One thing this article doesn't mention is that the bill's definition of "pornographic web site" is linked directly to 2257. It only covers web sites that need to maintain age verication documents, meaning there's a huge loophole.

If a site only features nudity, simulated sex, or vintage hardcore, it would be exempt from this law. And it would have no impact at all on foreign web sites.

So here we have another idiotic censorship law that places onerous burdens on protected speech without accomplishing what it sets out to accomplish --namely "protecting children" from porn.

If they're really serious about protecting kids from porn, why don't they just set up a damn family-friendly TLD?