Bush is just taking time for checking with his supporters, specifically, the far right wing extremist religious nut jobs in this country. I guess they have not decided yet whether this idea is A Good Thing or A Bad Thing. You know, like they decided that letting the country turn its back on the frontiers of genetic science was A Good Thing, and then Bush made sure that became national policy. And there are SO many other examples. So, Bush will let us know as soon as he is told what to do.
My concern with .xxx is that it is a form of tolerating and supporting porn by actually recognizing that they should be given their own space in the Internet.
Giving them .xxx is an admission of defeat to the goal and purpose of truly controlling porn. It is more of giving in to their existence and sending them off together in their very own place called .xxx.
We can live without porn. It is because there are people who actually support and institutionalize their presence that they remain. I wonder if they just happen to be good tax payers to even merit governments to involve themselves...
My concern with .xxx is that it is a form of tolerating and supporting porn by actually recognizing that they should be given their own space in the Internet.
Giving them .xxx is an admission of defeat to the goal and purpose of truly controlling porn. It is more of giving in to their existence and sending them off together in their very own place called .xxx.
We can live without porn. It is because there are people who actually support and institutionalize their presence that they remain. I wonder if they just happen to be good tax payers to even merit governments to involve themselves...
Controlling porn does not equal eliminating porn. Eliminating it is an extension of the assumption that your morality is universal; that idea is stupid and arrogant.
Controlling it is a reasonable endeavor. I despise the use of children's development as the excuse for every action people take to censor something, but in this case it is clearly not at odds with rational argument. Controlling it, by means of limiting access to adults, seems logical.
The easiest way is to segregate the sites, and domain-level segregation is very easy. Whether the existing sites like it or not, they are subject to laws of the land. To be fair to them and their investment, allow them to register the 2nd level names with the new TLD, so whoever owns sex.com gets sex.xxx (presumably). I'm sure people will have a problem with it, but too bad.
Of course, you can mitigate the problem even more by allowing them to operate existing sites, with redirects to the xxx TLD. On redirect, the blocking s/w will work. Fines will eliminate pornographic redirect pages on non-xxx TLDs, but still act as funnels for traffic.
Stopping this is kind of segregation isn't really in the best interests of those seeking to protect children from accessing the sites. And it doesn't really represent a slippery slope, since the discussion doesn't involve the free exchange of ideas, only the free exchange of obscenity.
Controlling violent images does not equal eliminating violent images. Eliminating it is an extension of the assumption that your morality is universal; that idea is stupid and arrogant.
Controlling it is a reasonable endeavor. I despise the use of children's development as the excuse for every action people take to censor something, but in this case it is clearly not at odds with rational argument. Controlling it, by means of limiting access to adults, seems logical.
The easiest way is to segregate the sites, and domain-level segregation is very easy. Whether the existing sites like it or not, they are subject to laws of the land. To be fair to them and their investment, allow them to register the 2nd level names with the new TLD, so whoever owns war.com gets war.gun (presumably). I'm sure people will have a problem with it, but too bad.
Of course, you can mitigate the problem even more by allowing them to operate existing sites, with redirects to the GUN TLD. On redirect, the blocking s/w will work. Fines will eliminate violent redirect pages on non-GUN TLDs, but still act as funnels for traffic.
Stopping this is kind of segregation isn't really in the best interests of those seeking to protect children from accessing the sites. And it doesn't really represent a slippery slope, since the discussion doesn't involve the free exchange of ideas, only the free exchange of violent imagery.
"And it doesn't really represent a slippery slope, since the discussion doesn't involve the free exchange of ideas, only the free exchange of obscenity."
Last, I checked, obscenity was in the eye of the beholder. "The only solution for bad free speech is more free speech." Just because you label my opinions as obscene as they are contrary to the moral code you subscribe to, doesn't make them an issue in my community. It's a very fine toothed comb to segregate every form of obscenity and profanity into domains - particularly when more than one is involved.
Personally, I find arguments against free speech to be obscene, but then, I don't want to prohibit obscenity.
Controlling porn does not equal eliminating porn. Eliminating it is an extension of the assumption that your morality is universal; that idea is stupid and arrogant.
Controlling it is a reasonable endeavor. I despise the use of children's development as the excuse for every action people take to censor something, but in this case it is clearly not at odds with rational argument. Controlling it, by means of limiting access to adults, seems logical.
The easiest way is to segregate the sites, and domain-level segregation is very easy. Whether the existing sites like it or not, they are subject to laws of the land. To be fair to them and their investment, allow them to register the 2nd level names with the new TLD, so whoever owns sex.com gets sex.xxx (presumably). I'm sure people will have a problem with it, but too bad.
Of course, you can mitigate the problem even more by allowing them to operate existing sites, with redirects to the xxx TLD. On redirect, the blocking s/w will work. Fines will eliminate pornographic redirect pages on non-xxx TLDs, but still act as funnels for traffic.
Stopping this is kind of segregation isn't really in the best interests of those seeking to protect children from accessing the sites. And it doesn't really represent a slippery slope, since the discussion doesn't involve the free exchange of ideas, only the free exchange of obscenity.
Controlling violent images does not equal eliminating violent images. Eliminating it is an extension of the assumption that your morality is universal; that idea is stupid and arrogant.
Controlling it is a reasonable endeavor. I despise the use of children's development as the excuse for every action people take to censor something, but in this case it is clearly not at odds with rational argument. Controlling it, by means of limiting access to adults, seems logical.
The easiest way is to segregate the sites, and domain-level segregation is very easy. Whether the existing sites like it or not, they are subject to laws of the land. To be fair to them and their investment, allow them to register the 2nd level names with the new TLD, so whoever owns war.com gets war.gun (presumably). I'm sure people will have a problem with it, but too bad.
Of course, you can mitigate the problem even more by allowing them to operate existing sites, with redirects to the GUN TLD. On redirect, the blocking s/w will work. Fines will eliminate violent redirect pages on non-GUN TLDs, but still act as funnels for traffic.
Stopping this is kind of segregation isn't really in the best interests of those seeking to protect children from accessing the sites. And it doesn't really represent a slippery slope, since the discussion doesn't involve the free exchange of ideas, only the free exchange of violent imagery.
"And it doesn't really represent a slippery slope, since the discussion doesn't involve the free exchange of ideas, only the free exchange of obscenity."
Last, I checked, obscenity was in the eye of the beholder. "The only solution for bad free speech is more free speech." Just because you label my opinions as obscene as they are contrary to the moral code you subscribe to, doesn't make them an issue in my community. It's a very fine toothed comb to segregate every form of obscenity and profanity into domains - particularly when more than one is involved.
Personally, I find arguments against free speech to be obscene, but then, I don't want to prohibit obscenity.
So I know all my fellow liberals want a .XXX domain so badly. We are very mad that Bush has won once again.
So now I propose even more liberal ideas! .GAY and .GUN TLDs.
There are LOTS of gays and LOTS of guns out there. Many devotees on the internet. So, they should also have TLDs. This way also, browsers can quickly and efficiently filter out any objectionable content.
Don't want to ever hear a redneck talking about his gun? Just ban all .GUN sites from your browser and viola!
Darn you Bush! You've foiled my master plan... for now...
So I know all my fellow liberals want a .XXX domain so badly. We are very mad that Bush has won once again.
So now I propose even more liberal ideas! .GAY and .GUN TLDs.
There are LOTS of gays and LOTS of guns out there. Many devotees on the internet. So, they should also have TLDs. This way also, browsers can quickly and efficiently filter out any objectionable content.
Don't want to ever hear a redneck talking about his gun? Just ban all .GUN sites from your browser and viola!
Darn you Bush! You've foiled my master plan... for now...
The new turkey god squad don't you love 'em, they are upset so easily about every day things, unless they conform to their strictly limited rose coloured glass view of life in the universe! and now they seek to impose their limited puritanical absolute prohibition ideas, on us all! Alas, the dear leader George Jnr(a reformed dodger? and drunk who found god? but is reluctant to provide full disclosure , please reattach the missing leg thankyou!) and the wanna be Hilary C. have now rereleased these self appointed puritans and moral guardians(flaws, warts and all!) to lead us mindlessly back to the wilderness of their own creation, as did their predecessors did back in the "Prohibition Era" Oh, onwards and upwards these turkeys do fly to create a new "prohibition era" in the age of the home computer and the world wide net. A question will always remain, what other hidden agendas and other nasty prohibitions do these people hide from all to see! Such is life!
The new turkey god squad don't you love 'em, they are upset so easily about every day things, unless they conform to their strictly limited rose coloured glass view of life in the universe! and now they seek to impose their limited puritanical absolute prohibition ideas, on us all! Alas, the dear leader George Jnr(a reformed dodger? and drunk who found god? but is reluctant to provide full disclosure , please reattach the missing leg thankyou!) and the wanna be Hilary C. have now rereleased these self appointed puritans and moral guardians(flaws, warts and all!) to lead us mindlessly back to the wilderness of their own creation, as did their predecessors did back in the "Prohibition Era" Oh, onwards and upwards these turkeys do fly to create a new "prohibition era" in the age of the home computer and the world wide net. A question will always remain, what other hidden agendas and other nasty prohibitions do these people hide from all to see! Such is life!
I think the neurotic obsession parents have towards preventing children and teens from seeing porn is arse backwards.
First, trying to forbid anything only adds the lure of the forbidden, making it more attractive towards every potential audience.
Second, young children won't understand it or care.
Third, teenagers should be *encouraged* to view porn. Why:
(1) Young women will see that men can and will truly enjoy women of all shapes and sizes, so there is no point in starving themselves.
(2) Young men will learn it is perfectly natural and normal to desire women (or men) who don't look like Hollywood trophies.
(3) If young men and women are finding sexual satisfaction through autoeroticism, they will be less likely to indulge in polygamous and risky behaviours, decreasing the risk and spread of unwanted pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases.
(4) Being sexually satiated will also curb violent and aggressive tendencies. (It is no coincidence that the most militant countries are also the most sexually repressed).
BTW, specifically regarding an .xxx domain: I think people should be able to have whatever domain they can imagine as long as there is someone out there who wants to invest in running the domain server. It is a ridiculous fallacy to think preventing domains prevents content, but the more information I can have about any site before I go there, the happier I am.
Also, for those who think an .XXX domain would be an embarassment for the US towards other nations. Hello? The US is the only nation founded by puritans. Other nations laugh at how sexually repressed we are, even as we boast ourselves as the "land of the free".
Progressives are a fringe group that do not matter
>> I think the neurotic obsession parents have >> towards preventing children and teens from >> seeing porn is arse backwards.
Of course you do, you are obviously not a parent. I think this neurotic obsession progressives have with making homosexuality mainstream is backwards as well.
>> First, trying to forbid anything only adds the >> lure of the forbidden, making it more >> attractive towards every potential audience.
Great, so we should legalize kidde pr0n using your very progressive logic, right? I knew you were a deviant, but this is over the top for even most progressives.
>> Second, young children won't understand it or >> care.
So lets show them graphic images of anal sex or a gang bang because they won't understand, or care. That makes perfect sense in a progressive world! Why, progressive children must grow up to be so balanced and intelligent!
>> Third, teenagers should be *encouraged* to >> view porn.
You want to condition people to accept that sex is meaningless, is to be performed on camera, is for underage kids. You sound like a child molester... no offense, but your reasoning is insane.
>> (It is no coincidence that the most militant >> countries are also the most sexually >> repressed).
More like, countries which have destroyed the family unit and indulge in porn all the time are quickly conquered by more traditional countries militarily. I think you brain is broken.
>> BTW, specifically regarding an .xxx domain: I >> think people should be able to have whatever >> domain they can imagine as long as there is >> someone out there who wants to invest in >> running the domain server.
Well, you obviously need an internet architecture 101 course, because putting up domain servers willy - nilly would just balkanize the whole hierarchy.
>> It is a ridiculous >> fallacy to think preventing domains prevents >> content,
This is your straw man! No one is saying this. Find a quote where anyone says this! You can't, sock puppet boy!
>> Also, for those who think an .XXX domain would >> be an embarassment for the US towards other >> nations. Hello? The US is the only nation >> founded by puritans.
You obviously don't know your history. Heard of Islam? They have many nations and would cut your throat for your homosexual / pedophile porn fantasies that you have laid out here. Also, check into SOUTH AMERICA. This is a continent whose entire org structure was influenced by the Catholic church. You are insane... simply foaming at the mouth insane.
>> Other nations laugh at how sexually repressed >> we are, even as we boast ourselves as >> the "land of the free".
You don't know what freedom is. You think freedom is being able to poop in the street. That is not freedom, that is debauchery. Your brain has been poisoned with a mental illness of liberalism. It is likely uncureable and you will be rooted out and captured some 10 years from now as an isolated pocket of progressive resistance.
I think the neurotic obsession parents have towards preventing children and teens from seeing porn is arse backwards.
First, trying to forbid anything only adds the lure of the forbidden, making it more attractive towards every potential audience.
Second, young children won't understand it or care.
Third, teenagers should be *encouraged* to view porn. Why:
(1) Young women will see that men can and will truly enjoy women of all shapes and sizes, so there is no point in starving themselves.
(2) Young men will learn it is perfectly natural and normal to desire women (or men) who don't look like Hollywood trophies.
(3) If young men and women are finding sexual satisfaction through autoeroticism, they will be less likely to indulge in polygamous and risky behaviours, decreasing the risk and spread of unwanted pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases.
(4) Being sexually satiated will also curb violent and aggressive tendencies. (It is no coincidence that the most militant countries are also the most sexually repressed).
BTW, specifically regarding an .xxx domain: I think people should be able to have whatever domain they can imagine as long as there is someone out there who wants to invest in running the domain server. It is a ridiculous fallacy to think preventing domains prevents content, but the more information I can have about any site before I go there, the happier I am.
Also, for those who think an .XXX domain would be an embarassment for the US towards other nations. Hello? The US is the only nation founded by puritans. Other nations laugh at how sexually repressed we are, even as we boast ourselves as the "land of the free".
Progressives are a fringe group that do not matter
>> I think the neurotic obsession parents have >> towards preventing children and teens from >> seeing porn is arse backwards.
Of course you do, you are obviously not a parent. I think this neurotic obsession progressives have with making homosexuality mainstream is backwards as well.
>> First, trying to forbid anything only adds the >> lure of the forbidden, making it more >> attractive towards every potential audience.
Great, so we should legalize kidde pr0n using your very progressive logic, right? I knew you were a deviant, but this is over the top for even most progressives.
>> Second, young children won't understand it or >> care.
So lets show them graphic images of anal sex or a gang bang because they won't understand, or care. That makes perfect sense in a progressive world! Why, progressive children must grow up to be so balanced and intelligent!
>> Third, teenagers should be *encouraged* to >> view porn.
You want to condition people to accept that sex is meaningless, is to be performed on camera, is for underage kids. You sound like a child molester... no offense, but your reasoning is insane.
>> (It is no coincidence that the most militant >> countries are also the most sexually >> repressed).
More like, countries which have destroyed the family unit and indulge in porn all the time are quickly conquered by more traditional countries militarily. I think you brain is broken.
>> BTW, specifically regarding an .xxx domain: I >> think people should be able to have whatever >> domain they can imagine as long as there is >> someone out there who wants to invest in >> running the domain server.
Well, you obviously need an internet architecture 101 course, because putting up domain servers willy - nilly would just balkanize the whole hierarchy.
>> It is a ridiculous >> fallacy to think preventing domains prevents >> content,
This is your straw man! No one is saying this. Find a quote where anyone says this! You can't, sock puppet boy!
>> Also, for those who think an .XXX domain would >> be an embarassment for the US towards other >> nations. Hello? The US is the only nation >> founded by puritans.
You obviously don't know your history. Heard of Islam? They have many nations and would cut your throat for your homosexual / pedophile porn fantasies that you have laid out here. Also, check into SOUTH AMERICA. This is a continent whose entire org structure was influenced by the Catholic church. You are insane... simply foaming at the mouth insane.
>> Other nations laugh at how sexually repressed >> we are, even as we boast ourselves as >> the "land of the free".
You don't know what freedom is. You think freedom is being able to poop in the street. That is not freedom, that is debauchery. Your brain has been poisoned with a mental illness of liberalism. It is likely uncureable and you will be rooted out and captured some 10 years from now as an isolated pocket of progressive resistance.
You would think that anyone interested in containing and making it easier to block access to pornography would be in favor of this action. However, I'm afraid that the general populace and, worse, politicians seem to lack the ability to think. Most simply parrot whatever they hear and jump on the most convenient bandwagon.
>> You would think that anyone interested in >> containing and making it easier to block >> access to pornography would be in favor of >> this action.
Hey, way to read the comments before posting...
Punk Rock! You have the reading comprehension of a 5 year old.
This action would *not* make it easier to block porn. It simply would not and you have not shown how it would, rather, you've just parroted your liberal talking points.
You have no way to police the internet and keep people from posting things off target. It would take 1,000,000 "handlers" searching google 24x7 to make sure so-called "pr0n" was not on a .COM or .NET or .ORG or .US or any other country coded TLD.
You would think that anyone interested in containing and making it easier to block access to pornography would be in favor of this action. However, I'm afraid that the general populace and, worse, politicians seem to lack the ability to think. Most simply parrot whatever they hear and jump on the most convenient bandwagon.
>> You would think that anyone interested in >> containing and making it easier to block >> access to pornography would be in favor of >> this action.
Hey, way to read the comments before posting...
Punk Rock! You have the reading comprehension of a 5 year old.
This action would *not* make it easier to block porn. It simply would not and you have not shown how it would, rather, you've just parroted your liberal talking points.
You have no way to police the internet and keep people from posting things off target. It would take 1,000,000 "handlers" searching google 24x7 to make sure so-called "pr0n" was not on a .COM or .NET or .ORG or .US or any other country coded TLD.
To all the liberals... You seem to believe it is practical to control all of the content on the internet. You seem to believe it would work to push all porn into a .XXX TLD.
BUT WE CAN'T EVEN CONTROL the flow of MP3s. This demonstrates that an .XXX domain WOULD NEVER WORK.
To all the liberals... You seem to believe it is practical to control all of the content on the internet. You seem to believe it would work to push all porn into a .XXX TLD.
BUT WE CAN'T EVEN CONTROL the flow of MP3s. This demonstrates that an .XXX domain WOULD NEVER WORK.
If the government would just think for a second, they would realize that to create a .xxx domain would be a good thing. It wouldn't take much for Microsoft or Firefox to create a patch (to make it easier)that would enable parents to restrict all domains ending in .xxx. Yes, it may create a virtual "Red Light District", but one one knows where the district is, they can more easily stay out of it.
If the government would just think for a second, they would realize that to create a .xxx domain would be a good thing. It wouldn't take much for Microsoft or Firefox to create a patch (to make it easier)that would enable parents to restrict all domains ending in .xxx. Yes, it may create a virtual "Red Light District", but one one knows where the district is, they can more easily stay out of it.
(I already posted this once, but here it is again)
It should be time for a REALITY-CHECK, because what is REALLY going on here, ...IS rather PAINFULLY-OBVIOUS to me.
Consider the following four facts:
1. This idea (the ".xxx-domain") WAS very much, primarily, a "United States" proposal, ...even though "China" and several other EXTREMELY REPRESSIVE-SOCIETIES, ...DID also eagerly-support this idea from the start.
Here, it is also important to note that quite a few of these "other supporting-nations", ...HAVE actually JAILED PEOPLE simply for accessing ANY "sexual-material", at all. And it should also be understood that, many of these "supporting nations" have even ARRESTED their own citizens merely for accessing non-approved "political", or "religious" websites.
Not exactly, proud-company for America to be in, ...is it?
2. The groups, and individuals, that pushed for this ".xxx" domain the hardest, DO NOT REALLY SEEM TO CARE one-bit about "protecting children". Many of these groups have, in fact, been fighting virtually ALL FORMS of "adult-material" for years.
Let me put this bluntly. These people ARE clearly, MERELY USING, "children" as a means to achieve their desired-end of CENSORING "Constitutionally-protected Free-speech" within the United States.
3. This ".xxx" domain actually WILL, in truth, very-obviously allow the ever-greater regulation of "content" (by effectively corralling "adult material" into a more easily identifiable, and therefore a more easily track-able and controllable, target).
Eventually, due to this (arbitrary) forced-identification, and isolation, ALL "...sexually-explicit content" (Yes, ...even educational-material) could very-easily be effectively-expunged from any practical-form of legal-availability via the Internet (it might still be available to "...adults", but the reality is that it could be virtually impossible to actually access it without violating some legal-restriction, ordinance, or "acceptable-use policy", or at the very least it would produce a severe "...chilling effect" on those wishing to exercise their "Constitutional-rights").
And, the simple fact is that, time and time again, regulations congregating these types of materials (along with various "zoning" manipulations) HAVE been very effectively USED to ELIMINATE access to otherwise "legal content".
As an example, in the next city-over from where I live, a small group of local fundamentalist-churches (in a period of just a couple of years) managed to run, virtually EVERY "adult-bookstore" in that town, ...out of business. They did it by manipulating the "zoning-boards" over, and over, again. Every time a previously-successful "adult-bookstore" moved to a new "legal" location, it was "re-zoned" again, or new "restrictions" were imposed,
...until the owners simply gave-up (or, went bankrupt).
These "church-groups" were quite proud of their accomplishment (and were very BLATANT about their methods). The last thing I heard, was that they had turned their attention to preventing "undesirable musical-groups" from being allowed to hold concerts in the city, "...to protect the children", ...of course.
4. Creating a child-safe ".kid" domain would have actually better-produced the result of "protecting children" (allowing the "protection of children" without creating such a powerful ability to assault the legal-rights of adults). This is because, it would have been far easier to limit "children" to only accessing ".kid"-based web-pages, than trying to filter all possible "adult content" (such as that which does not "...voluntarily" move to the ".xxx-domain").
And, it is important to note that, VIRTUALLY EVERY COUNTRY in the world ALREADY has laws making, "...intentionally providing sexually-explicit material to minors", ...a serious legal-offense. Therefore, anyone mis-using the ".kid" domain in such a way would, by definition, ...be breaking "laws" which are already in-place.
Based upon these facts, and previous behavior, here is what I project for the near future...
-Federal, and local, legislation WILL soon REQUIRE "sexually explicit material" to be posted, only, within these ".xxx" websites, "...to protect the children" (much like the Federal "COPA" laws which were repeatedly struck-down, because they were ruled to be "Un-Constitutional").
This "regulation" will rapidly come to include...
-A government requirement for even more stringent regulations, and probably required-registration, before "adults" are allowed to exercise their "legal-right" to access sites in the ".xxx-domain".
This will quickly be followed by...
-Greater local legal-regulation (based on alleged "community-standards") designed specifically to limit access to the ".xxx-domain" via ISPs (both local and national). This WILL create an environment ideally suited to small, repressive, communities attempting to "...regulate the entire Internet" through litigation.
...Try and imagine that, ...Oops, you dont have to "imagine" it. Several "communities" HAVE already tried this (unsuccessfully, so far). However, for a better idea of how this "eliminates availability to adults", just ask any retailer of "adult-materials" which states they WILL NOT ship to, ...because of numerous "local-ordinances" (...and previous attempts, by these "communities", to prosecute NON-LOCAL BUSINESSES for selling otherwise PERFECTLY-LEGAL MATERIALS to the adult-members of that locality).
Then there will be...
-So-called, -independent- ISP "self-censorship", such as refusing to allow access to ".xxx-domains", ...allegedly to protect themselves from "Liability" and "malware". Or, later, ISPs will get away with this simply because the courts WILL rule that, as a "private business", they can get away with CENSORSHIP, even when it is clearly being instigated by small extremist-groups, and the politicians they control (...and even though, it would be completely "un-Constitutional" for these same groups, using various political-means, to implement these types of restrictions more directly upon the public through, more easily-challenged, government-actions).
Not to mention...
-The inevitably higher prices which could be charged by ISPs, ...just to be allowed access to ".xxx-domains" (to offset an illusory cost, to ISPs, of providing access to the ".xxx-domain").
And then, finally,
-"Law-enforcement" will, at some point, proclaim "...an established-link" between "crime", and/or "terrorism", and the ".xxx-domain"... (necessitating the need for even greater government control and monitoring).
In my opinion, realistically, all of this can ONLY produce one of TWO possible results, ...neither of which will be the professed-desire of, "...protecting children".
The final effect will either be, ...NO CHANGE WHAT-SO-EVER (because of the impossibility of actually implementing THIS SCHEME). Or, ...the ".xxx-domain" will become an ever-tightening noose around the throat of the "First Amendment Rights" of EVERY American-adult.
Just my Two-Cents...
And finally, an update, the "Bush administration", quite surprisingly (sarcasm intended), has just stated that they suddenly oppose the very initiative that THEY started in the first place (isnt politics great). But of course, I expect that in the end, they will suddenly come-around again, claiming that the overwhelming public-outcry in favor of the ".xxx TLD" was actually the reason that they finally decided to support this (in reality, widely opposed for numerous reasons) curtailment of Constitutionally-Pprotected free-speech. All in the name of,
(I already posted this once, but here it is again)
It should be time for a REALITY-CHECK, because what is REALLY going on here, ...IS rather PAINFULLY-OBVIOUS to me.
Consider the following four facts:
1. This idea (the ".xxx-domain") WAS very much, primarily, a "United States" proposal, ...even though "China" and several other EXTREMELY REPRESSIVE-SOCIETIES, ...DID also eagerly-support this idea from the start.
Here, it is also important to note that quite a few of these "other supporting-nations", ...HAVE actually JAILED PEOPLE simply for accessing ANY "sexual-material", at all. And it should also be understood that, many of these "supporting nations" have even ARRESTED their own citizens merely for accessing non-approved "political", or "religious" websites.
Not exactly, proud-company for America to be in, ...is it?
2. The groups, and individuals, that pushed for this ".xxx" domain the hardest, DO NOT REALLY SEEM TO CARE one-bit about "protecting children". Many of these groups have, in fact, been fighting virtually ALL FORMS of "adult-material" for years.
Let me put this bluntly. These people ARE clearly, MERELY USING, "children" as a means to achieve their desired-end of CENSORING "Constitutionally-protected Free-speech" within the United States.
3. This ".xxx" domain actually WILL, in truth, very-obviously allow the ever-greater regulation of "content" (by effectively corralling "adult material" into a more easily identifiable, and therefore a more easily track-able and controllable, target).
Eventually, due to this (arbitrary) forced-identification, and isolation, ALL "...sexually-explicit content" (Yes, ...even educational-material) could very-easily be effectively-expunged from any practical-form of legal-availability via the Internet (it might still be available to "...adults", but the reality is that it could be virtually impossible to actually access it without violating some legal-restriction, ordinance, or "acceptable-use policy", or at the very least it would produce a severe "...chilling effect" on those wishing to exercise their "Constitutional-rights").
And, the simple fact is that, time and time again, regulations congregating these types of materials (along with various "zoning" manipulations) HAVE been very effectively USED to ELIMINATE access to otherwise "legal content".
As an example, in the next city-over from where I live, a small group of local fundamentalist-churches (in a period of just a couple of years) managed to run, virtually EVERY "adult-bookstore" in that town, ...out of business. They did it by manipulating the "zoning-boards" over, and over, again. Every time a previously-successful "adult-bookstore" moved to a new "legal" location, it was "re-zoned" again, or new "restrictions" were imposed,
...until the owners simply gave-up (or, went bankrupt).
These "church-groups" were quite proud of their accomplishment (and were very BLATANT about their methods). The last thing I heard, was that they had turned their attention to preventing "undesirable musical-groups" from being allowed to hold concerts in the city, "...to protect the children", ...of course.
4. Creating a child-safe ".kid" domain would have actually better-produced the result of "protecting children" (allowing the "protection of children" without creating such a powerful ability to assault the legal-rights of adults). This is because, it would have been far easier to limit "children" to only accessing ".kid"-based web-pages, than trying to filter all possible "adult content" (such as that which does not "...voluntarily" move to the ".xxx-domain").
And, it is important to note that, VIRTUALLY EVERY COUNTRY in the world ALREADY has laws making, "...intentionally providing sexually-explicit material to minors", ...a serious legal-offense. Therefore, anyone mis-using the ".kid" domain in such a way would, by definition, ...be breaking "laws" which are already in-place.
Based upon these facts, and previous behavior, here is what I project for the near future...
-Federal, and local, legislation WILL soon REQUIRE "sexually explicit material" to be posted, only, within these ".xxx" websites, "...to protect the children" (much like the Federal "COPA" laws which were repeatedly struck-down, because they were ruled to be "Un-Constitutional").
This "regulation" will rapidly come to include...
-A government requirement for even more stringent regulations, and probably required-registration, before "adults" are allowed to exercise their "legal-right" to access sites in the ".xxx-domain".
This will quickly be followed by...
-Greater local legal-regulation (based on alleged "community-standards") designed specifically to limit access to the ".xxx-domain" via ISPs (both local and national). This WILL create an environment ideally suited to small, repressive, communities attempting to "...regulate the entire Internet" through litigation.
...Try and imagine that, ...Oops, you dont have to "imagine" it. Several "communities" HAVE already tried this (unsuccessfully, so far). However, for a better idea of how this "eliminates availability to adults", just ask any retailer of "adult-materials" which states they WILL NOT ship to, ...because of numerous "local-ordinances" (...and previous attempts, by these "communities", to prosecute NON-LOCAL BUSINESSES for selling otherwise PERFECTLY-LEGAL MATERIALS to the adult-members of that locality).
Then there will be...
-So-called, -independent- ISP "self-censorship", such as refusing to allow access to ".xxx-domains", ...allegedly to protect themselves from "Liability" and "malware". Or, later, ISPs will get away with this simply because the courts WILL rule that, as a "private business", they can get away with CENSORSHIP, even when it is clearly being instigated by small extremist-groups, and the politicians they control (...and even though, it would be completely "un-Constitutional" for these same groups, using various political-means, to implement these types of restrictions more directly upon the public through, more easily-challenged, government-actions).
Not to mention...
-The inevitably higher prices which could be charged by ISPs, ...just to be allowed access to ".xxx-domains" (to offset an illusory cost, to ISPs, of providing access to the ".xxx-domain").
And then, finally,
-"Law-enforcement" will, at some point, proclaim "...an established-link" between "crime", and/or "terrorism", and the ".xxx-domain"... (necessitating the need for even greater government control and monitoring).
In my opinion, realistically, all of this can ONLY produce one of TWO possible results, ...neither of which will be the professed-desire of, "...protecting children".
The final effect will either be, ...NO CHANGE WHAT-SO-EVER (because of the impossibility of actually implementing THIS SCHEME). Or, ...the ".xxx-domain" will become an ever-tightening noose around the throat of the "First Amendment Rights" of EVERY American-adult.
Just my Two-Cents...
And finally, an update, the "Bush administration", quite surprisingly (sarcasm intended), has just stated that they suddenly oppose the very initiative that THEY started in the first place (isnt politics great). But of course, I expect that in the end, they will suddenly come-around again, claiming that the overwhelming public-outcry in favor of the ".xxx TLD" was actually the reason that they finally decided to support this (in reality, widely opposed for numerous reasons) curtailment of Constitutionally-Pprotected free-speech. All in the name of,
A xxx domain will create virtual red-light district but doing this will make it easyer to block unwanted adult content. As it is now adult content domains are .com's, .net's witch makes it very hard to filter out the adult content. If adult content was .xxx it would be easy to block those domains. Virtual red-light district is alredy their the problem is it's everyware. If your child misspelleds the web site name.com or .net he or she could land on an adult site.
A xxx domain will create virtual red-light district but doing this will make it easyer to block unwanted adult content. As it is now adult content domains are .com's, .net's witch makes it very hard to filter out the adult content. If adult content was .xxx it would be easy to block those domains. Virtual red-light district is alredy their the problem is it's everyware. If your child misspelleds the web site name.com or .net he or she could land on an adult site.
Manage updates with the Download App
Giving them .xxx is an admission of defeat to the goal and purpose of truly controlling porn. It is more of giving in to their existence and sending them off together in their very own place called .xxx.
We can live without porn. It is because there are people who actually support and institutionalize their presence that they remain. I wonder if they just happen to be good tax payers to even merit governments to involve themselves...
Giving them .xxx is an admission of defeat to the goal and purpose of truly controlling porn. It is more of giving in to their existence and sending them off together in their very own place called .xxx.
We can live without porn. It is because there are people who actually support and institutionalize their presence that they remain. I wonder if they just happen to be good tax payers to even merit governments to involve themselves...
Controlling it is a reasonable endeavor. I despise the use of children's development as the excuse for every action people take to censor something, but in this case it is clearly not at odds with rational argument. Controlling it, by means of limiting access to adults, seems logical.
The easiest way is to segregate the sites, and domain-level segregation is very easy. Whether the existing sites like it or not, they are subject to laws of the land. To be fair to them and their investment, allow them to register the 2nd level names with the new TLD, so whoever owns sex.com gets sex.xxx (presumably). I'm sure people will have a problem with it, but too bad.
Of course, you can mitigate the problem even more by allowing them to operate existing sites, with redirects to the xxx TLD. On redirect, the blocking s/w will work. Fines will eliminate pornographic redirect pages on non-xxx TLDs, but still act as funnels for traffic.
Stopping this is kind of segregation isn't really in the best interests of those seeking to protect children from accessing the sites. And it doesn't really represent a slippery slope, since the discussion doesn't involve the free exchange of ideas, only the free exchange of obscenity.
-R
Controlling it is a reasonable endeavor. I despise the use of children's development as the excuse for every action people take to censor something, but in this case it is clearly not at odds with rational argument. Controlling it, by means of limiting access to adults, seems logical.
The easiest way is to segregate the sites, and domain-level segregation is very easy. Whether the existing sites like it or not, they are subject to laws of the land. To be fair to them and their investment, allow them to register the 2nd level names with the new TLD, so whoever owns war.com gets war.gun (presumably). I'm sure people will have a problem with it, but too bad.
Of course, you can mitigate the problem even more by allowing them to operate existing sites, with redirects to the GUN TLD. On redirect, the blocking s/w will work. Fines will eliminate violent redirect pages on non-GUN TLDs, but still act as funnels for traffic.
Stopping this is kind of segregation isn't really in the best interests of those seeking to protect children from accessing the sites. And it doesn't really represent a slippery slope, since the discussion doesn't involve the free exchange of ideas, only the free exchange of violent imagery.
-G
Last, I checked, obscenity was in the eye of the beholder. "The only solution for bad free speech is more free speech." Just because you label my opinions as obscene as they are contrary to the moral code you subscribe to, doesn't make them an issue in my community. It's a very fine toothed comb to segregate every form of obscenity and profanity into domains - particularly when more than one is involved.
Personally, I find arguments against free speech to be obscene, but then, I don't want to prohibit obscenity.
Controlling it is a reasonable endeavor. I despise the use of children's development as the excuse for every action people take to censor something, but in this case it is clearly not at odds with rational argument. Controlling it, by means of limiting access to adults, seems logical.
The easiest way is to segregate the sites, and domain-level segregation is very easy. Whether the existing sites like it or not, they are subject to laws of the land. To be fair to them and their investment, allow them to register the 2nd level names with the new TLD, so whoever owns sex.com gets sex.xxx (presumably). I'm sure people will have a problem with it, but too bad.
Of course, you can mitigate the problem even more by allowing them to operate existing sites, with redirects to the xxx TLD. On redirect, the blocking s/w will work. Fines will eliminate pornographic redirect pages on non-xxx TLDs, but still act as funnels for traffic.
Stopping this is kind of segregation isn't really in the best interests of those seeking to protect children from accessing the sites. And it doesn't really represent a slippery slope, since the discussion doesn't involve the free exchange of ideas, only the free exchange of obscenity.
-R
Controlling it is a reasonable endeavor. I despise the use of children's development as the excuse for every action people take to censor something, but in this case it is clearly not at odds with rational argument. Controlling it, by means of limiting access to adults, seems logical.
The easiest way is to segregate the sites, and domain-level segregation is very easy. Whether the existing sites like it or not, they are subject to laws of the land. To be fair to them and their investment, allow them to register the 2nd level names with the new TLD, so whoever owns war.com gets war.gun (presumably). I'm sure people will have a problem with it, but too bad.
Of course, you can mitigate the problem even more by allowing them to operate existing sites, with redirects to the GUN TLD. On redirect, the blocking s/w will work. Fines will eliminate violent redirect pages on non-GUN TLDs, but still act as funnels for traffic.
Stopping this is kind of segregation isn't really in the best interests of those seeking to protect children from accessing the sites. And it doesn't really represent a slippery slope, since the discussion doesn't involve the free exchange of ideas, only the free exchange of violent imagery.
-G
Last, I checked, obscenity was in the eye of the beholder. "The only solution for bad free speech is more free speech." Just because you label my opinions as obscene as they are contrary to the moral code you subscribe to, doesn't make them an issue in my community. It's a very fine toothed comb to segregate every form of obscenity and profanity into domains - particularly when more than one is involved.
Personally, I find arguments against free speech to be obscene, but then, I don't want to prohibit obscenity.
So now I propose even more liberal ideas! .GAY and .GUN TLDs.
There are LOTS of gays and LOTS of guns out there. Many devotees on the internet. So, they should also have TLDs. This way also, browsers can quickly and efficiently filter out any objectionable content.
Don't want to ever hear a redneck talking about his gun? Just ban all .GUN sites from your browser and viola!
Darn you Bush! You've foiled my master plan... for now...
So now I propose even more liberal ideas! .GAY and .GUN TLDs.
There are LOTS of gays and LOTS of guns out there. Many devotees on the internet. So, they should also have TLDs. This way also, browsers can quickly and efficiently filter out any objectionable content.
Don't want to ever hear a redneck talking about his gun? Just ban all .GUN sites from your browser and viola!
Darn you Bush! You've foiled my master plan... for now...
First, trying to forbid anything only adds the lure of the forbidden, making it more attractive towards every potential audience.
Second, young children won't understand it or care.
Third, teenagers should be *encouraged* to view porn. Why:
(1) Young women will see that men can and will truly enjoy women of all shapes and sizes, so there is no point in starving themselves.
(2) Young men will learn it is perfectly natural and normal to desire women (or men) who don't look like Hollywood trophies.
(3) If young men and women are finding sexual satisfaction through autoeroticism, they will be less likely to indulge in polygamous and risky behaviours, decreasing the risk and spread of unwanted pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases.
(4) Being sexually satiated will also curb violent and aggressive tendencies. (It is no coincidence that the most militant countries are also the most sexually repressed).
BTW, specifically regarding an .xxx domain: I think people should be able to have whatever domain they can imagine as long as there is someone out there who wants to invest in running the domain server. It is a ridiculous fallacy to think preventing domains prevents content, but the more information I can have about any site before I go there, the happier I am.
Also, for those who think an .XXX domain would be an embarassment for the US towards other nations. Hello? The US is the only nation founded by puritans. Other nations laugh at how sexually repressed we are, even as we boast ourselves as the "land of the free".
-Brian Kessler.
>> towards preventing children and teens from
>> seeing porn is arse backwards.
Of course you do, you are obviously not a parent. I think this neurotic obsession progressives have with making homosexuality mainstream is backwards as well.
>> First, trying to forbid anything only adds the
>> lure of the forbidden, making it more
>> attractive towards every potential audience.
Great, so we should legalize kidde pr0n using your very progressive logic, right? I knew you were a deviant, but this is over the top for even most progressives.
>> Second, young children won't understand it or
>> care.
So lets show them graphic images of anal sex or a gang bang because they won't understand, or care. That makes perfect sense in a progressive world! Why, progressive children must grow up to be so balanced and intelligent!
>> Third, teenagers should be *encouraged* to
>> view porn.
You want to condition people to accept that sex is meaningless, is to be performed on camera, is for underage kids. You sound like a child molester... no offense, but your reasoning is insane.
>> (It is no coincidence that the most militant
>> countries are also the most sexually
>> repressed).
More like, countries which have destroyed the family unit and indulge in porn all the time are quickly conquered by more traditional countries militarily. I think you brain is broken.
>> BTW, specifically regarding an .xxx domain: I
>> think people should be able to have whatever
>> domain they can imagine as long as there is
>> someone out there who wants to invest in
>> running the domain server.
Well, you obviously need an internet architecture 101 course, because putting up domain servers willy - nilly would just balkanize the whole hierarchy.
>> It is a ridiculous
>> fallacy to think preventing domains prevents
>> content,
This is your straw man! No one is saying this. Find a quote where anyone says this! You can't, sock puppet boy!
>> Also, for those who think an .XXX domain would
>> be an embarassment for the US towards other
>> nations. Hello? The US is the only nation
>> founded by puritans.
You obviously don't know your history. Heard of Islam? They have many nations and would cut your throat for your homosexual / pedophile porn fantasies that you have laid out here. Also, check into SOUTH AMERICA. This is a continent whose entire org structure was influenced by the Catholic church. You are insane... simply foaming at the mouth insane.
>> Other nations laugh at how sexually repressed
>> we are, even as we boast ourselves as
>> the "land of the free".
You don't know what freedom is. You think freedom is being able to poop in the street. That is not freedom, that is debauchery. Your brain has been poisoned with a mental illness of liberalism. It is likely uncureable and you will be rooted out and captured some 10 years from now as an isolated pocket of progressive resistance.
Seek help Brian.
-Gerry
First, trying to forbid anything only adds the lure of the forbidden, making it more attractive towards every potential audience.
Second, young children won't understand it or care.
Third, teenagers should be *encouraged* to view porn. Why:
(1) Young women will see that men can and will truly enjoy women of all shapes and sizes, so there is no point in starving themselves.
(2) Young men will learn it is perfectly natural and normal to desire women (or men) who don't look like Hollywood trophies.
(3) If young men and women are finding sexual satisfaction through autoeroticism, they will be less likely to indulge in polygamous and risky behaviours, decreasing the risk and spread of unwanted pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases.
(4) Being sexually satiated will also curb violent and aggressive tendencies. (It is no coincidence that the most militant countries are also the most sexually repressed).
BTW, specifically regarding an .xxx domain: I think people should be able to have whatever domain they can imagine as long as there is someone out there who wants to invest in running the domain server. It is a ridiculous fallacy to think preventing domains prevents content, but the more information I can have about any site before I go there, the happier I am.
Also, for those who think an .XXX domain would be an embarassment for the US towards other nations. Hello? The US is the only nation founded by puritans. Other nations laugh at how sexually repressed we are, even as we boast ourselves as the "land of the free".
-Brian Kessler.
>> towards preventing children and teens from
>> seeing porn is arse backwards.
Of course you do, you are obviously not a parent. I think this neurotic obsession progressives have with making homosexuality mainstream is backwards as well.
>> First, trying to forbid anything only adds the
>> lure of the forbidden, making it more
>> attractive towards every potential audience.
Great, so we should legalize kidde pr0n using your very progressive logic, right? I knew you were a deviant, but this is over the top for even most progressives.
>> Second, young children won't understand it or
>> care.
So lets show them graphic images of anal sex or a gang bang because they won't understand, or care. That makes perfect sense in a progressive world! Why, progressive children must grow up to be so balanced and intelligent!
>> Third, teenagers should be *encouraged* to
>> view porn.
You want to condition people to accept that sex is meaningless, is to be performed on camera, is for underage kids. You sound like a child molester... no offense, but your reasoning is insane.
>> (It is no coincidence that the most militant
>> countries are also the most sexually
>> repressed).
More like, countries which have destroyed the family unit and indulge in porn all the time are quickly conquered by more traditional countries militarily. I think you brain is broken.
>> BTW, specifically regarding an .xxx domain: I
>> think people should be able to have whatever
>> domain they can imagine as long as there is
>> someone out there who wants to invest in
>> running the domain server.
Well, you obviously need an internet architecture 101 course, because putting up domain servers willy - nilly would just balkanize the whole hierarchy.
>> It is a ridiculous
>> fallacy to think preventing domains prevents
>> content,
This is your straw man! No one is saying this. Find a quote where anyone says this! You can't, sock puppet boy!
>> Also, for those who think an .XXX domain would
>> be an embarassment for the US towards other
>> nations. Hello? The US is the only nation
>> founded by puritans.
You obviously don't know your history. Heard of Islam? They have many nations and would cut your throat for your homosexual / pedophile porn fantasies that you have laid out here. Also, check into SOUTH AMERICA. This is a continent whose entire org structure was influenced by the Catholic church. You are insane... simply foaming at the mouth insane.
>> Other nations laugh at how sexually repressed
>> we are, even as we boast ourselves as
>> the "land of the free".
You don't know what freedom is. You think freedom is being able to poop in the street. That is not freedom, that is debauchery. Your brain has been poisoned with a mental illness of liberalism. It is likely uncureable and you will be rooted out and captured some 10 years from now as an isolated pocket of progressive resistance.
Seek help Brian.
-Gerry
>> containing and making it easier to block
>> access to pornography would be in favor of
>> this action.
Hey, way to read the comments before posting...
Punk Rock! You have the reading comprehension of a 5 year old.
This action would *not* make it easier to block porn. It simply would not and you have not shown how it would, rather, you've just parroted your liberal talking points.
You have no way to police the internet and keep people from posting things off target. It would take 1,000,000 "handlers" searching google 24x7 to make sure so-called "pr0n" was not on a .COM or .NET or .ORG or .US or any other country coded TLD.
Get back under the rock you crawled out from.
>> containing and making it easier to block
>> access to pornography would be in favor of
>> this action.
Hey, way to read the comments before posting...
Punk Rock! You have the reading comprehension of a 5 year old.
This action would *not* make it easier to block porn. It simply would not and you have not shown how it would, rather, you've just parroted your liberal talking points.
You have no way to police the internet and keep people from posting things off target. It would take 1,000,000 "handlers" searching google 24x7 to make sure so-called "pr0n" was not on a .COM or .NET or .ORG or .US or any other country coded TLD.
Get back under the rock you crawled out from.
BUT WE CAN'T EVEN CONTROL the flow of MP3s. This demonstrates that an .XXX domain WOULD NEVER WORK.
In your FACE liberals...
BUT WE CAN'T EVEN CONTROL the flow of MP3s. This demonstrates that an .XXX domain WOULD NEVER WORK.
In your FACE liberals...
It should be time for a REALITY-CHECK, because what is REALLY going on here, ...IS rather PAINFULLY-OBVIOUS to me.
Consider the following four facts:
1. This idea (the ".xxx-domain") WAS very much, primarily, a "United States" proposal, ...even though "China" and several other EXTREMELY REPRESSIVE-SOCIETIES, ...DID also eagerly-support this idea from the start.
Here, it is also important to note that quite a few of these "other supporting-nations", ...HAVE actually JAILED PEOPLE simply for accessing ANY "sexual-material", at all. And it should also be understood that, many of these "supporting nations" have even ARRESTED their own citizens merely for accessing non-approved "political", or "religious" websites.
Not exactly, proud-company for America to be in, ...is it?
2. The groups, and individuals, that pushed for this ".xxx" domain the hardest, DO NOT REALLY SEEM TO CARE one-bit about "protecting children". Many of these groups have, in fact, been fighting virtually ALL FORMS of "adult-material" for years.
Let me put this bluntly. These people ARE clearly, MERELY USING, "children" as a means to achieve their desired-end of CENSORING "Constitutionally-protected Free-speech" within the United States.
3. This ".xxx" domain actually WILL, in truth, very-obviously allow the ever-greater regulation of "content" (by effectively corralling "adult material" into a more easily identifiable, and therefore a more easily track-able and controllable, target).
Eventually, due to this (arbitrary) forced-identification, and isolation, ALL "...sexually-explicit content" (Yes, ...even educational-material) could very-easily be effectively-expunged from any practical-form of legal-availability via the Internet (it might still be available to "...adults", but the reality is that it could be virtually impossible to actually access it without violating some legal-restriction, ordinance, or "acceptable-use policy", or at the very least it would produce a severe "...chilling effect" on those wishing to exercise their "Constitutional-rights").
And, the simple fact is that, time and time again, regulations congregating these types of materials (along with various "zoning" manipulations) HAVE been very effectively USED to ELIMINATE access to otherwise "legal content".
As an example, in the next city-over from where I live, a small group of local fundamentalist-churches (in a period of just a couple of years) managed to run, virtually EVERY "adult-bookstore" in that town, ...out of business. They did it by manipulating the "zoning-boards" over, and over, again. Every time a previously-successful "adult-bookstore" moved to a new "legal" location, it was "re-zoned" again, or new "restrictions" were imposed,
...until the owners simply gave-up (or, went bankrupt).
These "church-groups" were quite proud of their accomplishment (and were very BLATANT about their methods). The last thing I heard, was that they had turned their attention to preventing "undesirable musical-groups" from being allowed to hold concerts in the city, "...to protect the children", ...of course.
4. Creating a child-safe ".kid" domain would have actually better-produced the result of "protecting children" (allowing the "protection of children" without creating such a powerful ability to assault the legal-rights of adults). This is because, it would have been far easier to limit "children" to only accessing ".kid"-based web-pages, than trying to filter all possible "adult content" (such as that which does not "...voluntarily" move to the ".xxx-domain").
And, it is important to note that, VIRTUALLY EVERY COUNTRY in the world ALREADY has laws making, "...intentionally providing sexually-explicit material to minors", ...a serious legal-offense. Therefore, anyone mis-using the ".kid" domain in such a way would, by definition, ...be breaking "laws" which are already in-place.
Based upon these facts, and previous behavior, here is what I project for the near future...
-Federal, and local, legislation WILL soon REQUIRE "sexually explicit material" to be posted, only, within these ".xxx" websites, "...to protect the children" (much like the Federal "COPA" laws which were repeatedly struck-down, because they were ruled to be "Un-Constitutional").
This "regulation" will rapidly come to include...
-A government requirement for even more stringent regulations, and probably required-registration, before "adults" are allowed to exercise their "legal-right" to access sites in the ".xxx-domain".
This will quickly be followed by...
-Greater local legal-regulation (based on alleged "community-standards") designed specifically to limit access to the ".xxx-domain" via ISPs (both local and national). This WILL create an environment ideally suited to small, repressive, communities attempting to "...regulate the entire Internet" through litigation.
...Try and imagine that, ...Oops, you dont have to "imagine" it. Several "communities" HAVE already tried this (unsuccessfully, so far). However, for a better idea of how this "eliminates availability to adults", just ask any retailer of "adult-materials" which states they WILL NOT ship to, ...because of numerous "local-ordinances" (...and previous attempts, by these "communities", to prosecute NON-LOCAL BUSINESSES for selling otherwise PERFECTLY-LEGAL MATERIALS to the adult-members of that locality).
Then there will be...
-So-called, -independent- ISP "self-censorship", such as refusing to allow access to ".xxx-domains", ...allegedly to protect themselves from "Liability" and "malware". Or, later, ISPs will get away with this simply because the courts WILL rule that, as a "private business", they can get away with CENSORSHIP, even when it is clearly being instigated by small extremist-groups, and the politicians they control (...and even though, it would be completely "un-Constitutional" for these same groups, using various political-means, to implement these types of restrictions more directly upon the public through, more easily-challenged, government-actions).
Not to mention...
-The inevitably higher prices which could be charged by ISPs, ...just to be allowed access to ".xxx-domains" (to offset an illusory cost, to ISPs, of providing access to the ".xxx-domain").
And then, finally,
-"Law-enforcement" will, at some point, proclaim "...an established-link" between "crime", and/or "terrorism", and the ".xxx-domain"... (necessitating the need for even greater government control and monitoring).
In my opinion, realistically, all of this can ONLY produce one of TWO possible results, ...neither of which will be the professed-desire of, "...protecting children".
The final effect will either be, ...NO CHANGE WHAT-SO-EVER (because of the impossibility of actually implementing THIS SCHEME). Or, ...the ".xxx-domain" will become an ever-tightening noose around the throat of the "First Amendment Rights" of EVERY American-adult.
Just my Two-Cents...
And finally, an update, the "Bush administration", quite surprisingly (sarcasm intended), has just stated that they suddenly oppose the very initiative that THEY started in the first place (isnt politics great). But of course, I expect that in the end, they will suddenly come-around again, claiming that the overwhelming public-outcry in favor of the ".xxx TLD" was actually the reason that they finally decided to support this (in reality, widely opposed for numerous reasons) curtailment of Constitutionally-Pprotected free-speech. All in the name of,
"...protecting the children".
It should be time for a REALITY-CHECK, because what is REALLY going on here, ...IS rather PAINFULLY-OBVIOUS to me.
Consider the following four facts:
1. This idea (the ".xxx-domain") WAS very much, primarily, a "United States" proposal, ...even though "China" and several other EXTREMELY REPRESSIVE-SOCIETIES, ...DID also eagerly-support this idea from the start.
Here, it is also important to note that quite a few of these "other supporting-nations", ...HAVE actually JAILED PEOPLE simply for accessing ANY "sexual-material", at all. And it should also be understood that, many of these "supporting nations" have even ARRESTED their own citizens merely for accessing non-approved "political", or "religious" websites.
Not exactly, proud-company for America to be in, ...is it?
2. The groups, and individuals, that pushed for this ".xxx" domain the hardest, DO NOT REALLY SEEM TO CARE one-bit about "protecting children". Many of these groups have, in fact, been fighting virtually ALL FORMS of "adult-material" for years.
Let me put this bluntly. These people ARE clearly, MERELY USING, "children" as a means to achieve their desired-end of CENSORING "Constitutionally-protected Free-speech" within the United States.
3. This ".xxx" domain actually WILL, in truth, very-obviously allow the ever-greater regulation of "content" (by effectively corralling "adult material" into a more easily identifiable, and therefore a more easily track-able and controllable, target).
Eventually, due to this (arbitrary) forced-identification, and isolation, ALL "...sexually-explicit content" (Yes, ...even educational-material) could very-easily be effectively-expunged from any practical-form of legal-availability via the Internet (it might still be available to "...adults", but the reality is that it could be virtually impossible to actually access it without violating some legal-restriction, ordinance, or "acceptable-use policy", or at the very least it would produce a severe "...chilling effect" on those wishing to exercise their "Constitutional-rights").
And, the simple fact is that, time and time again, regulations congregating these types of materials (along with various "zoning" manipulations) HAVE been very effectively USED to ELIMINATE access to otherwise "legal content".
As an example, in the next city-over from where I live, a small group of local fundamentalist-churches (in a period of just a couple of years) managed to run, virtually EVERY "adult-bookstore" in that town, ...out of business. They did it by manipulating the "zoning-boards" over, and over, again. Every time a previously-successful "adult-bookstore" moved to a new "legal" location, it was "re-zoned" again, or new "restrictions" were imposed,
...until the owners simply gave-up (or, went bankrupt).
These "church-groups" were quite proud of their accomplishment (and were very BLATANT about their methods). The last thing I heard, was that they had turned their attention to preventing "undesirable musical-groups" from being allowed to hold concerts in the city, "...to protect the children", ...of course.
4. Creating a child-safe ".kid" domain would have actually better-produced the result of "protecting children" (allowing the "protection of children" without creating such a powerful ability to assault the legal-rights of adults). This is because, it would have been far easier to limit "children" to only accessing ".kid"-based web-pages, than trying to filter all possible "adult content" (such as that which does not "...voluntarily" move to the ".xxx-domain").
And, it is important to note that, VIRTUALLY EVERY COUNTRY in the world ALREADY has laws making, "...intentionally providing sexually-explicit material to minors", ...a serious legal-offense. Therefore, anyone mis-using the ".kid" domain in such a way would, by definition, ...be breaking "laws" which are already in-place.
Based upon these facts, and previous behavior, here is what I project for the near future...
-Federal, and local, legislation WILL soon REQUIRE "sexually explicit material" to be posted, only, within these ".xxx" websites, "...to protect the children" (much like the Federal "COPA" laws which were repeatedly struck-down, because they were ruled to be "Un-Constitutional").
This "regulation" will rapidly come to include...
-A government requirement for even more stringent regulations, and probably required-registration, before "adults" are allowed to exercise their "legal-right" to access sites in the ".xxx-domain".
This will quickly be followed by...
-Greater local legal-regulation (based on alleged "community-standards") designed specifically to limit access to the ".xxx-domain" via ISPs (both local and national). This WILL create an environment ideally suited to small, repressive, communities attempting to "...regulate the entire Internet" through litigation.
...Try and imagine that, ...Oops, you dont have to "imagine" it. Several "communities" HAVE already tried this (unsuccessfully, so far). However, for a better idea of how this "eliminates availability to adults", just ask any retailer of "adult-materials" which states they WILL NOT ship to, ...because of numerous "local-ordinances" (...and previous attempts, by these "communities", to prosecute NON-LOCAL BUSINESSES for selling otherwise PERFECTLY-LEGAL MATERIALS to the adult-members of that locality).
Then there will be...
-So-called, -independent- ISP "self-censorship", such as refusing to allow access to ".xxx-domains", ...allegedly to protect themselves from "Liability" and "malware". Or, later, ISPs will get away with this simply because the courts WILL rule that, as a "private business", they can get away with CENSORSHIP, even when it is clearly being instigated by small extremist-groups, and the politicians they control (...and even though, it would be completely "un-Constitutional" for these same groups, using various political-means, to implement these types of restrictions more directly upon the public through, more easily-challenged, government-actions).
Not to mention...
-The inevitably higher prices which could be charged by ISPs, ...just to be allowed access to ".xxx-domains" (to offset an illusory cost, to ISPs, of providing access to the ".xxx-domain").
And then, finally,
-"Law-enforcement" will, at some point, proclaim "...an established-link" between "crime", and/or "terrorism", and the ".xxx-domain"... (necessitating the need for even greater government control and monitoring).
In my opinion, realistically, all of this can ONLY produce one of TWO possible results, ...neither of which will be the professed-desire of, "...protecting children".
The final effect will either be, ...NO CHANGE WHAT-SO-EVER (because of the impossibility of actually implementing THIS SCHEME). Or, ...the ".xxx-domain" will become an ever-tightening noose around the throat of the "First Amendment Rights" of EVERY American-adult.
Just my Two-Cents...
And finally, an update, the "Bush administration", quite surprisingly (sarcasm intended), has just stated that they suddenly oppose the very initiative that THEY started in the first place (isnt politics great). But of course, I expect that in the end, they will suddenly come-around again, claiming that the overwhelming public-outcry in favor of the ".xxx TLD" was actually the reason that they finally decided to support this (in reality, widely opposed for numerous reasons) curtailment of Constitutionally-Pprotected free-speech. All in the name of,
"...protecting the children".
Virtual red-light district is alredy their the problem is it's everyware. If your child misspelleds the web site name.com or .net he or she could land on an adult site.
Virtual red-light district is alredy their the problem is it's everyware. If your child misspelleds the web site name.com or .net he or she could land on an adult site.