Slashdot Mirror


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.

12 of 473 comments (clear)

  1. Step in the right direction by andrewman327 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

    --
    Information wants a fueled airplane waiting at the hangar and no one gets hurt.
  2. Anybody want to start an over/under on how much... by BlackCobra43 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    --
    I never spellcheck and I freely admit it. Save your karma for more worthwhile "lol erorrs" replies
  3. Re:What about all the other Barbies? by ettlz · · Score: 1, Interesting

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

  4. Re:They can block and/or punish consumption by Knuckles · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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!

    --
    "When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
  5. Re:They can block and/or punish consumption by Knuckles · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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?

    --
    "When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
  6. If you just actually have furby porn on your site by Jimmy+King · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

  7. Re:Congresscritter mentality by mobby_6kl · · Score: 2, Interesting
    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?
  8. Re:So? by Jaysyn · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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

    --
    There is a war going on for your mind.
  9. Re:But is there actually a problem? by smitth1276 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

  10. Well, Barbie did get her start as a sex-toy... by Telephone+Sanitizer · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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."

  11. Re:Sex != Harmful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

  12. Re:Sex != Harmful by Opportunist · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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".

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.