the "target audience" for pornography!

Re:Congresscritter mentality

[mobby_6kl]

some right-wingers have this idea stuck in their head that the pr0n on the internet is there for the children

Actually, "save the children" is extremely popular with the left, too. From a FA linked in TFA:

"I appreciate the willingness of all members to put aside unrelated controversial issues* so that we could focus on the core purpose of this bill--protecting children," Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid

*- out of context, but are those "controversial issues" some pork projects hidden in the 163-page bill?

Re:Congresscritter mentality

[ArcherB]

mean, some right-wingers have this idea stuck in their head that the pr0n on the internet is there for the children, that people are trying to lure kids to the porn sites for some reason which I (nor they) cannot imagine.

I seem to remember a site called "Whitehouse.com" (not .gov) that was a porn site whose name was designed to get hits from those who were not looking for porn, especially children. Seriously, how many adults look for the Whitehouse home page? Who do you think the webmasters of Whitehouse.com were trying to attract with their misleading name?
It's not about who has the credit cards, it's who knows how to use a mouse well enough to do a click-through.

Re:Congresscritter mentality

[Anonymous Coward]

You're over-thinking it. There doesn't need to be any logic behind making government bigger, because making government bigger is the goal in itself. The "justification" is merely a pothole in the road to bigger government. The mentality of the ruler is no secret: he intends to employ coercion against others to benefit himself. Why in the world would one aspire to be a ruler if he only wanted to mind his own business and live in peace?

Absurd, you say? What kind of nutcase would believe that?

There is a reason why all governments expand in power over their lifetimes. There is a reason why no government in the history of organized coercion has ever significantly and permanently reduced its powers through the democratic process.

The obvious and indisputable fact is that bigger government benefits the power elite (those who posess this special "right" to employ coercion against others, not those who are subject to it). The more power at the center, the more the power elite benefits, and nothing can possibly change that.

Re:Congresscritter mentality

[14CharUsername]

Who do you think the webmasters of Whitehouse.com were trying to attract with their misleading name?

Bill Clinton?

Re:Congresscritter mentality

[Valacosa]

Actually, "save the children" is extremely popular with the left, too.

True. However, it seems to me as if the causes are different. The lefties seem more likely to jump on the "ban violent videogames" bandwagon, the righties seems more inclined to regulate sex.

I could be wrong about this, though.

Re:Congresscritter mentality

[KarmaMB84]

Virus installations, ad impressions etc.

Re:Congresscritter mentality

[jeaton]

(Hint: don't say "well, kids buy cigarettes from stores who don't check age", because both stores selling the smokes to kids and kids using credit cards are illegal.)

What law makes using credit cards by kids illegal? I've had a credit card since I was 14, and used it regularly while I was a minor. Granted, this was a second card on my father's account, but I never once had a problem using it, nor did Visa have a problem issuing it to me.

Re:Congresscritter mentality

[gatzke]

Right, both parties have different things they hate.

Why ban anything? Why not make violent video games require adult (18 year old) to buy? I think some states are doing that.

I think nudie magazine require an ID in most places.

Most hard core porn web sites require credit card, so kids can't get access (usually). You can set what businesses a credit card works at, so parents that get CCs for kids can limit that.

The problem I see is the free access, click here if you are 18 sites that make money off advertising. How do you control that? How do you make sure it is for 18 year olds? How do you decide what content goes behind that wall?

As a parent, I will be looking into whitelist technology for my home computers in about 5 years. For everyone else, I would not force my morality on them, but technology to block porn sites should be encouraged for people with kids. If my kid is smart enough to get around the blocking software, he and she should be able to see what crazy crap is out there and make their own minds up.

Reminds me of a friend who grew up next to a XXX drive in. He used his telescope as an excuse to get out of the house (HA). He also learned all his sex ed from the films, so growing up he had some odd misconceptions about sex.

It is not the government's job to tell you what books to read or what sites to visit. You can't legislate personal responsibility for parents.

Re:Congresscritter mentality

[raile]

...and kids using credit cards are illegal.

Huh? You mean the credit card my parents gave me when I was 16 was somehow obtained illegally? And you can only buy cigarettes with a credit card?

Who'da thunk?

I hope you're not a regular contributor to Wikipedia.

Re:Congresscritter mentality

[Danse]

Granted, this was a second card on my father's account, but I never once had a problem using it, nor did Visa have a problem issuing it to me.

You're in a very tiny minority then, and certainly not one that is worth creating such overreaching and unconstitutional legislation for.

Re:Congresscritter mentality

[Danse]

I seem to remember a site called "Whitehouse.com" (not .gov) that was a porn site whose name was designed to get hits from those who were not looking for porn, especially children.

Emphasis mine, but how exactly can you back up that statement? Designed to get hits from those who were not looking for porn, sure. Especially children? I don't think so. Click-throughs are fine, but all those sites with porn galleries and links are trying to lead you to signup pages where you purchase a membership to a site or group of sites. That's where you always end up. Otherwise why would the porn site owners bother to buy ads?

Re:Congresscritter mentality

[HungWeiLo]

So...

The leftists want more Gore, and the rightists want more Bush.

Thank you. I'll be here all night. Try the veal.

Re:Congresscritter mentality

[kabocox]

"Daddy, will you buy me a membership to this website! It's only $2.99 for three days!"

Valacosa to congress: children are not the "target audience" for pornography!

This has got to be the funniest thing that I've read today. If my boy was really interested in it, then he should be able to find my storage directory that has gigs of that type of data. My son shouldn't have to search the internet for what is already on the local computer!

Re:Congresscritter mentality

[ArcherB]

I seem to remember a site called "Whitehouse.com" (not .gov) that was a porn site whose name was designed to get hits from those who were not looking for porn, especially children.

Emphasis mine, but how exactly can you back up that statement? Designed to get hits from those who were not looking for porn, sure. Especially children? I don't think so. Click-throughs are fine, but all those sites with porn galleries and links are trying to lead you to signup pages where you purchase a membership to a site or group of sites. That's where you always end up. Otherwise why would the porn site owners bother to buy ads?

From my original post:

Seriously, how many adults look for the Whitehouse home page? Who do you think the webmasters of Whitehouse.com were trying to attract with their misleading name?

How many government teachers and librarians accidentally hit this site while trying to teach school kids about the research value of the Internet for learning about our government?

It's not just me that thinks this way. From Everything2:

It's also the website that resulted in one of the reoccurring elementary school pranks. A rather naive kid might ask another kid "Hey, how can I find out when James K. Polk was president?" The other kid would reply, "Oh simple, just go to whitehouse.com."

And, of course, from Wikipedia:
In 1997, the Clinton administration sent Dan Parisi a cease and desist letter stating, "... we do not challenge your right to pursue it or to exercise your First Amendment rights, but we do challenge your right to use the White House, the President, and the First Lady as a marketing device. For adult internet users, that device is, at the least, part of a deceptive scheme. For younger Internet users, it has more disturbing consequences." The letter had no effect and the site stayed up.

In 1998 Jim Salmon was so appalled by the idea of how many kids get tricked into going to this site that he personally pointed all of his domains to that site, hoping to generate enough controversy to get people to shut the site down...

Re:Congresscritter mentality

[Danse]

How many government teachers and librarians accidentally hit this site while trying to teach school kids about the research value of the Internet for learning about our government?

I'd imagine only the ones that had no idea what they were doing and had never visited the site before (and what teacher wouldn't at least look at sites that they are going to show to the kids beforehand?)

It's also the website that resulted in one of the reoccurring elementary school pranks. A rather naive kid might ask another kid "Hey, how can I find out when James K. Polk was president?" The other kid would reply, "Oh simple, just go to whitehouse.com."

Plenty of anecdotal stuff there, but no actual evidence that such pranks are actually common, or even occur at all.

In 1997, the Clinton administration sent Dan Parisi a cease and desist letter stating, "... we do not challenge your right to pursue it or to exercise your First Amendment rights, but we do challenge your right to use the White House, the President, and the First Lady as a marketing device. For adult internet users, that device is, at the least, part of a deceptive scheme. For younger Internet users, it has more disturbing consequences." The letter had no effect and the site stayed up.

Again, perhaps if people actually had evidence to back up their claims, something would be done about it. Everything I've seen is hearsay and speculation. Most libraries use blocking software, and that site is on every blocking list out there. I don't see it as the huge problem that you do.

In 1998 Jim Salmon was so appalled by the idea of how many kids get tricked into going to this site that he personally pointed all of his domains to that site, hoping to generate enough controversy to get people to shut the site down...

And someone else buys into the hype....

Re:Congresscritter mentality

[skinfaxi]

That's lovely. How old's your boy?

Re:Congresscritter mentality

[Frogbert]

I don't know, there is just something weird about sharing your pr0n with your father.

Hard at work I see

[grasshoppa]

Good thing we pay these people insane amounts of money to come up with fluff, feel good legislation instead of dealing with the real issues ( illegal domestic spying, Iraq, privacy, ect... ).

I can't wait for november.

Re:Hard at work I see

[frankencat]

Here, here. I am so freaking tired of these retards wasting time on this kind of stuff. It's just plain insanity. WHO CARES!!!! Hello!!!

But is there actually a problem?

[blorg]

Anyone who includes misleading "words" or "images" intended to confuse a minor into viewing a possibly harmful Web site could be imprisoned for up to 20 years and fined, the bill says.

How many porn sites try to attract minors anyway? Minors don't have credit cards.

Re:But is there actually a problem?

[smitth1276]

Then this shouldn't concern you. If it is purely hypothetical, and basically criminalizes something that noone wants to do, then don't worry about it.

Re:But is there actually a problem?

[blorg]

Then this shouldn't concern you. If it is purely hypothetical, and basically criminalizes something that noone wants to do, then don't worry about it.

Yeah, because that's exactly what we need, _more_ useless legislation. Not even considering the potential for misinterpretation and abuse of said legislation.

Stupid idea

[martinmcc]

The idea is completely ridiculous. First off, 20 years for using a misleading meta tag? Does that sound appropriate? Particular if you consider how easy it could be to do (you copy the template from some previous site for another site and forget to update the meta tags).

And who judges whether a tag is valid or not? While there may be a few that are clear cut, most will be highly ambiguous and down to some arbitrary decision process, and likely used backwards (i.e. find a site you do not like, then see if you can find some law it breaks, such as this one).

Again, it used 'think of the children' to role in crappy, unenforceable laws which steal away people freedom, and solve a non-existent problem. I have two daughters, and frequently searched various keywords such as Barbie, and never encountered any pron sites. The only, and obvious, solution to the minor problem of children accessing inappropriate content is for parents to be responsible in how their children can access the net.

Re:Stupid idea

[mstahl]

Again, it used 'think of the children' to role in crappy, unenforceable laws which steal away people freedom, and solve a non-existent problem.

I absolutely agree. If Congress wants to 'fess up and consider this bill to be merely a means of delivering porkbarrel riders, fine. I could almost respect that a whole lot more. The very idea that this bill would somehow be enforceable is laughable. It is both irrationally draconian and, even for the US, way too equivocal to enforce responsibly. Call me old-fashioned, but it seems to me you should be able to prove something beyond a shadow of a doubt if you're going to lock someone away for 20 years for it.

The only, and obvious, solution to the minor problem of children accessing inappropriate content is for parents to be responsible in how their children can access the net.

This is one of those things that I keep coming back to with America. I find it absurd that you could have fiscal conservatives (read: traditional Republicans) who vehemently oppose any form of government regulation of business, yet somehow find it necessary for our justice system to waste its time deciding whether a website featuring photos of Lana Barbie violated this law or not.

There are two things here that really do speak of the bizarre socially conservative nature of the US. One is that, as I think a couple of comments down someone mentioned, there is still this puritanical mentality that sex is somehow dirty or unnatural. Obviously, nothing could be further from the truth. We do need to protect children from sexual predators and paedophiles, but protecting them from sex itself just means that we have a generation of children out there that genuinely think you can't contract a sexually transmitted disease through oral sex. Children are coming of age with none of the vital information they need to be safe because of this.

The other thing that is happening here, and this is one of my primary complaints about how the US government "handles" the Internet, is that parents expect the Government to manage their children for them. Parents now know less than ever about what their children are up to because their children are conducting more and more of their socialization online. What people in Congress have continually failed to understand is that making the Internet safer for children means drastically restricting free speech protections for everybody else. The solution is not to make the Internet safer, it's for parents to take on a more proactive role in guiding their children's online experience.

Re:Stupid idea

[Anonymous Coward]

"The only, and obvious, solution to the minor problem of children accessing inappropriate content is for parents to be responsible in how their children can access the net."

The easiest and most effective tool for parents would be a firewall appliance that has a clear and easy web interface for whitelisting sites. Just make sure the appliance provides the proper ICMP codes back to the browser for blocked content.

Firewall appliances are common and many are very easy to use. It's just a matter of updating one model in the product lineup to be geared towared whitelisting rather than blacklisting, which is what most firewalls do.

I'm not knowledgeable in what's available out there, but it seems like an obvious market opportunity for manufacturers.

Re:Stupid idea

[keyne9]

20 years? Less time is mandated for molesting a child. That's fucking scary.

Re:Stupid idea

[qsqueeq]

The idea is completely ridiculous. First off, 20 years for using a misleading meta tag? Does that sound appropriate? Particular if you consider how easy it could be to do (you copy the template from some previous site for another site and forget to update the meta tags).

Very simple solution, run the page through W3C's new web validator http://idontwanttogotoprisonvalidator.w3.org/

Re:Stupid idea

[gatzke]

After reading the bill that is now passed and signed into law at
http://shii.wordpress.com/2006/07/26/goatse-now-il legal-in-the-united-states/

Whoever knowingly embeds words or digital images into the source code of a website with the intent to deceive a person into viewing material constituting obscenity shall be fined under this title and imprisoned for not more than 10 years.

What if I knowingly send a prank EMAIL with a goatse, tubgirl or lemonparty URL? I know if my buddy views that email on a webmail interface, I will have "knowingly embedded words into the source code of a website with the intent to deceive a person into viewing" some of the worst stuff on the internet.

The original bill was aimed at meta tags, but I can see this being easily expanded if the language was not clarified elsewhere. Note the bill apparently doesn't limit it to minors, it is to anyone that gets obscene stuff. Scary.

This scares me a lot...

tags

[Vexorian]

How exactly do you know when a word is 'innocent' . I think that they should enforce them to use porn or xxx tags so search engines can block them if safe search is on. Or nannies can do.

but what about

[ErisCalmsme]

the lego porn? http://drew.corrupt.net/bp/

Bilderburg?

[krell]

Did you make their last convention? Elvis was there, way cool. The platoon of Bigfeet serving mammoth-meat and dodobird hors'douvres was a nice touch. I don't think everyone liked it: I saw Steve Gutenberg dump a tray in the large pool to feed Nessie.

Sex != Harmful

[sane?]

Once again there is the confusion in the US mind that sex = harmful. I thought the puritans died out several centuries ago. Some more extreme stuff I can understand, but the basics of the idea that all types of sex should be kept from children, rather than being seen as a normal part of life, is the more harmful attitude.

Just how screwed up do you have to be to consider a nipple to be threat to a child's development?

Better to concentrate on ensuring that child can grow up in a world that has freedom of speech, a clean environment and open minds than one that views sex as somehow dirty.

Re:Sex != Harmful

[Jugalator]

Just how screwed up do you have to be to consider a nipple to be threat to a child's development?

In my opinion? Pretty much, but despite that, there are a whole lot of them.

Re:Sex != Harmful

[Quintios]

It's not so much that, I think. As an admitted over-protective puritanical bible-thumping parent (which may have nothing to do with my subsequent statements) I want my kids to stay kids as long as they can. I would like them to be able to remain innocent and happy and free of cares until such time as they're ready to learn what this world is like. They are young yet (5 and 2) and I don't know at what age is appropriate to learn about pr0n and so forth, although I'm sure they'll get quite an education on the school bus anyway.

I agree with a previous poster that kids are not the target audience and in my opinion it's a stupid bill.

Up until a certain age I don't believe kids are capable of handling the emotions and desires that come with a knowledge of this subject. I can't pick an absolute number (for age) as every child is different. I'm sure my kids' natural curiousity will lead them to start asking questions. Then I might know better.

Either way, I would hope that these websites wouldn't consciously use children's search keywords to draw traffic to their site. I find sometimes that these sites will use what seems to be the entire dictionary to get people to click on their stuff, however.

Re:Sex != Harmful

[RPoet]

I want my kids to stay kids as long as they can.

So you actively work to keep them ignorant. Think about it.

Re:Sex != Harmful

[Anonymous Coward]

Though evidence is not the plural of anecdote, I'll offer mine: I learned about sex at the age of nine or ten, and actually started having sex with a friend of mine (same age) at the age of 11--I continued having sex with this friend off-and-on until I was 16. I mark the age at which I stopped being "innocent and happy and free of cares" as about 14.

The world is a horrible place, but in my experience it isn't sex that makes you realize it.

Re:Sex != Harmful

[Khomar]

So you actively work to keep them ignorant. Think about it.

I have, and yes, I do. I believe there are certain things it is best not to know because once the line is crossed, you cannot go back. For example, I had a co-worker (who was somewhat promiscuous) that he felt the primary reason not to have extra-marital or pre-marital affairs was so that you would not compare your spouse to other experiences. If you don't know what you are missing, then you are not disappointed with what you have.

Now obvious this reasoning can go too far, but as with many things in this life, there is a balance that needs to be found. The world falls apart when we seek the extremes. I don't want to know everything, because my enjoyment of life would almost certainly be impaired if I did. At the same time I don't want to be completely ignorant because I can cause great harm to those around me if I am. The answer, I believe, is somewhere in the middle. There are just some things that it really is best that I do not know because it does not help me to be a better person and can in fact could make me worse.

Re:Sex != Harmful

[Opportunist]

As a parent, it is not your responsibility to keep your children "innocent". It is your responsibility to prepare them for life. Innocent children become gullible adults. The kind of people that fall for Nigeria scams and crooked politicians. Not to mention that they're the primary target for school bullies and other, less "innocent" (read: dumb) kids that are more than willing to abuse the innocence of your kids.

Believe me. I was one of the "innocents".

Re:Sex != Harmful

[MonsoonDawn]

Puritans aren't so bad. The modern ones will even let you choose the type of wood you prefer for your pyre.

Re:Sex != Harmful

[Quintios]

There's plenty of other stuff for a 5 and 2 year old to learn. I'll save the sex talks for later...

I actively shield them from things that they simply don't need to learn or are too complex for them to handle. For example, I have not tried to teach the boy Calculus yet. He can add and subtract on his fingers, but that's about as far as he needs to go right now. I'd rather he went outside and learned to catch a ball, discover bugs, and roll around in the mud than be able to solve differential equations. If someone were to start trying to teach that to him I would stop them, yes. It would be as useful as a screen door on a submarine (forgive the cliche).

Similarly, I would rather he master the concept of "sharing" than understanding how babies are made, at this point in time in his life. If he asked, I'd give him the simple explanation of when mommies and daddies love each other they can make babies. I seriously doubt he'd want more information than that, but as I indicated (or so I thought) I would tell him what I knew, or at least what I think he could understand.

As a parent, you make these decisions for your children. We have to discern what information is good, and is bad, at this particular age, for this particular child, at this moment. Lots of variables, and nothing is ever obvious.

So no, I mod you "INCORRECT". :-) I do not actively work to make my children ignorant. If anything, I am actively seeking to make their lives as enjoyable as possible.

Re:Sex != Harmful

[superyooser]

Fornication , not mere sex.

The incontinence or lewdness of unmarried persons, male or female

Even in the case of marital sex, only the couple should be privy to the activity. Sexual intercourse is the ultimate act of intimacy, the consummation of marriage in which two persons become "one flesh" (Genesis 1:24).

No need to worry about youngsters being sexually stunted or confused. Puberty alone will do its job, as it has for thousands of years.

Re:Sex != Harmful

[Quintios]

Outstanding point. Well taken. I shall ponder that this evening. ;)

DAMMIT!

[Monokeros]

My new web site www.funwithbarbiesandfurbieshappyinnocentfunsitefo rkidswithabsolutelynoanalsexipromise.com ...

Is DOOMED!

Re:DAMMIT!

[DMoylan]

i'm more worried that they'll stop fisto! :-)

http://www.he-man.org/cartoon/cmotu-pop/universe/f isto.shtml

What's a "furby"?

[Goaway]

Kids these days with their "furbies" and "walkmans", get offa my lawn!

Seriously...

[DreamingReal]

... won't someone please think of the strippers?!

AdSense "shotgunning"

[Chatmag]

I"m going to coin a term here, or give it a good try.

Adsense shotgunning. AdSense ads that appear on landing pages of domain names that have expired, and subsequentially bought by individuals or companies, showing a listing of related links, and targeted AdSense ads, designed for the sole purpose of getting AdSense clicks. We've all seen these when doing searches. What looks like a directory page turns out to be one massive AdSense page.

As an example, a domain Miraclewebva.com I owned some years ago, now a landing page for AdSense ads. Notice the "Results for miraclewebva.com", actually they are AdSense ads. The term shotgunning refers to buying a bunch of domains in the hopes of hitting AdSense clicks from a search for a large variety of keywords.

There is nothing illegal about that practice, but it does pollute search results, and is misleading, so, while Congress is at it, maybe they need to look into this practice also.

If anyone has heard of another term used for this practice let me know. Otherwise, I'm claiming credit for defining the practice. (hey, would this qualify for a "first post"??) :)

Twenty years for this?

[ttys00]

Between MP3 downloads and porn sites with childrens words on it, this Internet thing is getting dangerous.

I'm going to have start committing crimes with lighter punishments, like murder and rape.

Re:Twenty years for this?

[MrSquirrel]

Congress knows that you're wrong and evil -- trying to get kids to come to your pornsite (don't try to hide behind it being a "business" and you "charging" people, they know you have a magical internet-powered scanner that forces kids to see porn for free!). You think 20 years is "too harsh"? What, you think there's some law or bill (like a... a bill of rights?) against "cruel and unusual punishment"? We'll teach YOU to meta-tag. As John Romero would say, Congress will make you its bitch!

I'm glad to see Congress focusing on the important things -- I'm tired of having to protect my children from improper meta-tags. They need to go after Playboy and Playgirl next... I mean, come on, it has "Play" right in the name! They're trying to get children to think it's fun! Damn greedy bastards, not like those in Congress -- they always look out for our best interests and do it all out of the goodness of their hearts.

Re:Twenty years for this?

[Jtheletter]

Your sarcasm is both delicious and spot-on. Interstingly enough this now means that the maximum punishment for putting a single word into the code for a page that must then be picked up by a search engine, searched for, clicked on, and NOT closed by the viewing child - is now more severe than say, running up to the same child in public and flashing them repeatedly. Does this even begin to make sense? The worst part is, if some congresscritter were to actually agree that this is obviously a disconnect in punishments, their solution would most likely be to simply amplify all other punishments to fix the distortion. Can we just go ahead and skip directly to the Judge Dredd future where alleged criminals are shot in the head where they stand to save time and money? After all, it's FOR THE CHILDREN.

IANAL

[BitterAndDrunk]

So I'm not sure if this applies but:

One of my favorite pastimes when I was 24 or so was trying to get friends to open goatse.cx from work. The standard trick was to href it into something like "Yahoo! News: Free Beer in NYC" or something like that, and then laugh and laugh when they opened it.

So does that qualify as a felony now? That would totally ruin my christmas cards.

Get Google to delist it.

[MarkByers]

So, can you offer a single good reason why anyone would reasonably use "Barney" or "Barbie" or "Pokemon" as keywords for a site featuring a naked woman with semen all over her face?

What if the guy is called Barney, the woman is called Barbie, and... well I'll leave the rest to your imagination.

You're missing the point though. Trying to censor content based on fuzzy guidelines is not helping promote freedom. If a pornography site is number 1 in Google for the keyword Barbie, complain to Google that it's keyword matching rules are broken and get them to delist the site. Don't just get your government to go round censoring things you disagree with. Once they start on that path, where will they stop? If porn can be censored what about pro-Muslim sites using words like 'Jesus' in their keywords? Oh the horror! It must be censored too!

By the way, I'm not American so I don't really care, I'm just making some suggestions that you can choose to ignore if you wish.

Re:Get Google to delist it.

[smitth1276]

If the site is the first listed in Google's index for the word "Barbie" then you just made Congress's case to some extent. :-)

And, I think that you are actually missing the point. The government isn't making it illegal to use keywords that don't perfectly reflect the content of the site... that's just a "whatever" thing. What is illegal is trying to trick kids to come to a porn site. It is very narrow and scope, and doesn't infringe on anyone's free speech rights, unless they are trying to trick kids to come to a porn site. If the keywords are legitimate with respect to the site's content, then it isn't illegal.

Re:Get Google to delist it.

[Anonymous Coward]

What is illegal is trying to trick kids to come to a porn site. It is very narrow and scope, and doesn't infringe on anyone's free speech rights, unless they are trying to trick kids to come to a porn site.

Or unless they're trying to educate kids about contraceptives, and have the keywords "safe sex" and "sex education", and some fundie argues that it's deceptive because "sex is never safe" and "kids searching for 'education' should only find schools, not this sick liberal site that is grooming your children to have sex."

Far-fetched? You probably think so. The rest of us are realists who recognise that opportunists are always using laws that were intended to have a very narrow application in some broader context. And -- particularly where children and sex are concerned -- you know, it doesn't even matter if a prosecution is totally stupid and gets thrown straight out of court, because the mud sticks.

Re:Get Google to delist it.

[enjahova]

It is narrow IN scope? I think not. What is porn? What is tricking somebody? What is metadata?

Further more restrictions on speech must be content neutral. You cannot stop somebody from speaking because you do not like what they are saying.

Apparently when we think of the children we like to forget about that. Why can't parents teach children to be responsible internet users? Why does the government have to make sure that everybody moves their websites outside of the US? Why do they need to add one more impossible to enforce, broad in scope law to the books about something that doesn't even matter (but could if abused).

You say "trying to trick kids" in italics as if that makes it any more of a pressing issue. Stop thinking of the children damnit! They will grow up to be adults that can decide for their selves how much of the internet they want to see. If we keep "thinking" of the children there may well not be an internet (in America) for them to surf.

Re:Get Google to delist it.

[MillionthMonkey]

If someone's trying to trick kids to come to a porn site, so what?

I mean WTF is the big deal if kids see a little porn?

Does it "damage" them somehow? I found the magazines in my father's nightstand and I'm still OK. In fact I found them just in time because I was starting to have a really hard time at school for not knowing about all that stuff, what all the dirty words meant, etc. (The "Letters to Playboy" section was especially helpful for figuring out the words.)

If you're thinking you're going to have some conversation with your kid when he's 20, about birds and bees and when a man and a woman really love each other and all that flowery stuff, you can just disabuse yourself of that notion right now. If your kid has any friends his age at all, one of them will find out the "wrong" way, he'll tell his friends, and soon all the kids are divided into those who are aware of sex and those who need to find out what everyone is giggling about and making fun of them for not knowing. Then it's just a matter of whether you've put your kid at a disadvantage at school.

If your kids can't be exposed to an environment with free expression of ideas, then you're a bad parent for getting them an Internet connection in the first place. Install a filter if you're really neurotic enough to care about your kid seeing porn. If you're smart you'll let your kids look at all the porn they want as early as possible.

If you find out about sex when you're older, your neural plasticity is gone and as an adult you will have an immature attitude towards sex. Instead of just being a part of life, it will always be something filthy to be giggled about, obsessed over, thrust into politics, and kept hidden from the young so they can inherit the same neurosis you've got. You won't be able to see past sex on any issue where it is even tangentially involved. Just look at this recent gay marriage debate. Some people (both sides) are talking about restricting the institution, marriage as a civil rights issue, the courts, etc. Then there are people who approach the issue from the angle of "so the husband puts it where?" and they continue to argue at that level. That's what happens when you don't find out about sex in time during your development.

The thing to worry about is chat. Porn won't damage your kid, but there are lots of people you don't want your kid chatting with.

Re:Get Google to delist it.

[Anonymous Coward]

I suspect the legislative branch does understand. As pointed out here, it's silly and impossible to enforce globally. Senators can say, "I voted against kiddie pron" without doing anything of substance. Seems to be a growing thing, make something illegal, don't enforce it...then, if you want to hang someone, enforce it for them. Tried and true bad government.

Re:Get Google to delist it.

[smitth1276]

If someone's trying to trick kids to come to a porn site, so what? ... I mean WTF is the big deal if kids see a little porn? ... Does it "damage" them somehow?

You're obfuscating... the point is that the law doesn't violate anyone's rights. It just says that is is illegal to intentionally deceive certain people in a specific way, to be added to the zillion other ways of deceiving people which are currently illegal. An abstract discussion about the dangers or benefits of porn is off topic.

That's a great idea -

[Anonymous Coward]

Why saddle parents with the responsability of watching over their children when we can have the government do it.

Any day now, Snowball will show up, select a few children to raise and a few years later we'll have an even BETTER protection from ourselves!

Great idea!

COMPLETELY unconstitutional

[Anonymous Coward]

This is completely unconstitutional. Furby may be a term used in the sex industry to describe a particular act, as could Barbie. I don't know, but its covered under freedom of speech. Kids like Humvee "Hummers" because they are cool cars, but a search for this term is probably going to bring up some sex site.

No one needs the government to protect their children. Protect them yourselves and leave our constitution intact.

goatse

[Potatomasher]

So basically any slashdotter posting a disguised link to goatse.cx could end up with 10 years in jail ?

Re:goatse

[McGiraf]

I'm starting to like this bill ... nah

If you just actually have furby porn on your site

[Jimmy King]

Really, if this results in any change at all, it won't be removal of misleading tags. It's just going to be the addition of a lot of really disturbing porn so that the tags are no longer misleading. Remove the word furby? The hell with that, just get someone to violate a furby and add it to the collection. You're legal and have attracted a bunch of new visitors, both fetishists and people visiting for the "WTF?" factor.

Lemonparty

[mobby_6kl]

I hope they aren't gonna go after them! Lemon party does sounds like something children might want to do, but even more so, it sounds (acts, and looks!) like a political party.

20 years for goatsying kids?

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you fucking kidding me? How long would I get for murdering them? How about punching them?

No government has any right to make a law to control the net. The purpose of the justice system is to stop people from getting hurt and this is a realm of naked ideas, raw information. If ones and zeros can harm you then you're too fragile to exist let alone play on the net.

What about the word "toys"?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm afraid there would need to be a bit of a fight over that one.

Re:What about the word "toys"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Imagine "rabbit toy"... Go ahead, search for that on Google... About half the links on the first page link to adult stores.

Seriously...

[thebdj]

do they even read wtf they are agreeing to...or do they just hear the words porn and children in the same sentence and freak out? Like most laws this uses grossly broad language, almost to the point of being non-enforceable in the US. I seriously do hope this gets challenged and defeated in court, because honestly, laws like this that are meants to "protect the children" are really just another means to assert some level of control...most the people voting for this could really care less and a lot wouldn't vote against this now because it is an election year...

Why not use existing systems?

[Yvan256]

Why are laws always passed by people who keep on re-inventing the wheel (and a square one, too)?

Why not simply make it a requirement for adult websites and search engines to use these:
http://www.safesurf.com/ssplan.htm
http://www.w3.org/PICS/

20 Years?

[mwvdlee]

That's like double the punishment you get for murdering a dozen children you've just videotaped whilst raping?

The real problem...

[joebok]

...is the other way around - those sites that advertise "Free Porn - Nude Celebrities" and when you go to them there are no nudes, no celebrities, no porn, and nothing is free. What a rip!

http://spec.e-horizon.ru/stas/index.html

[MarkByers]

Terrible news for the Barbie/Furbie fetishists out there, to say nothing about being completely impossible to enforce globally.

Perfect Example:

Searching for Barby turns up this Russian site: http://spec.e-horizon.ru/stas/index.html

(They will be wondering why they are getting so many hits all of a sudden!)

Re:http://spec.e-horizon.ru/stas/index.html

[tehcyder]

Love the pixellation.

How big a problem is this?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it a very common problem that creators of porn sites intentionally insert words like 'barbie' and 'pokemon' in order to deceive minors to - do what? Steal their parents' credit cards and pay for it?

From a business profit perspective, this is plainly absurd. How many porn stores would put big Pokemon placards on their windows to 'fool children into coming in'? What business benefit could there possibly be?

From a 'child stalker/obscenity' perspective, I would think this would already be covered by existing laws. I can't imagine we are without laws that prevent adults from tricking children to follow them and showing them porn - are we? And besides, in my years of surfing the seedier pages of the net, I have never come across anything like that, ever.

Re:Congress Once Again Addressing Our Biggest Prob

[garylian]

Well, what did you expect?

The Republican party is in deep shit right now, and they are scrambling to pull out every single bell and whistle they can to survive the mid-term elections. It just goes right along with a bunch of other things they have done.

Not that the Democrats are all that and a bunch of candy.

We need a third political party that can gain a real foothold and make sense to the normal American. One that stops bowing the the radical right AND left.

Hey, if the Pirate Bay can spawn its own political party, why can't /. ?????

In the meantime, encourage people to go out and vote. Congress and the White House are enfused with the stink of stupidity. It's time to clean house(s).

Confused...

[Corson]

"Anyone who includes misleading "words" or "images" intended to confuse a minor into viewing a possibly harmful Web site could be imprisoned for up to 20 years and fined, the bill says."

Is that more or is it less that what a rapist/murderer/pedophile usually gets?

Damn.

[Jugalator]

Damn you! :-(

Stepping Ten Years Into the Past

[robathome]

Someone please enlighten the congresscritters that Furbies are so, like, 1998.

Hack sites = 20 years?

[gmerideth]

Am I missing something here in that the scripters/site hackers can now have a field day by not changing a hacked sites content itself but rather insert in harmless "children" based words into a pages meta tags and get the site operator a twenty-year jail sentance?

If the site operator cannot prove they didn't insert those words they could be in some serious trouble.

Come on people...

[NIN1385]

20 years for maybe being responsible for a kid seeing something they will know everything about soon enough. That is just crazy, there are child molesters that get out sooner than that... and their not even using meta tags to do their thing.

My new "Save The Children" law!

[Alsee]

Any criminal offence relating to sex, pornography, the internet, children, or indecent language, shall have a mandatory minimum prison sentence of 53,631 years, in addition to any other penalties prescribed by law.

-

arrest Cmdr Taco

[Anonymous Coward]

If there is ANY sexual content in this thread, since Barbie and Furby was used in the heading, hence on the site, they would have to arrest Cmdr Taco and the Slashdot editors under this law.

What is the definiton of sexual content? Does mentioning sex or Viagra or such qualify? Does a valid discussion of the use of Barbie on such sites qualify? What about new Barbie-branded Viagra?

I have kids and want to keep them safe, but parental supervision and reasonable precautions are what are required, not more ill-thought laws that are hard to enforce and have no effect globally. This is a rehash of CIPA.

Re:Congress Once Again Addressing Our Biggest Prob

[digitaldc]

Hey, if the Pirate Bay can spawn its own political party, why can't /. ?????

Good idea, we can select our new /. overlords by those with the highest average mod points - a true democracy!

Lame.

[DoctorDyna]

This is just another attempt by the powers that be to aliviate yet one more thing that parents should be responsible for and lay it on technology. While I do agree that it should be illigal for sombody to knowingly meta-tag spam a search engine, I think people are thinking about it the wrong way.

A website that sells tools is not going to create a "Blowjob saw" to get around having the word "blowjob" in their meta tags to fluff their page ranking. Same thing with porn sites that currently use tags like "barbie dolls". I seriously don't think that porn can evolve enough, nor would it, to incorporate enough "normal sounding things" in order to evade a law suit. Sure, a few sites might encorporate the next biggest thing as being "pokemoning" but I don't think that they would do what would be nessesary to avoid the law and incorporate them ALL, as that is what would be nessesary to generate the hits, pump the page rank, inflate the "relevancy" numbers or anything else they REALLY do it for. Trust me, their goal ISN'T to lure your 12 year old daughter to their site to spend money. It's to lure 50,000 12 year old girls to load their intro page.

I want my kids to stay kids as long as they can.

[exp(pi*sqrt(163))]

Orchidectomy should do the trick, at least for the boys.

Confused response

[glrotate]

Particular if you consider how easy it could be to do (you copy the template from some previous site for another site and forget to update the meta tags).

If it was done unintentionally then you would lack the requisite intent and not be guilty.

And who judges whether a tag is valid or not?

The same people who usually make determinations of fact in a criminal trial, the jury.

The only, and obvious, solution to the minor problem of children accessing inappropriate content is for parents to be responsible in how their children can access the net.

Unfortunately, many children are not fortunate enough to have parents who are responsible adults. A civilized society doesn't look at these children and simply say "sucks to be you." Instead we develop laws and policies that strike an appropriate balance between our freedoms and the responsibility we have to help such kids. As such, this seems to be a perfectly reasonable response to the efforts of those who seek to exploit children.

Re:Confused response

[Danse]

Instead we develop laws and policies that strike an appropriate balance between our freedoms and the responsibility we have to help such kids. As such, this seems to be a perfectly reasonable response to the efforts of those who seek to exploit children.

Except that it is (like pretty much all legislation dealing with obscenity and such) extremely vague and therefore almost entirely unenforceable. So, once again Congress has wasted the time and money of taxpayers in pandering to those who are either too stupid to realize what they're doing, or too blinded by their religion to admit that this is absolutely worthless legislation that will likely be struck down by the courts. Of course then the politicians just blame the courts for their own stupidity in crafting legislation that is quite obviously not going to pass muster in the courts. It's not like they don't have a ton of examples of this already. People never seem to catch on though.

Re:Confused response

[martinmcc]

Particular if you consider how easy it could be to do (you copy the template from some previous site for another site and forget to update the meta tags).

"If it was done unintentionally then you would lack the requisite intent and not be guilty."

Indeed, but its hardly something that is clear cut, it is down to someone to decide if they believe you or not.

And who judges whether a tag is valid or not?

"The same people who usually make determinations of fact in a criminal trial, the jury."

No, since someone will need to make that decision before you ever get to a jury.

The only, and obvious, solution to the minor problem of children accessing inappropriate content is for parents to be responsible in how their children can access the net.

"Unfortunately, many children are not fortunate enough to have parents who are responsible adults. A civilized society doesn't look at these children and simply say "sucks to be you." Instead we develop laws and policies that strike an appropriate balance between our freedoms and the responsibility we have to help such kids. As such, this seems to be a perfectly reasonable response to the efforts of those who seek to exploit children."

This is a trickier one. Certainly, there are black and white cases where children need supported beyond their parents, but there is plenty of grey areas in between. People in general are lazy, and the more control that is excerised over a persons responsibility, the more responsibility they will relinquish. Unfortuently, the no government has the resource to properly raise children, therefore a large void appears between what is needed and what is available for children.

This idea is far from resonable. Giving a jail sentence to a person for 20 years for causing little jimmy to accidently see a picture or their arse because they used a few ill advised keywords is not reasonable.

As mentioned in my previous post, I have never come across such a site from innocent keywords. It is creating a whole lot of work to accomplish nothing, while allowing parents think 'oh, the government is making the internet safe, I can let little jimmy sit in his room chatting to his 'friends' safe in the knowledge the good old u s of a will keep him safe'.

Consider this - rather than teaching children to be wary of strangers, should we make giving sweets to children illegal? The former, while I do have some problems with breeding suspicion into minors, is a sensible way of education children to the ways of the world. The latter would have zero impact of child abuse, take finite resources away from other endeavers, and create a false sence of 'things are being done'.

Baby Jesus hating homosexual perverts...

[DesertWolf0132]

I don't know what slays me more, that the same dimwits who think the internet is made of tubes are legislating meta tags, or that these morons believe there are a bunch of deviants on the web trying to give porn to children. These idiots wouldn't know a meta tag if one bit them in the ass.

Porn didn't become a multi-billion dollar industry by marketing to people without the means to pay for it. This legislation "for the children" is nothing more than trying to stave off the ultra right wing fundamentalist wackos that aren't bright enough to realize their kids won't be protected by this at all. These are the same nutjobs who protest at movies they could totally prevent their kids from watching just by being good parents. If you don't want your kid watching porn buy a porn filter. Otherwise your kid will find porn. Christian fundamentalists have huge sexual hang-ups and make things like porn so taboo how could kids not be drawn to it? Tell a kid not to look at something fervently enough and eventually he will look just to see what the fuss is about.

I guess it is better they pass a bill that essentially does nothing instead of completely pandering to whack job hatemongers like Pat Robertson. Imagine if someone like him were in power. Anyone not in church on Sunday would be labeled a perverted homosexual Baby Jesus hater and put on the NSA watch list.

Re:Baby Jesus hating homosexual perverts...

[Delight-Delirium]

I'm gong to second that. Pornographers are NOT trying to lure Barbie/Furbie-searching-aged children into seeing porn. They are not some conven of cackling witches - they are trying to make money - the kind that 10-yr-olds don't have!

Of course, this way they all get to SAY that they helped stop the spread of porn to chilren on the internet, without actually doing anything useful.

The thing is, you say "stop" and "child" and "porn" in the same sentance, and what stays with a person, is that you stopped child porn - a much bigger nad more real issue that this "legislation" does nothing about.

Re:Baby Jesus hating homosexual perverts...

[DesertWolf0132]

Thank you for picking up on that angle. I thought about that after I posted and came to the same conclusion with the words "stop", "child", and "porn" being in the same sentence giving the illusion of stopping child porn. The fact is, legislation is already in place to stop child porn but without some serious funding the enforcement of that legislation is hit-and-miss at best. Legislate an increase in child porn law enforcement. Funding is something Congress knows. Meta tags should be left to those who could tell the difference between a hard drive and a rock at least 2 out of 3 times.

Re:Baby Jesus hating homosexual perverts...

[sgt_doom]

I appreciate all your sentiments, but I suspect you are missing the point. Everything this neocon-controlled congress, and this present administration, has done is to exert an ironclad control and influence over all aspects of our society. There is nothing "Republican" nor "conservative" about any of their actions to date. This bill is a sister bill to the one recently passed by the FTC - dramatically raising the monetary penalty for uttering foul language over the radio waves -- it can and will be used to shut down the remaining few independent radio stations across the country (and at the very least, to intimidate them).

This bill will further exert control over the 'net and can be used in a similar fashion against ISPs. Nothing done by these neocons resides in the realm of stupidity as much as it always enhances their criminal profits and power.

Re:Baby Jesus hating homosexual perverts...

[faolan_devyn_aodfin]

Ever wonder why it takes Congess 160-odd pages to create a law that in essence could easily by phrased in one, maybe two or three pages if you wish to get really detailed? It's freaking rediculous and our taxes go to support this. It's freaking rediculous. There should really be an amendment to the Constitution to ban riders, force our leaders to actually read the bills they propose and debate, accurately title the bill, and be consice when writing the bill. It's funny that even as long as it is it is still pretty vague and that's a sign there is definately something wrong with the way our government functions.

Barbie and Furbie not misleading :)

[davidwr]

"See Girls Gone Wild Down Under! See HOT HOT HOT girls throwing a shrimp on the barbie!"

"We've got P0RN PARAPHANALIA for every taste! Leather! Paddles hard and furbie! Dildos! More!"

Are you a troll or just a fatheaded dumbass?

[mr_mischief]

I was going to mod your post Troll, but I wanted more to make clear why it's a trollish post, so I'll waive the benefit of using mod points in this thread to point that out.

The U.S. House of Representatives does not hold political power over the Israeli Defense Force, over Hezbollah, or over Hamas. The U.S. House of Representatives cannot order the Prime Minister of Israel to withdraw troops. The U.S. House of Representatives cannot order Hezbollah militia members to stop shelling a sovereign country and to stop kidnapping the soldiers of a sovereign country as they have been doing. The U.S. House of Representatives cannot order Hamas to stop strapping bombs to fourteen-year-old boys and sending them into pizza parlors and busses in a sovereign country to kill the civilian populations in Israel.

What's going on in Lebanon and in Gaza is not a war fought by the United States. It is a fight between the uniformed troops of a sovereign nation called Israel and the plainclothes thugs with no governmental authority who keep attacking their people. You can call the Hamas-aligned Palestinian militants freedom fighters if you wish, and I might even be able to see that side of it. Hezbollah, though, left the territory of one sovereign nation to attack the people within the territory of another sovereign nation, and the government of the nation they attacked from did not stop them. That is not freedom fighting. That is an act of war.

All sovereign nations have a duty to protect their citizens from acts of war committed by neighboring countries or forces being harbored by neighboring countries. Israel is no different in this respect than if troops from Panama invaded Nicaragua or if troops from Belgium invaded Denmark. The difference here is that it's not likely you'll ever see Panama invading Nicaragua or Belgium invading Denmark. Israel does have to deal with Hezbollah crossing the border from Lebanon and killing Israelis. If a counterattack is the best way they can find to deal with it, I'll trust their judgment when in that situation themselves more than the judgment of a whiny prick on /. who can't even keep straight which governments are fighting which wars.

Re:Are you a troll or just a fatheaded dumbass?

[dkleinsc]

First off, my remarks weren't intended as a troll, they were intended in a similar vein to the comments that followed, essentially saying there were more important issues for Congress to worry about.

Secondly, when I said that Congress had issues to deal with in Gaza and Lebanon, I wasn't suggesting that they should take any particular side. Since, however, the US government is indirectly involved in this conflict (Secretary Rice's diplomatic efforts, vetoes in the UN Security Council, and selling weapons to Israel to name a few ways), Congress does have every right to consider US actions in response to what is going on, and pass laws or resolutions directing the executive branch to undertake certain actions as a matter of US policy.

Re:Are you a troll or just a fatheaded dumbass?

[Anonymous Coward]

If it is any consolation, not only every relative of the hundreds of women and children recently killed by Israel, and the hundreds of thousands of civilians thrown into poverty, chaos, and disease by Israel, will now hate Israel and the US (who enables Israel with billions of dollars of weapons to kill both Arabs and Moslems every year), but also a fair number of the hundreds of millions of Moslems across the world will feel that the Israel and US are reinforcing the stereotype that they consider Moslems subhuman...

The additional step by Israel of targetting Christian news stations is a nice reminder that they kill not only Moslems, but other Arabs as well.

I truly think Israel is trying to conduct a really weak, half-grade genocide against the Arabs and Moslems of their area, and that they are screwed because they have no real chance of success at genocide, and will continue to reap the devastating consequences of partially attempting genocide. Unsuccessful genocidal attempts can be the most devastatingly retributed actions.

Re:Are you a troll or just a fatheaded dumbass?

[Anonymous Coward]

What's going on in Lebanon and in Gaza is not a war fought by the United States. It is a fight between the uniformed troops of a sovereign nation called Israel and the plainclothes thugs with no governmental authority who keep attacking their people.

Well done for proving your ignorance!

(a) Hamas has governmental authority. It was democratically elected by the Palestinians.
(b) Members of the Hizbollah militia all wear clearly distinguishable uniforms.

But, hey, don't let little facts get in the way of your rants. Offtopic flamewars are no fun if people insist on sticking to the truth, eh?

Isn't this all mooted by search engines anyways?

[Anonymous Coward]

Who uses the meta-tags? I know that I don't when I surf.

Idiots...

[Anonymous Coward]

This will be much easier to enforce than something like, mmm ... what would be an easy fix for this, the .xxx extension or requiring a single meta tag named something like "content:18+" or simply "xxx" to be the first tag in the list.

What about...

[RoloDMonkey]

What about furry 1 | 2?

Corps want the internet back

[Time_Ngler]

Along with the rejection of net-neutrality, this could be construed as a push by the corporations to take back the internet from individuals. The more red tape and legal traps they can set for the unaware individual when posting something to the internet, the less people will voluntarily risk posting.

The reason the corporations would want this is to prevent people speaking out against them or offering free or almost free services that the they could have offered for a fee. Which would be more beneficial to corporations, an internet like it is today, or an internet like the mobile phone networks?

Irony

[Anonymous Coward]

From TFA: [the act would also] Force sex offenders to provide a DNA sample

Isn't this what got them in trouble to begin with?

Will it really help, though?

[stokes]

As much as I hate misleading meta keywords, this legal approach seems to just be blowing smoke. American English has all sorts of crude euphamisms for sexual acts, but most of them are just combinations of multiple, commonplace, non-obscene words. A naive child, unaware of the connotations, could easily combine the words by accident and get something other than what they were intending to find. For example, I've got a little cousin who loves horses; if she were to do a search on the terms "girl" and "pony", she wouldn't get the response she was expecting.

Then again, this is coming from a guy who, while working on a lip-synch script for a 3D animation application, unthinkingly did a search for "facial animation".

It didn't turn up the information I was looking for, either.

OT as AC: Overuse of the term 'logical fallacy.'

[Anonymous Coward]

• Just because you disagree with someone, does not mean that their statement was a "logical fallacy."
• Just because someone's posting was stupid, even that does not make it a logical fallacy.
• In fact, a logical fallacy is a very specific term which only applies to a very narrow definition.
  • Such as "Rain falls up," or "This flame is cold," or "It's good to eat thumbtacks!"
• People who use academic terms out of context, without knowing how wrong they are, look like morons.
• Don't let this happen to you.

Machall ?

[UberHoser]

Digimon Porn :D

A simpler solution?

[KIFulgore]

Why can't the government come up with something simple, like a standardized program that, by law, must be added to sexually explicit web sites? The government provides the program, and web browsers implement the interface and parental control settings to interact with that program.

There would be a lot of gray area and of course this would only work for sites in the US. But we do have television, movie, and video game ratings, maybe it's time for explicit web sites to have a standardized warning system too.

Re:A simpler solution?

[Foobar of Borg]

Why can't the government come up with something simple

I'm sorry, let me read that again...

Why can't the government come up with something simple

Because they are the government. They don't do that sort of thing. Besides, if they actually enacted useful and logically drafted laws, how would they be able to dramatically grandstand for the plebes?

Re:Slashdot v. Digg

[Anonymous Coward]

The pervert/twit/stupid to decent/sensible/intelligent ratio is much better there

LOL. I nearly spit out my coffee reading that (not just using a cliche here, I nearly actually did!).

most probably because average people are better at screening out sick postings like this than the gatekeepers at Slashdot

LOLOLOL!

Are you nuts? Digg is full of hyperbolic sensationalist headlines from people who either have some sort of agenda and ignorant misunderstandings of events from people who simply are without a clue (such as yourself).

As much as I detest the /. editors, they generally are better (which doesn't say much) than Digg's "crowd power".

Friggin Morons Posting Here

[Anonymous Coward]

Alright. I can't force myself to read any more posts from the morons who cannot see beyond the hair in front of their eyes.

If child molesters use candy or kittens to lure kids into their cluthes, should we make posession of them a felony? Hell no. That is just plain ridiculous. However, the act of attempting to kidnap... namely "Attempted Kidnapping" IS a crime.

Where the internet is concerned, things are a litle more difficult and restricted. First off, the internet is essentially two things... text and images. Curently the technology does not exist for the average user (read CHILD) to input an image directly into a search. We can all agree that if someone had registered www.pokemon.net and had the initial index page load up with gay porn without a warning or entry portal... it would be very bad and the owner/developer of the site should be incarcerated. Those that don't agree with that can go screw themselves to death.

This means when kids are looking for things that interest them, they have to use words. They use words that they know; the names of their favorite toys or cartoons. Anyone unscrupulous enough to use the words that kids are most likely to search for, to LURE kids in to websites that contain content kids should not be seeing, should face the same type of penalties as if they had used items that would increase the success of a kidnap attempt.

Useage of the words themselves, is not illegal. Useage of the words to trick underage web surfers is what we are talking about. That is the ACT, not the word. Sure, the list of possible words will be long, but if somoene is found to be using any of these words to attract kids in through search engines, that is proof that they are doing exactly the same thing as using candy or some other lure to physically kidnap a child. THERE IS NO OTHER REASON FOR USING THE WORDS IN QUESTION TO ATTRACT VISITORS THROUGH SEARCH ENGINES TO THE WEB CONTENT IN QUESTION!

OOps... ok, the naked girl in question could be named Barbie... and the site could be selling sex DOLLS... but that doesn't mean the entire concept is blown. It just means that the list has to be carefully thought out.

I applaud the legislation.

Biological reasons?

[Anonymous Coward]

So the gist of your argument is that the rest of the world has to lump it because your parenting skills suck?

Rather than accusing us of being thoughtless, explain to us again why your nine year old child is allowed unsupervised internet access.

Mod parent up

[andrewman327]

I could not agree with you more. What do these pr0n sites have to gain by using these deceptive practices? If you want it, you'll find it. There is virtually no valid reason to use these tags for adult sites.

I used to skip those injury films until I became licensed as an EMT. Now I watch them in class!

Well, Barbie did get her start as a sex-toy...

[Telephone Sanitizer]

http://detritus.net/projects/barbie/facts.htm

"In 1957 Ruth conceives of a three dimensional adult-like doll. The body is based on German doll called "Lilli" which is sold as a sex toy for men."

On the flip side

[edmicman]

Alternatively, I will start using adult and vulgar keywords to lure unsuspecting pr0n purveyors into my collective dolls web store!

why not just allow tld .xxx

[dindi]

Recipe (they did not follow) :

1. allow .xxx and anything there (except torture, kiddy, and other illegally sick stuff)
2. ban any porn content on any other domain

results: you can just ban the whole .xxx domain, and whoever hosts porn outside of it you can just fine, arrest and execute ...

but instead: they did not allow .XXX, and now they will go after people in a sneakier way.

Oh if I set a meta tag
"Barbie takes it from the back" am I in danger? Am I referring to blondie Barbie on the erotic picture doing some stuff, or am I in trouble using the trademark Barbie? Trademark Barbie? It is just a name ...

oh well, I do not event want to know what a furby is ..... no don't say it is not a sextoy, it just sunds like it !!!

Re:why not just allow tld .xxx

[octaene]

I have not followed the 'battle' for the creation of a *.xxx top level domain, but dindi's post seems to be highly logical. I guess that's why the it was overlooked as a solution.

Barbie Twins

[Maxo-Texas]

I can't browse these at work to confirm...
The Barbie twins are not work safe. This law is not constitution safe.

http://www.chalo.net/models/barbie.htm
http://meltingpot.fortunecity.com/montserrat/213/C elebs/BarbieGal1.html
http://public.logicacmg.com/~photoclub/images/othe rs/claire_lazarus/barbietwins.htm

omfgitfr?

[spykemail]

I sincerely hope this is a joke. If anyone can explain to me how 20 years in a federal prison is going to rehabilitate webmasters who use incorrect meta tags I'll give him or her a dollar. Whatever happened to pretending that the punishments fit the crimes? I guess there aren't a lot of porno site admin sympathizers, but seriously, how is this going ot be enforced? Are we going to create the Meta Tag Enforcement Agency (MTEA)? Are they going to lure pron webmasters to the United States with free vacation packages so they can arrest them? Draconian, uneforceable, there just aren't enough adjectives to describe the wrongness of this law.

Sigh... silly politicians, the internet is FOR pron.

However...

[HBI]

If he were wearing a purple dinosaur suit and singing, "Barbie is a sleazy slut for my ejaculation...", they might have a point.

I recently became a parent...

[tumbleweedsi]

I recently became the legal guardian of my 11 year old half brother. This has meant that I had to put my money where my mouth is on certain issues.

I agree that it sucks that a small child can search for a site innocently and end up at a hardcore porn site. I don't however think that the legal attack vector will work or that putting in place Net Nanny style software is the answer.

The answer is simple, it's to be a good parent. That involves a combination of education (a cyber version of the "do not talk to strangers" conversation) and supervision (I monitor what sites my brother visits, not some software).

I used to preach about poor parenting being the root of all evil and since I became a parent my opinions have not changed... the people who complain about their children being vulnerable online are only blaming technology for their own bad parenting and there is no danger in the cyber world which has not been around for ages in the real world and the same steps to keep your kids safe apply in both worlds.

I would not let my brother have unsupervised access to the internet at age 11 any more than I would leave him alone in Soho after dark.

Re:I recently became a parent...

[sgt_doom]

You're completely missing the point! When did this congress (Leave No Child A Dime, Leave No Billionnaire Behind) suddenly become concerned with children??? It's about control over the Internet and the WWW. That's all it is.

what will happen

[Anonymous Coward]

is that over zealous prosecutors on a political mission will use this vague law to make election year points out of some poor slob getting jailed because of his "sorority house barbie" parody that the senior citizens on the jury think is disgusting. Not hard to imagine at all that this law would be abused like crazy.

Think of the children...

[ozbird]

"... Anyone who includes misleading "words" or "images" intended to confuse a minor into viewing a possibly harmful Web site could be imprisoned for up to 20 years and fined, the bill says."

Indeed - the poor dears might be scarred for life if they are exposed to images containing great tits, penduline tits, or even boobies. (And the less said about knockers, the better.)

Sex or Society?

[jefu]

I've seen published claims that exposing children to sex (and things related to sex - at least in some minds -- porn, nudity in the home, seeing their parents have sex, hearing people talk about sex, reading about sex...) is invariably harmful. I always wonder about such claims - is the research funded by people with an agenda? is the research specific to the US where it may not be the sexual exposure itself that is harmful, but rather the response of society to children who know things that the puritans don't want them to know.

Just how perverted and sex obsessed the US and thus how seriously sex information in the hands of children is taken, can be deduced from all the instances of families being harrassed for having pictures of their kids nude in the bath, or skinnydipping. Or the fact that going to a nude beach, or even appearing in public with an erection can (potentially) lead to a man (but rarely a woman) being stigmatized for life by being convicted as a "sex offender".

Personally, I think that making sex and the human body (all parts of it) more accepted and acceptable would help to alleviate many problems in American society.

Re:Sex or Society?

[Khomar]

Personally, I think that making sex and the human body (all parts of it) more accepted and acceptable would help to alleviate many problems in American society.

I think that is taking it to the other extreme and is therefore just as wrong as the first extreme. There are good reasons to limit access to sex -- namely, it can help protect and strengthen marriages. If your only sexual experience is with your spouse, you are less likely to become dissatisfied. Sexual abstinence is designed to protect the minds of people approaching marriage so that the sex with their spouse is elevated and special. Sex should be a beautiful expression of love between a committed man and woman. That is the intent of those who are against pornography, etc.

The problem is that the effort to protect marriage and sex went too far. To keep kids away from sex before marriage, they tried to hide sex entirely. They made everything about it taboo and secretive. For a long time, "sex" was actually a dirty word that no one would say publicly. As a result, it became that proverbial forbidden fruit that made the negative effects even stronger than before. Extremes have a tendency to do this.

Now, however, there is a strong push to the other extreme where sex is allowed to run rampant, be seen everywhere, and is acceptible in all forms. As a result, marriage is being marginalized, and soon will have no meaning at all. This is a serious problem because conclusive studies have shown that children are best raised in a stable home with a married man and woman (the presence of one of each sex is vital to the upbringing of a child). The basic family unit has been the foundation of society since the beginning of time, but by taking sexual freedom to the extreme, we are threatening to destroy this foundation.

What is the answer? I think it is somewhere in the middle. Children need to be taught that sex is a very wonderful thing that needs to be treated with the respect it deserves. It needs to be something that is anticipated and cherished so that when you finally meet your life-mate, it remains the powerful, uniting experience it was always meant to be. Boys need to be raised with the understanding that with sex comes the responsibility of becoming a true father to the offspring that can result. This is why sex should only be pursued in the realm of marriage where that commitment has already been made. It should not be casually pursued or they will approach the responsibilty casually as well. Girls need to be taught that they should expect men to treat them with respect, and that love from a man should involve true commitment. To do anything less is to set them all up for heartache and trouble and to threaten the very existence of our society.

Re:Sex or Society?

[scheming daemons]

Sex should be a beautiful expression of love between a committed man and woman.

There is so much to disagree with in that particular comment.. where to begin?

A. You have no business telling anyone what sex "should" be. Who made you the grand poobah? And don't you dare quote the bible to me... it isn't a book of laws for this country yet (despite the efforts of the Christian Taliban).

B. Sex doesn't have to include love, and love doesn't have to include sex. They often work in conjunction, but neither depends on the other. I've had great sex with someone I love, and great sex with someone I like, and even some awesome sex with someone I didn't care for very much at all.

C. Sex doesn't have to be between a man and a woman, as I'm sure you are aware. You have no business telling two women or men that their sex life is outside the bounds of what "should" occur. Your morality is just that... yours. Keep it to yourself.

Re:Sex or Society?

[scheming daemons]

Sex should be a beautiful expression of love between a committed man and woman.

and it should only be done for the purpose of procreation.... and only "missionary" style... with the lights off... and the covers up....

*yawn*

My enduring dream, if there is actually a God and afterlife, is that you moral-majority types are going to wake up after death on the "other side" and find out that all the angels in heaven are fucking each others brains out every which way and having a ball. And then you'll realize how much time you wasted down here being "chaste" when heaven is just one long everlasting orgy.

Re:Sex or Society?

[Khomar]

Sex doesn't have to be between a man and a woman, as I'm sure you are aware. You have no business telling two women or men that their sex life is outside the bounds of what "should" occur. Your morality is just that... yours. Keep it to yourself.

You obviously didn't read the rest of my post, or you just don't plain want to hear what I was saying. Studies are showing that children raised in a stable home with a father and mother have the best chance for success and are less likely to be involved in drugs, gangs, or crime -- especially when one of them stays home. When children do not have a positive role model from both sexes, they are more likely to get into trouble during their teenage years. This is a fact. What I am saying is that this should be the goal of our society -- to promote an atmosphere that fosters the traditional family.

Sex is one of the primary ways of creating intimacy and unity in a marriage, and it works best when the couple is faithful to one another. It builds mutual trust and closeness that is much more difficult to grow in an "open" relationship. As a result, children are able to be raised in a stable, safe environment. Teaching kids that having sex outside of marriage is dangerous. They run the risk of getting a sexual transmitted disease, teenage pregnancy, and sexual baggage that they will carry with them for the rest of their life making intimacy with a future spouse more difficult. Is it evil of me to want to help people avoid these heartaches? Or put in another way, if you see a car driving toward a bridge that they don't know is washed out, would you try to flag them down and stop them, or would you say that it is their choice to go on?

However, I don't think I really have that much to prove. The traditional male/female family has been the building block of nearly every civilization throughout history. Can you prove to me that your "free" society is better? Can you provide me studies that show that homosexualty adds stability to a society? It sounds good in principle, but when it meets the harsh world of reality it doesn't stand up.

Re:Sex or Society?

[Khomar]

and it should only be done for the purpose of procreation.... and only "missionary" style... with the lights off... and the covers up....

Don't put words into my mouth. Did you not read my post? It was these very additions that you added that I called one of the dangerous extremes. Sex is not something to be hidden or frowned upon... but for the good of society it needs to remain in the realm of a man and woman to build a strong family environment. You want to have a good sex life? Find yourself a life-long partner and go have fun (and a lot of kids!). Some of the most godly Christians I have known have had large families... proof that they knew how to have fun in bed! In fact, studies have shown that married couples have sex far more often than their single counterparts. They have a willing partner who is available virtually 24/7. So what is so bad about this exactly?

There are always limits that need to be paid attention to for us to achieve maximum happiness. Limitations are not the great evil that our relativistic society tries to make them. For example, when confronted with a rich chocolate cake, we all understand that you need to eat in moderation. If you try to consume the whole cake, you will make yourself ill. Instead, you (gasp) cut a small slice. You limit yourself for your own happiness and health's sake. We drive our cars (most of us) in the proper lanes, and we stop at red lights and go on green. We follow the rules because it greatly increases our chances of survival and generally helps us get to our destination effeciently (bad city planning may hinder this). Why should sex and marriage be any different? I love sex. It is a fantastic experience, and I highly recommend it! However, I also recommend that we show the proper restraint to ensure that we get the maximum benefit out of it.

Re:Sex or Society?

[Anonymous Coward]

Mr Khomar, your critical thinking skills are very poor.

They're just sticking their fingers in the dyke

[hey!]

Err. Dike I meant to write dike.

Curse it.

Re:OT as AC: Overuse of the term 'logical fallacy.

[Anonymous Coward]

People who use academic terms out of context, without knowing how wrong they are, look like morons.

No they don't, they look confident and smart (to most people). Do you think any of these Congressmen got into office by allowing their ignorance to limit their vocabulary?

ToonSex

[MrCopilot]

What happens to all the toonsex porn sites. You know, with the Lesbian scenes with Princess Jasmin and Ariel, or Scooby doing Shaggy, or ..... or so I've heard such things exist, not that I actually have seen any of that, uh ... smut.... Yeah thats better.

Often

[phorm]

I've running across links to porn when searching for things such as mummification (school project way back when webcrawler was cool, it came up with bondage sites) or searches for popular things such as software or recent movies. It is still very common for unscrupulous websites to farm thousands of common keywords in order to get up a front-page which will redirect you to:
a) Their product
b) Their ads
c) Their spyware

What has really been pissing me off lately is when looking up common programming issues or error messages I get links to dozens of sites that just link to common, or link to parts of the actual result I am looking for - stolen from a legit site - but no usable answer.

I don't know that a law is the right fix for this, but yeah I could see some of the less scrupulous sites putting up "barbie+pony+furby" metatags and farming for banner views/clicks, and perhaps some repercussions should be available.

Re:Often

[Lord of Hyphens]

What has really been pissing me off lately is when looking up common programming issues or error messages I get links to dozens of sites that just link to common, or link to parts of the actual result I am looking for - stolen from a legit site - but no usable answer.

Oh, you mean like this site? I hate that place. Really do.

I don't know that a law is the right fix for this, but yeah I could see some of the less scrupulous sites putting up "barbie+pony+furby" metatags and farming for banner views/clicks, and perhaps some repercussions should be available.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't most "less scrupulous" sites hosted in, well, places like Russia, Brazil, and other such countries who couldn't care less about the USA's attempts to regulate a series of tubes?

Flexible

[phorm]

There should perhaps be a master index. You can't just hard-code them into the law because the words themselves change, such as the title of a popular movie (for example, a decade ago "Harry Potter" wouldn't be in such big demand), and unscrupulous webmasters do tend to take advantage of this. Perhaps what they need is a page where you can check your own site to see if it passes various tests, but as a law it's still pretty stupid in itself.

Re:OT as AC: Overuse of the term 'logical fallacy.

[Brickwall]

How interesting that of your three examples, not one is a logical fallacy. They are wrong, yes, but not illogical.

A logical fallacy goes along the lines of "Snowball is a pig" "Snowball is white" "Therefore, all pigs are white" to use one very common example. There are many others.

"People who use academic terms out of context, without knowing how wrong they are, look like morons."

Quite.

Banner and click farming

[phorm]

True, but many people are not farming the $2.99 subscription, they are farming for the 10,000 clicks/views at $0.03/each on the banner ads.

I tend to see more of those with movie names or common troubleshooting terms, but it's getting more common and/or annoying.

Why does this matter?

[Haganah]

Who uses Meta-Tags anymore? No search engines, that's for sure... so what difference does it make what anyone uses as a meta-tag? Unless Congress is trying to protect our childrens' sensitive eyes just in case they View Source, I don't see the point.

Bill Maher?

[fuego451]

Bill, is that you?

Use the "Minus"

[Opportunist]

Fortunately, they are so greedy to swallow up EVERY keyword that might at least remotely get you to their page that they overdo it to an extent where you can turn it against them. My solution was to throw a few "-xxx -yyy..." words into my search string, that usually takes care of the issue. Start with "-horny -latex" and develop your own, depending on the pages you visit.

Of course, it COULD be hard to explain to your boss when he's browsing the logs for "bad" words...:)

Re:omfgitfr?:Yet Another Example...

[Garathaan Shield of]

...of the government attempting to control the internet. The problem with this bill is in determining what the intent of the webmaster was in using a particular metatag. It would be very easy to inadvertently use certain "forbidden" words while not intending to "lure" anybody anywhere. The last thing the internet needs is the word police. I see enforcement of this law, if it crystallizes into reality, inconsistent at best. There are far more pressing matters for the government to be focused on, as most people who craft these irrational bills have very little knowledge of internet technology in the first place. I really fear for the future of the Internet.

Klaus Barbie to be presented in a non-harmful way

[Anonymous Coward]

This means that the congress just made nazi revisionism compulsory !

confused

[m874t232]

I'm confused. Would tagging lesbian Barbie with the keyword "Barbie" be legal or illegal?

Of all the people

[houghi]

it is politicians who are against using misleading wording.

Oh! The humanity of it all.

Re:Congress Once Again Addressing Our Biggest Prob

[Cyryathorn]

Congress, with all the problems in the world, focuses on THE most pressing problem right now - misleading meta tags.

Yeah, it's too bad Congress can only address one issue at a time.

First, however...

[Foobar of Borg]

First, however, they need to pass a bill outlawing the use of misleading titles for congressional bills, such as USAPATRIOT Act or THINKOFTHECHILDREN Act or USANUMBERONE Act. But no, this is Congress. They don't think the rule of law actually applies to them.

The 1990s called

[stud9920]

They want their flawed web search approach back

real intent: fear, uncertainty, doubt

[m874t232]

Think about it: the punishment for this "crime", "imprisonment up to 10 years", is the same as voluntary manslaughter.

The real intent of lawmakers creating laws like this is to create fear, uncertainty, and doubt. They know that it is hard to be sure that you are able to comply with the law when you have any sexual content on your site, so they hope that there's going to be less of that content and/or that sex sites are going to hide themselves from search engines out of fear and uncertainty over possible legal action for unintential violations. Furthermore, they hope to be able to use it as an additional threat against operators of sites with sexual content in case they can't get the operator on some other charges.

Uh

[Anonymous Coward]

Why does it seem like our government cares more about the welfare of anyone between the age of an embryo and like 13 moreso than full grown adults? There are far more important things to be discussing, but then again I suppose those "elected" shitheads care more about staying electing and getting erections when thinking about how much power they have.

Re:Uh

[Jerry Rivers]

You answered your own question. Protecting the innocent, or at least appearing to do so, is a sure-fire vote getter akin to kissing babies.

The Semantic Web by Fiat!

[Tetravus]

Looks like our representatives have just accidentally jump started the Semantic Web. As I understand it, the biggest barrier to full implementation of semantic tagging for sites has been the verification of content. With this law in place we can push forward without having to develop autonomous agents that can accurately compare tags with content.

Next up from Congress: A law that criminalizes the under-funding of space exploration ("We MUST protect the children from possible solar events by establishing bases on Mars!")

Not fair.

[raehl]

Americans are only responsible for the BREADTH of copyright law. The length is all the European's fault.

Exactly. It's not only a metaphor; it is literal.

[Anonymous Coward]

I've been really frustrated by various peoples' (I'm looking at you BoingBoing!) coverage of this. Not only is the internet frequently spoken of in terms of those metaphores (I'm looking at you 'pipes'!) it also is literally composed of tubes. In the first case, the congressman (I'm looking at you earlier post in this thread!) in his digression, I think, correct. The second is a little more tricky since while he is probably also correct here, one gets the notion that he might think if someone ripped one of those tubes of the walls, that they could spray passers-by with the stream. That is, I believe that a US Senator from Alaska is going to by implicitly, well, dumb.

In any case, his whole story was obviated when he spoke of his staff sending him an email which arrived several days after they sent it and that, he claimed, was a result of the metaphorical clogging of the pipes, er, tubes. As opposed to dumb, that is merely stupid.

Internet permissions are most_permissive globally

[Richard_J_N]

The whole point of the internet is that it is a global medium for free speech. Therefore, that which is permitted *anywhere* in the world (be it politics, gambling, or pornography) may be accessed from anywhere else. It's high time our law-makers realised, this, and stopped trying to regulate the net. Free speech is binary: you have it, or you don't - and there is no half-way area. So, someone somewhere doesn't like $X on the web. They don't have to look at it!

OMG!!! Ponies!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yay!

This is ridiculous.

[QuantumFTL]

I still don't understand how using the analogy of "tubes" is any different than the analogy of "pipes" which has been used for 40 years to describe abstract data streams from one point to another. The senator didn't know what he was talking about, but it is true that there are FIFO queues involved in the routing process, and that net congestion (especially that caused by spam) can be a serious issue, for some folks at least. The guy may be a crotchedy old moron, but what the hell is wrong with saying "tubes"?

Re:This is ridiculous.

[metternich]

The reason why tubes is not as good an analogy is that pipes usually are full of some sort of liquid, like water, oil or sewage, while tubes are generally empty or mostly empty. Stevens's speech, taken in its entrity, clearly shows that he was just repeating what some TelCo lobbist told him but getting many of the details wrong.

Re:This is ridiculous.

[Anonymous Coward]

"fifo queues"

thats a bit redundant xD

On the right track...

[eth1]

Now we just need a bill to make it a felony for lawmakers to title their bills with misleading names...

What is harmful is the cognitive dissonance...

[cr0sh]

Take a look at advertisements and promotions in the US.

Regardless of the product being sold (shaving cream, butter, cars, liquor, beer, computers, clothing, soft drinks, food, etc), the advertisement will almost invariably have a sexual element to it. Why? Because sex sells products. The advertisers know this, we know this - because it works (unless you're a bastard like me who simply buys whatever is cheapest or works best, regardless of adverts). The actors and actresses involved in making those advertisements are typically young and sexy. Even if they aren't young, they tend to be sexy and good looking.

Ultimately it comes down to "buy our product and you will be sexy and/or get this guy/girl".

But woe be it to those who actually try to act on the feelings these advertisements tease (litterally) out of us. Sure, that girl may be sexy, but if you dare look for too long at a girl on the street who IS sexy, you are a pervert. If you are female and do the same, you a slut or whore. If you discuss sex, want sex, get sex, do sex, act sexy, are sexy - you are labeled "bad" - but buy our products anyhow, please?

Sex=Bad, Sex=Product=Good, cognitive dissonance reigns supreme...

All of this is shown to our children, and they make the connections, and see the illogic of it, and those who have children can't explain it to their kids because they would have to explain sex, and Sex=Bad, remember? These commercials and advertisements, that our children can see and understand (magazine covers, radio ads, department store flyers, commercials on TV, even shows targetting children it sometimes seems, because parents inevitably watch them, too) - they all have a sexual element to them, to sell the product.

The adverts say "sex is good, consume our products, sex is good", while society and parents scream about "SEX IS BAAAAD - THINK ABOUT THE CHIIIIIILLLLLLDDDDDRRRRRREEEENNNN!!!!"

Meanwhile pornography in the US is one of the growth industries during a recession (like it has never been a growth industry, no pun intended). But remember - Sex=Bad, but Sex=Product=Good (hmm, maybe this is why porn is consumed here in the US, because it is the ultimate expression of Sex as a Product?)...

Our children see all of this, take all of this in, and we punish them for exhibiting any sexual urges, though it is undeniable that they are or ultimately will become sexual beings. The cognitive dissonance, the view of the hypocrisy, without the understanding of its existence (not to mention the why or how of it - I understand its existence, but I can't even honestly answer the why or how, and any answer I could give probably isn't half the story) - is it any wonder our children are confused?

Is it any wonder the adults are, too...? Pass the soma, please...

Re:What is harmful is the cognitive dissonance...

[yuriismaster]

Meanwhile pornography in the US is one of the growth industries during a recession (like it has never been a growth industry, no pun intended). But remember - Sex=Bad, but Sex=Product=Good (hmm, maybe this is why porn is consumed here in the US, because it is the ultimate expression of Sex as a Product?)...

You make an excellent point here, and really this extends to all products. If Sex = Bad in the 'real world', and people are, by nature, sexual people, the only outlet they have is the Products (Sex = Products). By keeping sex in the real world bad, the only indulgence method in the US for sex is consumerism... wow. That is the most disturbing principle I have heard in my lifetime.

Key wird "intended"

[Irvu]

Anyone who includes misleading "words" or "images" intended to confuse a minor into viewing a possibly harmful Web site could be imprisoned for up to 20 years and fined, the bill says.

From the bill iself (pp 157):

SEC. 703. DECEPTION BY EMBEDDED WORDS OR IMAGES.
(a) IN GENERAL.--Chapter 110 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 2252B the following:
'' 2252C. Misleading words or digital images on the Internet
''(a) IN GENERAL.--Whoever knowingly embeds words or digital images into the source code of a website with the intent to deceive a person into viewing material constituting obscenity shall be fined under this title and imprisoned for not more than 10 years.
''(b) MINORS.--Whoever knowingly embeds words or digital images into the source code of a website with the intent to deceive a minor into viewing material harmful to minors on the Internet shall be fined under this title and imprisoned for not more than 20 years.

"Intended" is the key word here. If I put up a website with people in Barney costumes having sex, the jury would have to prove that I did so in order to lure children there and not to satisfy my own tastes. Proving intention is a legal minefield and is so difficult to cross that it only seems to occur when the jury and judge are already biased against the defendant unfairly (see the Lisl Auman case). Or in cases where the crime is so much of a showpiece that the charge is thrown in.

I predict that (this aspect of the law) will only show up in showpiece cases where some DA who is seeking higher office is attacking some guy in a Pikachu suit to show his "moral fiber" or in civil suits where someone who should have been parenting not watching TV wants a cut.

In either case such a weak joke of a law will do exactly nothing to protect children.

Re:Key wird "intended"

[Winlin]

"Proving intention is a legal minefield and is so difficult to cross that it only seems to occur when the jury and judge are already biased against the defendant unfairly"

      Like, oh I dunno...say a case where the person is a filthy pornographer? Just goes right to that hardwired 'think of the children' area of the juries' brains. Technically they would have to prove your intent...in reality, the burden would all be on you.

Re:Key wird "intended"

[Irvu]

Not nearly the same. Simply screaming "think of the children" rarely works out as well in a courtroom as it does on TV. Yes the jury can be swayed against people but any DA that isn't just going for public points is going to want something more to stand on than that. And any judge worth his salt shouldn't allow the kind of "Think of the children" screaming to occur in his/her courtroom.

As a Barbie collector....

[porcupine8]

I'm familiar with Mattel's long history of being overzealous in protecting their copyright, to the point of protecting it from things that are not actually infringements, such as people posting photographs of the Barbies they personally own or creating parodies.

So I would not put it past them to have worked hard to support this bill. Just think - if someone is selling Barbies remade as bondage dolls (which I've seen, pretty cool stuff) or using Barbies in their erotic artwork, now Mattel doesn't just have to sue them! Now Mattel can sick the government on them and have them thrown in jail for misleading children into thinking their website is innocent and child-friendly!

(Of course, most people doing this long ago stopped using the word Barbie anywhere on their site or anything associated with their artwork, because Mattel was sending C&D letters left and right. But this way Mattel has more tools to catch anyone new to the Barbie-defiling field.)

Missing a vital argument here....

[catdevnull]

I've been reading through the thread and everyone is adding their two cents about how this law is so stupid, infringes upon free speech, and how unenforceable it is.

All that is definitely true--but I think we're overlooking something very subtle about this sort of legislation: traction for prosecution.

Sure, no one will be able to enforce this but prosecuting attorneys can stick it to somebody who might have been busted for something else or doing pretty much what the law says it's protecting against.

It's kind of in the same "Catch 22" category as the law against not paying taxes for money earned selling illegal drugs, etc. It might not be enforced all the time, but it's icing on the cake for sentencing time.

Law makers aren't always as dumb as we think they are.

Europe vs. U.S.

[Anonymous Coward]

In Germany: fines for promoting Jewish-hatred.
In the U.S.: 20 years in prison for promoting Barbie-porn!??!?

Ridiculous exemptions from free speech: 10-1 for U.S.

I may understand the German policy because of Holocaust... but, when and where did we have Barbiecaust in U.S.?

Define "sexual content"

[Dareth]

Just getting a definiton of "sexual content" will be difficult enough. How do sites that are aggregates, made of different pieces from different people/providers be treated if they somehow meet this criteria?

Some quick examples:

A children's site has some banner ads and an adult ad "creeps" into the mix. Who is at fault?
Myspace page featuring Barbie and Furbies, but has by some definitions "sexual content" in the form of dating ads?

Site is vandalised and defaced. Who is at fault?

Since it is only going to be used selectively as a stick most people won't care. But the people being hit with the stick will most likely not like it.

Database Part Makes Good Marketing Tool

[cyberscan]

The part of the law creating a database of sexual offenders is a good marketing tool for PORNO DISTRIBUTERS!!! Just think, they now have a free tool to collect the names and addressess of tens or hundreds of thousand potential customers. Ahh! just think, some creep who sells kiddy pr0n now only needs to consult the database and give out samples of product. A nice way to hurt kids at taxpayer expense!!! That monster in Florida, Cooley was on the state's sex offender website, but what good did that do for nine years old Jessica Lundsford? She was raped and and murdered by being buried alive just the same!!! Rather than creating a sex offender database, it would have been better to keep that monster locked away for life for his previous crime. If this were the case, Jessica would be alive today. But NO, lawmakers prefer to pass unconstitutional, feel-good laws that do more harm than good.

Congress critters and others with power should think about the consequences of passing unconstitutional laws. This law can definity infringe on the right to pursue happiness as this not only ostricises the offender, but it also hurts people in his or her neighborhood as it can severely reduce property values. A sex offender lived near my old house, and the registry might be the reason why I could not sell the place. It also denies those who have served their time the equal protection of the law. Those wrongfully convicted are now legally slandered by their own government with no opportunity for rebuttal. If I was to go around an post signs stating that Bush is a child rapist, I could be sued for lible. However, when the government does this to a wrongfully convicted person, there is no recourse for the person slandered.

Despite what people think, most people accused of sex crimes do not get a fair trial, especially when the alleged victim is a child. Their RIGHT to confront their accuser can be suppressed at the whim of the judge. Also, in many cases, the seating arangement of the alleged victim in relation to others in the court is designed to create jury sympathy for the alleged victim as well as dislike for the alleged criminal. I know this for a fact because I had a roommate in the Nave who was accused of molesting a child. His lawyers told him that he would definitely be going to prison because the evidence against him was "overwhelming." His fate was virtually sealed, and he would have gone to prison except the child had a twinge of conscience and admitted that she lied. It turns out that forensic evidence used to prove rape resulted from the girl's voluntary intercopurse with her 14 years old boyfriend.

If a person does get a fair trial and is convicted of rape, child molesting, etc, there should be only two sentences given. One is life without parole, or death (if guilt is absolutely proven). A person convicted should have ample opportunity to appeal. Many neocons would think that I am a coddler of child molesters, etc. but I am not. I believe that punishment should be appropriate for the crime and that sex offender databases set some very insideous legal precedents. Imagine how easy it would be to have shoplifter forced to register in a shoplifter's database. What about laws that permantly restrict where a shoplifter can live, work or play (much like those convicted of sex crimes even after sentence is served)? What about same type of laws applying to speeders? The slope is indeed slippery.

http://www.fija.org/ Judge the law as well as the facts!!!

http://www.constitutionparty.org/ An alternative to "voting for the lessor of two evils."

http://www.lp.org/ Another alternative to the "lessor of two evils."

interesting read

[N3wsByt3]

I only wonjder why you posted it as anonymous coward? I mean, it's not unreasonable, what you say, and it reflects reality better then those prudes-from-the-USA-beneath-the-bible-belt.
Or is THAT the reason you posted as such? ;-)

In europe, however, you expressed a moderate view. I would even go as far as being a bit more tolerant in respect to your: "In fact, my 14 year old son has in the past and it was not by accident. He was actively looking for it. I noticed it in my squid logs and he got a form of talking and punishment from me."

I mean, it would depend on what exactly was the kind of porn I guess, but, let's face it: as boys we all began looking for that kind of stuff around that age. Sure, internet didn't exist yet, but then we tried to get our hands on Playboys, or something. It's just a quite natural and normal thing to do, so I don't see why people should be punished for it (mostly this leads to avoiding, as you yourself demonstrated with his linux-attempt). Sure, some 'serious talk' may be in place, but to expect a 14-year old teenager to abandon searching for any porn would be naive, and even hypocrite, seen the fact most of us did (or would have done) the same thing at that age.

Of course, I don't know the exact circumstances (maybe it was really over-the-top porn or something), but still, the general line of thought on the matter should be clear: it's often better to have a talk and place things in a right context, then to outright forbid it.

Attention you sick bastards...

[Cervantes]

I was always told that the longer the jail term, the worse the crime.

Therefore, all you sick bastards, instead of planting malicious meta tags to lure children to your sick web pages, please take the government-approved route, and either rape or kill said children. In the alternative, you can find someone who is 18 or over, in which case you can both rape and kill them (but only in that order, sayeth Uncle Sam). All of those activities have lighter punishments than your evil bastard meta tags.
Also, consider driving into a school bus at 140mph, or even a school, whilst drunk. Or plow through a crosswalk. Or run around hitting random people on the head with a hammer. Start urinating out your office window, kill endangered animals with high-power automatic assault rifles, scam your company and drain your businesses retirement fund of billions of dollars... go sell a few pounds of crack or some lsd (but not meth!), have sex with a donkey, bust into ladies washrooms with a camera, spy on people in hotel rooms, steal power and cable services, dump large loads of human waste in front of your city hall, or have large amounts of deviant public sex whereever you can.

But, for the love of god... no ill-chosen meta-tags!

shhhttt! Don't say that obvious truth!

[N3wsByt3]

Next thing, you'll correctly point out that teenagers don't just suddenly become interested in sexual things (including pornsites) the moment they turn 18! Or that most adults of today were just as inquisitive (not to say horny) when they were 16 or younger themselves!

We, the prudes beneath the bible-belt, won't have you say those common facts! It destroys our save-the-children mantra!

No, no: people, including kids, stumble unwittingly on pornsites while searching for the newest barbie-doll or Pokemon! They must be protected from all that stumbling - especially the recurrent stumbling, as it seems they often can't be helped wanting to be traumatised by reviewing that false Pokemon-site over and over again, probably in the vain hope that Picachu must be *somewhere* there...

And the best way to protect everyone, and especially those traumatised kids (always think of the children!), is to forbid the words itself, obviously, *not* to ask pornsites to do an effort to restrict access according to age, or God forbid, to expect parents to watch what their kids are doing. No, that would be far to reasonable, and we, prudes beneath-the-bible-belt can't stand for such a thing!

Whitehouse

[metamatic]

I seem to remember a site called "Whitehouse.com" (not .gov) that was a porn site whose name was designed to get hits from those who were not looking for porn, especially children.

Maybe. However, Whitehouse is the name of a bestselling porn magazine in the UK. It's named after Mary Whitehouse, and has been sold for decades. It would be perfectly legitimate for them to have their online presence at whitehouse.com, yes?

hear, hear

[N3wsByt3]

"This has got to be the funniest thing that I've read today. If my boy was really interested in it, then he should be able to find my storage directory that has gigs of that type of data. My son shouldn't have to search the internet for what is already on the local computer!"

The most sensible and rational thing I heard in ages, concerning this topic. (Well, ok, not ages: I remember some USA rap-star saying more or less the same thing about his kid).

In any case, I bet you're not some below-the-bible-belt USA citizen.

It's really crazy for europeans to see some americans making a fool out of themselves trying to prohibit and forbid that what comes natural at a certain age, most notably when you become a teenager.

Sure, it depends on the age and the kind of porn, and often a 'talk' is in order... but for gods' sake, do people forget how they themselves were at that age?! I've never understood the panicked reaction of some USA-prudes to the fact that kids grow up and might do what comes natural; searching for sexually tinted stuff. For ages and ages young (and old ;-) people have done that, and yet some still act as if it's a deadly sin for which punishment is in order. I can NOT believe all those adults shouting about 'protection' did not do the same when they were 14. Sure, we hadn't internet at the time, but we tried to get our hands on Playboys and the like, then.

It should be the parents who watches their kids (and not sites who have to watch their words in metatags), and decide what's appropriate for what age, but I'm getting a bit tired from all the hypocrisy that is shown by bible-belt twats. Let me help you guys out of a dream: our kids don't stumble on pornsites because they were looking for the latest Barbie-model or for the newest Pokemon-card, ok?

And, as the parent poster indicates, there is no reason to get panicked, nor to punish the kids for it. That's like in the 60ies, when kids were punished when they masturbated (evil! unhealthy!, etc.); a quite futile effort that made much more harm then (imagined) good. The only law necessary, would be one where the parents have to watch what their kids are up to, and have a alk with them about certain issues, when appropriate - and without being hypocritical about it.

But hey, it's much more simple to outright forbid sites to use 'innocent' words!

So, 20 years for Goatse trolls?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's stupid because it's unenforcable, etc., but heh, what do you suppose someone in congress got annoyed by accidentally clicking on a goatse troll?

Trademark law should deal with this already...

[SonicSpike]

The basis for US trademark law is the idea of limiting confusion in the market place. The threshold for having an unregistered trademark is simply "to use in commerce"

So if I start selling coffee on the street corner and call it Matt's Coffee, and someone 3 months later sets up a shop across the street also called "Matt's Coffee" then I can sue them for trademark infringment.

That being said, using metadata which includes trademarks should already be considered unlawful under current trademark law, unless there is a court ruling in which I am unaware of that provides an opposite standing. In other words, any judge/court will look at it and say that these metatags are "causing confusion in the marketplace" and rule against the defendent.

IANAL but I have taken a few copyright law courses.

Speaking of misleading meta tags...

[Atario]

a bill named the "Child Protection and Safety Act"

Speaking of misleading meta tags...

Think of the children!

[Mantrid42]

Thanks to this new law, children will never ever be able to find porn! On the internet. THE INTERNET.

Re:They can block and/or punish free speech

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess I'm an AC for today, since I don't know who I am (on /.) anymore ...

Freedom of speech, and of the press, and peaceful assembly, and even the petitioning for redress of grievances may have not been abridged, but they have certainly been codified and regulated....

Not that I'm saying it's right to do so, but it's happened before, and it's likely to happen more and more frequently until people who are not lawyers get elected to office.

You are all wrong!

[ImaLamer]

Dammit, it's because a US Senator already coined the phrase Information Superhighway to describe the world-wide packet switching network he invented. He created the term when he was Vice-President, but he actually invented the damn thing back in the Senate.

It's a highway. You put your stuff in the dump trucks, you hear me Senator Stevens! The dump trucks take your information along the superhighway and that is how it works.

Pipes, tubes, dump trucks; it's a god damn highway.

The last capital crime...

[RecycledElectrons]

I don't know that this is relevant, but it seems funny.

According to L. Neil Smith's "Forge of the Elders" the last capital crime on the Elder's world was for a politician to misuse the word "emergency."

Andy Out!

the anti-goatse.cx law

[peccary]

That's really what this is about. 10 years for intentionally tricking someone into viewing obscene materials. Funny thing is ... I'm torn between my libertarian instincts and my desire to stake a goatse bandit out on a hill of fire ants.

This isn't about children...

[Anonymous Coward]

This is about protecting corporate trademarks against misuse.

For example, Microsoft meta tagged porn site could in some weird scenario be embarassing to M$ - Thanks to the new bill they can tip the site off to government and put people behind it out of action for a loooooong time.

Basically what the law does is give more power to corporations in defining language, especially if you consider the broadness of the content that could be possibly seen as 'naughty'.

What's bad is that this reflects globally because english is (unfortunately?) the web standard.