photo
commentary
Alert! Sneaky provisions added to Amber Alert Act
Published Thursday, 22-May-2003 in issue 804
BEYOND THE BRIEFS
by Rob DeKoven
While the country was watching the war in Iraq, Congress passed the seemingly innocuous and innocent AMBER Alert Act, a law aimed at helping track abducted children.
Unfortunately, Congress included several other laws within the bill that are likely to cause businesses that cater to the GLBT community some problems.
Contained in the AMBER bill is the “Illicit Drug Anti-Proliferation Act of 2003.”
The previous name of the bill was “Reducing of Americans’ Vulnerability to Ecstasy Act” (RAVE). This new law expands upon the Controlled Substances Act, which primarily targeted crack houses.
Now, any property used in any way for drugs will subject owners to penalties of up to $250,000 and prison.
Basically, any owner or manager of a property, who knows or should know that others are using drugs, or who are under the influence of drugs, while on their property, can be prosecuted under the law. It places an affirmative duty on owners of property to undertake measures to ensure no one enters a property with drugs or is under the influence of drugs. It’s practically a zero-tolerance law, because prosecutors don’t have to prove that one actually knew drugs were being used; it’s just that owners should have known.
The bill was specifically designed to target raves, but many in the gay community believe the real target will be gay clubs, where “X” has been popular now for several years.
The federal law is so broad that it could apply to owners, managers, bartenders and security personnel.
And it’s not just confined to bars. The reach of the bill includes all property, including hotels, apartments and bathhouses. Even landowners, aware that their tenants are using medical marijuana, would be subject to the law.
President Bush signed the bill two weeks ago and it’s in effect now. The law is unfair because it is next to impossible to search for small amounts of drugs, which can be hidden in crotches and butt-cracks. Short of strip searching patrons, bar owners can’t do that much about drug use.
Let’s just hope that drug officers use the law to go after only those owners who know that drugs are being distributed and used openly on the premises.
Misleading Domain Names
Short of strip searching patrons, bar owners can’t do that much about drug use.
Another part of the Amber Alert Act deals with misleading Internet domain names.
A person who uses a “misleading domain name on the Internet” to lure a person into viewing obscene material can be fined or imprisoned for up to two years.
Domain names with words like “sex” or “porn” are exempt.
The problem, of course, is that most adult web sites don’t use these terms.
The irony is some adult magazines like Penthouse have misleading names. One might thinks it’s a home decorating magazine.
But what’s even more troubling about the “Truth in Domain Names” is part of the law that involves minors. It’s illegal to have a domain name that could lure minors to the site and show them material that is deemed “harmful to minors.”
Many gay web sites include the word “boys.” This is because gay men can be 105 and still refer to themselves as “boys.” But a 16-year-old boy might not know that. While looking for sites dealing with boys, he might find an adult site, with pornographic images on the front page.
This is where the Department of Justice enters and begins to prosecute websites with names like “Badpuppy.”
The statute tries to define what is harmful to minors by indicating that it is content consisting of “nudity, sex or excretion, that, taken as a whole” appeals to “a prurient interest of minors.”
Naturally, web sites dealing with safe sex could be subject to the law. And GLBT centers can certainly fear their sites will be subject to the law, to the extent they discuss sexual activity between persons of the same sex.
Most likely, a court will rule both these laws unconstitutional as violating the First Amendment.
In the meantime, however, web site owners would be wise to follow a suggestion made in the statute and not display any images on their front pages. There should be a notice indicating that the site is an adult site and one must be 18 to enter. While some sites do that now, most do not.
Robert DeKoven is a Professor at California Western School of Law
E-mail

Send the story “Alert! Sneaky provisions added to Amber Alert Act”

Recipient's e-mail: 
Your e-mail: 
Additional note: 
(optional) 
E-mail Story     Print Print Story     Share Bookmark & Share Story
Classifieds Place a Classified Ad Business Directory Real Estate
Contact Advertise About GLT