Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Congress vs Misleading Meta Tags 473

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the oh-this'll-work-really-well dept.
Krishna Dagli writes "The U.S. House of Representatives on Tuesday approved a bill that would make it a federal felony for Webmasters to use innocent words like "Barbie" or "Furby" but actually feature sexual content on their sites. Anyone who includes misleading "words" or "images" intended to confuse a minor into viewing a possibly harmful Web site could be imprisoned for up to 20 years and fined, the bill says." Terrible news for the Barbie/Furbie fetishists out there, to say nothing about being completely impossible to enforce globally.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Congress vs Misleading Meta Tags

Comments Filter:
  • So? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by smitth1276 (832902)
    Just because it's impossible to enforce globally doesn't mean we shouldn't codify it here. That's sort of a non sequitor.
    • Re:So? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Billosaur (927319) * <.ten.enilnotpo. .ta. .rehtorgw.> on Wednesday July 26, 2006 @08:20AM (#15783323) Journal

      What? It's precisely because it can't be codified globally that it's pointless to do anything about it here. Do you honestly think that anyone outside the US is going to voluntarily conform to this law? Do you think anyone inside the US can't get around it by moving their content outside the US?

      As usual, Congress is meddling in things it does not understand. They want to look like they are doing something to protect children, yet at every turn the things they come up with are ludicrous. And they've also dropped the ball on the whole Net Neutrality issue. It's clear Congress doesn't understand what the Internet is ("a series of tubes" said the learned Congressman) or how it works, or the fact that it's a global resource, far outside the realm of their ability to control it.

      • far outside the realm of their ability to control it.

        While it's true that they cannot control the content on the Internet, they can block certain websites at the borders and/or punish consumers of the content. Reminds me of another country that often appears in Slashdot headlines...

        Of course, just because they can do it (and they can using terrorism / savethechildren as an excuse) doesn't mean that they should do it. Guard your rights carefully so that you lose them (phonetapping without warrant).
      • by TheGreek (2403)
        It's clear Congress doesn't understand what the Internet is ("a series of tubes" said the learned Congressman) or how it works
        It's clear you don't know how Congress works.

        Ted Stevens is a United States Senator.

        You're clearly not qualified to choose your own elected representatives. You should just give up.
        • Since the Senate and the House of Representatives are both part of the United States Congress, and Congressman is a valid term for referring to members of either, calling Ted Stevens a Congressman is a correct statement.
        • It's clear you don't know how Congress works.
          Ted Stevens is a United States Senator.
          You're clearly not qualified to choose your own elected representatives. You should just give up.

          And it's clear that you don't know semantics: Congress is divided into two branches: the Senate and the House of Representatives. A member of the Senate is a "Senator", while a member of the House is a "Representative". Any member of Congress is considered a "Congressman," althought the term has come to be generally to be

        • Re:So? (Score:5, Informative)

          by JasonKChapman (842766) on Wednesday July 26, 2006 @09:07AM (#15783762) Homepage
          It's clear Congress doesn't understand what the Internet is ("a series of tubes" said the learned Congressman) or how it works
          It's clear you don't know how Congress works. Ted Stevens is a United States Senator. You're clearly not qualified to choose your own elected representatives. You should just give up.

          If you two are finished tossing verbal grenades, you might want to stop and notice that you're both right -- and both wrong. Congressman as a noun means a member of congress. That applies to both senators and members of the House. As a title, it refers specifically to a member of the House, as in Congressman Foo (as opposed to Senator Bar). That makes the GP right and you wrong.

          Having said that, the GP capitalized the word which, while wrong in the specific usage, at least implies the word's use as a title. That makes you right and the GP wrong.

          In the long run, I suppose it doesn't really matter. This is /., which makes it far more interesting to dip each other's hair in inkwells, or shoot spitballs, or whatever the hell the drive-by jerk behavior d'jour is. By all means, stay as far as hell away from a meaningful discussion of the topic as possible.

      • What? It's precisely because it can't be codified globally that it's pointless to do anything about it here. Do you honestly think that anyone outside the US is going to voluntarily conform to this law? Do you think anyone inside the US can't get around it by moving their content outside the US?

        Not really. The sickos aren't luring kids to nasty sites for the pageviews. They're typically luring them there to establish a relationship, and possibly lead to a real-world meet-up. Which, from the US perspecti

    • Anyone who includes misleading "words" or "images" intended to confuse a minor into viewing a possibly harmful Web site could be imprisoned for up to 20 years and fined, the bill says.

      How many porn sites try to attract minors anyway? Minors don't have credit cards.
    • by DrXym (126579)
      The main question being why the hell codify it at all?
  • by Billosaur (927319) * <.ten.enilnotpo. .ta. .rehtorgw.> on Wednesday July 26, 2006 @08:14AM (#15783262) Journal

    ...to use the META tags "Congress" and "intelligent" on the same web page.

    • Not punishable, just a lie.
    • Even better.. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Rob T Firefly (844560) on Wednesday July 26, 2006 @08:28AM (#15783406) Homepage Journal
      ..it will become illegal for members of Congress to use misleading terms like "tubes" to describe worldwide packet-switching networks.
      • I doubt they'd go for it... they'd hate to have their "tubes" tied.

      • by QuantumFTL (197300) * <justin.wick@gmai l . com> on Wednesday July 26, 2006 @01:32PM (#15785930)
        I still don't understand how using the analogy of "tubes" is any different than the analogy of "pipes" which has been used for 40 years to describe abstract data streams from one point to another. The senator didn't know what he was talking about, but it is true that there are FIFO queues involved in the routing process, and that net congestion (especially that caused by spam) can be a serious issue, for some folks at least. The guy may be a crotchedy old moron, but what the hell is wrong with saying "tubes"?
    • by kesuki (321456) on Wednesday July 26, 2006 @08:59AM (#15783698) Journal
      my opinion, meta tags are kinda bogus anyways.

      as to enforcability, just wait til the death star comes flying along trying to enforce this thing. cause frankly, that's the kind of weapon congress would need to enforce this galactically.

      is the bill intended to be good? yeah, but it's no substitute for parents actually taking an active role in their kids life. personally if i were speaking for jesus i think I'd have to say that barbie dolls are as evil as porn. do little girls need a plastic figurehead of 'beauty' and 'fashion' any more than they need access to a triple x porn site? I sick of people calling little pink boxed pieces of plastic and calling that 'good.'

      now speaking for myself i'd have to say that plastic dolls are quite an ironic way to 'preserve' and 'expand' an empire of 'pretending to do good things for girls' try asking a little girl if she'd rather have a parent or family member at home, being there for them, or if they'd rather have a piece of plastic. frankly i think that for every barbie doll sold, that question needs to be asked at least once.
    • by jkrise (535370) on Wednesday July 26, 2006 @09:14AM (#15783821) Journal
      What about using a meta tag like bush , and implying a fetish for pubic hair on an adult site?
    • by lar3ry (10905) on Wednesday July 26, 2006 @09:30AM (#15783951)
      Well, how about "sexual congress," a legitimate description of a sexual act? (As Allan Sherman once said about such phrases, "nine months after a couple engages in 'sexual union,' does the woman go into 'organized labor?'")

      All kidding aside, how about legimate uses for such words in sexual sites. I remember a pair of models called the Barbie Twins about 5-10 years ago. Would webmasters not be allowed to use that just because Barbie is a toy? How about a Chippendales dancer in rip-off fatigues who markets himself as G.I. Joe?

      I think if a web site uses LEGITIMATE keywords, including those of toy names, AND uses the voluntary web filtering keywords, they have a case that they are giving the people the ability to screen.

      A more basic problem, one I think they were trying to solve, is the problem of misleading keywords. Why should I get a useless link farm page with ad banners when I am doing research on something completely unrelated just because the person that put up the page wants more banner downloads?

      Of course, if you outlaw misleading keywords, people will work around the rules to achieve the same end goals.

      The only thing this legislation does is give politicians a way of saying "Look! I'm being proactive about this!" (when they are being stupidly reactive in truth... isn't that misleading as well? Can we outlaw misleading political statements???)
  • by mopslik (688435) on Wednesday July 26, 2006 @08:15AM (#15783270)
    Does this imply that any porn star named Barbie has to change her name (again) before starting up a web site?
    • Well, if this passes, there's your first test case. Anyone know a porn star named Barbie with a web site?

    • by Anonymous Coward
      Does this imply that any porn star named Barbie has to change her name (again) before starting up a web site?

      From the summary:

      Anyone who includes misleading "words" or "images" intended to confuse a minor into viewing a possibly harmful Web site...

      I hilited the key word there, "intended". So a porn star named Barbie (which is like what, 25% of them all?) would be fine as long as there wasn't other material there (say the word Matel, intentionally mispelled to catch kids who might not know how to sp
      • by ultranova (717540) on Wednesday July 26, 2006 @09:00AM (#15783709)

        Anyone who includes misleading "words" or "images" intended to confuse a minor into viewing a possibly harmful Web site...

        I hilited the key word there, "intended".

        I draw retouch with a computer and render with 3D-software erotic images as a hobby and because it provides sufficient motivation to scale the Himalaya-like learning curve of 3D programs. They aren't good enough yet to put up anywhere, but they'll likely be someday. So, I'll likely have an erotic website someday.

        When I put the pics up, where can I get a list of what specific words I'll have to avoid, and how much time do I have to update my page when the word list changes (as it must, to keep up with the latest fads in youth culture) ? And if I happen to be on a vacation when the list changes and don't get back before the deadline, and get charged, is the difference between walking free and spending 20 years in the jail whether the judge happens to like my face or not - because I don't think he can read my intentions from my mind, even if he is honest and not drunk on power or on some kind of personal crusade against filthy porn ?

        Disclaimer: I don't live in the USA, but you know as well as I do that the rest of the world is going to copy this bad law, just like they did the US-style copyright laws.

        That said, this is one of those laws that can really lead to problems as you can imagine all sorts of "legit" uses of various words (Barbie, Ken, toys, dream house) on a porn site. But again, I think if the webmasters make a reasonable attempt to make it clear that the 12" action figure you are about to see refers to all of Ken, or just a specific part, then the site should be ok.

        No, this leads to problems for everyone who's website acknowledges the existence of human sexuality. Ironically, it has the potential of increasing the profits of for-pay porn sites, since they can afford to hire people to keep watching the wordlist for changes, and are at least somewhat shielded from personal responsibility by incorporation; it's the free sites that are going to be hit by this.

        This is an extraordinarily stupid idea for a law, even for the US congress.

      • by edmicman (830206) on Wednesday July 26, 2006 @10:26AM (#15784458) Homepage Journal
        I believe I will start an adult film agency called He-Man pictures, and as directory and primary actor my film name will be Ken. The first starring actress' name will be penned "Barbie Matel". Then I will build a website. Buwahahahaha!
    • by neonprimetime (528653) on Wednesday July 26, 2006 @08:27AM (#15783398) Homepage
      Does this imply that any porn star named Barbie has to change her name (again) before starting up a web site?

      What about all the pron stars named Furby?
    • Wouldn't that be a trademark violation... or something... anyway?
    • What about a porn star named "Optimus Prime"?
  • by andrewman327 (635952) on Wednesday July 26, 2006 @08:15AM (#15783271) Homepage Journal
    I think that something does need to be done about all of the misleading porn sites out there. I am 20 years old, but I am sick of typosquatters and mislabled keywords leading me to porn sites. I know that this is not enforceable around the world, but overall it is a good thing.
  • 'Innocent' words (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MarkByers (770551) on Wednesday July 26, 2006 @08:15AM (#15783272) Homepage Journal
    make it a federal felony for Webmasters to use innocent words ... but actually feature sexual content on their sites.

    How do you define what makes a word 'innocent'? Are they going to make a list of all "innocent" words, or what?

    The 163-page Child Protection and Safety Act represents the most extensive rewriting of federal laws relating to child pornography, sex offender registration and child exploitation in a decade.

    Ah, I see...
    • by eldavojohn (898314) * <eldavojohnNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Wednesday July 26, 2006 @08:21AM (#15783340) Journal
      SEC. 703. DECEPTION BY EMBEDDED WORDS OR IMAGES.

      (a) In General- Chapter 110 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 2252B the following:

      `Sec. 2252C. Misleading words or digital images on the Internet

      `(a) In General- Whoever knowingly embeds words or digital images into the source code of a website with the intent to deceive a person into viewing material constituting obscenity shall be fined under this title and imprisoned for not more than 10 years.

      `(b) Minors- Whoever knowingly embeds words or digital images into the source code of a website with the intent to deceive a minor into viewing material harmful to minors on the Internet shall be fined under this title and imprisoned for not more than 20 years.

      `(c) Construction- For the purposes of this section, a word or digital image that clearly indicates the sexual content of the site, such as `sex' or `porn', is not misleading.

      `(d) Definitions- As used in this section--

      `(1) the terms `material that is harmful to minors' and `sex' have the meaning given such terms in section 2252B; and

      `(2) the term `source code' means the combination of text and other characters comprising the content, both viewable and nonviewable, of a web page, including any website publishing language, programming language, protocol or functional content, as well as any successor languages or protocols.'.

      (b) Table of Sections- The table of sections for chapter 110 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 2252B the following:

      `2252C. Misleading words or digital images on the Internet.'.
      I was also worried about it not being well defined. And, of course, they can't come up with a list. But it is left to prosecutors to attempt to use this section of law to prove someone did it with this intent. Which would be difficult.
      • (a) In General- Whoever knowingly embeds words or digital images into the source code of a website with the intent to deceive a person into viewing material constituting obscenity shall be fined under this title and imprisoned for not more than 10 years. - no more than 10 years in jail? Sounds super-reasonable, doesn't it?
      • So I'm not sure if this applies but:

        One of my favorite pastimes when I was 24 or so was trying to get friends to open goatse.cx from work. The standard trick was to href it into something like "Yahoo! News: Free Beer in NYC" or something like that, and then laugh and laugh when they opened it.

        So does that qualify as a felony now? That would totally ruin my christmas cards.

    • Simple....this is not a case of morality but rather of false advertising.

      If I advertised a brand new BMW Z5 for $12,999 and you came to my dealership and found out that I only had Z5 Hotwheels for which I was asking the exhorberent price of $12,999 but I could show you a real nice Chevy Cobalt for $11,999. I'd be guilty of false advertising.

      The other day I miss-typed Craigslist.com and found myself at an porn portal. With my wife beside me. Ooops!!! Luckily my wife is net-savvy enough to understand what
  • META (Score:3, Funny)

    by certel (849946) on Wednesday July 26, 2006 @08:16AM (#15783286) Homepage
    This is something they should have done a long time ago. I think that all meta tags should be related to the content of the website. The use of improper meta tags could also generate non-content related ads from Google and other contextual advertisers.
    • Re:META (Score:3, Insightful)

      by HiddenL (967659)
      While using relevant and accurate META tags are good for everyone, should using inaccurate ones be illegal? Is it the job of congress to regulate how websites describe themselves?

      If I wrote a classified ad of myself saying I was a 150 lb white guy when I was really a 500 lb black guy, should that be punishable by 10 years in prison?
  • by Rob T Firefly (844560) on Wednesday July 26, 2006 @08:16AM (#15783288) Homepage Journal
    Can costumed fetishist adults sue a 12-year-old girl for describing her pet puppydog as "furry" on her livejournal?
  • Maybe Congress should apply a "truth in advertising" to itself this election year. Oh, wait a minute. Did that idea make sense?!
  • by BlackCobra43 (596714) on Wednesday July 26, 2006 @08:20AM (#15783326)
    how much PORK is/will be stuffed into this bill? You honestly believe anyone will vote against a bill named the "Child Protection and Safety Act"? The Senate won't even blink and it will saii right through, riders be damned.
  • Certainly far easier to go after porn sites and sex offendors that dealing with, say, wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Gaza, and Lebanon. Oh, and dealing with N Korea and Iran.
  • by digitaldc (879047) * on Wednesday July 26, 2006 @08:21AM (#15783338)
    Congress, with all the problems in the world, focuses on THE most pressing problem right now - misleading meta tags.

    With respectable, upright, and moral leaders like these, we will all be safe from accidentally looking at pr)n - we are saved!
    • Congress, with all the problems in the world, focuses on THE most pressing problem right now - misleading meta tags.

      Well, web developers have been abusing them for years. I personally hope a lot of these web developing scum are locked up... to make the Internet safe for us application programmers.

  • by MarkByers (770551) on Wednesday July 26, 2006 @08:22AM (#15783348) Homepage Journal

    Related Stories
    Linux: OMG BARBIE LINUX LOL!!1!!!! [slashdot.org]


    I hope they remove the pictures of Linus Torvalds from the Barbie Linux ISOs after this announcement.
  • Honestly, who still relies on meta tags these days?
  • to say nothing about being completely impossible to enforce globally.

    Now. Impossible to enforce globally now. Coupla pesky theocracies to overthrow, a handful of socialist democracies already undermining themselves needing just a teensy-weensy push, that oil/energy thing we got some of our best people working on, and then *BAM* our single global government is good-to-go. One Nation, Under Bilderberg [wikipedia.org].

    Don't know about you, but I, for one, welcome our Barbie-Banishing Overlords.
  • ...There will never be another false hyperlink goatse joke. Goodbye old gaping, your misrepresented link humour will be mourned. This law will bring the end of an era for internet humour.
  • by Chrontius (654879) on Wednesday July 26, 2006 @08:29AM (#15783411)
    But this is going to be a sad day for fans of My Little Pony porn.
  • by idontgno (624372) on Wednesday July 26, 2006 @08:29AM (#15783415) Journal

    to say nothing about being completely impossible to enforce globally

    National sovereignty. How quaint.

    • National sovereignty. How quaint.

      National sovereignty is no match of the power of the globalized economy. And national governments of a lot of countries have already proved that they pass whatever legislation the US asks of them.

      It would take the revival of nationalism to restore nation-states to their proper place as an instrument capable and willing of protecting their citizens from the predations of global corporations and foreign governments. But unfortunately nationalism lead to militariaism the

  • Good news (Score:4, Funny)

    by Moby Cock (771358) on Wednesday July 26, 2006 @08:30AM (#15783421) Homepage
    All those Furby messages were clogging up my internets tubes anyways. Now I'll be able to send my proper and non-pornograpgic internets easier.
  • by Valacosa (863657) on Wednesday July 26, 2006 @08:32AM (#15783438)
    Disclaimer: I am in Canada.

    From the wording in the summary, this speaks to the mentality of the congresscritter. I mean, some right-wingers have this idea stuck in their head that the pr0n on the internet is there for the children, that people are trying to lure kids to the porn sites for some reason which I (nor they) cannot imagine. What benefit is there in that for anybody? It's not as if the kids have any purchasing power! Hell, it's not even as if webmasters can capture some parents income with porn!

    "Daddy, will you buy me a membership to this website! It's only $2.99 for three days!"

    Valacosa to congress: children are not the "target audience" for pornography!
    • some right-wingers have this idea stuck in their head that the pr0n on the internet is there for the children

      Actually, "save the children" is extremely popular with the left, too. From a FA linked in TFA:

      "I appreciate the willingness of all members to put aside unrelated controversial issues* so that we could focus on the core purpose of this bill--protecting children," Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid

      *- out of context, but are those "controversial issues" some pork projects hidden in the 163-page bill?

    • mean, some right-wingers have this idea stuck in their head that the pr0n on the internet is there for the children, that people are trying to lure kids to the porn sites for some reason which I (nor they) cannot imagine.

      I seem to remember a site called "Whitehouse.com" (not .gov) that was a porn site whose name was designed to get hits from those who were not looking for porn, especially children. Seriously, how many adults look for the Whitehouse home page? Who do you think the webmasters of Whitehouse.
    • Virus installations, ad impressions etc.
    • by kabocox (199019) on Wednesday July 26, 2006 @11:18AM (#15784900)
      "Daddy, will you buy me a membership to this website! It's only $2.99 for three days!"

      Valacosa to congress: children are not the "target audience" for pornography!


      This has got to be the funniest thing that I've read today. If my boy was really interested in it, then he should be able to find my storage directory that has gigs of that type of data. My son shouldn't have to search the internet for what is already on the local computer!

  • Hard at work I see (Score:4, Insightful)

    by grasshoppa (657393) <skennedy.tpno-co@org> on Wednesday July 26, 2006 @08:32AM (#15783447) Homepage
    Good thing we pay these people insane amounts of money to come up with fluff, feel good legislation instead of dealing with the real issues ( illegal domestic spying, Iraq, privacy, ect... ).

    I can't wait for november.
  • Stupid idea (Score:5, Insightful)

    by martinmcc (214402) on Wednesday July 26, 2006 @08:34AM (#15783467) Homepage
    The idea is completely ridiculous. First off, 20 years for using a misleading meta tag? Does that sound appropriate? Particular if you consider how easy it could be to do (you copy the template from some previous site for another site and forget to update the meta tags).

    And who judges whether a tag is valid or not? While there may be a few that are clear cut, most will be highly ambiguous and down to some arbitrary decision process, and likely used backwards (i.e. find a site you do not like, then see if you can find some law it breaks, such as this one).

    Again, it used 'think of the children' to role in crappy, unenforceable laws which steal away people freedom, and solve a non-existent problem. I have two daughters, and frequently searched various keywords such as Barbie, and never encountered any pron sites. The only, and obvious, solution to the minor problem of children accessing inappropriate content is for parents to be responsible in how their children can access the net.

  • by ErisCalmsme (212887) on Wednesday July 26, 2006 @08:37AM (#15783494) Homepage Journal
    the lego porn? http://drew.corrupt.net/bp/ [corrupt.net]
  • Sex != Harmful (Score:5, Insightful)

    by sane? (179855) on Wednesday July 26, 2006 @08:39AM (#15783513)
    Once again there is the confusion in the US mind that sex = harmful. I thought the puritans died out several centuries ago. Some more extreme stuff I can understand, but the basics of the idea that all types of sex should be kept from children, rather than being seen as a normal part of life, is the more harmful attitude.

    Just how screwed up do you have to be to consider a nipple to be threat to a child's development?

    Better to concentrate on ensuring that child can grow up in a world that has freedom of speech, a clean environment and open minds than one that views sex as somehow dirty.

    • Sex or Society? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by jefu (53450)

      I've seen published claims that exposing children to sex (and things related to sex - at least in some minds -- porn, nudity in the home, seeing their parents have sex, hearing people talk about sex, reading about sex...) is invariably harmful. I always wonder about such claims - is the research funded by people with an agenda? is the research specific to the US where it may not be the sexual exposure itself that is harmful, but rather the response of society to children who know things that the puritans

      • Take a look at advertisements and promotions in the US.

        Regardless of the product being sold (shaving cream, butter, cars, liquor, beer, computers, clothing, soft drinks, food, etc), the advertisement will almost invariably have a sexual element to it. Why? Because sex sells products. The advertisers know this, we know this - because it works (unless you're a bastard like me who simply buys whatever is cheapest or works best, regardless of adverts). The actors and actresses involved in making those advertise

  • DAMMIT! (Score:3, Funny)

    by Monokeros (200892) on Wednesday July 26, 2006 @08:39AM (#15783516)
    My new web site www.funwithbarbiesandfurbieshappyinnocentfunsitefo rkidswithabsolutelynoanalsexipromise.com ...

    Is DOOMED!
  • I"m going to coin a term here, or give it a good try.

    Adsense shotgunning. AdSense ads that appear on landing pages of domain names that have expired, and subsequentially bought by individuals or companies, showing a listing of related links, and targeted AdSense ads, designed for the sole purpose of getting AdSense clicks. We've all seen these when doing searches. What looks like a directory page turns out to be one massive AdSense page.

    As an example, a domain Miraclewebva.com [miraclewebva.com] I owned some years ago,
  • by ttys00 (235472) on Wednesday July 26, 2006 @08:42AM (#15783545)
    Between MP3 downloads and porn sites with childrens words on it, this Internet thing is getting dangerous.

    I'm going to have start committing crimes with lighter punishments, like murder and rape.
    • Congress knows that you're wrong and evil -- trying to get kids to come to your pornsite (don't try to hide behind it being a "business" and you "charging" people, they know you have a magical internet-powered scanner that forces kids to see porn for free!). You think 20 years is "too harsh"? What, you think there's some law or bill (like a... a bill of rights?) against "cruel and unusual punishment"? We'll teach YOU to meta-tag. As John Romero would say, Congress will make you its bitch!

      I'm glad to s
  • Really, if this results in any change at all, it won't be removal of misleading tags. It's just going to be the addition of a lot of really disturbing porn so that the tags are no longer misleading. Remove the word furby? The hell with that, just get someone to violate a furby and add it to the collection. You're legal and have attracted a bunch of new visitors, both fetishists and people visiting for the "WTF?" factor.
  • I hope they aren't gonna go after them! Lemon party does sounds like something children might want to do, but even more so, it sounds (acts, and looks!) like a political party.
  • 20 Years? (Score:3, Informative)

    by mwvdlee (775178) on Wednesday July 26, 2006 @09:10AM (#15783785) Homepage
    That's like double the punishment you get for murdering a dozen children you've just videotaped whilst raping?
  • by joebok (457904) on Wednesday July 26, 2006 @09:11AM (#15783796) Homepage Journal
    ...is the other way around - those sites that advertise "Free Porn - Nude Celebrities" and when you go to them there are no nudes, no celebrities, no porn, and nothing is free. What a rip!
  • by DesertWolf0132 (718296) on Wednesday July 26, 2006 @09:35AM (#15784001) Homepage

    I don't know what slays me more, that the same dimwits who think the internet is made of tubes are legislating meta tags, or that these morons believe there are a bunch of deviants on the web trying to give porn to children. These idiots wouldn't know a meta tag if one bit them in the ass.

    Porn didn't become a multi-billion dollar industry by marketing to people without the means to pay for it. This legislation "for the children" is nothing more than trying to stave off the ultra right wing fundamentalist wackos that aren't bright enough to realize their kids won't be protected by this at all. These are the same nutjobs who protest at movies they could totally prevent their kids from watching just by being good parents. If you don't want your kid watching porn buy a porn filter. Otherwise your kid will find porn. Christian fundamentalists have huge sexual hang-ups and make things like porn so taboo how could kids not be drawn to it? Tell a kid not to look at something fervently enough and eventually he will look just to see what the fuss is about.

    I guess it is better they pass a bill that essentially does nothing instead of completely pandering to whack job hatemongers like Pat Robertson. Imagine if someone like him were in power. Anyone not in church on Sunday would be labeled a perverted homosexual Baby Jesus hater and put on the NSA watch list.

  • by ozbird (127571) on Wednesday July 26, 2006 @10:43AM (#15784623)
    "... Anyone who includes misleading "words" or "images" intended to confuse a minor into viewing a possibly harmful Web site could be imprisoned for up to 20 years and fined, the bill says."

    Indeed - the poor dears might be scarred for life if they are exposed to images containing great tits [wikipedia.org], penduline tits [wikipedia.org], or even boobies [wikipedia.org]. (And the less said about knockers [wikipedia.org], the better.)

If you're not careful, you're going to catch something.

Working...