Comments on: Time for a .xxx domain?

For the sake of clarity, attorney Eric Sinrod believes that it is an idea whose time has come.

[David Trammel]

Why not a dot kids?

There are dozens of reasons why dot xxx won't work. Rather than advocating something that won't do the least bit to prevent children viewing porn, why not create a dot kids domain?

[fredmenace]

There is one

Some "genius" had the same idea as you. It has like 5, rarely-visited, sites on it.

Here is the problem: at what age do kids start to outgrow "kids-only" material (such as the Disney Channel)? 7? 9? Then where do they go? Thre's a long way from age 7 to age 18. You are basically proposing withholding everything from kids other than a small amount of content specifically designed for them. This might possibly be workable for VERY young children, but it is senseless to try to "protect" any but the youngest of kids from the rest of the internet.

For instance, we don't keep kids out of bookstores even though most of the books aren't targeted at kids; we only keep them out of adult bookstores. We don't stop kids from reading Time and Newsweek and Sports Illustrated even though they're not aimed at 10-year olds; we just stop them from reading Playboy and Hustler.

[bobj123]

.XXX all the way

The .XXX extention should be pushed through for several reasons:
- Would allow filtering to be easier
-Force these porn industries to move over to the .xxx
- Would allow governments to find those illegel child pornography sites
(Now of course those opperating those types of sites are not going to consider moving to .xxx and stay with that they have but it will certainly make it easier shutting them down since they would be the only .com, .net, .org, .us ... ect left

[rob_easton]

I agree

I think it's high time.

[MTGrizzly]

This attitude is scary...

"Host based" filtering can be accomplished by either filtering IP addresses - very easy and very cheap - or domain name filtering - very hard and very expensive.

The problem with IP address filtering is it filters all domains associated with that IP address - often there are thousands of domain names associated with one IP address. To block one domain on a particular IP address, you have to block all of them. Whether a domain is "pornographic" or not. This method has been advocated by, at least, three states. Every time it has been mandated, it has been found unconstitutional by the courts. Not because this method restricted access to pornography, because it restricted access to _everything else_.

In these same court cases, domain name filtering was considered and found to be an impractical - due to technical difficulty and huge expense - way to filter out alleged "obscene" or "child porn" on the Internet. The courts looked at domain name filtering and realized it was impossible to implement because all one has to do is set up their own domain name service to circumvent it. This, completely, by-passes any "filtering" put in place by an ISP.

If I were an ISP, I would have a real problem being required to pay and install filtering to, allegedly, "protect" some of my users. If I was required to do it, I would have to pass that cost on to my customers, thereby raising the cost of Internet access and restricting people's ability to access the Internet.

Fortunately, the courts in this country are able to divorce themselves from the current political climate and look at the effect of current proposals to restrict free speech on everybody, not just the special interests. The "separation of powers" thing the founding fathers came up with was pretty smart. I am thankful that, when faced with making decisions that potentially limit the civil liberties of American citizens the courts rely on experts who understand the real technical and financial implications of proposed "quick, easy fixes" that don't work to prevent access to anything, but do restrict civil liberties.


This is not about porn. If you don't want to see porn, don't go to websites where it is displayed. If you can prevent yourself from buying a skin mag at the 7-11, you can prevent yourself from going to a porn website. If you have to depend upon the government to protect your kids from porn, then you have many more problems than just that. Parent your own kids, don't try to restrict everyone's access to information so you can continue to ignore your kids.

[techguy83]

Know the facts!!

It will not force adult sites to move, it will only give them another domain to have as well. The biggest reason the Bush administration is against this is because creating this domain will not force adult sites to move to .xxx, it only gives them more operating space.

[Crias]

Something like this is NEEDED

Let me start by saying... my first experience with pornography happened before I even know what pornography was. I didnt even know what masturbation was, call me sheltered. I was 12, and I found myself staring at a picture of a gurl covered in the bodily fluids of a large male horse. NOT the kind of thing YOU want your 12 year old to see, is it? It's disgusting.


We need 2 things, in my oppinion, and a third could help:

1. We need a TLD for pornographic sites. In my oppinion, hiding it in "less offensive" things like .adult or .mature or .mat would work, but it does leave some question as to "What does Mature mean?" Still, this is a trivial issue... I dont care what the TLD is, we need one for pornography.

2. We NEED to make it LAW for pornographic websites to this TLD. To back it up, the government should be allowed to sue any pornographic company that does not migrate. In my oppinion, there should be no limit on this lawsuit, it should literally be capable of bankrupting the company. I dont say this because I want to end porn, I am now 18 and enjoy my rights to view pornographic materials. I say this because all it would take is 1 such lawsuit, and NO company would risk staying at a .com when they could lose all they've worked hard for.

3. Lastly, to ensure there's no resistance to this new TLD, I ask... why should we force these companies to pay for something they've already paid for? They will resist the change if they have to pay... as greedy and cheap as that sounds... charging large sums of money for these TLDs wouldnt work in my oppinion. All currently existing pornographic sites SHOULD be offered a free .xxx (or whatever) TLD. What I mean, www.porn.com should be given www.porn.xxx for free. This removes any further hesitation they might have, combined with the lawsuit if they refuse. It also allows users of these sites to visit their "new location" without confusion. If I visit a site now, all I have to do is visit the same site with a different TLD, no confusion for the customer, no losses for the company.

Now, I'm not highly educated in these matters, and I'll say, there is probably a good chance what I've said has a flaw or two in it. So be it. But things like this... they are not "good ideas"... they are required steps for the protection of all the other 12 year olds who dont want to see a girl covered in horse spunk. When I have children, I do NOT want to have to explain to them what that picture is about, we have to move forward. So even if the ideas are flawed... find the flaws, correct them, and move forward!

And lastly I have to agree... anyone who fully opposes the idea of a pornographic TLD is not looking out for the best interest of the children that these sites are damaging. Now, if you oppose the idea because it is flawed... that's ok... as long as you're willing to submit to a similar, but unflawed, version of the idea... but if you are silly enough to say "no TLD because it makes it legitimate!", then I have to say you disgust me. You are selfishly sheltering yourself from reality: pornography exists... not only does it exist, it is a quite lucrative industry, and as is the way of capitalism, as long as there's money in it, people will do it. So stop whining about legitimizing it, its already legitimate and legal... instead, protect your children who, right now, could be in your basement looking at things that could change the way they think forever.

Oh and as an added note... for those fighting the "legitimization" of pornography... I know for a fact that alot of these 12, 13, 14 year olds who are finding porno for the first time.. they are becoming addicts! They're becoming porn addicts, and the unrealistic ideas of pornography that adults can recognize as unrealistic are being seen and learned by these children! In fact, these children are more likely to become porn-stars themselves!! If you move ALL pornographic sites (force them!) to a specific TLD, you can protect the children, deny the pornography industry future customers AND future employees... who loses here?

[Crias]

I forgot...

I forgot to mention, I also support the idea of a .kid domain. However, this idea is also flawed!

yes, a .kid domain is a great idea... children only able to access child-friendly sites.

But even in looking at it... would you, as an adult, do..say... research at a .kid site? www.history.kid

I personally would doubt research data I got there, it just doesnt seem reliable! And .kid also alienates teens... as a 15 year old or 16 year old, I would have dreaded visiting only sites ending in .kid

So sites targetted at kids, teens and adults... any combination of them... would be more difficult to categorize.

Granted, yes this is only a "but I dont want to" argument, and is quite silly.. but it is what you'll deal with if you go with this idea. You'll deal with teenagers learning ways to go around internet security so that they can get to "real" websites. Of course, renaming the TLD to something other than .kid might fix this, but again, you still have the issue of double-demographics.

I mean, at school, I could do a search on "Biography of some historical guy", get search results including history.kid, which has some of the information I need, and history.com, which appears to have information that the .kid site doesnt. But I can't get to it! And there's no reason I shouldnt be able to!

Instead of putting adults in a position to have their rights attacked, you attack the rights of the next generation.

I guess all I'm really saying is, we can't make everyone happy. But don't assume that moving all the adult sites to .xxx will bankrupt them. I cannot see any way they'd be able to deny me the right to see that material, being of-age.


Lastly, perhaps a TLD isn't the answer either? Whatever solution works, I'm happy with, because unlike alot of the people bickering (who are only interested in getting their PoV seen) I just honestly want to protect the innocent users of the internet, be it children or adult. If you drive by a adult store in the city.. say, the "Adult Source" in my city, you do not see anything suggestive. While I was younger, I found myself wondering "what makes it 'adult'?". Perhaps heavier regulation is needed to limit what these companies can put on their "guest" pages. A "free-tour" at alot of these sites give you some VERY suggestive material, even if the front page doesnt (which it usually does)... restrict all suggestive material, and require authentication to view it. But again, this is difficult to do successfully... ALL of the possible sollutions are. So pick the most viable, and do it, because honestly I dont want people to have experiences like that of my first post.

[ThatAdamGuy]

U.S. law does *NOT* govern the Internet. Really.

Okay, so let's say that two things happen:
1) The xxx domain actually gets activated.
2) The clueless and hypocritical rightwingers somehow force all pornographers off of .com and .net and all non-xxx American domains.

Two big, BIG questions remain:

1) Who is going to tell the French and Romanian and Costa Rican and 57327182 other governments in the world that they CANNOT allow any porn on their national domains?

2) Where will sex education Web sites be placed? Explicit medical photos used by surgeons-in-training? How about sites with photos of Tammy Fay Baker (I think *NO* children under the age of 18 should be subjected to that. Come to think of it, no one OVER the age of 18 should have to see her face, either).

For that matter, what about violence? Why isn't there a .vio domain? I personally find violence FAR more troubling for young kids than sex.

And speaking of troubling, how about the absolutely disgusting, mysogynistic, and hateful speech of people like Anne Coulter? Should there be a domain .hate? Or .idiots?

Please, American government, if you're gonna protect me from smut, kindly protect me (and God, the children... don't forget the children!!!!!!!!!!!!!1) from all the other evils on teh Interweb!

Regards,
Adam
http://www.bladam.com/ <-- Life, Liberty, Love and Stuff

[aabcdefghij987654321]

You had an education deficiency is all

You were 12 and had not had "the talk" yet?
About what porn is? what masturbation is? How to recognise it? What is bad about it when you are a kid? How it is NOT love? And many times a sad replacement for affection (it does have it's place though)

Mistake from your parents.

[MTGrizzly]

More Problems...

There are several fundamental problems with your recommendations:

>I was 12, and I found myself staring at a picture of a gurl covered in the bodily fluids of a large male horse. NOT the kind of thing YOU want your 12 year old to see, is it? It's disgusting.

Was this on the Internet? If not, then it points out a fundamental problem with regulating one form of speech ? what about all the other forms of speech?

>"What does Mature mean?" Still, this is a trivial issue...

What is ?mature?? Who decides this? Do you want Alberto Gonzales to decide for all of us what is ?mature? and what has to be on this new TLD? This is a man who has spent the last five years writing legal opinions justifying torture of innocent people. Perhaps you would like Pat Robertson to decide what is ?mature,? when he isn?t issuing fatwahs condemning foreign heads of state to be murdered. Or, maybe the company who is selling these new domains will decide, thereby forcing more and more people to pay them?

The determination of what is ?mature? or ?adult?concent is not a trivial issue. It is fundamental to our right to free speech. Contrary to what most who have posted here, sexually explicit material that is not obscene and is not child porn is CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED SPEECH. The first amendment and the speech it protects is not trivial by any measure.

>2. We NEED to make it LAW for pornographic websites to this TLD. To back it up, the government should be allowed to sue any pornographic company that does not migrate.

Pornography, as you put it, is constitutionally protected speech. Pornography is not, by definition, either obscene nor child pornography. Therefore, there is no way for the government to restrict ?pornography? to one TLD or the other.

>3. Lastly, to ensure there's no resistance to this new TLD, I ask... why should we force these companies to pay for something they've already paid for? They will resist the change if they have to pay...

When the federal government removed management of the TLDs from the National Science Foundation, they made management of TLD?s a money making proposition. So, unless you propose that the government tax us to pay the registrar who is managing the new ?.xxx? TLD, why would any private agency want to host this domain for free? Or, perhaps, you propose we remove management of the TLD back to the government, which has the same affect as taxing us to pay a private company to manage it.

>Now, I'm not highly educated in these matters, and I'll say, there is probably a good chance what I've said has a flaw or two in it. So be it. But things like this... they are not "good ideas"... they are required steps for the protection of all the other 12 year olds who dont want to see a girl covered in horse spunk.

First of all, many depictions of bestiality are already obscene and, therefore, not constitutionally protected speech. In many cases, the image you saw of the lady and the horse may have already been illegal. So, enforcement of the laws against obscenity would likely prevent it from being viewed by others and there is not need for a special TLD for ?pornography? ? whatever pornography is ? to prevent dissemination of images such as you describe.

> When I have children, I do NOT want to have to explain to them what that picture is about, we have to move forward. So even if the ideas are flawed... find the flaws, correct them, and move forward!

Undoubtedly, when you have children, they will see things that are upsetting ? no matter how many laws are passed and/or how m uch speech is suppressed. As their parents, you will have to explain it all to them ? things like, why we are killing thousands of Iraqi civilians and American soldiers ?bringing democracy? to Iraq, why it is that 28,000 people a year die violent deaths in traffic accidents involving alcohol impaired drivers, what those two bovines are doing in the filed, et cetera. We live in a violent world, one where sex is a primary motive in all aspects of life, there is no way we can protect child from every upsetting thing or idea you don?t agree with.

>instead, protect your children who, right now, could be in your basement looking at things that could change the way they think forever.

Are they looking at porn on the Internet in the basement? Move the computer into an area where you can supervise your children ? in other words, PARENT your children! You don?t need an new TLD to do this. If they are not viewing porn on the Internet, then, obviously no new TLD is going to stop them from doing it.

>Oh and as an added note... for those fighting the "legitimization" of pornography... I know for a fact that alot of these 12, 13, 14 year olds who are finding porno for the first time.. they are becoming addicts!

Do you have some facts to back up this opinion? An addiction is a physical dependence on a substance, marked by physical ?withdrawal? symptoms when the substance is withdrawn. To my knowledge, no visual medium creates a physical dependence. If you consider a compulsion to do anything found to ?pleasurable? an addiction, then any pleasurable activity can be addictive and, if we follow your belief, do we need to keep people from doing them, too.

[jedibratt]

Tired of the "good people" running our lives

take that moral justification which you use as an obvious sign that says "Hello everyone this makes me uncomfortable, and I'm scared", and SHOVE IT UP YOUR ASH!!!!

[jedibratt]

Well then make it legit

if somebody wants to venture to a porn site, they can verify it's "legitimacy" by the xxx domain. Perhaps this will signify a huge change in internet porn. Every porn site must register a xxx domain, otherwise be shut down. And to register, the obvious crap (beastiality, child porn, rape, scat, etc), will not be allowed to have an xxx domain. Wait freedom of speech for child porn, uh no. Crap is crap, and if it's illegal outside of the net, it's illegal in it. C'mon.

[Had_to_be_said]

Heres an observation regarding "smut", "filth" and "sewage" on the Internet

The DOT-XXX domain has no ability, what-so-ever, to stop "child porn" or any other "illegal" activities. And, it certainly wont "protect children", any more than the un-Constitutional COPA-laws did. DOT-XXX is about enabling the censorship of "protected expression", by an extremist minority, pure and simple. These ultra-conservative extremists are attempting to further their own repressive-agenda by preying on most peoples ignorance of the Internet, and the innate desire to "protect children" from any harm, real or imagined.

If you are that offended by the very idea of a world where consenting-adults can express their views on, and engage in, sex... LEAVE.

But, before you go, dont forget to castrate yourself, and place the purple-sheet carefully over your head before drinking the Kool-Aid.

If you dont like my opinion, TOUGH. Thats called freedom. You are free to disagree. You are not free to forcibly isolate any expression that you personally dont like, in a virtual cyber-ghetto, just so it is easier for you to suppress it.

[Nephi720]

I agree

You said

"You are not free to forcibly isolate any expression that you personally dont like, in a virtual cyber-ghetto, just so it is easier for you to suppress it."

I completely agree with your comment. The .XXX domain would be a cyber-ghetto of it's own making. You can't complain though. If it looks like a duck and walks like a duck......

Why shouldn't people who would rather not sully themselves with this rot not be able to avoid it, and those who want it know exactly where to get it. Comic books aimed at kids don't have suprise center folds. Perhaps the Porn industry is more interested with their (hit counts) and advertising than honestly labelling their product. I can't think of another reason why ambiguously labelled websites exist. Who's ashamed?

[punch_myself]

Dear Moron

You're either from the porn industry, don't have children or are just the run of the mill moron. The .xxx idea is a good one and should be established immediately. Just as in the brick and mortar porn industry, you'll be relegated to the shady backroom, off the beaten path part of the internet. You can have all the "freedom" you want to show jizz running down the faces of hungry barely-18 year olds. You can give free butt-plugs to all who get on your email list for a f**k-buddy or live-spank-cam, but you'll be able to do it in your own creepy little world...Not in the world that my 8 year old occupies.

Because you have the freedom to put your spew on the internet, I have the freedom to tell you to drop dead, moron.

[208774626618253979477959487856]

Go XXX!

http://www.analogstereo.com/turntable_linn_akurate.htm

[Steve Jordan]

It should be clear now...

...why there is no easy solution to the Internet porn debate. To recap: Porn is a legitimate business, that everyone agrees should be kept from kids. The .xxx domain cannot be forced on every government. The definition of what constitutes "porn" or "xxx" material differs from country to country, from state to state, and from household to household. The Internet itself is not designed well enough to make filtering methods 100% secure. And unless you plan to lock your kids up, there's no way to prevent them from finding porn out there, if not from the web, then somewhere else.

Unless an agreeable set of definitions of "porn" are agreed upon worldwide, and all countries agree to follow those rules and control WEB SITE CONTENT (not just domains), porn will not be controlled.

The key is tagging the CONTENT properly enough to be filterable, regardless of the site or domain. And we're not talking about one "xxx" tag... we're talking about an internationally-recognized series of tags, that define the content on multiple levels and degrees. Only that will allow multiple organizations to agree on enforcement, by being able to CHOOSE what they call "porn" and allow the rest.

The only effective international enforcement tool is that being practiced by China: Filtering all web sites outside of your country, and restricting access to entire countries if they do not adhere to policy. As long as contries consider themselves sovereign, it's reasonable to expect this. And if countries don't want to face global excommunication, they will police themselves.

Easy solution? Heck, no. Neither is the problem. To get a workable solution, we (meaning parents, communities and nations) have to work together to put together a real framework, as opposed to "feelgood" or knee-jerk reactions that will only complicate the problem.

[namecritic]

good

You summed it up nicely. Just like to add one thing to the overall summary.

People in the US are very quick to rally and say "Pass a law against this or that." They think it will also work on the Internet.

The Internet is never going to be governed by US legislation alone.

As this poster said, it would take ALL governments to agree to the law. These countries never agree.

AND, if just ONE country did not agree to abide by the rules, then all the bad people you are trying to legislate would base their operations in the one country that doesn't agree.

[rolnna7]

XXX - an idea whose time has come...

If Bush can convince the world of weapons of mass destruction, caring about freeing Iraqi's (not about all of that oil rich land), then he can also kill .xxx with 600 bible thumping letters from the religious right...

As information flows more freely everyday, it is going to become harder to supress the masses, the thoughts of the masses, and the wants of the masses.

Bush will probably keep .xxx off of the agenda for as long as possible and then veto it if he has to... he cannot afford to lose his base of the evangelicals and the midwestern "meat and potatoe" states with such trivial matters. The fact is, this will be part of our society and part of the norm one day... just not today :(

Jan 1, 2009 cannot come soon enough!

[punch_myself]

Ok I've changed my mind. You're completely correct.

I'm kidding...

Hey, this one's for the guy who doesn't give a **** about my 8 year old and would rather look at his (ahem) "art" on the internet.

Thank you for your response. I understand now that to you, art is playing ****-n-balls on some twink site. Go for it, bro. Soak up all the Kleenex you want. Just do it in the adult section of the internet. We'll make it just for you, and it'll end in .xxx. Think if it as the small room at the video store with the swinging doors. You know the one.

Rush Limbaugh is a pill-popping, self absorbed lunatic talking-head. Hey there's something we agree on.

[Bob Brinkman]

answer me this

Look up Terry Richardson. He is one of many photographers that uses graphic nudity in some of his pictures, Then tell me if it is porn or not and why your opinion should be the blanket for the rest of the world.

Or you can just throw insults around, whatever.

[rolnna7]

xxx is intelligent design...

God is a White Male Conservative. In addition, his only son is white. He was born in the middle east... go figure... Mary was inpregnated by the "holy spirit"... OK... If you are a buddhist, muslim and jew, you are going to hell. Same for the aboriginies and swahilies and the Jamaicans practicing anything buy white male christianity.

Man created guns. But the female body, well, the white male God created her. But only for private display. Public display, guess what pal, she is going to hell and so are you for being curious.

How hot is hell? Scientifically, it would have to be hot enough to where you could withstand the heat, but at the highest end of the spectrum.

God created the earth and everything in it in 6 days. Then, the dinosaurs ruled the earth for millions of years. The the evolutionary man came along...

So, what were Adam and Eve doing? waiting for Cro Mag to show up?

How much of the world was discovered when the bible was written? How many people believed the world to be flat? How come there are one billion Chinese, but if they don't know white Jesus, they too will all go to hell...

*OK, now that we understand who runs the united states (sorry about the long preface), let's get back to xxx... the real intelligent design...

Does anyone remember Jimmy Swagart crying to his followers after being caught red-handed with a cheap ***** that you may want to pay 19.99 on a credit card to look at? Is Jimmy going to hell? or is he forgiven by white Jesus?

Now I am confused.

Just let me look at beautiful young women naked in the privacy of my own home, just like Jimmy Swagart does... please. pretty please.

I would get on my knees, but you may mistake it for praying...

[MTGrizzly]

A DNS primer...

>Also, a single specific IP address is only going to be hosting web services under a single domain at a time - how could it be otherwise?

DNS management 101. Virtual hosting. I have five domain names running off one IP address, on this machine, right now. I have had hundreds running off servers with a single IP address at the same time when I ran commercial hosting services. The IP address takes you to a certain point on the Internet - a router or server - and then the machine at that IP address resolves the domain to the appropriate webpage, et cetera. It has to be this way, because there are a finite number of IP addresses. They would have been used up long ago, if each domain required a unique IP address. Read O'Reilly's book on DNS and BIND.

>How would you expect it to figure out which website you mean when you enter an IP address???

Enter a specific IP address and you bypass DNS and go to the root folder of that server. Nothing is resolved. Kind of pointless.

>(In theory different sites can be hosted on the same IP address using different ports, but that is pretty rare.)

Using different ports is kind of a backwards way of directing traffic to certain domain. You would have configure each server and include the port number with the DNS information or go through the default port. There are an finite number of ports on any server, while - theoretically - an infinite number of domains that can hosted on a single IP. [http://I say "theoretically, because I have never tried to host more than about 100 because the traffic overwhelms the capabilities of the server at some point, limiting the number of domains that can be hosted.|http://I say "theoretically, because I have never tried to host more than about 100 because the traffic overwhelms the capabilities of the server at some point, limiting the number of domains that can be hosted.]

>The problem you are referring to is normally with regards to either BLOCKS of IP addresses

This can be done, also. However, it is not what I am referring to. It is associated with the same problems as blocking single IP addresses.


>and entire ISPs being blocked, rather than single addresses (such as blocking mail from all IP addresses owned by an ISP to stop one spammer customer), or when talking about subdirectories on a given domain at an ISP; for instance: http://www.bigisp.com/~pornsite/ or http://pornsite.bigisp.com/. But most porn sites have their own domains - they won't be a subdirectory of "bigisp.com".

What you are describing is domain name blocking. Whatever traffic comes from the "bigisp.com" will be blocked, while traffic coming form the same server, via different domain name, won't be blocked. This every expensive and onerous to implement, making it impractical. The federal courts in PA deemed this unconstituional restriction of free speech.

FYI, all data on servers is in subdirectories. In your example, pornsite.bigisp.com, "pornsite" is a server, not a subdirectory. In your example, "http://www.bigisp.com/~pornsite/", the www is a server and ~pornsite is a subdirectory. Given your second example, if you can access "bigisp.com", then you can access all the subdirectories unless you don't have privileges to do so. Each subdirectory, using this scheme, would have to be blocked individually on each server.

While I agree it may be difficult to watch your children _all the time_, it is necessary if you want to protect them _all the time_. If you can't control your children's access to the Internet, then don't have a connection to the Internet. Otherwise, it is your responsibility - NOT THE GOVERNMENT'S - to prevent them from seeing/doing things you don't want them to see/do.

The more apt analogy is - If an adult buys a Penthouse, it is unreasonable to leave that Penthouse in plain view and then expect the government to prevent your children from looking at it. It is up to you to put the Penthouse away so you children can't look at it or spend your entire life, 24/7, watching them so the don't look at it.

[Steve Jordan]

Good Analogy at the end.

The Penthouse analogy is spot-on in terms of parental responsibility.

Here's what I believe is a better solution than "xxx": Put XML and/or additional HTML tag data to use. Sites, text, pictures and other content can be required to have additional data in its HTML tags, ie, content="sex", content="fn" (frontal nudity), content="tl" (topless), etc. As the examples suggest, we're not talking about one "xxx" tag... we're talking about an internationally-acceptable series of tags, that define the content clearly and unequivocally on multiple levels and degrees.

This means a reasonable burden on websites to indicate in their HTML that they follow these protocols (validation for "HTMLxxx"), or be filtered out completely by xxx-restricting ISPs or browsers.

This will allow multiple groups to agree on enforcement, by being able to CHOOSE what they consider "porn" (example, frontal nudity and sex, but NOT toplessness) and what they consider acceptable for minors (example, rear nudity, suggestive language, but NOT explicit language, frontal nudity, sex). ISPs worldwide can then filter individual pages, or entire sites, based on their choice of content tags. Where ISPs do not choose to filter, setting browsers individually to filter specific content tags will be an involved but manageable task at the user level.