Submit Your Article Forum Rules

Page 1 of 14 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 139

Thread: New US Link and Domain Law

  1. #1
    Senior Member jmiller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    630

    New US Link and Domain Law

    Congress passed a law this week aimed at protecting kids from stumbling onto porn through misspelled domain names, searches, and "misleading" hyperlinks. Be sure everything is clearly labeled or you could be fined or imprisoned!

    Story here.
    "I never met a Kentuckian who wasn't coming home."--Governor Happy Chandler

  2. #2
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    1

    Yet another Granstand by our Congress

    What makes them think they will be able to enforce this.

    While Congress may call it a LAW, it is mearly a statement of intent until it survives Litigation in our Courts! What a wast of taxpayer funding.

  3. #3
    Moderator chrisJumbo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Near Sacramento, CA
    Posts
    1,264
    I don't believe it is wasteful spending. Have you ever typed in a domain incorrectly and been sent somewhere you didn't want go? I have.

    Have you ever tried to go to a children's site with your children looking over your shoulder and someone took a common site and common mispelling to display unwelcome material. I have.

    This is not about free speech. Just as I can't jokingly, yell "Fire" in a crowded setting, I shouldn't be able to have domains and links that only purpose is to deceive people into getting something they didn't ask for.

    If you want people to come see your "stuff" or see other people's "stuff", be honest about it. What is so difficult in that? And it is because people have decided to be deceitful that Congress had to act.

  4. #4
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    1

    Misleading Hyperlink law missing the mark

    This may be a good idea, but instead of the government trying to parent the kids, isn't the issue of identity theft a bigger and more urgent problem?
    I see nothing in this article about fraudulent devients & crooks that mask domains when sending out hords of emails claiming to be banks. Adults fall for this scam every day, entering usernames, passwords & other sensitive data. Why not focus on abolishing these slimes?

  5. #5
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    2

    A great idea!

    Misleading links are integral to phishing and pharming schemes as well, so I'd like to see this expanded to include ALL links and domain names!

    The controversy regarding porn isn't at issue here. Freedom of speech does not cover forcing or tricking people into hearing what you have to say or seeing what you have to show them. Certainly parents have the right to try to protect their children, but what about the adult who doesn't want to receive porn email or be tricked into visiting a porn website? If I'm interested in porn I can seek it out. If I'm not, I should be able to easily avoid it.

    Then there are all the illegal uses for misleading links and domains. Frankly, I can't think of a single reason why it would be all right to use misleading links and domains. To me, this one is a no brainer and I'm shocked that Congress has actually managed to DO something useful!

    This law can be enforced if anyone actually bothers to try to enforce it. The question is, will anyone bother?

  6. #6
    WebProWorld MVP Peter (IMC)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    1,481
    The internet is young and the law requires updates in order to give the prosecuting power the tools to do something about criminal activities online.

    If I understand it correctly all it says is that you can't link to adult sites saying it is something else. Seems to me that that has nothing to do with free speech.

    These things never are a waste of taxpayer funding. Without laws we would still be living in the stone age. But of course, there are quite a lot of flintstones out there.. :)
    Hidden Content Really? YES! All you have to do is implement it!
    Follow me on Twitter Hidden Content

  7. #7

    Misleading Hyperlinks

    While I agree that this decietful method of luring people to porn websites is unacceptable, I believe that enforcement of such a statute will be nearly impossible. This is particularly true of offshore web sites that are not subject to US law. How do you enforce this thing anyway. It could take years for litigation to prove what constitutes an illegal hyperlink and those who use them are crafty enough to find other ways to accomplish the same thing.

  8. #8
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3

    Another stupid law

    The intent is valiant but the legislation was obviously created by morons who don't know how the Internet is used by real people.

    Restricting domain names is a restraint of trade and is a poor method of control. If there is ever a successful trial that relies on this inane law, it won't be long before all businesses are pigeonholed into specific domain name formats. The law is overly broad. A site named "body.com" could be applied to any number of industries, not just porn, and is not in itself deceptive. This law gives the puritanical, political nutcases a means to file more frivolous lawsuits, as if we don't have enough of those already.

    I'm not supporting deceptive trade practices; quite the contrary. It's the way they tried to implement this law that is more objectionable than the material they are trying to prevent access to. Don't blame websites for taking advantage of users' inability to use a keyboard; that's putting blame in the wrong place.

    This was a badly planned bad law that will have unintended consequences. Hopefully it will never survive the first court case.
    --
    Ed

    "Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups."
    -- Seen on T-shirt

  9. #9
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    20
    Quote Originally Posted by The original article
    You can't put prank links to Goatse anymore
    If that is the only thing this prevents, I am happy.

    Quote Originally Posted by Scott Adie
    While I agree that this decietful method of luring people to porn websites is unacceptable, I believe that enforcement of such a statute will be nearly impossible.
    You know, as soon as I read this article, that was the first thing I thought of as a counter-argument. I have to say, though, that the alternative is to never have legislation on anything in this new global marketplace. Maybe it's appropriate to have legislation such as this just to have a standard for our own culture to conduct itself under, or to take a stand internationally. And even if it brings only one violator to justice, wouldn't that be worth it?

    I think there are times when doing nothing really is better than doing something in a poorly executed manner, but I don't think this is that instance.

  10. #10
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    3

    They should stop this LAW. and just do this

    I know for a fact that porn could easily be controlled just by simply using .xxx as an extension on domain names that way anything that has to do with the adult industry is defined and if parents what to block adult sites they can restrict access to .xxx. what is the industry waiting for. this is such an easy fix..

    the government is wasting time passing laws for illegal click throughs. it doesn't cover misleading advertising click throughs etc.

Similar Threads

  1. link: domain.com vs link:domain.com ??
    By amar in forum Google Discussion Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 06-27-2007, 02:00 PM
  2. site:domain.com shows my link but no cache.
    By astoller in forum Google Discussion Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 01-25-2006, 11:23 AM
  3. Showing more backlinks than Link:www.domain.com
    By google junky in forum Google Discussion Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-25-2004, 12:29 AM
  4. Using two domain names to link to one website.
    By marrychina in forum IT Discussion Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 03-28-2004, 10:19 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •