federal felony for Webmasters to use innocent words like "Barbie" or "Furby"
 

Does that mean you have to promote Lanny Barbie as "Lanny Bar*ie" from now?

Well, that's not scary. |shocking|

I'd like to believe that they really mean to go after those who intentionally use those types of words to lure in every possible surfer, but I fear that the U.S. govt won't stop there.

That's it - I'm going to work at Wal-Mart.

Now there's a comferting thought for you guys...
Boy am I glad to be living across the ocean!

Maybe they should also ban the word crime, then we all would be protected from it for ever!

Yeah, I'm having trouble trying to setup a PPC SE campaign because they won't allow non-adult words to be used for flagged adult sites. So they are disallowing searches for "X+Y+Z" where the adult domain name is XYZ.com|huh

I never could understand why people use domains or keywords that will draw children in. At the very, very least, they don't have credit cards. Much more importanly, it's just wrong.

|banghead| I just used the word "furby" last night in a blog post.. not because i wanted to draw non paying children but to reference plushies.. dammit.. :D

|thumb

I remember a few years ago the owner of Rotten.com brought some heat upon himself by purchasing (and pointing) a domain which was a mispelling of a very popular toy company's domain. Now, if anyone wants to talk about a site that could be harmful to children - that's the site. That place gives adults nightmares. That's the kind of shit the gov't SHOULD be going after. (the domain pointing, not the content of the site) Maybe he was attempting to lure in the parents, but damn, you've got to be smarter than that. It was a bad move in many ways.

I dont have a problem with this
the word intent is all over this

so if your taking other steps like labeling your pages they will never be able to prove any bad intent

I agree with Tommy 100%
i never intend for children to see any of the sites we have but if we have a model who is wearing hello kitty panties i might mention it.


spaz

As long as you can successfully prove your intent to a jury of your non-porn selling peers, you can go ahead and say whatever you want on your pages. "Intent" is going to be used in the manner that "obscene" is being used right now. They, not we, are going to decide what your intent it is.

Of course the intention is good. I mean protecting children is one of the most important things there is.

But how can this make sense? banning words? what happened to freedom of speech?

And imo all sites / site owners that try to draw in children should be prosecuted, not just the ones who are using the word barbie or something.

P.S. should we all be worried about out "toys" category?

seriously! what porn company is actually trying to lure children onto their sites?? What would be the point?

Kid visits your site - they can't join they dont have a credit card
kid steals parents credit card to join a site and the parents charge back

the entire 'protecting children argument' is about as lame as they come. The simple fact of the matter is the only people trying to lure children are the ones who want to want to harm them in the first place. No adult company is interested in anyone under the age of eighteen because we cant use them as content and we cant get them to join our sites.

'Protecting minors' is the red herring the far right uses as its main weapon in its aresenal against the adult industry.


spaz

I'm not really sure why a porn website would want to lure just anyone there...if they don't have a credit card, I'm not interested in them, but I'm sure some webmasters use anything and everything to draw attention to themselves.

As long as there's no frivilous use of this, then I don't really have a problem with it.

Fuck!

And in California we can already look up sex offenders by area. I put in my buddies address and sent him a screenshot of his house absolutely surrounded by them. It was comedy gold. |thumb

I quit using words such as toy when I noticed an adult toy store had the # 3 Google spot. However, there are still many words used to describe things that could easily be taken out of context such as sweet, girlfriend, babe, skirt, cute, furry ....

How do you even mention starlets (as mentioned above) with names like Barbie, Lords or Candy?

I want to read the exact law first. If it's clear that intent has to be part of it then I'm all for it. I don't want kids poking around my sites but I'd hate to get busted for promoting a starlet that has chosen a bad name. I've never really liked the idea of the choosing names like Bambi and Candy any way.

OK, I am about to take on the role of the prosecution in the case of DOJ vs. SimpsonTwins.com:

"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury...it is clear that Mr. Evil Webmaster used the words "Simpson" from the cartoon and "twins" from the Olsen Twins with the INTENT to lure undergae surfers to their porn sites!"

Yeah, I agree with Tommy as well. BUT, we all know the Gov't is heading down the path to a "quiet" (as in it's not going to be told on by media news outright) Orwellian response to it's citizens. I definitly agree that ANY use of wording that is meant to lure children into an adult site for any reason should be grounds for jailing the shitballs responsable for up to 50 years or more. BUT, that does not mean it should give the Gov't ANY right to throw US all (and I mean adult webmasters who run legit businesses and sites) into the same category. For gods sakes, what ever happened to useing common sense and justice?

I have my pages labeled and have also included a FAQ by ASACP, also a link to report any type of suspected sites period, of that kind of low-life activity...I encourage people to do it too. I have reported many sites I've come across at other webmaster resource sites for listing underage shit etc., and I'll continue to do so for as long as it takes.

Just my 2cents |greenguy|

Not a bad idea. |thumb

yeah....because christ knows that porn and sex kill more kids each year the violence and drug usage right?|huh along with stepparents beating and killing their step kids(the cinderella effect).

you're fighting the wrong war.

let's compare stats shall we...you gather up all the kids killed each year by porn....and I'll do the same for stepparents and drug usage. you want 50 years? how about pelican bay if you're wrong?|shocking|

What, and face the grim truth?

http://www.yesican.org/news.html

Not sure what kids being killed by porn has to do with anything.

If my 10 year old daughter is searching for barbie on google (and no, I wouldn't let her anywhere near the internet unsupervised, but that's a whole other argument) and up pops 'Lanny Barbie Fucks A Certain Clueless Cunt In The ass With A Strapon' as the title of one of the results, with the captured text along the lines of 'porn superstar lannie barbie dons a lethal strapon and tears into the webmasters most revered assclown's asshole....' then I'd be shocked as fuck if she felt like clicking on it. No intent to mislead there at all.

If the title was 'Barbie, Barbie Do*ls, Barbie T*ys' and the text was some spammy shit like gets pulled, with no indication of it going to a pornsite until you click the link and get redirected to porn, or porn on an innocent sounding domain, then yeah, 50 years is good for me.

I do see your arguments that it's all too easy for Bush & Co to bend the rules to interpret things in their own way, which is more an argument against Bush & Co than an argument about the proposed law imho.

Anti porn laws wrapped in child protection laws. Seems to be the new theme for the DOJ. The sad thing is that they could be working WITH the adult industry to catch child preditors and protect children. But thats not really their point is it. Just another case of rich politicians that care more about votes and lining their pockets than they do about the United States.

Yeah, that's a tad off topic. We might as well throw global warming into the discussion while were at it. "The planet is dying and here they are worrying about internet porn!"

I have two children around that age and they both spend a fair amount of time playing on the internet - quite unsupervised. We shouldn't have to watch them constantly. Their homepage is Google and it's set safe search. No other filtering software (yet). So far, I've been lucky. I do have a minor fear that my son will do one of his 1 million searches for H0t Wh33ls and get a pic gallery of a girl and a car with the description of "Sexy naked chick showing off next to some h0t whee|s." I know seeing pics of naked people won't harm him - I just don't want to discuss it with him yet.|loony|

This may be the only new law that I wouldn't label as blatantly anti-porn. I would call it anti-cocksucker. Whether or not the gov't chooses to follow the letter of the law is a whole other thing. There are people out there who are either completely mindless, or are intentionally doing all they can to draw in every possible surfer. Are they attempting to lure children into their porn sites? I don't think so. My belief is that people who use keywords and phrases which pull underage traffic, do so intending to find the PARENTS who may be searching for gifts and what-not. But that is a hazardous game to play. Proving intent is going to be a bitch for any prosecutor.

I definately agree that the gov't should form some type of relationship with the industry, just as they would with any other. But the politics of the game won't allow it. As long as crucifixes hang on peoples' walls, we'll be having stones hurled in our general direction.