Forum Moderators: phranque
I wouldn't consider this too bad, except for what could be considered "adult" content. They're not talking just porn sites; supposedly these laws would prohibit me from linking to a page from my newsletter that contains references to adult-type words, including things like "tobacco."
So the problem is, what counts as "adult" words and content? For instance, my site contains a very "conservative" mission statement. It mentions things that we do not believe in doing, and some of these words would probably qualify as "adult." So am I allowed to link my newsletter to my site, which has always been known as family-safe and child-friendly?
Personally, if the article referenced above portrays these new laws accurately, I consider them unenforceable. They're just to ambiguous.
What does anyone else think?
It mentions things that we do not believe in doing, and some of these words would probably qualify as "adult." So am I allowed to link my newsletter to my site, which has always been known as family-safe and child-friendly?
With the utmost respect I'll offer one thought. Your statement seems contradictory in nature. If you yourself interpret some of the words as "adult", how can the site be known as family-safe and child-friendly?
Why not reword your mission statement to be family-safe and child-friendly, which, by nature, will come across as very "adult" without any gray areas. Then you will know you are safe ;)
Topic at hand --
ISIPP has a good write-up:
[isipp.com...]
Although I don't live in either of those states, I'm going to sign-up anyway ;)
Reminds me of Homer Simpson - English? I don't need English, I'm not going to England.
So people will send their emails from wherever. Most junk mails are untracable anyway.
With the utmost respect I'll offer one thought. Your statement seems contradictory in nature. If you yourself interpret some of the words as "adult", how can the site be known as family-safe and child-friendly?
Well, the page in question is our mission statement, and it's meant to explain why our site is safe for the children among our audience to visit. The words used are not what you'd call vulgar or even coarse, and they're used as briefly as possible. Basically they're meant to explain what won't be found on our site, which is important to our audience. I wouldn't know how to eliminate these words without changing the meaning of the mission statement.
But this illustrates the difficulty posed by such laws. The ambiguity of them simply puts site owners on an insecure footing where their newsletters are concerned. Most of our visitors who read our mission statement appreciate knowing where we stand on those issues. But what happens if one person in Michigan or Utah takes exception? Who decides if we've broken the law, and what is the penalty? And, how am I supposed to know if my newsletter subscribers are even in Utah or Michigan? Most importantly, where is any definition for these laws? I certainly hate to see laws passed that require "test cases" before it becomes clear just what they mean.
And I know where you are coming from. I'm certain we can see both sides of the argument here and it's nothing new as we all know. There is a fine line of separation and it seems that the *bad guys* push and push against it way too hard. It's just interesting that action is moving at the state level now and it will be even more interesting to see where this goes.
It's evident they are ready for battle though. Did you catch the "WHO SHOULD CARE" paragraph that contains this line in the ISIPP link?
"They may be challenged for their constitutionality eventually ... "
