Moderator: Thanas
I don't think you quite understand, but I'll give you some leeway because you're drunk. [size=0]Ticks off yet another reason not to ever be drunk. It makes you not care about children.[/size] This guy purposefully set up his sites so that children would wander across them if they screwed up typing. This is criminal and sick. Disney didn't have to buy up possible typos of their address; certain actions can be criminalized but in most cases inaction cannot be. Disney didn't set up the porn sites so it is under absolutely no liability at all.Faram wrote:Ehh Jail for that???
Iff Disney an co cared they could have bought up all common spelling errors and typos.
That Amber Alert law would scares me.
/drunk igonre the typos
Thar be a twisted fuck.Einhander Sn0m4n wrote:http://www.theregister.com/content/6/35901.html
Remember those porn sites that would come up if you misspelled disney.com and other children's sites? The sick, motherfucking greedy-ass son of a whore responsible for this 'Typo-Squatting' just got sentenced for purposely redirecting children to porn sites he registered.
I think a petition to the Federal Government barring him from solitary confinement no matter what during his stay in jail is in order.
Erm... No. It is a crime to show children pornography, and if that sentiment was purely Christian in origin then I'm sure everyone here would revile it. You'll notice that they're not, so there's gotta be another reason for it.Faram wrote:But really, what did he do to deserve prison?
He cyber squatted child oriented domains to porn sites. He is a scumbag but where is the damage done?
Are the children going to be scarred for life, for seeing some nude women?
It’s probably just some Christian prudes that think that the children have suffered permanent damage and will grow up to be ax murderers now when they saw a naked chick instead of bambie.
EhhhRogue 9 wrote:It is a crime to show children pornography.
How is it stupid to keep porn away from children? This guy was purposefully targeting children. He had no other targets.Faram wrote:EhhhRogue 9 wrote:It is a crime to show children pornography.
I think they better throw every supplier of cable TV in jail then. Porn is easily obtainable on cable 24/7.
And the parents also if the kids have access to the remote.
Damn that’s one stupid law.
It’s a noble quest, no go find the Holy Grail!Rogue 9 wrote:How is it stupid to keep porn away from children? This guy was purposefully targeting children. He had no other targets.
#1 -- American or not(and you'd be suprised how either not-American or just perverted some of our members are), it's still just plain wrong to intentionaly subject an unwitting child to sexual content of any kind like that. These are little kids we're talking about. Would you want your 9-year-old looking though various porn sites?Faram wrote:It’s a noble quest, no go find the Holy Grail!Rogue 9 wrote:How is it stupid to keep porn away from children? This guy was purposefully targeting children. He had no other targets.
I would prefer a world where children would not be exposed to Sex, Violence, Murder, Bigotry and Hatred.
Do I think that it is possible? No!
Why is it ok to give children big doses of all human activities except sex?
Turn on a kids show and there is a lot of shooting and explosions going on, how come that this is ok but a nipple exposed on TV isn’t?
I am not arguing Against the fact that he is a scumbag, but I am confused.
If he had redirected those sites to the NRA, or some other site promoting guns or violence would he be in jail?
I do think that you Americans seems to have a strange attitude to sex as a group.
Missed that one sorry.Keevan_Colton wrote:Er Faram, the good people above have all missed why he got the 2.5 years in jail....sure, he's scum for this mispelling domain name thing...but that in and of itself isnt more than the shit every other fucking company on the net seems determined to pull....he's also pleaded guilty to a count of possessing child pornography, which is more likely where this sentence springs from....
Personally the biggest problem I have...is that they focused on that part.Keevan_Colton wrote:Yeah, it says 40+ counts of breaking this strange law that is basically the same shit as verisign are doing further down...and one of possessing child porn....that's the sentence for the two combined....strange isnt it?
