It is a federal crime to mislead people into looking at porn

[Charlotte Ryberg]

I can see why they would make that a law: such an act for tricking people into seeing porn is similar to exposing private parts to people who do not want to see it, aka sexual indecency.

[Sociobiology]

I can see why they would make that a law: such an act for tricking people into seeing porn is similar to exposing private parts to people who do not want to see it, aka sexual indecency.

hmm not that's an angle I could see, bit of a slippery slope, but workable.
Its like the only way you can legally be naked in public is to actively protest public nudity laws.

[Farnhamia]

I can see why they would make that a law: such an act for tricking people into seeing porn is similar to exposing private parts to people who do not want to see it, aka sexual indecency.

hmm not that's an angle I could see, bit of a slippery slope, but workable.
Its like the only way you can legally be naked in public is to actively protest public nudity laws.

The sections of the law quoted in the OP are from a law entitled "SEXUAL EXPLOITATION AND OTHER ABUSE OF CHILDREN" (caps not mine, I guess Congress likes to shout). It's not a general law about the internet. You can check it out by going to the link in the OP and clicking the link at the top of the page to "Chapter 110."

[Ifreann]

Well let us be specific, since this thread is not about freedom of expression.

it really is, if they were attacking the sited due to false advertising I would have no problem, but just because people don't like what they show them, no you get no protection for that, no one is making you click on them.

Is viewing pornography that one does not want to view so good for people that we should disregard their wishes not to see it?

again yes because its no different than people who don't want to see their god made fun of or see images of mixed race couples.

If so, should this include exposing children to pornography against their wishes, or just adults?

I don't think it should include either, expose to porn is not harmful, as long as it is not violent and then its no worse than violent television.

I would like to be absolutely clear about what you are saying, because this is rather beyond the realms of controversial opinion. Are you saying that it is acceptable, should be legal, and is even beneficial to expose children to pornography against their wishes? Because I cannot see such a thing as being anything other serious child abuse that would only be engaged in by predatory paedophiles seeking to groom victims for future sexual abuse. I would very much prefer not to think of you as being such a person, nor as an advocate for such people, so please, please explain that there has been some misunderstanding or miscommunication.

[Rich and Corporations]

hmm not that's an angle I could see, bit of a slippery slope, but workable.
Its like the only way you can legally be naked in public is to actively protest public nudity laws.

The sections of the law quoted in the OP are from a law entitled "SEXUAL EXPLOITATION AND OTHER ABUSE OF CHILDREN" (caps not mine, I guess Congress likes to shout). It's not a general law about the internet. You can check it out by going to the link in the OP and clicking the link at the top of the page to "Chapter 110."

http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/ca ... ed-states/

The destruction of fish is a crime under a law aimed towards destroying corporate records, under the US government's legal theory that was overturned.

This law is quite unambiguous that misleading adults into looking at porn brings a maximum sentence of 10 years.

IANAL.

[AiliailiA]

hmm not that's an angle I could see, bit of a slippery slope, but workable.
Its like the only way you can legally be naked in public is to actively protest public nudity laws.

The sections of the law quoted in the OP are from a law entitled "SEXUAL EXPLOITATION AND OTHER ABUSE OF CHILDREN" (caps not mine, I guess Congress likes to shout). It's not a general law about the internet. You can check it out by going to the link in the OP and clicking the link at the top of the page to "Chapter 110."

Section (a) is quite explicit and does not require that the victim be a child. It doesn't even require there to be a victim. If the only person on earth who saw the supposedly "obscene" material was an FBI agent, charges could still be brought under section (a).

Amusingly, that would require a jury of decent law-abiding citizens to also view the material. I guess that's why it's called jury "duty".

[SaintB]

Under this ridiculously vague law Wikipedia is guilty of this.

[Rich and Corporations]

Under this ridiculously vague law Wikipedia is guilty of this.

I thought everyone knows that wikipedia is a free porn site.

---

The sections of the law quoted in the OP are from a law entitled "SEXUAL EXPLOITATION AND OTHER ABUSE OF CHILDREN" (caps not mine, I guess Congress likes to shout). It's not a general law about the internet. You can check it out by going to the link in the OP and clicking the link at the top of the page to "Chapter 110."

Section (a) is quite explicit and does not require that the victim be a child. It doesn't even require there to be a victim. If the only person on earth who saw the supposedly "obscene" material was an FBI agent, charges could still be brought under section (a).

Amusingly, that would require a jury of decent law-abiding citizens to also view the material. I guess that's why it's called jury "duty".

https://exposefacts.org/government-trie ... ry-phones/

A court officer handed out a packet of these same documents with bright red SECRET markings on the front to each juror (the government had tried to include such a warning on the binders of other exhibits, but the defense pointed out that nothing in them was actually classified at all). Judge Leonie Brinkema, apparently responding to the confused look on jurors’ faces, explained these were still-classified documents intended for their eyes only. “You’ll get the context,” Judge Brinkema added. “The content is not really anything you have to worry about.” The government then explained these documents were seized from Jeffrey Sterling’s house in Missouri in 2006. Then the court officer collected the documents back up again, having introduced the jurors to the exclusive world of CIA’s secrets for just a few moments.

[Ifreann]

Under this ridiculously vague law Wikipedia is guilty of this.

How so? I'm aware that any number of Wikipedia pages have, to use the local vernacular, NSFW images attached to them, but if you look up an encyclopaedia entry for vaginas and are presented with a picture of a vagina then I would hardly say that you have been misled into viewing porn.

[Edgy Opinions]

I don't particularly care if minors look at porn. I looked at porn when I was 14/15.
Shit, i'm betting some of my older friends may have even sent me some good stuff.

Most of us initiate ourselves into that kind of voyeurism in a manner that we don't feel any damaged about, but for many, many people, it CAN be abusive grooming. Let's please not generalize our experiences to everyone.

[Lleu llaw Gyffes]

Please read OP. This ain't about banning porn it is about banning fake advertising. When you click on a porn site, that continues to be legal

If you click on a site labelled "fluffy kittens" or "Star Trek" and you get a web-site full of star trek kitten porn, that is false advertising and this new law will make it a crime.

Likewise, I want a law that if you are already on a porn website and you click on "lesbian kiss", it is false advertising when they send you bdsm pissing.

[Confederate Ramenia]

It's also a federal crime to blow up a mailbox. Federal =/= horrible crime

[AiliailiA]

Please read OP. This ain't about banning porn it is about banning fake advertising. When you click on a porn site, that continues to be legal

If you click on a site labelled "fluffy kittens" or "Star Trek" and you get a web-site full of star trek kitten porn, that is false advertising and this new law will make it a crime.

Likewise, I want a law that if you are already on a porn website and you click on "lesbian kiss", it is false advertising when they send you bdsm pissing.

It's not a new law ...

2006—Pub. L. 109–248, title V, § 503(b), title VII, §§ 702(b), 703 (b),July 27, 2006, 120 Stat. 629, 648, 649, added items 2252C, 2257A, and 2260A.

The law might actually cover your concern. If you could argue that lesbians kissing isn't "obscenity" but pissing is.

[Blakk Metal]

Are shock sites even relevant anymore? I haven't heard of any new ones since the Rick Roll died.

[SaintB]

Under this ridiculously vague law Wikipedia is guilty of this.

How so? I'm aware that any number of Wikipedia pages have, to use the local vernacular, NSFW images attached to them, but if you look up an encyclopaedia entry for vaginas and are presented with a picture of a vagina then I would hardly say that you have been misled into viewing porn.

When people unknowingly search Wikipedia for information on something they they don't know is a pornographic term and are then treated to illustrations of sex acts wiki is technically in violation of that poorly worded clause of the law in question.

[Nikarao]

.

[Alyakia]

How so? I'm aware that any number of Wikipedia pages have, to use the local vernacular, NSFW images attached to them, but if you look up an encyclopaedia entry for vaginas and are presented with a picture of a vagina then I would hardly say that you have been misled into viewing porn.

When people unknowingly search Wikipedia for information on something they they don't know is a pornographic term and are then treated to illustrations of sex acts wiki is technically in violation of that poorly worded clause of the law in question.

no it isn't because there is no active attempt to mislead them

[Skeckoa]

Heaven forbid someone on the Internet sees a bare pee-pee and a pair of fake knockers.

Being tricked into watching it is kind of an important distinction.

What if I have religious reservations and am tricked into seeing it when I didn't intend to? What if there are kids on the site and the site never had a "Under 18 not permitted" sign. What if I am at work and could get in serious trouble?

[SaintB]

When people unknowingly search Wikipedia for information on something they they don't know is a pornographic term and are then treated to illustrations of sex acts wiki is technically in violation of that poorly worded clause of the law in question.

no it isn't because there is no active attempt to mislead them

The law fails to specify what constitutes trickery.

[Spoder]

hmm not that's an angle I could see, bit of a slippery slope, but workable.
Its like the only way you can legally be naked in public is to actively protest public nudity laws.

The sections of the law quoted in the OP are from a law entitled "SEXUAL EXPLOITATION AND OTHER ABUSE OF CHILDREN" (caps not mine, I guess Congress likes to shout). It's not a general law about the internet. You can check it out by going to the link in the OP and clicking the link at the top of the page to "Chapter 110."

The issue is the people who are going to use this law to land internet trolls into prison.

[Alyakia]

no it isn't because there is no active attempt to mislead them

The law fails to specify what constitutes trickery.

it seems obvious. if someone uploads a picture of their cremaster muscle to the cremaster muscle page (yesitotallychecked) then it's hard to argue that the did so in the hopes that one day a child may unwittingly see it as part of their master plan. same for an actual sex act. in fact it should be literally impossible to argue someone tried to mislead someone into seeing it because uploaded it to the page, because that is literally what the page is for. if a kid doesn't know what it means and finds it as a link from another page they haven't been mislead by someone into looking at it, have they? it's a world of difference from something like "hey check out this cool game" *hardcore porn*.

(though, since wikipedia is an encylopedia context, you would probably have a hard time arguing it's porn in the first place, but i digress)

[Skeckoa]

Do you think people who link to lemonparty as part of some trickery should be convicted for many years and be considered a felon?

Convicted for many years? Wait, where did you get that from the text of the law. nothing in your OP notes that, did I miss somethign?

[Alyakia]

The sections of the law quoted in the OP are from a law entitled "SEXUAL EXPLOITATION AND OTHER ABUSE OF CHILDREN" (caps not mine, I guess Congress likes to shout). It's not a general law about the internet. You can check it out by going to the link in the OP and clicking the link at the top of the page to "Chapter 110."

The issue is the people who are going to use this law to land internet trolls into prison.

it is entirely possible that a law like this would make spamming the you know what olympics on a website like NS illegal. this would have been a problem for me 10 years ago but now i'm not sure i care that much.

[SaintB]

The law fails to specify what constitutes trickery.

it seems obvious. if someone uploads a picture of their cremaster muscle to the cremaster muscle page (yesitotallychecked) then it's hard to argue that the did so in the hopes that one day a child may unwittingly see it as part of their master plan. same for an actual sex act. in fact it should be literally impossible to argue someone tried to mislead someone into seeing it because uploaded it to the page, because that is literally what the page is for. if a kid doesn't know what it means and finds it as a link from another page they haven't been mislead by someone into looking at it, have they? it's a world of difference from something like "hey check out this cool game" *hardcore porn*.

(though, since wikipedia is an encylopedia context, you would probably have a hard time arguing it's porn in the first place, but i digress)

I'll admit I'm nit picking, but laws need to be nit picked so as to prevent abuse of them in the future. It may seem obvious but it needs to actually be obvious because otherwise somewhere down the line it will no longer be so obvious to someone with power.

[Rich and Corporations]

Do you think people who link to lemonparty as part of some trickery should be convicted for many years and be considered a felon?

Convicted for many years? Wait, where did you get that from the text of the law. nothing in your OP notes that, did I miss somethign?

any number greater than three is many years to me