Barbie censored by bold Bush

44 comments

On Tuesday, the US House Of Representatives approved the Child Protection and Safety Act, which Bush is expected to sign on Thursday. According to CNet, this bill will:

"... make it a federal felony for Webmasters to use innocent words like 'Barbie' or 'Furby' but actually feature sexual content on their sites."

Take a look at the actual text of the bill that applies to the web ...


Child Protection and Safety Act

DECEPTION BY EMBEDDED WORDS OR IMAGES

(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.

... and it's as light on specifics as it is heavy on moral outrage. How will this affect those dealing with adult content, and could other sectors be branded as 'obscenities' by web puritans?

Comments

Is there a legal definition

Is there a legal definition of "obscene" and/or "harmful to minors" in the US?

In the UK (from memory), obscene is defined (in legal terms) as something ..."likely to corrupt and deprave a proportionate number of people likely to see it"

US Legal Definition

I believe it is deemed by general concensus of a given geographic area...so it varies from place to place (i.e. small towns versus big cities, south versuses north versuses the wacked but fun loving west...etc.).

I agree with the intent of the bill but every little gain "they" get will make it easier for all the gains that do not make sense.

SB

It's ICANN's Fault

MattKP came up with a good point via IM ... he said to blame the fact that ICANN could have added .xxx domain to help filter this stuff out in the first place.

this is crap

Ya know, its not the fault of the stripper named "Barbie" that when a child searches Google for their favorite doll, they find a porn site. Maybe they should have passed the .xxx domain name... I think their lack of understanding of technology makes them think the solution is to take away freedoms... morons. ... search engines fault.

I'm a Brit and live in the

I'm a Brit and live in the UK.

My concern if a page about Barbie dolls is say comment spammed with porn links it will probably fall foul of this issue and I can get nabbed as I change planes!!!

Just boycott going to the US

Jason, you can get nabbed anyway. If you were ever involved with any US business that ever ran foul of the law or is believed to have run foul. It's a nasty state of affairs.

How long until someone

How long until someone creates a Barbie bot or Furby bot to seek out sites and comment spam pages with those words?

I don't like the idea of the government of one country trying to control language internationally. Language is not theirs...it belongs to everyone.

I wouldn't doubt someone leaving comments that said "Furby suck ____" and sign their name as George W. Bush.

And while pushing through these bullshit laws you still have the military creating video games for children and holding pizza and war video game gatherings with 13 year old children. That's some hypocritical bullshit, IMHO.

.XXX is a Joke

The only thing .XXX does is open the door to censorship and human rights violations on the web. It won't protect a single child on this planet. Do you really think any child pornagrapher is going to abide by the rules and register his .XXX domain? It just makes it easier for government and organizations to censor the web from individuals.

Not to mention who determines what has to go on a .XXX TLD? What is the definition of adult content? Is it the hardcore porn site or the latest Maxim centerfold?

.XXX was proposed on a set of lies to make some assholes rich. At $60 a year, they would have cleaned up.

More

Quote:
Is there a legal definition of "obscene" and/or "harmful to minors" in the US?

This is the crux of the problem. There is nothing that truly defines obscene. It could be a dirty porn video or an episode of Sex and the City. It allows the government to charge you under "obscenity" for almost anything.

Take for instance our US government. There was a site that soldiers were sending pictures to that included dead soldiers and such. Basically a forum that showed what war was like for them. The government couldn't do anything to the guy for that, so they charged him with obscenity because the forum allowed people to post nude photos of girls. Good article about it here:

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/mixedmedia/story/8878187/casualty_of_porn?rnd=1144273102109&has-player=unknown

These kind of laws are so broad that they give the government power to charge individuals for just about anything. Write a negative article about the government and they'll find something on the books that can match.

Another note on the bill that just passed. They re-defined the role of a secondary producer when it comes to adult material. According to the definition, Google and Yahoo! are now considered secondary producers and in violation of federal law at the moment.

In the UK (from memory),

In the UK (from memory), obscene is defined (in legal terms) as something ..."likely to corrupt and deprave a proportionate number of people likely to see it"

Jason, your the most obscene man I know ;)

ahh but I believe I have a

ahh but I believe I have a fair defence in that a proportinate number of people who read what I have to say are already depraved and corrupted, thereFORE what I post can not make someone depraved or corrupted as they are already so :)

I was actually involved in a court case many years ago where a cinema owner ran a "private club" for watching certain types of "obscene" films. The argument put forward by the defence was, as above, that if you are a member of a private cinema club and continue going to a private cinema club, knowing the type of "entertainment" that would be available, then you are likely to be depraved and corrupted already so therefore the owner and manager of the club were found not guilty.

Was a fun court case, it hit the front page of the Sun amongst others !

Whoever knowingly embeds

Whoever knowingly embeds words or digital images into the source code of a website with the intent to deceive a person...

I don't see anything wrong with this piece of legislation. It's pretty much self-explanatory. If you are doing anything in a deceptive manner to present content that shouldn't be presented based on the query, then your ass is grass. 10 or 20 years respectively.

?

Quote:
I don't see anything wrong with this piece of legislation. It's pretty much self-explanatory. If you are doing anything in a deceptive manner to present content that shouldn't be presented based on the query, then your ass is grass. 10 or 20 years respectively.

Do you have the same thoughts for website owners who cloak and mislead people to mortgage, credit card, pill, or gambling sites?

Child Protection and Safety Act

Can we stay on topic? We're talking about the Child Protection and Safety Act. What does your question have to do with this particular subject? It is of course a form of deception, and some of it may be directed towards children. If that is the case, then yes, I would have the same thoughts. And you?

It all starts with

It all starts with protecting somebody. And, of course, everyone is protected until they wind up in jail...where they and society are once again protected.

I think I rank #2 in Google for Fucking Dolls - even though I never meant to. Was my ranking deceptive? Where do YOU draw the line? Do these people (who have pizza and war videogame parties with 13 yr olds, then give them inadequate armor when sending them off to die in bogus wars, then make it illegal for family members to buy armor and send it over to protect their children) actually put the children first?

Who's in a bunker?
Who's in a bunker?
Women and children first
And the children first
And the children
I'll laugh until my head comes off
I'll swallow till I burst
Until I burst
Until I

Who's in a bunker?
Who's in a bunker?
I have seen too much
I haven't seen enough
You haven't seen it
I'll laugh until my head comes off
Women and children first
And children first
And children

Here I'm alllowed
Everything all of the time
Here I'm allowed
Everything all of the time

Ice age coming
Ice age coming
Let me hear both sides
Let me hear both sides
Let me hear both
Ice age coming
Ice age coming
Throw it on the fire
Throw it on the fire
Throw it on the

We're not scaremongering
This is really happening
Happening
We're not scaremongering
This is really happening
Happening
Mobiles skwrking
Mobiles chirping
Take the money run
Take the money run
Take the money

Here I'm allowed
Everything all of the time
Here I'm allowed
Everything all of the time

Here I'm allowed
Everything all of the time
Here I'm allowed
Everything all of the time

The first of the children

The same people who won't even acknowledge global warming are talking about saving the children. Right.

This shit is just another way to selectively apply abstract laws to consolidate wealth and power. Just like the whole reason online gambling is illegal (unless of course it is a bet on horse racing).

On Topic

Quote:
Can we stay on topic? We're talking about the Child Protection and Safety Act. What does your question have to do with this particular subject? It is of course a form of deception, and some of it may be directed towards children. If that is the case, then yes, I would have the same thoughts. And you?

It is on topic. I'm asking why adult content is targeted and not something like religion? Who is our government to tell me that adult content is bad but seeing religous sites is good? I'd argue that religion causes more corruption in our youth and society than coming across a pornographic image. The issue is censorship and our government telling us what is acceptible and not acceptible.

As for directing porn toward children, I honestly couldn't fathom a website owner who could be dumber. Kids don't have credit cards and no adult website owner in their right mind wants kids eating up their bandwidth. Please tell me what could adult site owners possibly gain from attracting children to their site.

Where do YOU draw the line?

At the speculative point.

No one really knows what the effects of this legislation will be. Only time will tell. I'm game for anything that helps to protect children online. If someone is advertising a site selling a popular kids product and deceptively redirects that user somewhere else and presents them with content not suitable for that age group, guess what, there's a law in place to help deter you from doing that. A small sacrifice for the protection of kids, wouldn't you say so?

And yes, if someone is that "dumb" to do that, then they deserve what's in store for them. ;)

And Lotto

Quote:
unless of course it is a bet on horse racing

And don't forget Lotto. God forbid you put money down on a roulette wheel, but please buy up all the scratch-off tickets you can.

presents them with content

Quote:
presents them with content not suitable for that age group

This is the problem with the legislation. Who deems it not suitable for that age group? Why is that not suitable but religion, gambling, and even social networking sites deemed ok to be seen? I understand what you are saying, I just don't think it's our governments responsibility to pass their ideologies on to me and my family.

Protecting your child is the responsibility of the parent, not some website owner.

Think MySpace

Please tell me what could adult site owners possibly gain from attracting children to their site.

Think about the predator who set up a website deceiving his/her MySpace friends. That's what this law is about. This is not about commerce. It's about deception at a completely different level.

The Wild West

It's over. The Internet is changing day in and day out. Laws are changing. The current state of affairs in various countries is changing the way we live this very second. We can continue to rave about our free speech and our rights and all the other stuff but the majority think otherwise.

I'll agree that our Government gets their fingers into a little bit too much of our lives but hey, it's a reality and not something we have any real direct influence over. Unless of course your on the Political side then you may have some pull. ;)

I think society has proved many times over that we can't handle the amount of freedom we're given. If we could, we wouldn't be having this conversation right now. As time goes on, we'll lose a little bit more. It's all part of the process.

Think about the predator who

Quote:
Think about the predator who set up a website deceiving his/her MySpace friends. That's what this law is about. This is not about commerce. It's about deception at a completely different level.

It is about commerce. The law states:

Quote:
"words" or "images" intended to confuse a minor into viewing a possibly harmful Web site

That has nothing to do with predators on Myspace meeting children at all.

I think society has proved

Quote:
I think society has proved many times over that we can't handle the amount of freedom we're given. If we could, we wouldn't be having this conversation right now. As time goes on, we'll lose a little bit more. It's all part of the process.

I'd disagree about being able to handle the freedoms. I believe we can't because our government has turned us into children who take no responsibility for our own actions. It is sad when the issue is about webmasters content online and not about a lack of parenting. The weirdest thing about this recent legislation is how little you hear about parents becoming more involved in their child's life.

When our government stops treating us like children, the people will stop acting like them. We are a species that will adapt and ultimately be forced to rely on ourselves more than our government. But a government that has more control over their citizens has much more security within it. It's less about creating laws to protect our children and more about imposing restrictions on the public to ensure our "leaders" do not lose their place in society.

I do take this seriously because I truly feel that when individuals start to give in to censorship and regulation to the net, the powers to be will continue to push the limits on what they can do. Maybe it's just adult content today, but who says it's not anti-American sites tomorrow? Or gambling? Or even Canadian pharmacies? Maybe even ban sites that show tricks on how to save money on your taxes? We don't want to open that box to censorship.

Definition of Sexually Explicit

Here's the definition, and it's a bute!

Definition of Sexually Explicit in the US:

(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), “sexually explicit conduct” means actual or simulated—
(i) sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex;
(ii) bestiality;
(iii) masturbation;
(iv) sadistic or masochistic abuse; or
(v) lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person;
(B) For purposes of subsection 8(B) [1] of this section, “sexually explicit conduct” means—
(i) graphic sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex, or lascivious simulated sexual intercourse where the genitals, breast, or pubic area of any person is exhibited;
(ii) graphic or lascivious simulated;
(I) bestiality;
(II) masturbation; or
(III) sadistic or masochistic abuse; or
(iii) graphic or simulated lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person;

Oh, and if you don't

Oh, and if you don't understand why that definition is dangerous,

las·civ·i·ous (l?-s?v'?-?s)

1. Given to or expressing lust; lecherous.
2. Exciting sexual desires; salacious.

So Elvis shanking his hips on stage could certainly be taken as "simulated lascivious exhibition of the genitals."

What's obscene?

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.

OBSCENE
abhorrent: offensive to the mind; "an abhorrent deed"; "the obscene massacre at Wounded Knee"; "morally repugnant customs"; "repulsive behavior"; "the most repulsive character in recent novels"

Yikes. Well, good luck citizens! I think I'll be heading south now. It's really starting to smell like shit round these American parts.

I find President Bush

I find President Bush morally repugnant.

Should people who quote him, or show his video telling the American people to fuck off (yes he has others, too) be considered obscene? Should Bush be considered obscene for sneaking a bird in those videos knowing full well that it would be encoded into HTML? Lock his ass up and then we have a serious law.

another piss-poor attempt at law writing from our geniuses in DC

Well, the way I read this:

Quote:
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.

By "source code" they meant "hidden text", not content. For example hidden text "Mata Nui Lego Bionicle" on a porn site, which could show up in a kid's SERP when he's searching for Legos.

The better question is why we continue to let these poor quality legislatures write our laws. I think I know the answer. The abusive authoritarian and generally pathetic generations of Baby Boomers have so alienated and supressed 2 generations of American youth, that we currently experience a shortage of willing, able, and courageous 40-50 year olds willing to lose their sanity for little to zero personal gain. Rumor has it there are some 30 somethings will balls, though.

First Hand Experience

A few months ago I had a first hand experience. My 7 year old wanted to change her wallpaper to her favorite cartoon character, Starfire from the Teen Titans. So I told her to go to Google and search for [Teen Titans Starfire Wallpaper]. In the time it took me to walk to the kitchen and get a glass of orange juice, she had stumbled into the world of explicit porn. Who was at fault?

1) Me, yep me, I didn't have any internet safety software on the kids and I paid the price.

2) Google, yep you google, while there is some funny business going on there, looking at the snippet any adult knows it's porn. Looking at the snippet so should any robot or ranking algo, that should not be a result you get with default settings.

3) Site owner where is the ROI for terms like that?

I don't think the government has any role here, there's no need to create legislation so parents don't have to take responsibility for what goes on in their own house.

This is a shot above the bow

This is a shot above the bow
It will never be enacted.
Google uses the same tactics in it's spam control.
Compliance via strong suggestions.

Talk about a knee jerk

Talk about a knee jerk reaction from some here! It's just typical legislation where it will never be used in it's broadest sense - but to specifically target people who claim a website is about a cute cuddly kids characters, but once you get there it's full of porn.

> Seobook: I find President Bush morally repugnant. Bird flipping.. consolidate wealth and power....

Hey, has anyone dropped a tin foil hat?

pageoneresults - you have it down perfectly.

wtf

The tubes that carry porn and the tubes that carry puppy dogs, mcdonald's happy meals, and ice cream have to be seperated by large government tractors (preferably by haliburton). Get on it, Ted.

Where is the motivation to advertise porn to children? They don't have credit cards. I think what graywolf describes above is really an unavoidable and unintended result of a query. What if some fat kid wants to know "where can i get a creampie"? This legislation is just some bullshit to help pander to one's base. Search engines are probably the best front against this, not webmasters - but this is just something that sounds good for the midterm elections - fighting a problem that doesn't really exist with legislation that's really vague.

Ironic!?

I read here about the history of Barbie..

http://masculinism.net/archives/2004/09/barbie_and_brat.php

Kind of ironic, don't you think.

P

Simple thought

I just dont agree with the limitations of freedom. I do want to protect children against Porn. But the problem here is technology. We shouldn't be incriminating language and personal freedoms, they should be making technology better... AND PARENTING! Just like turning on HBO at night and seeing Real Sex. Kids can turn on that if they want. Its not the content that should be censored. Its the Access to such things that needs to be critiqued.

>I read here about the

>I read here about the history of Barbie..

someone should research into that, and if it is true, build out that idea into a quality site and register some domain like barbie-the-anorexic-sex-doll.com

no tinfoil needed to see that presidents who flip off the media and the general populous have no legitimacy of trying to sign their false morals into law. or to create bogus controversies to focus attention away from their other abuses of power.

I find President Bush

I find President Bush morally repugnant.

Should people who quote him, or show his video telling the American people to fuck off (yes he has others, too) be considered obscene?

we should keep politics out of this

I found Bill Clinton morally repungant.

sorry, i dont have video of the monica incident.

secondly, i dont think they ever verified that as the finger. and if so, its not morally, just bad taste in humor. that guy cracks me up.

Well I find both of those

Well I find both of those presidents morally repungant.

Those who say we should keep politics out of these threads fail to grasp the fact that politicians are the source of the threads.

No Patriotism

If you're not happy with your country, then move. Either that, or get actively involved and vote, campaign, etc. so that these laws don't go into effect. And, if you can run this country any better than the current and past Presidents, by all means, get your ass on the ballot. I'm sure you could garner a few votes from TW members. ;)

No Ballot

Quote:
by all means, get your ass on the ballot

Actually many laws enacted by our government has made it next to impossible for an everyday American to get his name on the ballot and have a fair shot at winning.

legal definition of "obscene" and/or "harmful to minors"

depends on how fast the neurons travel from the jerking knee through the red neck to GOD knows where.

The reason that "most people can't handle freedom" is that they act under the impression that they actually have freedom, until some agency charged with protecting some special interest cuffs them by virtue of some strained interpretation of some obscure law.

Law enforcement agencies now seem to exist solely for the purpose of protecting big business interests. Why else is the FBI running around doing the bidding of the RIAA and MPA? In former times that would have been purely a civil matter.

Trying to think of a president that wasn't morally repugnant, and I got squat.

I just dont agree with the

Quote:
I just dont agree with the limitations of freedom. I do want to protect children against Porn.

While I do agree with the rest of what you said about who has the responsibility, I disagree here.

How is that not a limit on freedom? They are telling you what you can and can't put on your webpage because it may confuse a search engine.

And I've still yet to hear anyone supporting this tell me why adult content was singled out. Why was gambling, religions, and other things not mentioned here? Why are sites about drugs not banned? Why are all social networking sites that "house" these predators not banned? Please tell me how seeing porn is that much worse than so many other things on the net.

the ultimate solution

Phase One:

Ban all search engines and replace it with a directory run by the Department of Homeland Security. Placement in the directory to be determined by past and projected political contributions. Said directory to be created by a legion of politically appointed consulting firms with the appropriate connections to the administration.

Phase Two:

Choke all inbound and outbound network traffic through proxies implemented by NSA.

Phase Three:

Put browsers on autopilot and remove user input devices other than credit card scanners.

> If you're not happy with

> If you're not happy with your country, then move.

I agree. I dislike socialist England, so I am moving to Captalist-tastic USA!

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.