Proposed law carries stiff penalties
Senator Jon Kyl, a Republican from Arizona, joined eight other Republicans last Tuesday in introducing a new bill (S3499), the Stop Adults’ Facilitation of the Exploitation of Youth Act, or Internet Safety Act. If passed the law will impose serious penalties on ISPs and commercial web sites.
While the exact language of the bill has not yet been published, a copy of the bill was reviewed by CNET News.com sister site silicon.com. Their subsequent report reveals the following details.
ISPs will be fined $150,000 for the first offence and $300,000 thereafter for failing to report to authorities any CP sightings on their networks.
Commercial web site owners, with sexually explicit content, must place “clearly identifiable marks or notices” in either the site’s code or on the pages themselves. The specifications for these labels are to be defined by the US government. Failure to comply could land a site owner in prison for up to 15 years!
The bill also makes it a crime for “using misleading domain names to direct children to harmful material on the Internet”. The proposed legislation also delivers penalties for knowingly embedding words or images in a site’s source code with the intention of deceiving minors into viewing harmful content. Violators will be subject to as much as 20 years in prison!
The bill uses existing federal law for its definition of sexually explicit materials - all types of sexual intercourse: bestiality, masturbation, sadistic or masochistic abuse, or lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person. It is important to note that in one case the courts ruled “lascivious exhibition” of the pubic area could extend to images of people wearing clothing, such as bikini bathing suits, leotards, or underwear.
Criticism has already been expressed over the impact this proposed law would have on artistic, educational, and news sites. In addition, non-commercial sites are apparently exempt under the proposed law, raising questions as to the definition of commercial.
The confusion continues, as the law would exempt large web sites from the labeling requirement if sexual depictions represent a “small and insignificant part” of the overall site. What guidelines should a web site owner use in determining the definitions of large, small, or insignificant?
In all probability this bill will never make it into the law books, as written. However, in today’s political climate one can never assume. If it does make it into law, there is no question mainstream and adult entertainment interests will mount a vigorous challenge in the courts.





















