Anybody visited that name yet? Interesting where it's going to
now.

Someone later posted saying the government might have shelled
out dough for it. So far I can't find any reference to it.

I don't think it has anything to do with the government - looks like they're selling houses now.

gee, I kinda liked the old site :)

Well it is about time. Too many kids probably have gone to that site to see things they were not prepared to see

the owner put it up for sale a good bit ago... because he has a daughter now and doesnt want to do anything that he cant be proud of (ie running an adult site) as far as his children are concerned. saw info on this a good bit ago it seems in excess of 6 months.

interesting...about time...

yep abstracthost is correct, he said he wont deal with porn and had it on sale, and the agreement was that no porn can be put on that domain name ever, what a wuss if you ask me... exploit kids then when his kids grow up no pornporn.... flake

It was FINE when his own kids didn't surf the net..........

Originally posted by RMF
It was FINE when his own kids didn't surf the net..........


lol good point

He could block it from his daughter's frisky fingers if the time does
come (don't know if the 'Net will still be around that time :) ). On
the other hand, doing so will invite tons of questions he might not
be ready to answer. :clap:

Originally posted by Toeki
I don't think it has anything to do with the government ...
It has everything to do with the government of the day.

Originally posted by nameslave
It has everything to do with the government of the day.
well, I just felt that this didn't

I remember when i opend that link at school... Thought it had info on the Whitehouse.. I was doing a report. Im sure alot of people have done this before heh.

Originally posted by SethEffectz
I remember when i opend that link at school... Thought it had info on the Whitehouse.. I was doing a report. Im sure alot of people have done this before heh.

I remember friends of mine accidently going to this site in the American history class that I was in back in high school. It was funny. Though, the teacher understood the situation and had the school block the site.

does anyone know how much they sold it for?

I wonder how he plans to enforce a contract that no porn shall ever reside on the domain.

Originally posted by coreybryant
Well it is about time. Too many kids probably have gone to that site to see things they were not prepared to see

A couple of years ago my history teacher took the class to the computer lab and warned everybody not to attempt to search for the website of the whitehouse on their own He said if anybody did they could face possible suspension.(Obiously because going to porn sites is agianst the school's AUP) There were alot of students that didn't understand why.

There were alot of students that didn't understand why

what about you?did you got then why she was saying that...didnt you helped your classmates in understanding the restriction?

Yeah I new about this cause I had heard of this from elsewhere. I did mention it some of my fellow classmates. I told them that the proper one is www.whitehouse.gov

boys you visit .com
girls you visit .gov

or vice versa

The owner asked for something like 7M for the website.
And according to analysis of many people here, he wanted to sell it because of a new law that prohibits diverting of traffic from legitimate sounded or typo domain names to porn sites, not because of his daughter...
And AFAIK, he hasn't sold the website yet, or at least didn't sell it at anywhere near the price he asked.

Originally posted by Kamejoko
And according to analysis of many people here, he wanted to sell it because of a new law that prohibits diverting of traffic from legitimate sounded or typo domain names to porn sites, not because of his daughter...

If it's not the UDRP you're referring to, has anybody found this law
yet? I can't find it anywhere so far, not even in google.

I believe it's called the Truth in Domain Names Act?

Originally posted by ajaspers
I believe it's called the Truth in Domain Names Act?

Oh that! He he he, needed a memory jog. :rolleyes:

To the curious, here it is: http://www.theorator.com/bills108/s800.html

108th CONGRESS
1st Session



S. 800


To prevent the use of a misleading domain name with the intent to deceive a person into viewing obscenity on the Internet.


IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

April 7, 2003
Mr. HATCH introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


A BILL
To prevent the use of a misleading domain name with the intent to deceive a person into viewing obscenity on the Internet.


Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

The Act may be cited as the `Truth in Domain Names Act of 2003'.

SEC. 2. FALSE OR MISLEADING DOMAIN NAMES ON THE INTERNET.

(a) IN GENERAL- Chapter 110 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 2252A the following:

`Sec. 2252B. False or misleading domain names on the Internet

`(a) Whoever knowingly uses a misleading domain name with the intent to deceive a person into viewing obscenity on the Internet shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.

`(b) Whoever knowingly uses a misleading domain name with the intent to deceive a minor into viewing material that is harmful to minors on the Internet shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 4 years, or both.

`(c) For the purposes of this section, a domain name that includes a word or words to indicate the sexual content of the site, such as `sex' or `porn', is not misleading.

`(d) For the purposes of this section, the term `material that is harmful to minors' means any communication that--

`(1) taken as a whole and with respect to minors, appeals to a prurient interest in nudity, sex, or excretion;

`(2) depicts, describes, or represents, in a patently offensive way with respect to what is suitable for minors, an actual or simulated sexual act or sexual contact, actual or simulated normal or perverted sexual acts, or a lewd exhibition of the genitals; and

`(3) taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value as to minors.'.

(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 110 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the time relating to section 2252A the following new item:

`2252B. False or misleading domain names on the Internet.'.

A more complete copy is here: http://organizations.lawschool.cornell.edu/clr/Clark.pdf .

..eh what a joke