July 25, 2006 1:48 PM PDT

Congress spanks naughty sex sites

The U.S. House of Representatives on Tuesday approved a bill that would make it a federal felony for Webmasters to use innocent words like "Barbie" or "Furby" but actually feature sexual content on their sites.

Anyone who includes misleading "words" or "images" intended to confuse a minor into viewing a possibly harmful Web site could be imprisoned for up to 20 years and fined, the bill says.

Because the U.S. Senate already approved the measure in a voice vote last week, it now goes to President Bush for his signature. Bush, who previously endorsed the bill, has scheduled a signing ceremony for Thursday afternoon on the White House grounds.

"America's children will be better protected from every parent's worst nightmare--sexual predators--thanks to passage" of the legislation, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said in a statement on Tuesday.

House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert, in a statement issued after the House approved the bill by voice vote, said: "We've all seen the disturbing headlines about sex offenders and crimes against children. These crimes cannot persist. Protecting our children from Internet predators and child exploitation enterprises are just as high a priority as securing our border from terrorists."

The 163-page Child Protection and Safety Act represents the most extensive rewriting of federal laws relating to child pornography, sex offender registration and child exploitation in a decade.

If the bill becomes law, it's not clear which Webmasters would become federal felons. Sites like Kontraband.com, which show Barbie and Ken dolls having simulated sex, could be in trouble, depending on how prosecutors and juries interpret the language. (Kontraband offers video clips and photographs, some of which are racy.)

Kontraband.com representative Dylan Close said in an e-mail message to CNET News.com that he was familiar with the congressional legislation and that the site already rates the pages using a system borrowed from the British Board of Film Classification. For instance, a page showing topless images was marked as not safe for work. Close also said that the site's Barbie and Ken clip was intended for adults and older teenagers, not children.

Also, Close said, "we are increasing the level of awareness and differentiation between our levels of safe and not safe content."

A key phrase in the legislation (click for PDF) promises prison time only if a Webmaster has the "intent to deceive" a casual visitor.

In addition, the Child Protection and Safety Act, or Walsh Act (named for Adam Walsh, who was abducted and murdered in 1981 at 6 years old), would:

• Punish the intentional Internet sale or distribution of "date rape drugs" by making the act a new federal crime with up to 20 years in prison. The list of offending drugs would include gamma hydroxybutyric acid (sometimes called liquid ecstasy), ketamine, and flunitrazepam (better-known under the trade name Rohypnol).

• Force sex offenders to provide a DNA sample, a requirement that many states already have adopted.

• Create a national sex offender registry to be run by the FBI, with "relevant information" on each person. It's supposed to permit geographical lookups based on ZIP code.

• Fund a series of pilot programs, lasting up to three years, to tag sex offenders with tracking devices that would let them be monitored in real time. The devices would include a GPS downlink (to provide exact coordinates), a cellular uplink (to transmit the coordinates to police), and two-way voice communications.

Separately, the Senate is expected to vote this year on a related but broader proposal dealing with Web labeling. That legislation says that Web site operators posting sexually explicit information must slap warning labels on their pages or face prison terms of up to five years.

CNET News.com's Anne Broache contributed to this report.

See more CNET content tagged:
legislation, bill, Webmaster, crime, children


Join the conversation!
Add your comment
Congress spanks naughty sex sites
It is another case of big brother government aiding and abetting parents who wish to avoid realtime parenting. Parents want methods, formulas, plans, software, and laws that will do, they believe, the parenting for them.
It is simple. Your children's compute is in the livingroom, familyroom, or other common room where the parents may monitor what they do on the computer. Routers may be (this I approve) be configured to only allow them on the internet certain times. But the best child protection is a parent or parent surrogate parenting in realtime. Some provisions of this bill are unconstitutional and stupid.
Posted by xyxx1-1876552117854458837 (1 comment )
Reply Link Flag
RE: Congress spanks naughty sex sites
It is true that the parent should keep an eye on what their
children are surfing for on the web, but you can't watch them

As soon as someone exploits an innocent child or minor, their
"consitutional rights" should be taken away. People take this
"First Ammendment" scapegoat way too far.

I am in FULL support of the government putting big brother on
sick people. There is nothing "stupid" about locking up sex
offenders and predators.
Posted by movie_guy_73 (2 comments )
Link Flag
Its a good thing that most of these site originate in Korea...
Where old bushie can't get them...
Posted by umbrae (1073 comments )
Reply Link Flag
RE: Its a good thing that most of these site originate in Korea...
I'm not sure how having these kinds of sites is a "good thing"?
This world has NO place for sick people that run these sites and
exploit innocent children.

I say lock them up for the rest of their lives! People like that do
not deserve second chances, same as sex offenders. What
happens when they are released? They do it again!

It truly saddens my soul to think that there are people out there
who support these kinds of sites, whether they are in Korea or

Even if "bushie" cannot find them all and shut them down, they
will get what's coming to them in the end. What goes around,
comes around.
Posted by movie_guy_73 (2 comments )
Link Flag
Has anyone actually googled "Furby?"
I just did. Not one bare nipple. Not one erect anything (except
maybe furby ears). I even googled "furby sex" and I got some
christian youth site! I tell you, this Furby character needs to work
on improving his page rank...
Posted by chassoto--2008 (71 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Has anyone actually googled "Furby?"
I just did. Not one bare nipple. Not one erect anything (except
maybe furby ears). I even googled "furby sex" and I got some
christian youth site! I tell you, this Furby character needs to work
on improving his page rank...
Posted by chassoto--2008 (71 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Exploiting fear
Probably no one even does that anyway. No US porn company would think of doing this, not only would they be ostracized and imprisoned, it's just bad for business.

But just like they use terrorism, you can bet the Republicans will now exploit parents' fears in exchange for more big brother (patriot act, eavesdropping,etc). The public's fear of islamo-terrorism is now wearing off, and now we know the Republicans can't wage a competent war on this, so for election time they need a new war.

So now the new thing to scare people is "sex terrorism." They're just hoping they can create a new fictional "war" to present to the public, something they can go on Fox news and say only Republicans are capable of doing.

They hope we'll all be too worried and distracted by the threat of furby porn sites, to focus on the fact the GOP has massively failed America in virtually every regard: Katrina, the Iraq war, unsecure ports/borders, corruption, bankrupting America, etc.
Posted by jdbwar07 (150 comments )
Link Flag
They need to stop wasting my money on BS. Stop blowing smoke up my a&& I know what smoke feels like. The only time you will get a Politician to take care of anything worth wile is when he is not running for reelection.
Posted by ONSLAT (2 comments )
Reply Link Flag
An EDUCATION for movie_guy_73 and
others like him:

THIS is the FBI [u]sex offender[/u] page:

<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.fbi.gov/hq/cid/cac/registry.htm" target="_newWindow">http://www.fbi.gov/hq/cid/cac/registry.htm</a>

See for [u]yourself[/u] what it [b][u]REALLY[/u][/b] is!!! Also, [u]THINK[/u] about such lists and the [b]continuation[/b] of [b][u]creating[/u][/b] lists such as this. WHICH [i]list[/i] could [b][u]YOUb/u][/b] find [u]YOURSELF[/u] on???

These links help expose the [b][u]TRUE[/b][/u] agendas at work here.

<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=1855771&#38;page=1" target="_newWindow">http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=1855771&#38;page=1</a>

<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://saltlakecity.about.com/b/a/257300.htm" target="_newWindow">http://saltlakecity.about.com/b/a/257300.htm</a>

Quotes from:

<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://portlandme.wpadmin.about.com/?comments_popup=257612" target="_newWindow">http://portlandme.wpadmin.about.com/?comments_popup=257612</a>

&gt;1. According to data compiled by the U.S. Justice Department (<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/crimoff.htm#sex" target="_newWindow">http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/crimoff.htm#sex</a> ), the high recidivism rate of sex offenders is a myth. Sex offenders have an overall recidivism rate of less than 6 percent over three years, and 40 percent of those who do re-offend do so in the first year after their release. More detailed analysis confirms that a sex offenders likelihood of committing a new crime decreases the longer he or she remains free; in other words, if theyre going to commit another crime, it will probably happen in the first few years after their release.
Of course, this sort of data doesnt make for good sound bytes for politicians seeking to foster a get tough image to bolster their chances for election or re-election; but its the truth, as much as they may deny it.
Nonetheless, the supposedly high sex offender recidivism rates that politicians seem to pull out of thin air (when was the last time you heard one cite an actual study to validate the numbers they quote?) have created an environment where the mere presence of an individual who committed a sex crime five, ten, or twenty years ago is enough to cast a community into a state of panic. Given the misinformation and lies of the politicians (and the medias dutiful reporting of same), its no wonder that some, at least, feel that vigilante justice is an appropriate response.
In the end, it all comes down to a simple question: Should our government be in the business of facilitating vigilantism? Certainly the legislators who wrote these laws will argue that that was not their intention, but the effect is the same.
These laws remind me of the attractive nuisance concept in liability law. People who work with potentially dangerous equipment (circular saws, pesticides, chemicals, and so forth) are required to safeguard those items to prevent curious children (and others) from hurting themselves. If a carpenter leaves his circular saw unattended and a child picks it up and cuts himself, the carpenter is liable for costs and damages related to the childs injuries. The argument that it wasnt the carpenters intent that a child pick up and play with his circular saw is irrelevant. By leaving it unattended, he created an attractive nuisance; and he is therefore liable.
Creating a public hysteria about sex offenders, and then publishing their names and addresses on the Web, where anyone can access that information without so much as providing identification, is akin to leaving a power saw unattended. Anyone  stable or unstable, honorable or malicious  can access that information and use it in any way they like. This opens the door not only to vigilantism, but also to innocent people being killed because of mistaken identity.
If this information is to be made public at all (personally, I think it should only be available to law enforcement professionals), then the only safe balance between the publics right to know and the concept of the rule of law is to release the information only to adults who physically walk into a police station, present identification, and make an inquiry about a particular individual. This creates accountability and helps safeguard against random vigilantism.
In other words, if the neighbor down the street seems to be a bit too friendly towards your children and you want to check him out, that seems to me a legitimate use of sex offender registration information. But to simply publish all of this data on the Web, with no safeguards to prevent it from being used irresponsibly or criminally, is unconscionable in a society whose conduct supposedly is based upon the rule of law.

Comment by Bugsy  May 4, 2006 @ 10:01 am

2. Anyone who values their liberties and who has studied history should be afraid - very afraid  of these laws.
Long before Hitler killed the first Jew in Nazi Germany, he paved the way for the wholesale disenfranchisement of human beings by  you guessed it  attacking the rights of sex offenders. From 1933 through 1936, a series of amendments were passed to Paragraphs 173 through 188 of the German Penal Law specifically targeting homosexuals and others determined to be sexual deviants.
The sex offender laws created under the Nazi Third Reich may as well have been the model for Megans Law. They established the first sex offender registry, required sex offenders to register their whereabouts and to wear pink triangles, and established draconian punishments for sex crimes that included long prison terms, loss of voting rights, confinement in concentration camps, and (sometimes) the death penalty. All of these laws were justified by the Nazis in the same way that our present-day politicians justify Megans Law: to protect the children from sexual predators.
Of course, Hitler had other things in mind, as history shows us; and targeting sex offenders was just a way to establish the precedent of wholesale deprivation of human rights in preparation for his later attacks against the people he truly hated.
Its doubtful that the German people would have acquiesced to Hitlers rounding up Jews, Gypsies, Communists, Socialists, trade unionists, and so forth, and sending them off to death camps in 1933 when he first ascended to power. Hitler had to first establish a precedent that some people were subhuman and unworthy of human rights  and he started with the most universally despised group he could find.
Anyone who thinks that this couldnt happen again is delusional. The simple fact is that history shows that you cant single out one group for deprivation of civil rights without weakening those rights for everyone else.
Comment by Liberty Lover  May 7, 2006 @ 8:54 am

To learn more on the TRUE nature of what is going on visit this site:

<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.geocities.com/eadvocate/issues/?20064" target="_newWindow">http://www.geocities.com/eadvocate/issues/?20064</a>

and go through it with a fine toothed comb. ;)

When done, use that computer of yours to [b]REASEARCH[/b] even deeper!!!

Education/Infromation is power!!!! By allowing the US 'gov' to create a China-like net here, we are only handing over OUR power...the power of [b]WE THE PEOPLE[/B]!!!!!
Posted by btljooz (401 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Text tags work here. Wow. I never even knew that.

Interesting links.

I think this is going towards a more McCarthyism end...
Posted by Tomcat Adam (272 comments )
Link Flag
The only reason recidivism rates are declining is because since 1995, child sex offenders learned that if you kill the child, you will not get caught.

So, yes, recidivism rates are down, but more children are dead.

I don't find that to be an acceptable trade-off.
Posted by loadofchyt (6 comments )
Link Flag
congres has too much time and money to waste?
they should consider to ban other words too!
foxy (its about innocent foxes)
***** (its about dogs)
doggy (style - but also about dog world)
blow (about wind)...
please ban and make special forces to search these words and put webmasters to jail!
Posted by cocos2000 (37 comments )
Reply Link Flag
More election year grand standing
It's a nice idea to have GPS monitors with two way communcation ability for sex offenders but I think keeping them in prison would be an even better way to keep them from doing it again, especially for those that have actually abused someone. Perhaps start clearing out some of the non-violent offenders to make room for the real scum. The U.S does imprison the most people of any country and most of it is for non-violent offences.

As for web labeling and banning misleading words for porn sites, it's completely ineffective unless all internet connected countries agree to enforce such things.
Posted by unknown unknown (1951 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Sounds good, but lets have some truth regarding what makes a sex offender wear the label "violent".
Just because government, that bastion of truth, says someone is violent, are we to believe the person actually use violence against a victim? Well, that's what they want us to believe, but in fact this is not the case!

The new federal anti-*sex offender laws define "violent" as any attempt at a whole slew of descriptions of illegal acts. These use these terms not to inform but to further punish.

And as proof of their artistic propaganda one can view various state *ex offender websites and notice that they just didn't have the room to write out the whole "attempted" word for many of these people. They say, for example, "att sexual battery."
I guess what we really need is more funding for these poor states so that they can afford the bandwidth to spell out whole words. (Unless of course I'm correct and they purposely leave off words that bolster my argument.)
Posted by halebobbdotcomslashraving (3 comments )
Link Flag
well I did find this article about furbiling
by googling sexual furbys

Posted by spridemore-2009 (1 comment )
Reply Link Flag
i like your site there fore i choose this site thnx..
Posted by luckyboss61 (1 comment )
Reply Link Flag

Join the conversation

Add your comment

The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Click here to review our Terms of Use.

What's Hot



RSS Feeds

Add headlines from CNET News to your homepage or feedreader.