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

[Jel]

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.

[Useless]

Originally Posted by Jel

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

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!"

Originally Posted by Jel

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)

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.

[Jel]

Originally Posted by Useless Warrior

We shouldn't have to watch them constantly.

100% agreed. It's quite 'funny' if ya know what I mean - if I had a 10 year old son, I'd be less concerned (to a degree) if he happened upon a porn site than if I knew my daughter had.

It's just those small number (as per your rotten.com example earlier) of people who want maximum exposure, regardless that get me 'at it' lol. A purposeful click (enquiring minds etc.) as opposed to a click on to a site that portrays itself as something else is .... not quite right (can ya tell my vocabulary is limited to say the least?).

Anyhow, digressing here, to me the proposed thingummyjig is good, it's now down to whether the current US Govt. stretch the letter to fulfil their own agenda(s).

[walrus]

Originally Posted by Jel

Anyhow, digressing here, to me the proposed thingummyjig is good, it's now down to whether the current US Govt. stretch the letter to fulfil their own agenda(s).

I'm not sure I would ever classify it as good when a government wants to control what words can be used in any situation. Especially when that country and it's government is based on the priciples of democracy and freedom of speech.

[virgohippy]

Originally Posted by walrus

I'm not sure I would ever classify it as good when a government wants to control what words can be used in any situation. Especially when that country and it's government is based on the priciples of democracy and freedom of speech.

I couldn't agree more.