While in no way suggesting that the sites are linking to inappropriate material, the use of text addresses – which a child can simply copy and paste to the address bar of the browser – raises an interesting question on how to interpret the wording of the US Dot Kids Implementation and Efficiency Act of 2002.
The Act came into force last year with the aim of making the internet safer for children by creating a sub-domain free of violence, porn and other adult material. It is run by NeuStar, the company that has been managing the .us country code domain since autumn 2001.
The Act requires that web sites bearing .kids.us addresses certify that they do not contain sexually explicit material, hate speech, violence or other material unsuitable for minors. The .kids.us sites are not allowed to provide links to sites outside the kids.us domain, and instant messaging and chat rooms not certified as safe are banned.
Under the Act, the .kids.us web sites are also subject to "constant content monitoring and swift takedown of inappropriate content."
However, as first reported by Links & Law – a legal blog (sometimes called a 'blawg') that reports on deep linking issues – of the six sites currently registered with .kids.us, three do not mention links at all, one indicates that there is a relevant web site where appropriate, while two provide the URL (Uniform Resource Locator), or web address, for suggested sites. No operational links are provided.
The sites concerned, http://www.firstgov.kids.us and http://www.smithsonian.kids.us, refer to innocent third party sites, but the question remains: does providing URLs on a .kids.us site breach the spirit, if not the word, of the Act?
A German court has already discussed the issue, in the context of a case on deep linking from a news search engine direct to articles in a publisher's web site. In July last year the German American Law Journal reported the German Federal Supreme Court as saying:
"every internet user enjoys access to the work simply by learning the uniform resource locator (URL) the court held. The hyperlink technique obviates the need to enter the URL manually and merely provides an easier and more convenient way to use the internet."
John MacKenzie, an IT lawyer with international law firm Masons said:
"The US courts are unlikely to be impressed with technical arguments about the difference between a hyperlink and a URL. The intention of the Act was clearly to provide a safe haven. A judge will likely consider that a signpost to a place of danger is as unacceptable as a means of getting there."
The Links & Law report is available at http://www.linksandlaw.com/news.htm.
