New US law makes it a crime to use "misleading" words in a website

[gr8trfoo]

http://www.politechbot.com/docs/adam.walsh.child.protection.072106.pdf

(a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 110 of title 18, United
States Code, is amended by inserting after section 2252B
the following:
‘‘§ 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 consti-
tuting obscenity shall be fined under this title and impris-
oned 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.

 

[beatz]

"..Whoever knowingly embeds words
or digital images into the source code of a website.."

Yeah sure.

Please show me how to embed digital images into the source code.

The law probably means "embeds digital images into a website" or "embeds code for displaying digital images" but exactly that's what the law does NOT say.

They don't even get the technical facts straight.

 

[maximum]

They don't even get the technical facts straight.

Try using that as a defense. Federal courts will vary widely on this fine-point, in cases to come.

 

[bquast]

from my point of view embedding meaning deceiving a user. IE: click here to buy biskets, instead you are taken to an image of a naked fat woman...

other than that no clue what that means.

 

[AdoptableDomains]

Yeah sure.

Please show me how to embed digital images into the source code.

The law probably means "embeds digital images into a website" or "embeds code for displaying digital images" but exactly that's what the law does NOT say.

They don't even get the technical facts straight.

I think they mean having something link an image link called spongebobsquarepants.jpg (or alt-text) which is actually porn. a search for something innocent, would lead to something else that is not. Basically, the img HTML tag IS source code for a web brower. alt text tags or meta keywords could also be considered embedded since they are not directly shown in the browser, but could be indexed by a spider.

 

[bquast]

adoptable pointed that out already :

 

[Robert Allen]

This rule is confusing, infact it is another law that is unefical.

Rober

 

[beatz]

Basically, the img HTML tag IS source code for a web brower

Exactly.

Just that the law doesn't talk about img HTML tags.

You and i might interpret it as such (as in "that's what they *probably* meant to say") but it simply doesn't say so.

That was my point.