RSS
Congress Says Porn Domain Names Must Be Clear
from the hmm... dept
Congress today passed some legislation having to do with online porn. Among the less talked about clauses is one that says you can go to jail if your domain name is "misleading" and has porn on it. At first, this doesn't seem like a huge deal, but when you begin to think through the details, it can be problematic. First, it's incredibly subjective on both important words. How do you determine what is "misleading". How do you determine what is "porn"? In both cases there will be some situations where it's obvious, but there are plenty of "fine line" cases that will depend very much on interpretation. What if someone puts up "erotic art" on a website that uses their name as the domain name. It could be considered misleading because the domain name doesn't make it clear what the content is. It could be considered porn, depending on local standards. However, most people would have trouble believing the owner of such a site deserves to spend time in jail. There are just too many ways this law can be abused - and having seen how previous internet laws have been abused, I have a hard time believing this one won't be.
5 Comments | Leave a Comment..
- Schrödinger's Download: Whether Or Not An iTunes Music Sale Is A 'Sale' Depends On Who's Suing
- We Don't Have A 'Wild West' Internet Now, But We Will If SOPA Or Similar Is Passed
- One Nation, Under Guard
- Supreme Court Denies Appeal For The Pirate Bay Founders
- White House Says It Can't Comment On Possible Chris Dodd Investigation
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
The real reason
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: The real reason
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Bad link, Mike! :P
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Interpretation
A workable alternative (that I've considered for years), is to require adult websites to use an alternate domain like ".xxx". This would require 2 things:
1st, a legitimate interest in making for-profit adult entertainment sites easier to determine (thereby acknowledging that Internet pornography as a legitimate business.)
And 2, a governing body to regulate and enforce this statute. I don't know if ICANN would be up to this task, so it may require more bureaucracy.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Bad link, Mike! :P
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Add Your Comment