Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Congress vs Misleading Meta Tags

CmdrTaco posted more than 7 years ago | from the oh-this'll-work-really-well dept.

473

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.

cancel ×

473 comments

fp (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15783259)

I fart in your general direction.

So? (2, Insightful)

smitth1276 (832902) | more than 7 years ago | (#15783260)

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? (5, Insightful)

Billosaur (927319) | more than 7 years ago | (#15783323)

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.

They can block and/or punish consumption (2)

MarkByers (770551) | more than 7 years ago | (#15783392)

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).

Re:They can block and/or punish consumption (1)

Roody Blashes (975889) | more than 7 years ago | (#15783432)

Guard your rights carefully so that you lose them....

Hmmm... Charlton Heston you ain't.

Re:They can block and/or punish consumption (0)

smitth1276 (832902) | more than 7 years ago | (#15783495)

So, can you offer a single good reason why anyone would reasonably use "Barney" or "Barbie" or "Pokemon" as keywords for a site featuring a naked woman with semen all over her face? Do you realize how silly you sound defending that?

Re:They can block and/or punish consumption (1)

Moqui (940533) | more than 7 years ago | (#15783511)

Barney and Barbie are a tough call, but I can see at least 100 applications of the term "Pokeman" in the sites you are describing. :)

Re:They can block and/or punish consumption (3, Insightful)

Knuckles (8964) | more than 7 years ago | (#15783571)

How is barbie a tough call for a site full of fake blondes with fake breasts that look 100% american?

Re:They can block and/or punish consumption (1)

Moqui (940533) | more than 7 years ago | (#15783597)

Too easy, and I was trying to dance around the actual legal issue of what you just described. For Congress to pass something like this, can you imagine what the list would have to look like? And history has shown that inuendo is typically derived from mundane and juvenile things.

Using your example, why *shouldn't* an adult site webmaster be allowed to use the term "barbie" to describe "a site full of fake blondes with fake breasts that look 100% american?"

Re:They can block and/or punish consumption (2, Interesting)

Knuckles (8964) | more than 7 years ago | (#15783540)

Yeah, or use "bad" if they really mean "good". It's unheard of! All words should only have one, government-proscribed, meaning. Think of the children!

Re:They can block and/or punish consumption (0, Flamebait)

smitth1276 (832902) | more than 7 years ago | (#15783565)

Oh... what other meanings of "Barnie", "Pokemon", or "Barbie" do you regularly encounter that pertain to naked women with semen on their face? Are you actually being serious? Of course, as noted above, this is slashdot, so it wouldn't surprise me if you actually think you just said something intelligent. There are so many faux intellectuals here it is frightening.

Re:They can block and/or punish consumption (4, Interesting)

Knuckles (8964) | more than 7 years ago | (#15783614)

Yeah, Barbie is certainly totally devoid of any sexual undertones. Are you deaf, dumb and blind?

Anyway, this is completely irrelevant anyway. Subcultures of any form will always use the majority language in unexpected ways. To legislate this is way over the threshold of being a police state. And even regular everyday use of words is ambiguous. What's next, legal teen porn sites can't use the word teen anymore?

Re:They can block and/or punish consumption (4, Funny)

truthsearch (249536) | more than 7 years ago | (#15783544)

Maybe the naked woman's name is Barbie? I'm sure at some point in time a naked woman named Barbie has been in a picture such as this. And maybe a guy named Barney is providing the facial. These are real names, you know.

Do you realize how silly you sound not defending freedom of speech?

Get Google to delist it. (5, Insightful)

MarkByers (770551) | more than 7 years ago | (#15783583)

So, can you offer a single good reason why anyone would reasonably use "Barney" or "Barbie" or "Pokemon" as keywords for a site featuring a naked woman with semen all over her face?

What if the guy is called Barney, the woman is called Barbie, and... well I'll leave the rest to your imagination.

You're missing the point though. Trying to censor content based on fuzzy guidelines is not helping promote freedom. If a pornography site is number 1 in Google for the keyword Barbie, complain to Google that it's keyword matching rules are broken and get them to delist the site. Don't just get your government to go round censoring things you disagree with. Once they start on that path, where will they stop? If porn can be censored what about pro-Muslim sites using words like 'Jesus' in their keywords? Oh the horror! It must be censored too!

By the way, I'm not American so I don't really care, I'm just making some suggestions that you can choose to ignore if you wish.

Re:So? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15783405)

Um, the US internet porn industry is not going to move their company and server contents overseas because of laws like this. All porn companies need a local US server in order to effectively deliver their product to US consumers.

Also, I dont know why you slashbots keep making fun of the "tube" analogy for the internet. The internet is basically routers connected to "tubes" (in network engineering they are frequently referred to as "pipes").

the internet is not a big truck! (1)

silverkniveshotmail. (713965) | more than 7 years ago | (#15783435)

What about my personal internets? Who's looking out for it?

Re:So? (1)

Roody Blashes (975889) | more than 7 years ago | (#15783480)

Actually, within the context of networking, "pipe" has a very specific meaning, and when used to generically describe connections between networking hardware, it's merely a general way of referring to those connections, not any attempt - as was the case with our friend the blowhard Senator - to make any sort of analogy.

If you don't understand why trying to make an analogy involving network transfer and plumbing-style piping is ludicrous, you don't understand networking and you're obviously no more justified in harangueing slashbots that assault Stevens' braindead speech than Stevens was in making the speech in the first place.

Spoilers: Collision detection, fragmentation, and retransfer is the key.

Re:So? (0, Troll)

smitth1276 (832902) | more than 7 years ago | (#15783526)

"Pipes" are a very good metaphor for explaining the situation to the general public. They don't know what "pipes" are withing the context of networking, and won't be the least bit confused. You obviously don't get out much, and are a perfect example of why I am perfectly justified in "harangueing" slashdotters.

Re:So? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15783558)

Er, so calling it a "tube" instead of a "pipe" in a speech to laypeople because he didn't also mention jitter and other networking effects makes it laughable?

"Pipe" only is a general term that we use that describes the connection between two networking elements. Thats it. As in: "They have a OC12 pipe to their peering router". "Tube" describes the same concept.

Oh yeah and "retransfer" isn't a networking term that I have heard of and I am a networking engineer. Perhaps you are talking about retransmission. So I guess I just busted you and made you look like a fool to everyone here on Slashdot.

Re:So? (1)

Roody Blashes (975889) | more than 7 years ago | (#15783621)

Oh, yes, you exposed me. I didn't use the strict networking term, instead using a word that outside of networking jargon is a perfectly acceptable synonym. Gee, I'm just so deeply embarrassed that I'm completely doubting myself at my very core now, because even though I got the concept perfect, I just didn't use the right jargon to identify it.

Oh, wait, no. This is coming from a random, trolling AC who doesn't understand the difference between pipe as a generic term for a connection and pipe as an analogy.

Go stuff a whole bunch of bits down your T1 and STFU. When you can get electrons jammed up in copper wire the way you can get strands of hair jammed up in a piece of PVC pipe, you can come back and argue with me. Until then, you're just an idiot, you're obviously NOT a network engineer, and you're also pretty obviously getting all your "knowledge" out of a Wikipedia abstract.

Re:So? (0, Offtopic)

smitth1276 (832902) | more than 7 years ago | (#15783462)

You, like the OP, are dealing in non-sequitors. I suppose it is to be expected on slashdot, where faux intellectualism and superficial points lacking in substance are the norm.

So are you implying that we should repeal all anti-spam laws and let the spammers that have been convicted out of jail? We should go ahead and make wire fraud legal? Afterall, we can't necessarily enforce that outside of the US. Should we also make terroristic threats legal? Someone could call anyone from outside of the country where we couldn't enforce it and threaten someone's family. Should we make producing narcotics legal since those can be produced in other nations?

If you follow your logic to its conclusion, it becomes unworkable.

And for what it's worth, the whole "series of tubes" thing is actually a pretty good metaphor for use in the net neutrality debate, even if it was horribly misused.

Re:So? (1)

Roody Blashes (975889) | more than 7 years ago | (#15783560)

...where faux intellectualism and superficial points lacking in substance are the norm.

I like how you make that statement as if you're some sort of bastion of intellectual debate, then go on in your second paragraph to make up a whole string of extremist opinions that nobody except you posited, which you then apply to the other poster in an attempt to discredit him using speech he never actually put forward. Oh, yes, that's TERRIBLY intellectual and I can't imagine why just assigning our opponents new opinions wasn't considered a valid tactic in debate theory...

I'll open up the betting on how long it takes you to start misattributing logical fallacies to people based on the definitions of those fallacies that you found on Wikipedia.

Re:So? (1)

Billosaur (927319) | more than 7 years ago | (#15783609)

So are you implying that we should repeal all anti-spam laws and let the spammers that have been convicted out of jail? We should go ahead and make wire fraud legal? Afterall, we can't necessarily enforce that outside of the US. Should we also make terroristic threats legal? Someone could call anyone from outside of the country where we couldn't enforce it and threaten someone's family. Should we make producing narcotics legal since those can be produced in other nations?

Wire fraud is enforced globally because we have the cooperation of foreign banks. Terroristic threats made from outside the country are also enforceable with the cooperation of other countries. This is a one-sided attempt to tell people what they can and can't put in their META tags. Your arguments are specious, because you are comparing criminal acts to what someone puts as web content on a web site. If someone choses to advertise their porn with false meta data, hoping to lure children to their site, then they will be found out by one of the enforcement agencies in this country, using existing laws. Trying to legislate META tag content is a stupid idea.

Re:So? (1)

TheGreek (2403) | more than 7 years ago | (#15783531)

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.

Re:So? (1)

NewWorldDan (899800) | more than 7 years ago | (#15783357)

And as we've learned, occasionally people switch planes in the US on the way to Costa Rica.

But is there actually a problem? (2, Insightful)

blorg (726186) | more than 7 years ago | (#15783449)

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.

Re:So? (1)

DrXym (126579) | more than 7 years ago | (#15783575)

The main question being why the hell codify it at all?

It will also be punishable... (5, Funny)

Billosaur (927319) | more than 7 years ago | (#15783262)

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

Re:It will also be punishable... (1)

andrewman327 (635952) | more than 7 years ago | (#15783300)

Not punishable, just a lie.

Even better.. (4, Insightful)

Rob T Firefly (844560) | more than 7 years ago | (#15783406)

..it will become illegal for members of Congress to use misleading terms like "tubes" to describe worldwide packet-switching networks.

Re:Even better.. (1)

Billosaur (927319) | more than 7 years ago | (#15783539)

I doubt they'd go for it... they'd hate to have their "tubes" tied.

What about all the other Barbies? (5, Insightful)

mopslik (688435) | more than 7 years ago | (#15783270)

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

Re:What about all the other Barbies? (1)

Billosaur (927319) | more than 7 years ago | (#15783352)

Well, if this passes, there's your first test case. Anyone know a porn star named Barbie with a web site?

Re:What about all the other Barbies? (0, Offtopic)

Intron (870560) | more than 7 years ago | (#15783414)

I am just imagining a porn star named Furby.

Re:What about all the other Barbies? (1)

mobby_6kl (668092) | more than 7 years ago | (#15783532)

> I am just imagining a porn star named Furby

Small and furry? Try searching for "french porn"

Re:What about all the other Barbies? (1)

truthsearch (249536) | more than 7 years ago | (#15783570)

I am just imagining a porn star named Pokeman. Oops, now I wish I wasn't...

Re:What about all the other Barbies? (1)

Tx (96709) | more than 7 years ago | (#15783450)

Canadian Lanny Barbie springs to mind (official site [lannibarbie.com] ). Although "Barby" seems to be the primary spelling of her name, she's often credited as Lanny Barbie, and that spelling is prominently displayed in the keywords on her site.

Re:What about all the other Barbies? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15783460)

The obvious case is Lanny Barbie [wikipedia.org] .

Re:What about all the other Barbies? (1)

ComaVN (325750) | more than 7 years ago | (#15783487)

Lanny Barbie [wikipedia.org]

Re:What about all the other Barbies? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15783375)

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 spell it). Also, I think exactly what gets linked to will play a key role here. So if you google for "barbie and ken" and a link takes you to a porn site, if the page you land on is a "this is an adult site ...." type of page, you could make a reasonable argument that you weren't trying to ensnare a minor. However, if it takes to directly to a page with, well, you know, then you are opening yourself up (no pun intended) for getting nailed (oh, there I go again) by this law.

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.

Re:What about all the other Barbies? (4, Funny)

neonprimetime (528653) | more than 7 years ago | (#15783398)

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?

Re:What about all the other Barbies? (1, Interesting)

ettlz (639203) | more than 7 years ago | (#15783466)

Wouldn't that be a trademark violation... or something... anyway?

Re:What about all the other Barbies? (3, Informative)

stokes (148512) | more than 7 years ago | (#15783556)

"Barbie" is a real, albeit dated, contraction of Barbara that predates the fashion doll. There shouldn't be any problem so long as the web site isn't selling a toy of that name.

Seriously... (0, Offtopic)

DreamingReal (216288) | more than 7 years ago | (#15783523)

... won't someone please think of the strippers?!

Step in the right direction (2, Interesting)

andrewman327 (635952) | more than 7 years ago | (#15783271)

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.

Re:Step in the right direction (4, Insightful)

just_another_sean (919159) | more than 7 years ago | (#15783351)

I agree with your sentiment but there are ways around the issue you describe without resorting to legislation.

For example in IE you can set an option on the Advanced tab to not search from the address bar. Or you could install NetNanny or something similar. I know these aren't perfect options but a little public education and parental responsibility seems to me to be a better place to start then passing laws like this.

Again the cries of "someone needs to think of the children" seem to drown out all common sense and parental responsibility. As long as people insist on Congress playing guardians to their children we will continue to see our rights eroded as legislation such is this is eventually used for other then the intended purpose.

Re:Step in the right direction (4, Insightful)

Intron (870560) | more than 7 years ago | (#15783379)

So ask your rep. to pass a law requiring a new TLD named '.xxx' and put all the porn sites there. Oh wait, they just blocked that.

Does it happen all that much? (5, Insightful)

goatan (673464) | more than 7 years ago | (#15783393)

How common is it to visit a porn site when you where really looking for Barbie dolls or anything else for that matter? It's not something that has ever happened to me. The only time I see porn on the internet is if I go look for it.

'Innocent' words (4, Insightful)

MarkByers (770551) | more than 7 years ago | (#15783272)

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...

The Actual Text of Section 703 (4, Insightful)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 7 years ago | (#15783340)

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.

Re:The Actual Text of Section 703 (1)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 7 years ago | (#15783535)

(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?

IANAL (1)

BitterAndDrunk (799378) | more than 7 years ago | (#15783557)

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.

Re:'Innocent' words (1)

halbert (714394) | more than 7 years ago | (#15783378)

Does anyone else see the potential for a lawsuit? This is an obviously blatant attempt to circumvent the constitiution, with regards to the right to free speech.

I am not a pornographer, and I abhor pedophiles as much as the next non-pedophiliac, but I still will defend their right to say what they want on their website. I served honorably for 10 years in the US Army, and I did it for the freedoms that we enjoy in this country. I hate seeing those freedoms being eroded away daily, by a government that feels that the threat of terrorism gives them the right to do whatever they want, regardless of what our founding fathers wanted for this country.

This is absolutely despicable, even by Congress's standards.

Re:'Innocent' words (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15783587)

While there are few willing to defend the rights of pedophiles, I think the worst part of this all is that this has nothing to do with pedophilia. Another poster asked "would a porn star named 'Barbie' have to change their name?" Who decides what's "innocent"? A judge? A vigilante like Jack Thompson? The Utah "porn czar"? If the government arrests you, shuts down your site, and seizes your property, only to lose to a jury of your peers who feels that a site featuring sex "toys" really isn't all that innocent after all, do you get to sue the government for damages with a reasonable expectation of being paid and having your property returned?

This is absolutely despicable, even by Congress's standards.

Agreed. I am sick and tired of the federal government's "Miller-test" laws where all they have to do is shop around for a federal court anywhere in the nation that the standards of decency are highest so that they can pull a jury of prudes. I am sick and tired of the SCOTUS chickening out and refusing to review injuntions against these laws because the person seeking the injunction hasn't been "harmed" (read dragged through the courts, imprisoned, drained of money, and publically shamed).

Re:'Innocent' words (1)

ArcherB (796902) | more than 7 years ago | (#15783598)

I hate seeing those freedoms being eroded away daily, by a government that feels that the threat of terrorism gives them the right to do whatever they want, regardless of what our founding fathers wanted for this country.
Who is saying that porn peddlers are terrorists?
I don't think the Founders meant that free speech would include using the names of children's toys to intentionally and deceptively lure kids to porn sites. That's like saying that "Hey little girl, you want some candy? Step into my van." on the school yard is protected under free speech.

I too served in the Army, but it certainly wasn't to protect the rights of pedophiles and child pornographers. I served to protect the innocent and their rights, not those that would intentionally harm them.

Isn't it a bit late for that? (1)

91degrees (207121) | more than 7 years ago | (#15783275)

I thought search engines stopped using meta-tags years ago because of this sort of problem.

Re:Isn't it a bit late for that? (1)

tuffy (10202) | more than 7 years ago | (#15783331)

You're correct; no modern search engine uses meta tags for anything anymore. TFA doesn't mention meta tags either which makes me wonder how they got in the headline.

Re:Isn't it a bit late for that? (1)

91degrees (207121) | more than 7 years ago | (#15783551)

Good point...

I should have learned by now that I shouldn't trust Slashdot summaries.

Re:Isn't it a bit late for that? (2, Informative)

hauntingthunder (985246) | more than 7 years ago | (#15783336)

Indeed The META keywords tag was so abused and so google and the others just ignore them. A fact that a lot of webmasters havnt realised yet the Description and the geo location tags are usefull though.

Idiots (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15783278)

Yet again American law makers show the world that they just don't understand tha intarweb.

META (3, Funny)

certel (849946) | more than 7 years ago | (#15783286)

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.

Does it work the other way? (5, Funny)

Rob T Firefly (844560) | more than 7 years ago | (#15783288)

Can costumed fetishist adults sue a 12-year-old girl for describing her pet puppydog as "furry" on her livejournal?

Re:Does it work the other way? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15783477)

No. Becouse 'furry' is original word describing animals with fur witch is the case. No misleading in this case.

"harmful" (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15783294)

Yes, my daughter looked at a website with "harmful" content and went blind... How about if she looked at "appropriate" content and became pregnant?

Great, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15783296)

This seems like another of those unenforcable-due-to-ambiguity bills. When they come up with a concrete method for saying if something falls under these criteria, fine. Seems like a good way to keep youngsters from unintentionally coming across potentially traumatic and/or embarassing things.

Reality Distortion Field... (1)

creimer (824291) | more than 7 years ago | (#15783313)

Maybe Congress should apply a "truth in advertising" to itself this election year. Oh, wait a minute. Did that idea make sense?!

CAN-SPAM anyone ? (1)

galaad2 (847861) | more than 7 years ago | (#15783318)

hmm, why does this seem to me that it will suffer the fate of CAN-SPAM ?? what will they use to enforce this on a servers hosted outside the US ?? an ICBM ? so far the CAN-SPAM act only means that i can get more spam :(

Anybody want to start an over/under on how much... (4, Interesting)

BlackCobra43 (596714) | more than 7 years ago | (#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.

Oops (2, Informative)

BlackCobra43 (596714) | more than 7 years ago | (#15783347)

Shoold have RFTA more carefully. It's ALREADY passed. Lovely.

Re:Anybody want to start an over/under on how much (1)

Chelloveck (14643) | more than 7 years ago | (#15783383)

how much PORK is/will be stuffed into this bill?

I dunno, but I know a number of web sites that will show you lots of PORK being stuffed into things...

(I wonder if PORK is a forbidden meta-tag...?)

Yup, it's an election year (1)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 7 years ago | (#15783334)

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.

Congress Once Again Addressing Our Biggest Problem (5, Insightful)

digitaldc (879047) | more than 7 years ago | (#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!

Re:Congress Once Again Addressing Our Biggest Prob (2, Funny)

Billosaur (927319) | more than 7 years ago | (#15783386)

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.

How will this affect Barbie Linux (2, Funny)

MarkByers (770551) | more than 7 years ago | (#15783348)


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.

Re:How will this affect Barbie Linux (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15783534)

Penguin pr0n, YEEEEAH BABY!!!

But.. (0, Offtopic)

abscissa (136568) | more than 7 years ago | (#15783359)

Will we still be able to use the Slashdot tagging system to... ... label Dvorak articles "idiot moron troll"? ... tag all articles with questions in the headline with "yes no maybe"? ... label gov't related articles with "facism bigbrother nasa"?

Meta tags? Does this even matter? (1)

jerkychew (80913) | more than 7 years ago | (#15783368)

Honestly, who still relies on meta tags these days?

Give It Time, My Brother, Give It Time (1)

RobotRunAmok (595286) | more than 7 years ago | (#15783385)

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.

Bilderburg? (1)

krell (896769) | more than 7 years ago | (#15783498)

Did you make their last convention? Elvis was there, way cool. The platoon of Bigfeet serving mammoth-meat and dodobird hors'douvres was a nice touch. I don't think everyone liked it: I saw Steve Gutenberg dump a tray in the large pool to feed Nessie.

The sad truth of this law will be... (2, Insightful)

Tsagadai (922574) | more than 7 years ago | (#15783407)

...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.

Re:The sad truth of this law will be... (0, Offtopic)

blindd0t (855876) | more than 7 years ago | (#15783497)

Thanks for the reminder first thing in the morning jackass. I nearly saw the coffee I just finished drinking again.

=)

Probably should post this as AC... (3, Funny)

Chrontius (654879) | more than 7 years ago | (#15783411)

But this is going to be a sad day for fans of My Little Pony porn.

Re:Probably should post this as AC... (0, Offtopic)

Quiet_Desperation (858215) | more than 7 years ago | (#15783446)

Isn't *every* day a sad day for the furry porn folks?

Soooo last millennium... (2, Insightful)

idontgno (624372) | more than 7 years ago | (#15783415)

to say nothing about being completely impossible to enforce globally

National sovereignty. How quaint.

Nice example - What about the Barbie Twins? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15783416)

Such a silly example. Go tell playboy they can't advertize the barbie twins with the word barbie.

Good news (3, Funny)

Moby Cock (771358) | more than 7 years ago | (#15783421)

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.

But Barbie means.. (1)

DarkDragonVKQ (881472) | more than 7 years ago | (#15783422)

A young (18-25?) Skinny Blonde in porno. :(

Congresscritter mentality (5, Insightful)

Valacosa (863657) | more than 7 years ago | (#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!

Hard at work I see (3, Insightful)

grasshoppa (657393) | more than 7 years ago | (#15783447)

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 (5, Insightful)

martinmcc (214402) | more than 7 years ago | (#15783467)

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.

wow slashdot (0, Offtopic)

friedman101 (618627) | more than 7 years ago | (#15783473)

"Terrible news for the Barbie/Furbie fetishists out there"

This wasn't even a punchline

tags (1)

Vexorian (959249) | more than 7 years ago | (#15783483)

How exactly do you know when a word is 'innocent' . I think that they should enforce them to use porn or xxx tags so search engines can block them if safe search is on. Or nannies can do.

Sex != Harmful (5, Insightful)

sane? (179855) | more than 7 years ago | (#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.

DAMMIT! (3, Funny)

Monokeros (200892) | more than 7 years ago | (#15783516)

My new web site www.funwithbarbiesandfurbieshappyinnocentfunsitefo rkidswithabsolutelynoanalsexipromise.com ...

Is DOOMED!

What's a "furby"? (0, Offtopic)

Goaway (82658) | more than 7 years ago | (#15783521)

Kids these days with their "furbies" and "walkmans", get offa my lawn!

AdSense "shotgunning" (1)

Chatmag (646500) | more than 7 years ago | (#15783527)

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, now a landing page for AdSense ads. Notice the "Results for miraclewebva.com", actually they are AdSense ads. The term shotgunning refers to buying a bunch of domains in the hopes of hitting AdSense clicks from a search for a large variety of keywords.

There is nothing illegal about that practice, but it does pollute search results, and is misleading, so, while Congress is at it, maybe they need to look into this practice also.

If anyone has heard of another term used for this practice let me know. Otherwise, I'm claiming credit for defining the practice. (hey, would this qualify for a "first post"??) :)

Twenty years for this? (4, Insightful)

ttys00 (235472) | more than 7 years ago | (#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.

That's a great idea - (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15783607)

Why saddle parents with the responsability of watching over their children when we can have the government do it.

Any day now, Snowball will show up, select a few children to raise and a few years later we'll have an even BETTER protection from ourselves!

Great idea!

COMPLETELY unconstitutional (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15783610)

This is completely unconstitutional. Furby may be a term used in the sex industry to describe a particular act, as could Barbie. I don't know, but its covered under freedom of speech. Kids like Humvee "Hummers" because they are cool cars, but a search for this term is probably going to bring up some sex site.

No one needs the government to protect their children. Protect them yourselves and leave our constitution intact.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...