NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002252---B000-.html

Big brother is watching you... Pulling your arse open.

What do you guys think?

If i never see goatse again it will be too soon.

You have a problem with punishing people who do that? That tells me a lot.

So sending out the lemonparty link is illegal now?

Oh, they got me good. Time to start goatse spamming on public computers instead of my own.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002252---B000-.html

Big brother is watching you... Pulling your arse open.

What do you guys think?
That sucks. Is tubgirl still OK?

Nobody sees anything wrong with subjecting kids to that. ahhh...the forum...you will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy.

So sending out the lemonparty link is illegal now?

But that's the funniest picture on the internet. :(

Nobody sees anything wrong with subjecting kids to that. ahhh...the forum...you will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy.

Meh, the kind of forums where someone would hit you with a goatse link probably shouldn't be accessed by young kids anyway.

Would you send your kid alone in to Mos Eisley?

If i never see goatse again it will be too soon.
This is that American Idol thing, right? *shudder*

This just means the free world shall be your obscene spammers now!

That sucks. Is tubgirl still OK?
How about meatspin?

My website's screwed. I swear a lot on it, and the basic decription of it is "AWESOME!!!!".

How about meatspin?

If you're dumb enough to go to a site like Meatspin/Mudfall/Youaresogay you deserve what you're subjected to.

*crack that whip!*

This is that American Idol thing, right? *shudder*

Thats the one that led to American Idol.

How about meatspin?

I think the name shows whats on the webpage

This is that American Idol thing, right? *shudder*
Holy crap I wish it was. I'd love to hear that Simon dude critique Goatse.

Nobody sees anything wrong with subjecting kids to that. ahhh...the forum...you will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy.

YAY! :D

Meh, the kind of forums where someone would hit you with a goatse link probably shouldn't be accessed by young kids anyway.

Would you send your kid alone in to Mos Eisley?

ah, but read what the law says. It has nothing to do with "probably" or "forums".

I would never send anyone to Mos Eisley...that bar scene does remind me of my high school days though..

*Wonders who read the link...*
(a) Whoever knowingly uses a misleading domain name on the Internet with the intent to deceive a person into viewing material constituting obscenity shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.
(b) Whoever knowingly uses a misleading domain name on the Internet with the intent to deceive a minor into viewing material that is harmful to minors on the Internet shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 4 years, or both.
(c) For the purposes of this section, a domain name that includes a word or words to indicate the sexual content of the site, such as “sex” or “porn”, is not misleading.
(d) For the purposes of this section, the term “material that is harmful to minors” means any communication, consisting of nudity, sex, or excretion, that, taken as a whole and with reference to its context—
(1) predominantly appeals to a prurient interest of minors;
(2) is patently offensive to prevailing standards in the adult community as a whole with respect to what is suitable material for minors; and
(3) lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors.
(e) For the purposes of subsection (d), the term “sex” means acts of masturbation, sexual intercourse, or physcial [1] contact with a person’s genitals, or the condition of human male or female genitals when in a state of sexual stimulation or arousal.

there is nothing wrong with this legislation.

What it's saying is you cannot have a domain name called "Cute fluffy Puppies" and have nothing but porn on it, that is misleading.

you want a site that posts goatse pics, then don't call the domain '[Name of Religion] living.com'

If you're dumb enough to go to a site like Meatspin/Mudfall/Youaresogay you deserve what you're subjected to.

*crack that whip!*

that site has nothing to do with the law that this thread is about.

I think the name shows whats on the webpage
If you watch it for 688 spins, something might happen. 687 is as far as I've seen it.

*Wonders who read the link...*

there is nothing wrong with this legislation.

What it's saying is you cannot have a domain name called "Cute fluffy Puppies" and have nothing but porn on it, that is misleading.

you want a site that posts goatse pics, then don't call the domain '[Name of Religion] living.com'

Yes! one person actualy read it and figured out it's point.

Nobody sees anything wrong with subjecting kids to that. ahhh...the forum...you will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy.
Personally I think it's good for kids to know about rectal stretching before they have to learn about it on the street. I'm even writing a children's book called Goatse and the Very Very Large Dildo. It's a sequel to my book Tubgirl Takes a Bath.

*Wonders who read the link...*

there is nothing wrong with this legislation.

What it's saying is you cannot have a domain name called "Cute fluffy Puppies" and have nothing but porn on it, that is misleading.

you want a site that posts goatse pics, then don't call the domain '[Name of Religion] living.com'

I read it, and I don't see much problem. It's sensible and practical. Except that I'm a little concerned over this: Who decides what is 'misleading'?

For instance, take your 'Cute Fluffy Puppies' site: It could involve voluptuous barebreasted women wearing puppy noses and fake ears.

...mmm....

*blink* What were we talking about again?

Goatse is a right I have difficulty defending

Personally I think it's good for kids to know about rectal stretching before they have to learn about it on the street. I'm even writing a children's book called Goatse and the Very Very Large Dildo. It's a sequel to my book Tubgirl Takes a Bath.

I am not clicking on your vile links but I rest assured that you cannot even support your stand with a straight face.

I read it, and I don't see much problem. It's sensible and practical. Except that I'm a little concerned over this: Who decides what is 'misleading'?

For instance, take your 'Cute Fluffy Puppies' site: It could involve voluptuous barebreasted women wearing puppy noses and fake ears.

...mmm....

*blink* What were we talking about again?

how that would be misleading. and illegal.

I am not clicking on your vile links but I rest assured that you cannot even support your stand with a straight face.

They're not links. :p

I am not clicking on your vile links but I rest assured that you cannot even support your stand with a straight face.
They're not links, just the titles of my children's books. Anyway, how are you going to teach your kids about scatplay and rectal stretching? Are you going to let them learn about it and possibly get dangerous false information on the streets? Or maybe the kindergartens in your area have good sex fetish ed programs.

Goatse is a right I have difficulty defending
:D lol

They're not links. :p

:p I have been spacey of late.

I am not clicking on your vile links but I rest assured that you cannot even support your stand with a straight face.
Silly, they're not links ... they're just underlined. And I think that a more comprehensive program on rectal insertion should be mandatory in schools ... none of this abstinence-only crap. Do they really want some kid getting some serious anal leakage because he or she didn't know all the facts?

how that would be misleading. and illegal.

Puppies is a slang-term for women's breasts.

So Cute and Fluffy Puppies... well, I think you can figure the rest out. :)

Nobody sees anything wrong with subjecting kids to that. ahhh...the forum...you will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy.

What kind of idiot lets their kids online without watching them? Jeez, parents these days have no sense of responsibility.

So Cute and Fluffy Puppies... well, I think you can figure the rest out. :)

hairy boobies huh? whatever floats your boat i guess :p

There's nothing wrong with this law. It does not outlaw "obsene" materials, it merely states you can not put such material on a website with a URL that is designed to lure people there.

I think this would cover both actual domain names that are misleading (pokemonworld.com showing hardcore porn) as well as URLs that are probably common mispellings of other popular URLs (googel.com).

It doesn't say you can't DO it, it just says you can't put it on a webpage designed to trick people into seeing it. I don't see anything particularly wrong with that.

I read it, and I don't see much problem. It's sensible and practical. Except that I'm a little concerned over this: Who decides what is 'misleading'?

For instance, take your 'Cute Fluffy Puppies' site: It could involve voluptuous barebreasted women wearing puppy noses and fake ears.

...mmm....

*blink* What were we talking about again?well, it's misleading because unless those women are wearing fur coats or forbade the use of razors anywhere on their bodies, they wouldn't 'fluffy', that's misleading. ;)

but all you need to add is "XXX Cute Puppies.com" and it stops being misleading... and... it... can... lead... to... some... very... disturbing... ideas... in... one's... head...

Silly, they're not links ... they're just underlined. And I think that a more comprehensive program on rectal insertion should be mandatory in schools ... none of this abstinence-only crap. Do they really want some kid getting some serious anal leakage because he or she didn't know all the facts?

Do they really want to teach sodomy? We could have an AIDS party right before graduation.....yay!

Do they really want to teach sodomy? We could have an AIDS party right before graduation.....yay!
Sodomy doesn't cause AIDS. It comes from accidentally scraping your knee when you kneeel down and pray.

Do they really want to teach sodomy? We could have an AIDS party right before graduation.....yay!

I'd tell you to look up the words Sarcasm and Facetious, but I'm fair certain you'd be too lazy too. Not to mention the definitions would fly right over your head.

Why won’t you people think of the children?

We should ban all offensive images, shut down all non-child friendly sites, and make the internet safe for small children to surf the web unsupervised. The government should make sure that there is nothing online that anyone anywhere could possibly object to a 2 year old looking at.

I mean seriously, do you actually expect parents to pay attention to what is online? Do you honestly think it is up to the parents to take a whole 10 minutes to install filtering software or even spend a little time with their child when it wants to look at something online? We should just ban all content on the intarweb.

Why won’t anyone think of the children?

Do they really want to teach sodomy? We could have an AIDS party right before graduation.....yay!

Sodomy where both parties are well educated on the risks and preventetive measures they can take is a lot safer then two people learning from their mistakes.

Puppies is a slang-term for women's breasts.

So Cute and Fluffy Puppies... well, I think you can figure the rest out. :)

Luckily almost 25% of the words in the english language are slang terms for womens breasts. And if a word isn't, you can make it one in about two days.

I'd tell you to look up the words Sarcasm and Facetious, but I'm fair certain you'd be too lazy too. Not to mention the definitions would fly right over your head.
The blasphemous, unnatural sexual acts you condone are certainly fecetious; when you perform them, you allow Satan to enter you and control your actions. The only cure is to worship Jesus as all human beings were intended to do, cease all extramarital and unnatural sexual activities, and vote Republican.

well, it's misleading because unless those women are wearing fur coats or forbade the use of razors anywhere on their bodies, they wouldn't 'fluffy', that's misleading. ;)

but all you need to add is "XXX Cute Puppies.com" and it stops being misleading... and... it... can... lead... to... some... very... disturbing... ideas... in... one's... head...

fluffy doesn't necessarily equate to hairy or furry. Have you ever had a nice fluffy lemn merengue pie?

But my point is that I'm concerned about who decides what is and isn't misleading.

The blasphemous, unnatural sexual acts you condone are certainly fecetious; when you perform them, you allow Satan to enter you and control your actions. The only cure is to worship Jesus as all human beings were intended to do, cease all extramarital and unnatural sexual activities, and vote Republican.


Oh I'm seriously considering sigging that.

fluffy doesn't necessarily equate to hairy or furry. Have you ever had a nice fluffy lemn merengue pie?

But my point is that I'm concerned about who decides what is and isn't misleading.

It's an Americna law, it'll be a group of late middle aged men who are rich enough to shoot poor people for recreation.

Luckily almost 25% of the words in the english language are slang terms for womens breasts. And if a word isn't, you can make it one in about two days.

My cousin has a theory that men come up with slang terms to describe things they like. That's why there are so many different words for 'breasts' and so few for 'personality'. :p

My cousin has a theory that men come up with slang terms to describe things they like. That's why there are so many different words for 'breasts' and so few for 'personality'. :p

What about the terms for various sexual infections?

My cousin has a theory that men come up with slang terms to describe things they like. That's why there are so many different words for 'breasts' and so few for 'personality'. :p
You know, all this time, I thought the guys were saying, "Hey, check out the personality on that chick ..."

What about the terms for various sexual infections?

Well, it derives from sex, and adds itself into coarse raucous discussions about sex. But it certainly doesn't have the number of alternative terms that breasts, intercourse or even masturbation has.

Nobody sees anything wrong with subjecting kids to that. ahhh...the forum...you will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy.

Human body's a natural thing dood!

*Goes back to bong*

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002252---B000-.html

Big brother is watching you... Pulling your arse open.

What do you guys think?

Funny how this whole thing is exclusively about sex. Nothing mentioned about violence or gory pics, for example....

*Wonders who read the link...*

there is nothing wrong with this legislation.

What it's saying is you cannot have a domain name called "Cute fluffy Puppies" and have nothing but porn on it, that is misleading.

you want a site that posts goatse pics, then don't call the domain '[Name of Religion] living.com'


what about play boy?

do they have boys playing?

maybe if they put playboy bunny - or would that make you think boys were playign with bunnies?

what about furries? sounds harmless enough but some people dont know what furries are.. should they be subjected to this law?

I think it would be much smarter if they said that parents should keep their kids out of sites they dont want them to see.

I bet that this will make a lot of current sites illegal because of the deliberate (mis)interpretations of conservatives

Why won’t you people think of the children?
[snip]
Why won’t anyone think of the children?
Actually, the problem is that some of these sites actually DO think of the Children... just not in a way you might like... ;)

Sodomy doesn't cause AIDS. It comes from accidentally scraping your knee when you kneeel down and pray.

I knew it! Thank god I don't kneel, or pray.
(Humor fully intended):D

i wonder how many sites out there have names like www.harmless_games_for_kids.com that are really full of porn

tg me some links if you have them please.

what about play boy?

do they have boys playing?

maybe if they put playboy bunny - or would that make you think boys were playign with bunnies?

what about furries? sounds harmless enough but some people dont know what furries are.. should they be subjected to this law?

I think it would be much smarter if they said that parents should keep their kids out of sites they dont want them to see.

I bet that this will make a lot of current sites illegal because of the deliberate (mis)interpretations of conservativesactually, the term is Playboy. one word. Defined by Dictionary.com as "A man who is devoted to the pursuit of pleasurable activities." thus no it's not misleading. you put a space in there and yes, you remake the word into a phrase and change the meaning. that makes it misleading.

Furries is also a generic slang for anthroporphism. now do you see something wrong with Mickey Mouse? he's a 'Furrie' so is Snoopy, Garfield and even Bugs Bunny.

actually, the term is Playboy. one word. Defined by Dictionary.com as "A man who is devoted to the pursuit of pleasurable activities." thus no it's not misleading. you put a space in there and yes, you remake the word into a phrase and change the meaning. that makes it misleading.

Furries is also a generic slang for anthroporphism. now do you see something wrong with Mickey Mouse? he's a 'Furrie' so is Snoopy, Garfield and even Bugs Bunny.


Furry is also generally well known in the sexual content by many of us - so shoudl all those furries sites be made illegal in yrou eyes?

if someone had www.play_boy.com I would assume first that they were tryign to profit off a well known brand and not tryign to lead children into a porn site.

Do you ahve any examples I could look at where people are deliberately tryign to corrupt young children who would rather not look at porn?

Furry is also generally well known in the sexual content by many of us - so shoudl all those furries sites be made illegal in yrou eyes?

if someone had www.play_boy.com I would assume first that they were tryign to profit off a well known brand and not tryign to lead children into a porn site.

Do you ahve any examples I could look at where people are deliberately tryign to corrupt young children who would rather not look at porn?

whitehouse.com

EDIT: Oh wow they changed it. whitehouse.com USED to be a rather infamous porn site that got a LOT of hits from people trying to go to the whitehouse homepage (whitehouse.gov)

whitehouse.com

EDIT: Oh wow they changed it. whitehouse.com USED to be a rather infamous porn site that got a LOT of hits from people trying to go to the whitehouse homepage (whitehouse.gov)


again I would say they were just using a popular term to get people to their site so that they can make money from advertising and whatnot- I woudln't think they were tyring to mislead children.

again I would say they were just using a popular term to get people to their site so that they can make money from advertising and whatnot- I woudln't think they were tyring to mislead children.

(a) Whoever knowingly uses a misleading domain name on the Internet with the intent to deceive a person into viewing material constituting obscenity shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.

(b) Whoever knowingly uses a misleading domain name on the Internet with the intent to deceive a minor into viewing material that is harmful to minors on the Internet shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 4 years, or both.

It may not be designed to deceive CHILDREN, but I can argue that it is misleading with the intent to deceive a PERSON. So not option B but option A.

No government has any place in the internet. It must be regulated by a seperate, open-internationally entity.

It may not be designed to deceive CHILDREN, but I can argue that it is misleading with the intent to deceive a PERSON. So not option B but option A.


Isnt that why they make porn webmasters put up the ENTER and LEAVE links? Explaining that there is adult content inside. Isn't it the law to do that?

Isnt that why they make porn webmasters put up the ENTER and LEAVE links? Explaining that there is adult content inside. Isn't it the law to do that?

I am honestly not sure. I don't think it's legally required to do such, as I could probably find several links that do so without such a comment.

I am honestly not sure. I don't think it's legally required to do such, as I could probably find several links that do so without such a comment.

I think that is it. I cant say for sure either though. I was under the impression that the sites that didnt do so were outside of the US.

Maybe they should require any US PC going to a site outside of US borders to display a warning that they might see objectional material without first being warned by the site itself.

I think something like that would make more sense.

This domain name thing just doesnt seem like the way to go because interpretations of what is misleading and what is not can be pretty subjective in some instances I am sure.

another thing might be that pornographic material shoudl have an .xxx extension rather than .com and current .coms should be awarded a xxx to redirect to by the state so as not to incure more costs.

:) Wow, I didn't expect so much debate.

In my opinion there are a couple of things wrong with this law:

-Like it or not, the internet is international.

-If I had to choose, I'd rather my child catch a glimpse of a boob rather than any of the nightmarish stuff on rotten, which strangely, this law doesn't deal with.

-The definition of what's undesirable is a bit vague.

-Language is an everchanging thing. Where I come from anything regulated by government ends up being put into "beurocratic" language to prevent misunderstanding. If this were to happen over here, we'd be looking at porn labeled "A stimulated mammary gland with an erect nipple.gif" or "A half-naked ,middle aged female impersonating a schoolgirl in a state of arousal".

No government has any place in the internet. It must be regulated by a seperate, open-internationally entity.
like... say... corporations? :rolleyes:

Isnt that why they make porn webmasters put up the ENTER and LEAVE links? Explaining that there is adult content inside. Isn't it the law to do that?
but there is no sure fire way to insure that it's only adults who click on the ENTER.

:) Wow, I didn't expect so much debate. nice can of worms you opened eh?

In my opinion there are a couple of things wrong with this law:

-Like it or not, the internet is international.which is why they can only regulate those sites stored on US Soil.

-If I had to choose, I'd rather my child catch a glimpse of a boob rather than any of the nightmarish stuff on rotten, which strangely, this law doesn't deal with. how many sites are dedicated to Porn and how many to gore? The Government will start on one point and move on.

-The definition of what's undesirable is a bit vague. not really, it's defined in section E, quoted below.

-Language is an everchanging thing. Where I come from anything regulated by government ends up being put into "beurocratic" language to prevent misunderstanding. If this were to happen over here, we'd be looking at porn labeled "A stimulated mammary gland with an erect nipple.gif" or "A half-naked ,middle aged female impersonating a schoolgirl in a state of arousal".actually, in the site you linked to, section e explains it.
(e) For the purposes of subsection (d), the term “sex” means acts of masturbation, sexual intercourse, or physcial [1] contact with a person’s genitals, or the condition of human male or female genitals when in a state of sexual stimulation or arousal.

and with this section... it discribes what can be done to prevent misleading sites. and note, It's sites only, not pics.
(c) For the purposes of this section, a domain name that includes a word or words to indicate the sexual content of the site, such as “sex” or “porn”, is not misleading.

but there is no sure fire way to insure that it's only adults who click on the ENTER.

They don't care, it makes it the kid's fault for lying about thier age.

They don't care, it makes it the kid's fault for lying about thier age.
yep. they put up the signs but all that does is let everyone know what's inside.

but it also comes down to the honesty of the child.

No government has any place in the internet. It must be regulated by a seperate, open-internationally entity.
Yes, because that would be great. :rolleyes:

Am I the only one who knows what Goatse is?

X

yep. they put up the signs but all that does is let everyone know what's inside.

but it also comes down to the honesty of the child.
Yup the kid can also choose to enter properties with no trespassing sings too … if your kid can not be trusted to be out on his own he should be under your supervision

And I never saw it. No one ever tricked me into clicking on that link. Same goes for tubgirl, never saw that either.

You may worship in the light of my purity.

why does the us government think they own the interweb. what idiots.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002252---B000-.html

Big brother is watching you... Pulling your arse open.

What do you guys think?
I don't think it's so much of a "big brother is watching you" as a "if I feel like it and you give me a goatse link, I can press charges." Probably more akin to what happens if someone goes around showing porno mags to kids.

How are they going to enforce that worldwide?

How are they going to enforce that worldwide?
Total world wide not really possible but they CAN deny registration to any .com .edu .net .gov (and a few more) addresses that disallow it

if they are hosted in a government specific domain like .uk or .nz then it is up to thoes domain controllers

nice can of worms you opened eh?

which is why they can only regulate those sites stored on US Soil.

Which is why this law is absolutely useless.

how many sites are dedicated to Porn and how many to gore? The Government will start on one point and move on.
So you believe that there will be a crusade against gore in the near future?

not really, it's defined in section E, quoted below.
I still find it pretty vague. "Physical contact" can mean kicking someone in the bollocks.

actually, in the site you linked to, section e explains it.

and with this section... it discribes what can be done to prevent misleading sites. and note, It's sites only, not pics.

I still find it vague.