digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate

Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.

USA outlaws Goatse links-- Internet free speech threatened!

shii.wordpress.com — Apparently some Senator got pranked with a Goatse link, so he tacked on an amendment to a sex offender bill that outlaws linking to obscenity without telling people what you're doing. And Bush signed it!

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • noodlez, on 10/12/2007, -17/+111its specifically designed to protect minors from stuff like goatse. which, imho, isn't a bad idea, per se.

    but i feel that its probably worded poorly and will be a danger to internet freedoms. haven't read it, though. but given the history of internet debates/legislation, the lawmakers know nothing
    • Haroldx, on 10/12/2007, -114/+16i think it's for our own good
    • Krane, on 10/12/2007, -23/+180(a) Whoever knowingly uses a misleading domain name on the Internet with the intent to deceive a person into viewing material constituting obscenity shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.
      (b) Whoever knowingly uses a misleading domain name on the Internet with the intent to deceive a minor into viewing material that is harmful to minors on the Internet shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 4 years, or both.
      (c) For the purposes of this section, a domain name that includes a word or words to indicate the sexual content of the site, such as “sex” or “porn”, is not misleading.

      Mean while (ok, sometime ago) Bush administration rejects the .XXX domain meant for the porn sites. Double standards or WTF?
    • zweben, on 10/12/2007, -2/+318The poster missed a golden opportunity to have this story link to a Goatse page.
    • Tialys, on 10/12/2007, -26/+162ICANN rejected .xxx, not Bush. Check your facts.
    • omaryak, on 10/12/2007, -6/+50Read the story. It's not just for minors; it's for everyone.
    • omaryak, on 10/12/2007, -19/+89ICANN may have done the rejection, but the Bush administration was responsible.
      http://news.com.com/Bush+administration+objects+to+.xxx+domains/2100-1028_3-5833764.html
      http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,196608,00.html
    • distrbnce, on 10/12/2007, -4/+18"A" should go, 'cause that would take a lot of the fun out of the internet.

      B and C are cool, but Goatse is meant to sound like "goat sex" so I don't even think it would apply to C
    • Xalorous, on 10/12/2007, -3/+63No, you didn't read it all. It's specifically designed to prevent misleading someone else into viewing 'obscene material.'

      What I want to know is, "Why in the hell are we spending tax dollars worrying about morality?"

      Legislating morality is a waste of time and money. Fire the SOB's that put this law forward and use the money to reform the government.
    • Drizzit, on 10/12/2007, -20/+12@fatdog


      Our country has no hold over any bank. We are one of the largest debtor nations in the world. If China wanted to call our debts this nation would be bankrupt. Banks chose to allow the US to boss them around for their own benefit.
    • justthisguyyano, on 10/12/2007, -2/+71Goodbye Whitehouse.com
    • fjc8, on 10/12/2007, -0/+42so according to the text of the law, instead of using domain names, you can just link to IP addresses instead?
    • twiztedambience, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8Hey Zweban: no golden opportunity wasted. Read on young grasshopper
    • LoungeActx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+15If you were ever to get busted for this, you could make the arguement that it infringes upon the first ammendment, and if you had the time, and the money, you'd be able to take this as high as the Supreme Court if you'd like, but you'd probably end up winning your case much earlier than that.
    • texpundit, on 10/12/2007, -4/+14HERE'S THE RUB:

      Goatse links can only be prosecuted if - a) the person who got pranked is pissed off or disgusted by it - AND - b) they contact the authorities and press charges.

      How often do you think that's going to happen?
    • da_bradler, on 10/12/2007, -3/+34Wait is it illegal to mail someone a letter with a picture of Goastse with something like URGENT NOTICE on the outside? because if not I know one senator is getting a face full of man ass if not. Also I wonder if I can figure out a way for the letter to multiply and start shouting "look everybody I'm watching gay porn! look everybody! I'm WATCHING GAY PORN!!!"... god I hate my friends *laugh*.
    • Kazaki, on 10/12/2007, -1/+23Wow. Both A and B say the same thing.

      Or are minors not people anymore?
    • da_bradler, on 10/12/2007, -4/+17at Kazaki:

      Not legaly, kinda like native people used to not be... and after that black people... and after that women... and after that asian americans during WWII... but now it's just minors and consumers that don't have rights... oh and illegal aliens.
    • skyshock21, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10So what about Goatse tribute sites that don't actually show the picture in question, but rather humorous re-enactions or ASCII art?

      http://sam.zoy.org/goatse/

      And also, what if someone hit me with a Republican Party website and I found it offensive or pornographic... who's to tell me I'm wrong?

      (for the sake of decency and NOT because Uncle Sam said so... that link may not be work safe, even though there's no goatse pic on the page)
    • theoallardyce, on 10/12/2007, -9/+12This law was already passed to protect people in such cases: http://url123.com/qxhcn
    • airmann90, on 10/12/2007, -23/+8Thank god I live in Canada, and none of your atrocious Net Neutrality laws can affect me.
    • millergenuine94, on 10/12/2007, -7/+7@Xalorous (an all who agree with the following sentiments)
      ""What I want to know is, "Why in the hell are we spending tax dollars worrying about morality?"

      Depends on your definition of 'morality'. e.g. Most sane people believe that is is immoral to kill another person; thus, we have a laws against murder. You can go on and on down the list of laws based on morality. So to answer your question, because many, if not most laws are based on a commonly held 'morality'.

      ""Legislating morality is a waste of time and money. Fire the SOB's that put this law forward and use the money to reform the government.

      You are entitled to your opinion, but so are the numbers of constituents that voiced their opinion to the congressmen/women that supported the bill in question. The only way to 'fire the SOB's' is to get off your derriere and go vote.

      Cheers
    • cdahlkvist, on 10/12/2007, -6/+13I guess I'm missing the part about losing our right to free speech (as the title reads):

      The bill clearly states:
      "with the intent to deceive a person into viewing material constituting obscenity"

      I guess all those people sending misleading links of disgusting images to others "as a joke" feel they have some sort of right to do so. They do not. Nor have they ever.

      I see this as practical, not as impeding on constitutional rights.

      What's sad is that we have to make laws regarding this type of behavior when it should be common sense.
    • CharlesDarwin, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8There's no way I'm following any links on this page!

      @zweben, there was no chance I was going to click on the main article either ;)
    • Cerberus047, on 10/12/2007, -4/+16That aint cool because goatse is a rite of passage to the internet.... we all remember the first time we saw it and we all remember the 5 people we showed it to next

      Take away goatse would be like shutting down the internet... the tubes might implode!!!
    • fr4ncium, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1zweben: lol, I was thinking the same thing, so I triple checked the status bar link and opened the comments first just in case the website was a redirect.

      Well, I think I'm going to have to send that senator an e-mail with a disguised link to itsatrap.ytmnd.com
    • giloron, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@ Kazaki

      I think B is to make the penalties worse if you intentionally target minors. 4 years instead of 2...
    • UNL1M1T3D, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5My question is who decides what is obscene? If I link to something like sports illustrated swimsuit edition, and I don't feel that is obscene, but the person who I send it to does what happens? Hopefully this thing will get shot down in court, that is if it makes it that far.
    • OBKenobi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6One interesting side effect of this law would be that all those non-adult sites displaying porn banners and "Get laid in your neighborhood tonight!" ads would be banned.

      As nice as that would have been, we still can't give up complete internet freedom/neutrality for ANYTHING. Not any government, not any religion, not even for "teh children."

      Most of the users sending goatse links are underage teens to begin with! The same ones who look at most of the porn on the internet and download all those warez.

      What adult is threatened by Goatse? Who is this bill going to protect?
    • Drumrboy, on 10/12/2007, -11/+3OMfG
      i am teh c0ol and i wiill r3sp0nd to teh first cohment!!!11oneoneelevenSHIFT1SHIFT1
    • bageloid, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"(a) Whoever knowingly uses a misleading domain name on the Internet with the intent to deceive a person into viewing material constituting obscenity shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.
      (b) Whoever knowingly uses a misleading domain name on the Internet with the intent to deceive a minor into viewing material that is harmful to minors on the Internet shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 4 years, or both.
      (c) For the purposes of this section, a domain name that includes a word or words to indicate the sexual content of the site, such as “sex” or “porn”, is not misleading."

      couldnt this apply to most of the pop ups and spyware out there? we could get rid of alot of that crap depending on how this is interpreted.
    • bitbytebit, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0@millergenuine94

      [quote]
      The only way to 'fire the SOB's' is to get off your derriere and go vote.
      Cheers

      Ok .. cheers indicates to me that you arn't even an american, so you shouldn't be commenting on this. rather you can comment, but it means nothing.

      The 2nd reason I think your not american is because you actually think that individual votes matter. The argument of 'it only takes one vote to make a difference' is *****, always has been, always will

      One mans opinion cannot sway majority opinion
      The second
    • millergenuine94, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@ bitbytebit
      "Ok .. cheers indicates to me that you arn't even an american, so you shouldn't be commenting on this. rather you can comment, but it means nothing."

      Yes, I am an American, so you are very incorrect. Assumptions cause a lot of unnecessary arguments.

      "The 2nd reason I think your not american is because you actually think that individual votes matter. The argument of 'it only takes one vote to make a difference' is *****, always has been, always will"

      You are entitled to your opinion; however, it should be evident that I believe you have to participate for democracy to work. You can't get a byte without a bit, nor can you have a dollar without a penny, nor can you have a molecule without an atom, nor can someone win an election without a single vote, ... would you like me to keep going?

      "One mans opinion cannot sway majority opinion
      The second"

      You seem quite pessimistic.

      I don't see how your insulting comments have added to the discussion, but I wanted to defend myself. Mutual respect is all that I ask for, so keep your insults to yourself.

      Thanks
  • truspector, on 10/12/2007, -3/+103and just like every other internet "law" it will be totally unenforceable.
    • DarknessGP, on 10/12/2007, -4/+19exactly. They can't stop pirates how do they expect to stop this?
    • Valence, on 10/12/2007, -14/+8"Totally unenforceable?" Um ... no. Difficult to enforce, for *now*, perhaps. However, as with any new arena of legal theory, the world at large establishes grounds for reasonable expectations based on historical practice while a body of law is built up around those expectations and practices and in context with existing laws surrounding like spheres of influence. In other words, as soon as there *enough* laws, and as soon as the courts establish enough case history, and as soon as more laws are passed to facilitate funding and technology for the purposes of enforcement -- then, yes, these kinds of things will be completely enforceable and many asses will get kicked.

      Enjoy the freedom, now, because this is basically the Wild West of the Internet. Ten, twenty years from now, things will be very, very different, and not just in the U.S. The EU, too, depends on compliance and expectations of compliance with a common legal theory, and while cultural considerations will influence local interpretations and enforcement of law, instances of deviation from common practices will be increasingly subtle.

      So I'd get used to this, bud, if I were you, and I'd be careful about careful about adverbs like 'totally'.
    • fatdog789, on 10/12/2007, -11/+10*cough*

      They don't need to go after the perps. They can always go after the money. See, the US has enormous sway over both domestic and international banks, and this law gives them the power to coerce banks into freezing funds/transactions because any such money for such sites would be the result of illegal activities.

      The thing is...most internet laws are enforceable now. You all know what I'm talking about. With net neutrality gone, many laws that were previously just a waste of paper are suddenly very real possibilities. Because they now have the technical capabilities to enforce the laws.

      And on a final note....Stopping piracy isn't that big a concern. You can rebel all you want, but the only people you hurt with piracy are the little guys like us (programmers, cinematographers, sound techs, etc). The big guys get multi-million dollar checks. If a few thousand is missing from their share, it doesn't matter to them. But since the big guys tend to get first dibs, that means the little guys get screwed when it's time for their share.
    • Xalorous, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8The problem is that it will take someone being prosecuted, and losing, then appealing, and losing, and appealing all the way up to the Supreme court to get them to strike this law as unconstitutional.

      Would you like to volunteer to be the guinea pig?
    • Bioshocker, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3"totally unenforceable."

      I doubt it. Someone was successfully prosecuted in the UK last year for showing a work colleague a beheading pic on his mobile phone.

      All it takes is an email with
      <a href="www.goatse.cx">Fluffy kittens and green meadows</a>
      in it, and there's your smoking gun, ready for the cops.
    • cathars1s, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Exactly, I don't understand why tricking people into clicking on goatse links should be even something that mature adults need to worry about.
    • quakeIII, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I would be the Guinea Pig if this threatened me in any way. But alas, it doesn't, so I can't be the fluffy nice animal for now.
  • blaineg, on 10/12/2007, -4/+25oh no!! whats going to happen to all my goatse links!??!1

    /sarcasm
  • i440, on 10/12/2007, -18/+62Free speach: important.

    Goatse links: not important.
    • jknight, on 10/12/2007, -12/+151Spellchecker: Priceless
    • clickwir, on 10/12/2007, -74/+9modded down for annoying reuse of the priceless ad crap that died years ago
    • i440, on 10/12/2007, -37/+6oops. Speech is what I /really/ meant. (:
    • skyshock21, on 10/12/2007, -4/+25You can spell Goatse properly but not "speech"?

      Wow, we're definitely in trouble.
    • downneck, on 10/12/2007, -6/+11goatse.cx = free speech
    • dancpsu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+21only if you talk out of your ass
    • heinousjay, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11tricking people into looking at goatse isn't free speech, it's practically assault.
    • sandwichpants, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I would imagine in the USA it's similarly illegal to shove pornographic images like goatse in people's face on the street, and you would probably get in extra trouble for tricking children into looking at goatse because that's an extra "distributing pornography to minors" offense on top of the possible sexual assault via pornography, or whatever kind of harrassment or assault it would be.
      It's definitely legally dangerous to just have a goatse image at work, just having it on your computer on purpose when someone walks by and is thus offended is probably enough for a minor sexual harrassment suit.
    • dgp1, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4@heinousj:

      "goatse isn't free speech, it's practically assault."
      ----
      it's practically ASSault.

      Is that what you were going for? If so, best comment ever.
  • Puttzy, on 10/12/2007, -6/+26how does one report an offender?
    • mirek, on 10/12/2007, -6/+185goto http://goatse.cx to report offenders.
    • cowslayer, on 10/12/2007, -47/+5Offenders are to be reported at http://goatse.cx

      EDIT: damn, someone beat me to it
    • palatka, on 10/12/2007, -43/+0efb
    • da_bradler, on 10/12/2007, -1/+18THAT SITE WASN'T helpful at all :'( looks like a picture of a horse that got shot with a .50 cal... I'm gonna go throw up and file a lawsuit, I figured it was just a goat themed complait form
    • ericmoritz, on 10/12/2007, -13/+5Sir, you just broke the mother f'n law
  • eplawless, on 10/12/2007, -18/+36Hooray for not living in the states
    • HarryBauzonia, on 10/12/2007, -23/+36So you like goatse sites, then? I'm glad you don't live here either, ya' perv.
    • SuicideMouse, on 10/12/2007, -7/+18I agree! Canada FTW!
      Goatse links may not be important (even though very fun to use against people) but our freedoms on the Internet are being taken away and no matter what the freedom is I want to keep it.
    • EpicSA, on 10/12/2007, -15/+3Yes, hooray indeed! What country do you live in? I am sure I can find a few reasons to say hooray for not living there myself.
    • fjc8, on 10/12/2007, -5/+9Oh, Canada, you mean that bastion of free speech?

      http://www.issues-views.com/index.php/sect/24000/article/24000
      http://calsun.canoe.ca/News/Columnists/Levant_Ezra/2006/06/12/1626504.html
      http://www.out-law.com/page-5901

      etc...
    • wicketr, on 10/12/2007, -12/+6"but our freedoms on the Internet are being taken away and no matter what the freedom is I want to keep it."

      When your freedoms affect others then that's where they have a problem with it. Just rename the website to http://goatsex.com and you'll be perfectly fine to peruse that website.

      goatse.cx is akin to going up to random people on the street and going "hey check this out" and whiping out your c*ck.
    • hosiah, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3*pounce* off-topic, so mod down freely. But living outside the states, how's the FOSS adoption over there?
  • dbre2, on 10/12/2007, -2/+89whats goats....OH DEAR GOD NO
    • dkarlson, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1^^ funniest thing I've read all day. Thanks for the laugh!
    • DoubtfulSalmon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I haven't Laughed Out Loud at a thread on digg for a long time! This si teh funney!

      (I'm sad to see that some of the funniest (ie: the ones that employ subtlety and irony) are being dugg down down down though. It would be really interesting to see a breakdown of thumbs up/down by country of origin I think)
  • got-haggis, on 10/12/2007, -3/+19i guess no more lemonparty either!
    • dunezone, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13I know, who would of thought a party full of lemons could of been so bad.
    • Araya213, on 10/12/2007, -0/+22Tubgirl is gonna get lonely as well.
    • daofma, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9I don't think tubgirl would be a violator. I mean, when you see "tubgirl" you think of something pornographic, don't you? Nakedness is implied with bathing, so I think she's safe for now.
    • ericmoritz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Man, I should of known better than to look up lemonparty in google and click on the first link. I've gotta remember that one.
    • thefold, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5lemonparty?
      (searches)

      OH

      DEAR

      GOD
  • wtfdan, on 10/12/2007, -2/+61Hello, Police? Uber1337guy just sent me a link that went to this guy spreading his anus!!! What are you going to do about this?!
  • danielxmorris, on 10/12/2007, -21/+10I wish you could see my fists waving in anger. Just because some Internet illiterate senator can't take a joke he's threatening free speech online? I bet he's republican!
    • rprouse, on 10/12/2007, -5/+16It is understandable that the senator is upset because he only just realized that his ex-wife leaked a picture of him and it ended up on goatse ;) It kinda gives Internet tubes a new meaning eh!
    • Nobi-Wan, on 10/12/2007, -5/+16So Republican politicians are the only ones wanting to limit free speech, huh? Let me introduce you to some people named Hillary Clinton and Joe Lieberman...
    • firenu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6AFAIK the libertarian party is pretty much the only party against all forms of censorship.
    • KJSatz, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Radical libertarians also believe voluntary national service and taxes are oppressive, so...gotta draw the line somewhere.
    • tejaycar, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1So what about my right to never have to see this crap? I think it's fair to give The World the right to KNOW what we are getting ourselves into BEFORE we visit a link. This law says nothing about your freedom to publish crap. You are still free to put any filth you want on line. This law says that you must tell people in some way that they are about to view trash. That way, the rest of us don't have to deal with it.

      I fail completely to see how this is a free speech issue any more than making public nudity illegal is a speech issue.
  • JayG25, on 10/12/2007, -0/+25Good, its about time someone did something about Goatse! I am now going to have my friend thrown into a PMITA Jail for 10 years.
    • Mace37, on 10/12/2007, -10/+7no way, if you get caught sending a goatse it's straight to GitMo for you!
    • rprouse, on 10/12/2007, -2/+23I guess that reporting it to the police will be illegal too since you will need to send them the link :O
    • computerdude33, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7And remember, you can be put in Gitmo if you're not a terrorist. But, you will become one, then you'll want to ***** kill the guy that put you in there.

      *clangity clang clang*
    • technique, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5Dugg for the PMITA acronym alone
    • OBKenobi, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5[quote]no way, if you get caught sending a goatse it's straight to GitMo for you![/quote]

      That's how the Goatse guy developed his gaping anus. A couple of weeks in GitMo.

      Speaking of the Goatse guy, has he ever appeared in public since he became an internet legend? Or was he lynched by his neighbors?
  • ScornForSega, on 10/12/2007, -3/+45Anyone know which Senator this was?

    I've got a few mailing lists I'd like to sign him up for.
  • Canthros, on 10/12/2007, -16/+3I'm thinking that the image in question doesn't qualify as protected speech in the first place, folks.
    • Dakana, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Speech implies expression.
    • Canthros, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1You misunderstand both my statement and the interpretation of the first amendment. I didn't refer to 'protected speech' for the hell of it.
  • whiskeymb, on 10/12/2007, -11/+15I hope this this bill is worded well (although I doubt it). I think this is a good thing though. I don't have kids, but someday I will and I hope that they don't click on links called "awesome new Carebear" only to see some dude with a gapping wide *****. As long as this isn't taken out of context and used for purposes other then this, I don't see the problem.

    In terms of the violation of "free speech", get real. This country doesn't have any true form of "free speech". Don't believe me? Walk into an airport and yell "bomb". Walk into a theatre and yell "fire". You won't get off on any "free speech" claim in court. Free speech is determined by time, place, and the people around you.
    • computerdude33, on 10/12/2007, -5/+28Walk into the White House and yell "Common Sense"
    • justinwalden, on 10/12/2007, -4/+16Whew, I thought I was the only one who actually thought this was a good idea. It is entirely consistent with preventing people from walking around with nude posters in the town square. This is equivalent to somebody physically jumping out nude and stretching their ***** to somebodies' little daughter. You simply can't do that. Just because the internet provides a less personal interface, what you do is not in a vacuum not affecting other people.

      (Even if you jumped out in front of an adult, it is still wrong, and seeing as there is no way to target who is most likely to click the link name "Cute Fluffy Bunny" you have to assumed a child will access it unknowingly)
  • WackyT, on 10/12/2007, -10/+1LOL! That is good. Wonder how the left is going to play this one out? Are they going to spam e-mail everyone a copy of goatse and tell them that this is considered offensive by the right?
  • Qtip42, on 10/12/2007, -4/+15I'm going to move to canada and goatse the rest of you. :p
  • Drifton, on 10/12/2007, -8/+1What a joke.
  • 5555, on 10/12/2007, -4/+18Just leave tubgirl out of this!!

    /pukes
  • danielxmorris, on 10/12/2007, -1/+23Actually, looking at this, it's innacurate, I read on Google News earlier today that it is actually against the use of words such as "Barbie, Furby, etc" in the meta tags or content of a sexually explicit website. Free speech isn't technically under threat here.

    You had me all worked up, tut tut.

    Edit: Here's a link, http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/07/26/1223212
  • noahhoward, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1just for the hell of it I clickes on the goatse.cx links...

    "The domain you are trying to access has been temporarily diverted to this page by the ccTLD manager. This generally occurs for one of three reasons:

    * An application to register a domain has been received and is being manually reviewed by the ccTLD manager before being being activated. In most cases the domain will be formally activated within 12-24 hours. We apologize for any inconvenience this slight delay in activation may cause. This measure has been necessitated by recent fraudulent registrations and illegal activity ("phishing" and other scams) targeting small ccTLDs. An automated process is being developed for the (.CX) (.MU) (.DM) (.TL) and (.NF) ccTLDs to address this issue.
    * The domain has expired an needs to be renewed. Domains which expire are "parked" here by the registry operator until they are a) renewed or b) deleted from the registry
    * A complaint has been filed with CoCCA asserting a violation of the AUP or other ccTLD policy, and as a result of an investigation of the substance of the complaint the domain has been suspended.

    IF YOU CONTINUE TO SEE THIS PAGE FOR MORE THAN 48 HOURS AFTER REGISTRATION OR HAVE NOT BEEN MADE AWARE OF A COMPLAINT, USE THE LINKS ON THE LEFT TO CONTACT COCCA. "
    • danielxmorris, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4Christmas Island, the area that administers the .cx top-level domain removed it, there are mirrors but trust me, you don't really want to see them.
    • Nobi-Wan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3It's now goatse.ca. The domain was moved to Canada, according to Wikipedia.
  • ufia, on 10/12/2007, -3/+18Just wait 'til that Senator get pranked with the Maze link.
    http://www.winterrowd.com/maze/
    • geekuskhan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6That scared the crap out of me, I cant believe none of my twisted friends have sent me that. They will all be getting it now tho.

      BTW does anyone know where that "Im looking at GAY PORN" link that was going around a couple of years ago is?
  • Brak710101, on 10/12/2007, -2/+22One word: Unenforceable.

    Court speaker: "Next case, United States Vs. Monkeyman193."
    • blackjack75, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4Who the hell is that "United States" ? He surely never wrote an e-mail to me.
    • Brak710101, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I'm fairly sure that when you break a law you are prosecuted by the "land" you are on.

      Say I get caught speeding in New York, the court session would be called " Peoples of New York Vs. [Brak710101]" or something of that nature.
  • synaesthesia, on 10/12/2007, -2/+23The absence of goatse will leave a large, glistening hole gaping wide open in my heart. When I think of possibly losing tubgirl, a gushing geyser of misery bursts forth from my soul... This is terrible.
  • helikopter, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2this is irrelevant to goatse. i'm pretty sure NOONE is misled by a link that says "goatse," "tubgirl" or "lemonparty" anymore... they've become synonymous with their pranks. or maybe i just have perv friends and have been tricked into it enough that i learned my lesson?

    nevertheless, it's a good lesson in online scrutiny. its a basic method for teaching the computer illiterate to check out what they're clicking before clicking some suspicious link. if some hyperlink says "click here to win tons of money!!!" and you just click it without checking out the url, then you probably deserve whatever malware/gross porn might be included.
    • Brak710101, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1True. I'm no longer even offended by those "shock sites", its like, "Wow, you could atleast made a one."
  • MattyLite, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12How is a name that phonetically sounds like "Goat Sex" misleading based on the site's content? Unless someone was looking for beastiality and was surprised with anus holding, I fail to see how this law applies.
    • Nyana, on 10/12/2007, -0/+19That is the best summary I have ever read.

      "I WAS TRYING TO GET BEASTIALITY BUT I GOT ANUS STRETCHING INSTEAD"

      I'd love to see someone take that to court.
    • thetaco82, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13Goat sex? Try: Guy Opens Ass To Show Everyone
  • bleonard, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5First of all, the fact that "gotse" existed verbally or written in the senate is insane. To prevent minors from viewing obscene material is the responsibility of PARENTS and the purpose of many SOFTWARE tools parents can buy (hello? capitalism? U.S.? ding ding ding); NOT an elected official or anyone outside of the minor's home.

    Second of all, @krane, good point on the double standards. If this bill only IMPLIES what is NOT misleading with suggestive words then that means there is a need for something definitive or else this will be a cluster-f to enforce. For an example, take a look at what the FCC will and won't consider indecent and therefore issue a fine based upon...OH WAIT THERE IS NOTHING TO LOOK AT!! It's all just "at whim".

    So why would the exective part of the government (i.e. ENFORCERS) PREVENT this method (.xxx) of aiding what is and is not misleading???

    Holy F'ing lack of communication and direction between old men in Washington, D.C.

    I only hope our generation is better...
    • justinwalden, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3How exactly is a parent/software supposed to know that these misleading links are pornography?
    • bleonard, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@justinwalden

      netnanny is just one of the many software products parents can use to actively manage (not just monitor) their children's Internet usage.

      Virus's create a need for anti-virus software, spam creates a need for spam-filtering, pop-ups create a need for pop-up blockers, and material for adults creates a need for adult-content filters.

      All of these problems are created and at the same time solved by us, the people who use the Internet every day; not by government regulations and elected officials. Without care, heavy handed regulations can stifle our advancement in any realm causing more harm then good. Elected officials are most certainly needed, but there duties are best served elsewhere.
    • justinwalden, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1It is still illegal to trick somebody into it. Yes, we can create software to scan for things but that doesn't make it legal. By your logic, we shouldn't have laws against writing computer viruses because we can write programs to mitigate the problem. Sure, a program might be a good idea, much like a lock is a good idea, but with both there are ways around it, and just as stealing is illegal even if the person's property wasn't locked down, so should this "virtual streaking" of sorts be.
    • DigeratiPrime, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1K9 Web Protection is what I reccomend, and no I am not affiliated with them in any way just a happy user. Its Free for Home Users, you just register and get a serial in the email for a 1 year subscription, at the end of the year you fill out a survey about K9 and you get a renewal. It works very very good, its a 200kb download, runs as a system service using about 2mb of RAM. Its soo good I would even pay for it to be fully honest. I reccomend it to every online family I know of. There is no excuse to not protect yourself from obscenity on the internet anymore, just ignorance.

      http://www.k9webprotection.com/
  • MasterGrief, on 10/12/2007, -5/+0Whatever will the people at bash.org do?!

    :(
  • hockeysk8, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8They have wanted this since the whitehouse domain debacle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitehouse.com)
    • sctechguy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2uh, check your link again there, hockeysk8
    • haxx4, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Digg has a problem where it includes any parenthesis or periods at the end of a clickable URL.
  • Ryzo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2I wouldn't worry about this, as I would be very surprised if the supreme court didn't overturn this.
  • zbeast, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I got it you just say have all links are harmful to minors and be done with it.
    USA you have gone nuts.
  • distrbnce, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I'm personally surprised someone is STILL using goatse. Isn't it down?

    I'm betting the Senator was Ted Stevens, just getting a clog out.
    • jknevitt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The tubes! Won't anyone think of the tubes?!?
  • MLyzz, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4Sending a link of a guy spreading his ass to someone not ready for the shock is not "free speech"
    • AhmedF, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9Nobody forced you to click on the link. Your imbecility is not my problem.
    • DigeratiPrime, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1also its not hard to see where the link goes you know, you just hold the mouse pointer over the link and it will display the link in the address bar for Firefox and IE, in Opera its a popup by default. Also the user MUST consider the context in which these links are sent. Did you find this online on some message board by a user with 1 post and was banned, or was it in your junk mail box marked as spam? I could go on.

      Besides who hasnt seen Goatse?
    • idonthack, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0That's like putting poison in someone's drink just before you serve it to them, and when they die, saying "Hey, it's not my fault he drank it."
    • AhmedF, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Comparing drinking something vs clicking a link?

      Okay :)
  • camintmier, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Oh, come on senator.. Just bend over and take it like a man. Hehe.
  • dtfinch, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4You can post all the goatse links you want. Just let everyone know "hey, this is goatse" when you do.
    • Nyana, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4That's like saying "Hey, this is DVDA!"

      Well, a lot of people don't know what that is, regardless. This is where it's a question of how smart is the person you're linking. If they're internet virgins, I'm sure they aren't going to know half of whats around, even if you tell them what it is.
  • AhmedF, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3The .xxx idea is just stupid. What is the purpose behind the .xxx? Adult material? What constitutes adult material? Some rednecks get their panties in a bunch with classic paintings that have a breast showing.

    The .xxx idea could never work simply because people's tolerance for what is artistic and what is adult material is far too varied.

    Plus the tubes of the internet could never support it ;)

    At the same time, right-wingers using little amendments to support their support-base - how surprising.
    • teethman, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5women sucking ***** for one.
    • AhmedF, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Which just shows how much you missed the point.

      .xxx is meant as a solution for all 'pornographic' material. The biggest reasons for this was filtering could be done on the .xxx level, so a minor could not see it.

      Sure cocksucking can be deemed pornographic by everyone. But what would a classic painting with nudity? Is that pornographic? Or no? What about erotic text?

      There is simply no way to classify this properly. There is a difference between nice theory "oh lets just put all the pr0n on .xxx" and reality "oh ***** how do we define pr0n?"
  • dron55, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0and how exactly are they gonna inforce this internet law?
    • Tathar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Last time I checked, they couldn't really based on the nature of the Internet.
  • iPirate, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8So... no more Kate's "Playground" or other cleverly worded sites?
    I know when I first went there I had the intent of purchasing playground equipment.
  • steve693, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4What does this mean for sites like Teen Kelly and countless other similar websites?


    http://teenkelly.com/ could easily be a teenage girls blog.
  • DasPope, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4im sure something awful will make this live on
  • javiel, 18 hr 1 min ago, -4/+5I'm sorry but i dont care if goatse get taken of the net.
  • poipoipoi, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3i dont see the problem; it's doesn't fall under "permissable free speech" if you're *misleading* people.

    Not all speech is allowed.
    • zbeast, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Oh... I would toss in a bush bash here but there are too many to choose from.
      Please insert your own.
  • evilTak, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Shameful. Now *all* my links will be goatse.
  • ohgr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7What about sites dedicated to Teenage Mutent Ninja Turtles????
    Please think of the Turtles!!!
  • shawngoat23, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2Good. Free speech is not meant to be abused.
  • calepeeples, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4When the government outlaws Goatse; everyone will be Goatse.
  • tommah, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3This is such a joke. Click on "click here for the full story" and see why. :)
  • teethman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Tricking people into veiwing a guy opening ass to show everyone, makes you an *****, but not a criminal.
  • jimmiejaz, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Key words here, "with the intent to deceive a person" so, by using your tinyurl and adding NSFW or something similar, the law doesn't affect anything, afaik, IANAL
  • denjin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Well, they can't actually outlaw it. All they could possibly 'outlaw' is misleading someone into going there. But outlawing that sort of site outright is a blatant free speech violation, as disgusting as the site may be. Even the latter portion about deception is a grey area I believe.

    Even if the 'law' outlaws it, it's not like it'll be upheld by any court.
  • lambduh, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6However, Bush issued a signing statement indicating that he could send anyone a goatse link with impunity.
    • clickmyface, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1You are the winner. I was hoping I would get to say that... And yes, its probably true. Signing statement #1,450,584 probably.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 108 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.