I would go for a warning page. The focus on the new regulations are pointing to keeping minors from accessing your site. They seem very serious about cracking down on porn that's immediately viewable to minors.
I would go for a warning page. The focus on the new regulations are pointing to keeping minors from accessing your site. They seem very serious about cracking down on porn that's immediately viewable to minors.
Artist/Painter and Webmaster of Huskyhunks.com.
I asked this on a different forum of Chad, and basically the warning page is an industry thing it does for some sort of "hey I tried" if taken to court, but it has never been tested. Basically, it's your call. I would definately be putting some keyword text into the index page, and would even consider the warning be made up as a graphic image that the SE wouldn't read and carry that text into the SE results description, or use an I-frame approach.
I'm not so sure a warning page is ever going to save anyone in court, but I can see how they may in some cases prevent the initial steps that lead up to prosecution from ever taking place.
The FCC for instance will not fine TV stations unless they get complaints filed from viewers. Then they investigate those complaints and decide what to do next. I'm sure internet content prosecutions work much the same way. A conservative happens upon a site, and then files a complaint out of sheer horror at what they were just exposed to.
It has to start somewhere, and the warning page just may prevent that from happening.
The second best line of defense against minors accessing (behind CC required) is internet ratings. Should you find yourself in correspondence with a "concerned parent," this is a great comeback to have available. It totally puts the ball back into their court to get a filter set up. You don't need to worry about saying anything else that ruffles their feathers as I've heard some webmasters do ("Well if you were a better parent...").
I personally use ratings and no nudity in the first screenful on some of my sites. This way they can still see what the site is about and get out without being too offended, but a warning page would probably be better.
I post here to whore this sig.
I agree...if little "Johnny" wants to see porn and goes to the cable TV and goes to the playboy channel then who is to blame? Naturally the parents for not setting the password on the remote...right!!!!!!!!!!!
But let him hit the internet and go to a porn site and who is to blame...the producers of the site!! Right???
WRONG!
The parents are to blame for allowing little "Johnny" to access those sites. Period...there is no difference. Either install software to prevent your virgin from seeing this stuff or sit with him when he is accessing the net (as you would with cable TV).
The difference is the STUPID FUCKS making the laws who have NO clue about technology and love the fact that the majority of the STUPID FUCKS who vote for them (and therefore pay them) also have no FUCKING CLUE!
Lee
MiamiBoyz.com
Online Since 1999!
Make 50% initial signup AND 50% recurring![/B] http://www.MiamiBoyz.com
NEW SITE TO PROMOTE - LatinPiss.com
actually the law very rarely thinks anything is the parents' fault.
remember in the early 90's - a 9 year old boy set his trailer on fire and his baby sister died. somehow the show beavis and butthead got a big part of the blame. never mind the fact that the parents left a 9 year old and a baby alone. never mind the fact that beavis and butthead never set anything large on fire on their show. somehow they were to blame.
in the u.s., parental responsibility is not considered part of the equation of protecting children. something has gone very wrong here, and anything we can do to keep from letting the blame land on us is a good idea.
Originally Posted by MiamiB
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks