LawMeme LawMeme Yale Law School  
LawMeme
Search LawMeme [ Advanced Search ]
 
 
 
 
.kids.us and the Definition of Hyperlinking
Posted by James Grimmelmann on Tuesday, January 20 @ 09:34:26 EST
Contributed by Anonymous
Free Expression
Anonymous writes "In 2002 the United States Senate passed the Dot Kids Implementation and Enforcement Act of 2002 (HR 3833), which established an Internet domain (.kids.us) as a kids-friendly area on the World Wide Web. Hyperlinks that take a user outside of the kids.us domain are prohibited from use in any kids.us domain.

Links & Law reports that two out of six kids.us.-websites seem to have found a way around the restriction. Instead of providing hyperlinks they merely post the URL of other websites (see e.g. Smithsonian). Whether this behaviour is illegal or protected by the First Amendment is an open question. NewStar, Inc. did not comment on the issue.

Note: Personally, I was also interested to learn that there are a grand total of six sites in .kids.us. If you build it, they won't come."

 
Related Links
· More about Free Expression
· News by James Grimmelmann


Most read story about Free Expression:
Bono Says 'Fucking' on TV; FCC Says 'OK'

Options

 Printer Friendly Page  Printer Friendly Page

 Send to a Friend  Send to a Friend

Threshold
  
The comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content.

Violations of no-external-link rules (Score: 1)
by BenEdelman on Tuesday, January 20 @ 18:59:59 EST
(User Info | Send a Message) http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/edelman.html
I agree that there are plenty of ways to circumvent the no-external-link rules.

Of course, another possible approach is just to include such links, the rules notwithstanding. I found external links on firstgov.kids.us and space.kids.us and submitted reports to that effect on October 14 and November 9, 2003, respectively. But, to NeuStar's credit, the problems were resolved promptly, within 24 hours as I recall.


[ Reply to This ]


Re: .kids.us and the Definition of Hyperlinking (Score: 0)
by Anonymous on Tuesday, January 20 @ 19:11:34 EST
I don't understand why this was done as a restriction at all. It seems that it would be much for effective to encourage Microsoft (pay them even; I presme that there was already some budget set up for this whole initiative) to add a feature in IE that will allow parents to restrict the browser to the .kids.us domain except with a password.

This would remove the need for any worries about hyperlinks and URLs and whether they can be put on the site. It might also give people an incentive to create sites on the domain, hoping to be already there when parents do start using the feature.

As long as Microsoft gets to be a monopoly, we might as well use the fact to our advantage.


[ Reply to This ]


Re: .kids.us and the Definition of Hyperlinking (Score: 1)
by JimCYL on Wednesday, January 21 @ 13:44:57 EST
(User Info | Send a Message) http://journals.aol.com/jimcyl/geeklaw/
Part of the problem with using the kids.us websites, and probably one of the main reasons it hasn't caught on (and likely won't ever), is that it's incredibly difficult to actually get a page up there. First of all, it's incredibly expensive. I believe Neustar charges something like $500 for the privilege of applying for a domain on kids.us. Compared to the cost that other domain name registrars charge, it's not suprising that kids.us is remarkably unpopular. Second of all, Neustar's content review process takes weeks, and there's no guarantee that they will approve your website. As a test case, a John Marshall Law School professor submitted a website that included the text of FCC v. Pacifica, a supreme court opinion (the George Carlin "seven dirty words" case). Neustar rejected it. Third, appealing a content review decision is nightmarish. First, it costs even more money. Second, you have to agree to abide by arbitration rules. Third, you have to agree to waive any right to sue Neustar in court. Fourth, like the original review process, it takes weeks. The problem is that the Dot Kids Act imposes so many rules on the registrar. I wonder if it would have been better left to a private registrar tthird and fourth-level domains (like new.net, where I could register jimcyl.blog, which would be an alias for jimcyl.blog.new.net) who would impose contractual requirements on registrants and include penalties like forefeiture clauses. I don't see why this required a federal statute to implement here.


[ Reply to This ]


Leges humanae nascuntur, vivunt, moriuntur
Human laws are born, live, and die

Contributors retain copyright interests in all stories, comments and submissions.
Everything else copyright (c) 2002 by the Information Society Project.

This material may be distributed only subject to the terms and conditions
set forth in the Open Publication License, v1.0 or later.
The latest version is currently available at http://www.opencontent.org/openpub/.

You can syndicate our news with backend.php

Page Generation: 0.212 Seconds