|
Wednesday, 26 July 2006
§ 2252C. Misleading words or digital images on the Internet
[by rosary@4:36pmGMT] [+10 Informative] ‘‘(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—HR 4472 EAS ‘‘(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.’ |
Comments
 |
strangeffect
said @ 4:38pm GMT on 26th Jul
how is goatman going to feed his kids? |
|
cosmo7
said @ 4:39pm GMT on 26th Jul
[Score:4 Informative]
Lovely kittens! |
|
Saint_Marck
said @ 5:25pm GMT on 26th Jul
[Score:1 Informative]
WARNING, if you are under the age of 18, leave now. |
|
shiney things
said @ 5:32pm GMT on 26th Jul
i never noticed how droopy his sac is |
|
strangeffect
said @ 6:18pm GMT on 26th Jul
well you seem easily distracted |
|
strangeffect
said @ 5:37pm GMT on 26th Jul
[Score:2 Underrated]
hey for someone whos vagina was packed with sand over 2257, you're awful quick to break this one |
|
strangeffect
said @ 5:37pm GMT on 26th Jul
i understand the warning, but ya know |
|
Saint_Marck
said @ 5:49pm GMT on 26th Jul
[Score:1 Insightful]
If I had to pick an image to represent my cultural identity, I'd pick Goatse. It isn't a shock image, or an anti-anything. It's a man performing an act of "gaping". It's another facet of the vastness of human experience. I am a better, richer person for having seen it. Consentual sexuality isn't ugly, or dirty, or wrong. I regard an attack on that, and other things like that, as an attack on my culture, and on my core beliefs. And it's not going to hurt a young person to know about it. Repression and intolerance are what create the stigma, and they're what do the harm. |
|
sacrelicious
said @ 5:52pm GMT on 26th Jul
the mature side of me says "well put!", but the imature side of me says "HAHA, yous said goatse is part of your culture!" |
|
Tirade
said @ 11:59pm GMT on 26th Jul
So says the man whose nickname is 'sac'. Heh heh... sac. |
|
sacrelicious
said @ 12:02am GMT on 27th Jul
hey, I never chose that nickname. it has merely been chosen for me by the members of every site I have used the name "sacrelicious" on. but I do think it's a cool nickname of my nickname. |
|
arrowhen
said @ 6:02pm GMT on 26th Jul
[Score:1 Funny]
Consentual sexuality isn't ugly, or dirty, or wrong. Unless the parties involved WANT it to be. ;) |
|
Tirade
said @ 11:59pm GMT on 26th Jul
[Score:1 Insightful]
Consentual sexuality isn't ugly, or dirty, or wrong. Except when done properly. |
|
strangeffect
said @ 6:07pm GMT on 26th Jul
...vastness... pretty much sums it up |
|
Saint_Marck
said @ 5:40pm GMT on 26th Jul
This is too much. How could anyone ensure a community site is compliant? Fuck it. |
|
strangeffect
said @ 5:45pm GMT on 26th Jul
easy, magic. |
|
Tirade
said @ 12:00am GMT on 27th Jul
Only the darkest of black magicks. |
|
Nostrildamus
said @ 2:42am GMT on 27th Jul
That's why it will never be enforceable. |
|
cweaver
said @ 6:58am GMT on 27th Jul
No, that's why they write laws like this. So it can be selectively enforced on just about anybody at any time. That way if you ever do anything to annoy them, there's already a law on the books to nail you for. |
|
Aidentas
said @ 4:45pm GMT on 26th Jul
Wouldn't the term "Sensible Erection" satiate part (c)? |
|
dagfari
said @ 4:48pm GMT on 26th Jul
[Score:1 Funny]
Sex is extremely dangerous to children. In fact, I think that if no one ever had any sex at all, all of our children would instantly be protected from this sort of thing. |
|
snowfox
said @ 8:14am GMT on 27th Jul
More importantly we'll soon have no children to protect. Problem solved! Who wants to join me in the den for celebratory beer and pizza? |
|
Soshi_Aroso
said @ 9:43am GMT on 27th Jul
But beer can lead to children! |
|
Asscheeks Akimbo
said @ 4:52pm GMT on 26th Jul
Yes, yes, yes, blah, blah, blah, and spam is illegal. Tell me another one, internet "police". |
|
bashturn
said @ 4:54pm GMT on 26th Jul
The 2006 USA anti-goatse act ? Americans are funny |
|
garrockas
said @ 4:56pm GMT on 26th Jul
[Score:5 Underrated]
...some of us are just plain embarrassed... |
|
ashura666
said @ 4:40am GMT on 27th Jul
some... but no where near enough of you. |
|
Electrohacker01
said @ 4:55pm GMT on 26th Jul
 |
|
Trigger
said @ 4:40am GMT on 27th Jul
[Score:1 Funny]
... Nice watchlist. |
|
pomegranate
said @ 5:03pm GMT on 26th Jul
I love porn, have a lot of porn and am generally a bit of a pervert. But I don't see why this law is crazy. Not entirely neccessary, perhaps, but definitely not crazy. Teh pr0no causes strong feelings for some people (not THOSE feelings, silly!) and I think it's pretty unkind, and depending on the viewer and material concerned, potentially immoral, to, as the legislation seems to specify, make people view it unwillingly. Unless I'm missing something... |
|
Saint_Marck
said @ 5:29pm GMT on 26th Jul
You don't have the complete picture. |
|
pomegranate
said @ 5:53pm GMT on 26th Jul
Yep, I definitely asked for that. |
|
Saint_Marck
said @ 5:54pm GMT on 26th Jul
When someone sees an expression of human sexuality, and is harmed, they're a victim of a repressive culture. Something has been stolen from them. They're lives are narrow. No, it's not unkind or immoral. What's immoral is conditioning people to avoid or fear the richness and reality of human experiences. |
|
conception
said @ 8:39pm GMT on 26th Jul
[Score:1 Insightful]
On the other, more paranoid side of the coin, if you make laws that are impossible to be in compliance with, you create a nation of criminals. If everyone is a criminal, it becomes very easy to control them. :) |
|
HoZay
said @ 8:57pm GMT on 26th Jul
That's why they've been building prisons as fast as they can. |
|
Tirade
said @ 12:01am GMT on 27th Jul
... UNLESS said picture is of a close relative. Then that person has every right to be scarred for life. |
|
Jestyr
said @ 12:58am GMT on 27th Jul
A friend of mine recommended that I read "TThe Lone Ranger and Tonot Fist-Fight in Heaven" by Sherman Alexie. I never did get to read much of it, but there were a few specific passages that stuck with me from this work. It's a collection of short stories about native americans and life on a reservation. It seemed to have mostly been from the PoV of kids, from what I read. One of the short stories included a boy being amazed that his anglo friends didn't know the sound of their parents making love. To him, living in slightly confined quarters, the sound of his parents making love was comforting, it meant things were good and happy. I've often wondered if this was something that was very eurocentric, this fear of people we're related to having sex, or not. I'm not saying let's go find grandma schtupping pappy, but I am generally supportive of people having sex, and denying that to my parents would be strange. Sorry, didn't mean to kill the joke with long, winding, semi-pointless rambling, but can anyone confirm or deny if this is something unique to our culture? |
|
Nostrildamus
said @ 2:42am GMT on 27th Jul
Puritanism & the industrial revolution put paid to this in the European cultures. Before then everyone lived bunched up together, particularly the poor, & it would have been similar to the situation you write of. Industrial revolution gave people more wealth & larger homes, more privacy, & christianity teaches that sex for pleasure is an evil thing. In some cases, say for the poor in London right up until the early 20th century, it would have remained the same as it was before, as they were big families living in 1 room, or worse. The modern Western view of sexuality seems to be a peculiarity amid the overall span of human culture. |
|
Nihil
said @ 4:51am GMT on 27th Jul
I'm not saying let's go find grandma schtupping pappy Okay, now that would probably be considered creepy in almost every culture. |
|
Soshi_Aroso
said @ 9:45am GMT on 27th Jul
Unless, or course, you realize that pappy usually refers to grandpa. |
|
pomegranate
said @ 1:06am GMT on 27th Jul
BS. Do you really think it's healthy for a young kid to view some nice DP action? What about a Nun? What about a Muslim woman (not that I claim to understand the Islamic stance on sex)? What about any old Bob at work? Some people have totally healthy sex lives without being into porn, and many of these feel very strongly that porn is immoral... How about a bit of respect for other people's feelings and opinions? |
|
Nostrildamus
said @ 2:44am GMT on 27th Jul
"How about a bit of respect for other people's feelings and opinions?" That's not human. |
|
revchoppy
said @ 5:40am GMT on 27th Jul
Absolutely not. The only reason why I browse work safe SE is because I don't want to lose my job, but there is never a reason to respect someone's misguided paranoia about seeing images of people having sex. They deserve no respect. |
|
pomegranate
said @ 7:41am GMT on 27th Jul
WTF? I'm not talking about paranoia. I'm talking about someone who doesn't want to see porno, being tricked into seeing porno. Why should they deserve no respect? That's pretty narrow minded imo. |
|
pomegranate
said @ 7:42am GMT on 27th Jul
dammit |
|
revchoppy
said @ 8:08am GMT on 27th Jul
Because if they are offended by seeing a sex act, then they are psychologically damaged. I don't have respect for other people's neuroses. I may understand why they have them, but I don't respect them. Don't confuse that, however, with not respecting their feelings. But their fears and preferences shouldn't be respected, they need counseling to get over being offended by the most basic natural act that nearly every species on the planet engages in. |
|
pomegranate
said @ 7:42am GMT on 27th Jul
WTF? I'm not talking about paranoia. I'm talking about someone who doesn't want to see porno, for whatever reason, being tricked into seeing porno. Why should they deserve no respect? That's pretty narrow minded imo. |
|
mao tse helen
said @ 5:10pm GMT on 26th Jul
Due to the various possible interpretations of what constitutes sexual content, it's difficult for webmasters to understand exactly how to comply with this new law. Fortunately, this video helps explain how to work with the law and more clearly defines the type of content you have to worry about. |
|
GordonGuano
said @ 5:12pm GMT on 26th Jul
Ya think the universe would implode if a law was written in easy-to-understand, non-convoluted English that was so straightforward it wasn't left open to interpretation? (The above sentence is an example of the upper limit of complexity a law should be written in.) |
|
mister
said @ 5:18pm GMT on 26th Jul
Heres my thought: Republicans SUCK ! |
|
strangeffect
said @ 5:46pm GMT on 26th Jul
would be curious to see actual breakdown of the vote |
|
Evan
said @ 5:53pm GMT on 26th Jul
I'd like to blame this on republicans too but think of the next election season... TV: Senator Democratizor voted AGAINST protecting minors from lascivious pornography (picture of poor innocent children). Is this the man you want in office? *Payed for by the Christian Colation for Moral Equity In Our Community* |
|
Evan
said @ 5:54pm GMT on 26th Jul
*spelling |
|
Saint_Marck
said @ 5:27pm GMT on 26th Jul
[Score:5 Underrated]
Dear members of Congress: Fuck you in the neck. |
|
revchoppy
said @ 5:53pm GMT on 26th Jul
No problem. The NAME of this site gives away it's content before the user ever sees a thing. Now, if someone put something like kittens in a hyperlink, then THEY would get fined, not SE. |
|
Saint_Marck
said @ 5:56pm GMT on 26th Jul
I think we'll be fine if we just go about our business as usual. |
|
sn
said @ 6:25pm GMT on 26th Jul
Yeah "with intent to deceive" makes it pretty straightforward. |
|
anger_die
said @ 8:26pm GMT on 26th Jul
Practical jokes, dead. Goatse, dead. He's a martyr now. |
|
BigJuiceMan
said @ 9:14pm GMT on 26th Jul
long live goatse! =)0(= |
|
revchoppy
said @ 6:43pm GMT on 26th Jul
Yeah... but I'm still with you on the whole Congressional neck fucking thing. |
|
dietdeity
said @ 6:42pm GMT on 26th Jul
add a splash page for SE that states all users should assume EVERYTHING here's obscene, and if they want to continue they go ahead. |
|
Saint_Marck
said @ 7:38pm GMT on 26th Jul
Only if goatse is actually on the splash page. |
|
sacrelicious
said @ 7:40pm GMT on 26th Jul
a full page spread? |
|
sacrelicious
said @ 11:26pm GMT on 26th Jul
*taps mic* is this thing on? |
|
assbastard
said @ 11:32pm GMT on 26th Jul
That's not a mic, but keep tapping. And rubbing. Rub it. |
|
sacrelicious
said @ 12:09am GMT on 27th Jul
check, one, two, sibilance, sibilance. |
|
Tirade
said @ 12:02am GMT on 27th Jul
It's already pretty spread. |
|
anger_die
said @ 8:02pm GMT on 26th Jul
You should also add a little box on the screen where the user would have to enter their date of birth. This will ensure no minors will be able to access the site. But we all know some little punk would find a way to hack that, so best add a check box too where they'd have to agree to being 18 years of age or older. |
|
headlessfriar
said @ 8:05pm GMT on 26th Jul
If someone says that they're underage or unwilling to see "adult" material, the link should send them to 4chan. |
|
anger_die
said @ 8:16pm GMT on 26th Jul
[Score:1 Funny]
4chan?! These are kids we're talking about! I think it should just send them to Disney's website. |
|
Garibaldi Biscuit
said @ 6:04am GMT on 27th Jul
Man, after all these years waiting to see them, I must say Jessica Rabbit's tits are a dissapointment. |
|
Jaxon
said @ 7:49pm GMT on 26th Jul
[Score:2]
Am I the only fucking person that remembers the internet isn't entirely contained in the United States? |
|
strangeffect
said @ 8:26pm GMT on 26th Jul
No. Point? |
|
vahid
said @ 8:19pm GMT on 26th Jul
oh  |
|
Jallandhara
said @ 8:47pm GMT on 26th Jul
"..constituting obscenity.." I love it when the government decides what is or isn't obscene. Cocksuckers. |
|
Seneki69
said @ 11:21pm GMT on 26th Jul
[Score:1 Funny]
I found the 6pm new last night 'obscene'. I was eating and didn't need to see a pile of miscellaneous body parts from the bombings in the L country. My pasta tubes and sauce didn't look the same after that... |
|
Edo
said @ 10:00pm GMT on 26th Jul
americans are stupid. what?? that's the message you are sending to the rest of us... Sure I understand it is not the "average joe" making these choices, but it is "your" government, and as a democratic country (and supposedly the "Land Of The Free") you have a right and duty to control what your government does. So, "american's are stupid". I apologise for any offense, but rather than getting shitty at me, why don't you write a letter to your local member of congress, or vote, or some such other thing that is within your power. And as the King said: "A little less conversation, a little more action please All this aggravation ain't satisfactioning me A little more bite and a little less bark A little less fight and a little more spark Close your mouth and open up your heart and baby satisfy me Satisfy me baby Baby close your eyes and listen to the music Drifting through a summer breeze It's a groovy night and I can show you how to use it Come along with me and put your mind at ease A little less conversation, a little more action please All this aggravation ain't satisfactioning me A little more bite and a little less bark A little less fight and a little more spark Close your mouth and open up your heart and baby satisfy me Satisfy me baby Come on baby I'm tired of talking Grab your coat and let's start walking Come on, come on Come on, come on Come on, come on Don't procrastinate, don't articulate Girl it's getting late, gettin' upset waitin' around A little less conversation, a little more action please All this aggravation ain't satisfactioning me A little more bite and a little less bark A little less fight and a little more spark Close your mouth and open up your heart and baby satisfy me Satisfy me baby" |
|
Jestyr
said @ 1:03am GMT on 27th Jul
technically, we're a democratic republic. |
|
Jestyr
said @ 1:05am GMT on 27th Jul
I'm sorry, representative democratic republic. Damn you, Nyquil! |
|
f00m@nB@r
said @ 10:11pm GMT on 26th Jul
report of fbi checking up 2257 records CHATSWORTH, Calif. - FBI agents on Monday visited the offices of Diabolic Video to check the company's records in accordance with the recordkeeping regulations of 18 U.S.C. §2257, according to Diabolic owner Greg Allan. |
|
verycleanteeth
said @ 1:27am GMT on 27th Jul
I was going to click your link to read it, but I was afraid it would just be goatse. |
|
f00m@nB@r
said @ 4:37am GMT on 27th Jul
doh. wrong link. try this: http://www.avn.com/index.php?Primary_Navigation=Articles&Action=View_Article&Content_ID=272407 |
|
De_Wr0ng
said @ 8:46am GMT on 27th Jul
America, the land of the |
Post a comment
[note: if you are replying to a specific comment,
then click the reply link on that comment instead]You must be logged in to comment on posts.
Thoughts?
Complete text of law in extended.