response 48 of 78:

Nov 13 07:36 UTC 1998

  re #46:  Some sex sites deliberately masquerade as popular sites,
  choosing names that are like those sites to get people who slip up
  when entering their URLs..  (for example, there is (or was) a site
  called "www.whitehouse.com" which was set up to catch people headed
  for "www.whitehouse.gov".  Since many people are conditioned to 
  assume URLs end in ".com" I'm sure they got a lot of accidental hits.)
  Such a site is not going to want to clearly distinguish itself as a
  sex site.

  I'm not very fond of most of the filtering options proposed so far but
  I think that what we'll eventually wind up with is some sort of self-
  rating system where material "harmful to children" can be posted freely
  on the net so long as those providing it marked it as adult material,
  with substantial penalties for deliberately misrepresenting harmful
  material..  Sites wanting to avoid the issue completely could just mark
  everything on their site as "adult", making it unavailable to children
  but keeping them safe from legal difficulties, at least those of the
  CDA sort..  I suspect that there will be a problem with a "chilling effect"
  where some sites with material appropriate to children might nevertheless
  mark it off limits just to be on the safe side but it seems that such a
  scheme would at least be better than the ham-handed regulatory solutions
  we've been offered so far..