Your selection of a quote of mine is taken out of context. "They" in this case referred to those that are using deceptive URLs and/or links, not all purveyors of porn. As the topic was regarding a law prohibiting deceptive links and URLs that portend to be children sites, but actually lead to porn, not a law against all links to porn.
Your thoughts on law are novel. In other words, you don't think there should be laws unless they can be enforced 100% of the time. Many times it is the seemingly insignificant violation that leads to the larger crime. It can also increase the consequences, just as using a gun in the commission of a crime increases the penalty.
Also, you seem to think that simply because one does not understand the technology, they are incapable of writing a law that restricts certain behavior. There are probably an unlimited number of ways to murder someone. A lawmaker does not need to know all the mechanics of how a person can be murdered to write a law making the end result illegal.
We still need laws that establish limits. Without such limits, whether or not they are enforced 100%, we will not have a society, we would have anarchy.
Lastly, the law did not say that the link nor the URL must match the content. It said that is must not be a link that a child would assume is for them. In fact, the law made it very clear that words that were sexually explicit would not be covered by this law.
For instance, if it is SexToys.com leading to porn, this law does not ban it. If it is Toys.com and leads to porn, then it would be in violation. If it said AutoParts.com, and led to porn, again no problem.
If it was anchor text or an image that had connotations of being for children, regardless of the actual URL, and it leads to porn, it would be in violation, assuming that these were found on a site where children could be reasonably likely to visit.
I really don't find this oppressive nor unreasonable. Again, I think it's the messenger, not the message. If it had come from Nancy Pelosi saying do it for the children, I doubt the same people would be challenging this law.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Chris
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by DrTandem1
Chris, I did not say that all porn sites were trying to lure kids. I said porn sites that use links and URLs that attract children were trying to lure children to their sites. Pay attention.
|
as may you want to pay attention to what you write:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by DrTandem1
Well, your solution, a safe page, has failed. They are not only not doing that, but they are actively pursuing children.
|
now, if you are talking about pedophiles, then yes, that's the nature of that sickness. but it also reads much like porn in general is actively pursuing kids. again i iterate that pedophiles aren't known for using a known domain, even if it is redirected, to lure children. this is still done in the chatrooms and forums (AND MYSPACE). besides, unless you have an active live chat on your site, what good does it do if a child just visits? are you going to ask him to sign up for a newsletter in order to keep track of him/her?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by DrTandem1
You missed the point. Re-read the law. It simply says that links and URLs that are designed to attract children to porn sites are verboten. It doesn't ban the site.
|
i never said the site was being banned, just that this law, like most every other one the US government has drafted for the Internet is completely and arachiacly behind and so full of holes that it won't so much as slow the pedophile process, let alone stop it.
and who's to say the redirect or jump link was designed to attract children? because of the domain name? so now your domain name MUST match your content? hardly. if domain names are the problems, then another, probabaly much more effective fix would be to require all legitmate US porn sites use the .xxx suffix... ah but then, what do you do when the site originates from a foriegn country?
much like the dyke getting ready to burst, there are a great many holes that need plugging to effectively combat pedophiles and the net rings they use... but if you think this redirect edict is actually going to help in anyway shape or form, i can only say i hope you are right. |