Quonsar, it's been nice knowing you

March 28, 2003 11:09 PM

Use a misleading domain name, go to prison.A new bit of pending legislation (warning: PDF) called the "Child Abduction Prevention Act" (and really, who WOULDN'T vote for that?) has made the use of misleading domain names for sites of "purient interest" punishable by a sentence of up to two years in prison. Seriously. This is going to be very troubling to the White House. No, this White House.
posted by jonson (22 comments total)

And who says the religious right don't have a say in the way our country is run? Oh yeah. Nobody. Nobody says that. Of all the things that are disturbing about this (the amorphous nature of what qualifies as "decent", or what qualifies as "misleading", for example), the fact that the bill was legitimately designed as an Amber alert nationwide notification for child abductions and that this goofy rider got attached is both the most irritating and simultaneously the most revealing about our political process. I mean honestly, with a name like "the Child Abduction Prevention Act" you could have a provision about stoning kittens, and it would still pass with a decent majority.
posted by jonson at 11:14 PM on March 28, 2003

If you are going to post a link to a porn site, call it out as such. Thank you.
posted by tomharpel at 11:16 PM on March 28, 2003

D'oh! My bad. Yes, the last link in my post is NSFW. Stupid jonson. Hey, maybe I'm going to jail for two years!
posted by jonson at 11:20 PM on March 28, 2003

Talk about legislation designed to be abused. What isn't a "kid friendly name?" Something that doesn't have the word porn in the URL?

Congress should tell their constitients to buy web filters and leave the web more or less alone. Another right-wing puritan attempt at censorship disguised as a "who will think of our children" bill.

>"These predators will be a mere click away from a lengthy prison sentence if my amendment becomes law."

Heh. "My brain-dead mouth-breather of a kid who takes after his old man just clicked on your site and saw a nipple. Enjoy prison perv!"
posted by skallas at 11:43 PM on March 28, 2003

Something that doesn't have the word porn in the URL?

The URL could be www.3ltheyoif783lkj.org and a 13 year old would still memorize it if it had porn. This is more pointless legislation. For those that are worried about stumbling onto porn sites accidentally, I second skallas's remark about installing a protection program. The internet will not be corralled.
posted by Ufez Jones at 12:09 AM on March 29, 2003

Hmmm. No one could accuse this one (thank you, SPAM!) of being misleading:

http://www.tits-tits-tits-tits-tits-tits-tits-tits-tits-tits-tits-tits-sex.com/milky-tits-lactating-tits/temptress.html

Oh yeah... that link's Not Safe For Work.
posted by jonson at 12:14 AM on March 29, 2003

What ever happened to funding the .kids TLD?
posted by skallas at 12:17 AM on March 29, 2003

No shit. I kid you not. I was spammed a link to this site today. I wonder if this counts: CNNIRAQ.

Subject: WAR NEWS UPDATE
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 22:05:17 -0500 (EST)
From: [e-mail]
To: me

click here to see just what the truth is
YES the americans are kicking serious ass!
http://www.cnniraq.com
posted by crasspastor at 1:24 AM on March 29, 2003

that's just plain creepy crasspastor.
posted by Ufez Jones at 1:36 AM on March 29, 2003

That bit about the testicle... how does someone post that?! The person who wrote those words *knows* that it's completely untrue, knows it, yet they write it with a deadly seriousness. So why do they write it? Do they not know that *every* "villian" is painted to have deficiencies, in exactly the same way (the one ball thing)? Like the "old-lady/college co-ed spitting on the returning Vietnam GI" myth, so much of this is just the same pathetic sexual and gender insecurities played out with real world bombs and real world guns. The fuckers.

Stuff like this, or like this, makes me continue to root for the terrorists. At this point, I don't even care that bin Laden would kill me as soon as he'd kill Midas Mulligan or hama7, it's just consolation enough to imagine America itself being destroyed. It's comforting to think that. It's a good thing.
posted by hincandenza at 1:51 AM on March 29, 2003

jonson, you don't have to be on the "religious right" to be a parent concerned about internet porn, or a legislator interested in demonstrating concern to that constituency. Please don't resort to hysterical overstatement in a deliberate attempt to marginalize. This bill may well be unenforceable on its face, and unconstitutional to boot, and an outrageous attempt at political pandering (I would say all these things), and Rep. Mike Pence may well be a conservative Christian (I have no idea). But over 400 representatives voted for the bill as amended, and I don't think that 400 representatives are members of the "religious right" -- otherwise that moniker ceases to have any useful meaning whatsoever.

Finally, guess who says "says the religious right have a say in the way our country is run"? The Constitution says they have a say. Everybody gets a say. Whether they or any other niche constituency actually "run things" depends on other factors, such as whether the legislation championed by the constituency has broader appeal.

I think it's not even slightly arguable that this sort of legislation has broad appeal: Congress has passed anti-porn laws affecting the internet in the name of protecting children several times over the last decade, in case you hadn't noticed. Fortunately for civil liberties advocates, many of those laws have run up against the rock of the Supreme Court, sometimes with the assistance of conservative members opposed to governmental interference in private transactions. This law is itself likely to face stiff challenges, assuming the amended language is retained by the Senate and sent to the President (which hasn't, of course, happened yet, but that never stops hysterics on MeFi).

But in the legislative arena, the religious right are going to continue to "have a say", because they are guaranteed that right under the Constitution, no matter how galling it is to some secularists to hear even a hint of religion, or how convenient it may be for some to blame religion for things which really have no direct connection. Such as middle-class prudery, or the somewhat universal desire to protect children from certain adult behaviors.
posted by dhartung at 1:57 AM on March 29, 2003

What would this mean for Whitehouse.org, Landover Baptist Church, and other websites that appeal to one's "prurient interest(s)?"
posted by LimePi at 2:25 AM on March 29, 2003

is this going to apply to websites like this one (about the morning after pill) or this one (allegedly about roe vs wade)?
posted by pxe2000 at 5:36 AM on March 29, 2003

"Tell it to a judge, Mr. Haughey. Your website has no talking, and precious little Meta. It's just a bunch of links to porn sites."
posted by straight at 6:50 AM on March 29, 2003

dhartung: Both middle class prudery and the universal desire to protect children from certain adult behaviors are based in religion. In fact, some religious groups try to protect adults from certain adult behaviors (or in the case of Southern Baptists, from any adult behaviors).

The problem is that you are confusing the "religious right" with religion. The religious right are less religious than right. They're no more than a political function that uses religion as a tool for intimidation, helped along by a clever use of tax-exempt status to help fund blatantly political efforts. The 400 members of Congress are not necessarily of the religious right, but to some degree they fear being put on the RR shitlist.

Sure, the Constitution guarantees we all have a say; the problem is that we've allowed virtual groups like this--who really represent a very narrow range of interests, often business interests--to have an inordinate say in how our country is run and, in cases like this, to diminish the protections otherwise granted under the Constitution.

And, as jonson reminded us, it is not in our interests as a people to tolerate a legislative process that allows the dishonest attachment of unrelated or broad language to an effort with a very specifically stated goal or label.
posted by troybob at 7:02 AM on March 29, 2003

Not to mention that Congress is made up of politicians, primarily middle-aged white men, who as a group probably constitute our largest per capita consumers of Internet porn.
posted by troybob at 7:07 AM on March 29, 2003

That bit about the testicle... how does someone post that?!

???

bhincandenza, do you rant because *you* have but one testicle?
posted by Ayn Marx at 10:05 AM on March 29, 2003

troybob, why don't you walk out on the street and ask ten people whether they believe in protecting children from internet porn, and then ask them whether they consider themselves religious. I think it will enlighten your obvious, and extensive, confusion.
posted by dhartung at 11:50 AM on March 29, 2003

Somehow, when I read dhartung's post the first time I saw "protecting Iraqi children from internet porn. . ."

Then I saw who wrote it and I read it again.
posted by crasspastor at 12:56 PM on March 29, 2003

it is not in our interests as a people to tolerate a legislative process that allows the dishonest attachment of unrelated or broad language to an effort with a very specifically stated goal or label.

bad bad domain names! you're not what your name says you ought to be!

maybe we ought to get them to pass a "truth in legislating" act.
posted by jann at 1:18 PM on March 29, 2003

The person who wrote those words *knows* that it's completely untrue, knows it, yet they write it with a deadly seriousness.

Kinda like the people who write the Onion, no? Clearly that site is intended to be funny. It is not, in my opinion, but I'm sure the people who put it up laughed themselves silly.
posted by kindall at 1:21 PM on March 29, 2003

Like the "old-lady/college co-ed spitting on the returning Vietnam GI" myth

This is a myth? I was under the impression that Vietnam Vets legitimately weren't treated with a particularly large amount of respect after they returned from that hellstorm.

--Dan
posted by effugas at 4:38 PM on March 30, 2003