Man Gets 30 Months For Misspelling

Thanks to the Truth in Domain Names Act passed last April, John Zuccarini will get 30 months in prison for creating misspelled domain names based on Disneyland, Bob the Builder and the Teletubbies so children would be directed to porn sites.

Zuccarini registered over 3,000 domains and he had 16 domains based on www.britneyspears.com. He admitted he did it "because children are more likely than adults to make spelling errors and to mis-type website addresses."

Zuccarini was also convicted for possessing child pornography. He is the first to be convicted for intentionally misspelling domain names. At the height of his career, he was raking in a million dollars a year for 10 to 25 cents a hit.

More Info: Source

he had child porn and admitted targetting children, so i hope he doesn't survive 30 seconds in prison.
i am not one for censorship for consenting adults but to trick someone that doesn't want porn into viewing it is plain evil.

Agreed. Misspelling domain names to lure children to porn sites... he deserved it!

YOU CORRECTED IT???? :angry: darn now people will think i have gone nuts :lol: :lol:

What a bastard

:lol:

There, now they won't think your nuts. :P

@Evil Gemini
Agreed.

I bet the con&#39;s will have a nice quiet &#39;word&#39; with him <_<

He&#39;ll be relieved of his teeth right away. Sick f*ck short eyes.

Why would someone want children to go into porn sites? :huh:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Keikan@29 February 2004 - 12:20
Why would someone want children to go into porn sites? :huh:

---

Because he&#39;s a sick fuck who needs stabbed in jail?

Because he&#39;s trying to make money. Which he apparently did quite successfully.

If your business is built upon the mistakes of others, you target the people who make the most mistakes.

:ninja:

What a truly evil man.

He&#39;ll do 18 months in some C catagory gazebo. Then he&#39;ll be at large to indulge his sick fantasies. He has more or less made an art out his cruel self-amusement.

We&#39;ll see more cases like this and that bastard will be pulling his wire to it.

Cleaned.

Image Resized
[img]http://keikan.250free.com/cleaned.jpg' width='200' height='120' border='0' alt='click for full size view'>

Quote:

---

Originally posted by MagicNakor@29 February 2004 - 10:49
Because he&#39;s trying to make money. Which he apparently did quite successfully.

If your business is built upon the mistakes of others, you target the people who make the most mistakes.

:ninja:

---

This is exactly, precisely, and unfortunately correct.

Once upon a time, the manipulation of the hoi polloi didn&#39;t extend so easily to innocents; now we have the internet.

Funny-

Those who champion freedom of speech at all costs, and preach taking the bad with the good are pronouncing a death sentence on any number of children.

The world is a dangerous place; I guess it&#39;s only right that children should face their fair share of the risk, huh? :angry:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by j2k4@1 March 2004 - 16:07
Funny-

Those who champion freedom of speech at all costs, and preach taking the bad with the good are pronouncing a death sentence on any number of children.

The world is a dangerous place; I guess it&#39;s only right that children should face their fair share of the risk, huh? :angry:

---

The bastard deserves everything he gets and more.


However, those of us with children walk a fine line, as you well know.

I for one, would rather my son found out everything is not what it seems through getting on some pervs website than through getting in his car.


They have to learn "street smarts" at some point.... personally, id rather they learnt it where i can keep an eye on things and &#39;shout n bawl&#39; a little...

ie i&#39;ll take the "Freedom of Speech" rather than the drug rehab, if its all the same with you ;)

Surely we could be more creative than that, Rat.

The fact that principle dictates we see no exceptions to freedom of speech, when we find so many exceptions in other situations, strictly as a matter of convenience?

Freedom of speech should not be sacrosanct; after all, one is legally precluded from shouting "FIRE&#33;" in the proverbial crowded theater, yes?

Besides which, actual censorship can only be practiced by government anyway; any actions to refuse to foment expression (for example: the ClearChannel/Howard Stern case here in the U.S.) are simply a matter of choice, whether on a personal level, or, in the case of ClearChannel/Stern, a corporate one.

Many people fail to make the distinction:

We may not, as you would say, deprive anyone of their right to express themselves; we may, however, choose not to supply them with a megaphone or an audience*, as such augmentation is not a right. ;)

EDIT:....*Or, in this case, internet access.

I think this guy is most despicable and I&#39;m glad he got the time but......

even though he is like a drug dealer, hooking kids when they&#39;re young, drug dealing is illegal.

Internet porn, however, is not.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by billyfridge@29 February 2004 - 04:23
I bet the con&#39;s will have a nice quiet &#39;word&#39; with him <_<

---

um... unless it&#39;s one of those minimum security "country club" prisons, a person has a fairly good chance of being beaten/raped/murdered/etc no matter what they&#39;ve been convicted of. it&#39;s prison, after all. :blink:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by j2k4@1 March 2004 - 08:07
Those who champion freedom of speech at all costs, and preach taking the bad with the good are pronouncing a death sentence on any number of children.

---

as well as those who champion the right to bear arms, the right to pollute the environment, the right to invade other countries based on bad intel, the right to drink or smoke while pregnant, the right to own the myriad breeds of fighting dogs as pets, the right to run with scissors, and so forth and so forth. there are lots of things that you could equate to being anti-children. mcdonald&#39;s sets children on the slow path to obesity and health problems related to it.

i&#39;m fairly certain that nothing i ever say or write will ever directly cause a child to die. i&#39;d be surprised, as well, if there were any cases in which (during the pre-internet days) a child getting hold of a copy of Playboy or even Hustler ever actually killed him/her. there&#39;d prolly be a surgeon general&#39;s warning or sumfin, if there were. or at least a warning against the dangers of masturbation.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 3RA1N1AC+2 March 2004 - 06:55--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (3RA1N1AC &#064; 2 March 2004 - 06:55)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@1 March 2004 - 08:07
Those who champion freedom of speech at all costs, and preach taking the bad with the good are pronouncing a death sentence on any number of children.

---

as well as those who champion the right to bear arms, the right to pollute the environment, the right to invade other countries based on bad intel, the right to drink or smoke while pregnant, the right to own the myriad breeds of fighting dogs as pets, the right to run with scissors, and so forth and so forth. there are lots of things that you could equate to being anti-children. mcdonald&#39;s sets children on the slow path to obesity and health problems related to it.

i&#39;m fairly certain that nothing i ever say or write will ever directly cause a child to die. i&#39;d be surprised, as well, if there were any cases in which (during the pre-internet days) a child getting hold of a copy of Playboy or even Hustler ever actually killed him/her. there&#39;d prolly be a surgeon general&#39;s warning or sumfin, if there were. or at least a warning against the dangers of masturbation.[/b][/quote]
True enough, but do you even see what I mean, 3RA1N1AC?

This is the world we live in: Warning labels with tortured language, and the word "PRO-" followed by the word "CHOICE" instead of the word "ABORTION", so that those who practice it might feel less guilt about it.

Big Brother lives, in the guise of American liberalism and it&#39;s aversion to plain speech.

Those of you who take exception to my sentiment, however, may not choose me off on the subject of the moral correctness of abortion (or it&#39;s lack) as I have not addressed that in this post. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by j2k4@2 March 2004 - 07:52


Those of you who take exception to my sentiment, however, may not choose me off on the subject of the moral correctness of abortion (or it&#39;s lack) as I have not&nbsp; addressed that in this post. ;)

---

Nor shall I.
Your use of the term "pro-choice" to automatically equate with "abortion" is incorrect though, I think.
Doesn&#39;t the term more accurately reflect the desire to possess the option, not necessarily to exercise it?

If not, then the phrase "Right to Life" really means "My decision, not yours".....

Quote:

---

Originally posted by clocker+2 March 2004 - 13:08--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker @ 2 March 2004 - 13:08)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@2 March 2004 - 07:52


Those of you who take exception to my sentiment, however, may not choose me off on the subject of the moral correctness of abortion (or it&#39;s lack) as I have not addressed that in this post. ;)

---

Nor shall I.
Your use of the term "pro-choice" to automatically equate with "abortion" is incorrect though, I think.
Doesn&#39;t the term more accurately reflect the desire to possess the option, not necessarily to exercise it?

If not, then the phrase "Right to Life" really means "My decision, not yours"..... [/b][/quote]
Touche.

The thread is, after all, about language abuse.

Mea Culpa.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by j2k4@2 March 2004 - 07:52
Big Brother lives, in the guise of American liberalism and it&#39;s aversion to plain speech.

---

that&#39;s no more the domain of liberals than it is of conservatives, in my humble opinion. it&#39;s a symptom of bureacracy and propaganda in general. in just about any case where bureaucrats want to change people&#39;s fundamental view of reality, you&#39;ll see the media quickly & uncritically adopting newly invented terms of the bureaucratic vocabulary.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by j2k4
The fact that principle dictates we see no exceptions to freedom of speech, when we find so many exceptions in other situations, strictly as a matter of convenience?

---

Could you clarify a couple of points please.

Who&#39;s principle dictates that there are no exceptions to freedom of speech?

Is anyone arguing that this guy should be allowed to redirect kids to porn sites in the name of free speech?

Free speach by all means, but as this case proves there has to be a level of control to make sure it&#39;s "responsible" free speech.
Even though i don&#39;t particularly want to view porn i don&#39;t want to be told i cant. However that is my personel choice having past the age of majority and if i did ever want to view porn then i would expect to be able to do it purley because i chose to and not because i was "tricked" into viewing it. This is a case of pure trickery and rightly so the perpetrater is going to share a cell with someone that will use the phrase "you might as well, cos i&#39;m going to make you".
with freedom of speech comes great responsibility and a line must be drawn as to what is an acceptable usage (adult consenting porn should not be banned, but it should not be forced on those that don&#39;t want it)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by vidcc@3 March 2004 - 00:35
with freedom of speech comes great responsibility and a line must be drawn as to what is an acceptable usage

---

vidcc-

You make my point; the question is, who is to exercise this "responsibility" you speak of?

Who draws these lines which delineate "acceptable usage"?

The internet-porn purveyer?

I don&#39;t think he&#39;s interested in being responsible; he&#39;d be very happy for Junior to snipe Mom and Dad&#39;s credit card in order that he might profit thereby.

The consumer?

If underaged, he/she is looking for thrills/enjoyment, and not to get caught.

Third-party enforcement?

Aye-there&#39;s the rub, eh? ;)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 3RA1N1AC@2 March 2004 - 04:30
um... unless it&#39;s one of those minimum security "country club" prisons, a person has a fairly good chance of being beaten/raped/murdered/etc no matter what they&#39;ve been convicted of. it&#39;s prison, after all. :blink:

---

Actually that&#39;s incorrect, prison rape is very rare, and even in the higher security prisons where the population shifts from white-collar criminals to violent repeat offenders, you could make a strong case saying a rape victim was asking for it.

You can&#39;t make a person that doesn&#39;t want to swallow swallow.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by haxor41789+3 March 2004 - 03:00--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (haxor41789 &#064; 3 March 2004 - 03:00)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-3RA1N1AC@2 March 2004 - 04:30
um... unless it&#39;s one of those minimum security "country club" prisons, a person has a fairly good chance of being beaten/raped/murdered/etc no matter what they&#39;ve been convicted of.&nbsp; it&#39;s prison, after all.&nbsp; :blink:

---

Actually that&#39;s incorrect, prison rape is very rare, and even in the higher security prisons where the population shifts from white-collar criminals to violent repeat offenders, you could make a strong case saying a rape victim was asking for it.

You can&#39;t make a person that doesn&#39;t want to swallow swallow.[/b][/quote]
This is true.

Minimum security facilities are actually worse than max facilities, and by a good margin, too.

That is not to say any of them are rife; sex does occur, but for the most part, actual rape is somewhat rare.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by j2k4+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Who draws these lines which delineate "acceptable usage"?[/b]

---

I think you should j2k4. You know you want to, we know you want to, so I say go for it :D

Quote:

---

Originally posted by j2k4@
The internet-porn purveyer?

I don&#39;t think he&#39;s interested in being responsible; he&#39;d be very happy for Junior to snipe Mom and Dad&#39;s credit card in order that he might profit thereby.

---

If Mom and Dad arent responsible enough to keep their credit cards secure then theres not much internet-porn "bring all the kids to me HAHAHA&#33;&#33;&#33;" purveyor can do about it.


<!--QuoteBegin-j2k4
Third-party enforcement?

Aye-there&#39;s the rub, eh?[/quote]

I think you have to accept that unless you have a draconian blanket ban implemented via a national firewall as used in China, then you can only police the most serious internet crime due to limited resources.

I believe the people who own the area offering internet access should do the policing. This happens in the workplace, public libraries, colleges and internet cafes all the time.

If it is the family home then its up to the parents. If the parents are unable or unwilling to monitor their childs net access then they should either keep the computer in a locked room or not have net access at all.

I appreciate this may seem OTT but the only other viable option is to go down the route China has taken. There are plenty of software programs that can limit access to these sites and you dont need to be an expert to install them. Also, quite a few ISP&#39;s have easy to use parental control facilities e.g. AOL .

Sometimes I think the &#39;moral majority&#39; want everyone else to take responsibility for their kids, even if that means a loss in freedom for everyone.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by j2k4+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Quote:

---

Originally posted by haxor41789@

<!--QuoteBegin-3RA1N1AC

---

Quote:

---

um... unless it&#39;s one of those minimum security "country club" prisons, a person has a fairly good chance of being beaten/raped/murdered/etc no matter what they&#39;ve been convicted of.&nbsp; it&#39;s prison, after all.

---

Actually that&#39;s incorrect, prison rape is very rare, and even in the higher security prisons where the population shifts from white-collar criminals to violent repeat offenders, you could make a strong case saying a rape victim was asking for it.

You can&#39;t make a person that doesn&#39;t want to swallow swallow.

---

This is true.

Minimum security facilities are actually worse than max facilities, and by a good margin, too.

That is not to say any of them are rife; sex does occur, but for the most part, actual rape is somewhat rare. [/b][/quote]

@haxor41789

I assume that if you believe your about to be murdered you can be made to do just about anything. If you applied your arguments to women there would be uproar, but when it comes to men.. apparently its acceptable.

@all
While I would like to believe that prison rape is rare I think its wishful thinking. You may want to take a look at this report, it makes for some rather disturbing reading...

No Escape: Male Rape in U.S. Prisons

Quote:

---

Yet a recent academic study of an entire state prison system found an extremely high rate of sexual abuse, including forced oral and anal intercourse. In 1996, the year before Nebraska correctional officials told Human Rights Watch that prisoner-on-prison sexual abuse was uncommon, Professor Cindy Struckman-Johnson and her colleagues published the results of a survey of state prison inmates there. They concluded that 22 percent of male inmates had been pressured or forced to have sexual contact against their will while incarcerated.(354) Of these, over 50 percent had submitted to forced anal sex at least once.(355) Extrapolating these findings to the national level would give a total of over 140,000 inmates who have been anally raped

---

Now take into account the fact that the US incarcerates 727 prisoners per 100,000 residents, while most European countries incarcerate fewer than 100 people per 100,000 residents and it becomes even more disturbing.

The figures from the authorities are nowhere near this amount but thats not really surprising. If it happened to you, would you report it? I think most men wouldnt be able to tell their friends or family let alone make it official. Also at the time when this report was written many correctional facilities didnt even keep statistics on these incidents.