Perspective: The politics of .xxx

Now that pornographers have a domain name suffix reserved exclusively for them, look for politicians to become more eager than ever before to target sexually explicit Web sites.

Last week, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers approved the creation of .xxx, a kind of virtual red-light district that's scheduled to go live by the end of the year.

Permitting sexually explicit material online is, of course, only objectionable among advocacy groups that would love to outlaw anything as daring as "Heather Has Two Mommies." (Nobody is forced to click on links pointing to raunch and ribaldry, after all.)

But the politics of .xxx are more complex--and worrisome.

If .xxx remains truly voluntary, that's one thing. But what happens if politicians make it mandatory? What if controversial material like information on homosexuality, abortion and sex education comes under pressure to move to a virtual area that can be easily blocked?

Permitting sexually explicit material online is only objectionable among advocacy groups that would love to outlaw anything as daring as "Heather Has Two Mommies."

This is no mere theoretical concern. ICANN's decision represents an abrupt turnabout from the group's earlier stance: In November 2000, the ICANN staff rejected the first proposal for an .xxx registry.

Then politicians began to ratchet up the pressure. At a hearing a few months later, Rep. Fred Upton, R-Mich., demanded to know why ICANN didn't approve .xxx "as a means of protecting our kids from the awful, awful filth which is sometimes widespread on the Internet." Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., complained to a federal commission that .xxx was necessary to force adult Webmasters to "abide by the same standard as the proprietor of an X-rated movie theater."

Like any other bureaucracy, ICANN instinctively shies away from controversy--especially from political bigwigs. No wonder they changed their mind this time around.

Months from now, after .xxx domains become available and popular, expect these same politicians to suggest that adult Webmasters should be forced to permanently relocate from .com.

"You're definitely going to find some pressure on sex sites to move there," predicts David Greene, director of the First Amendment Project in Oakland, Calif.

What's more, the existence of an .xxx suffix will make it more difficult to challenge such a law in court. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor has suggested that the presence of "adult zones" on the Internet would make a future Communications Decency Act more likely to be regarded as constitutional.

In a split decision, O'Connor voted for and against different portions of the CDA in 1997, but only because "we must evaluate the constitutionality of the CDA as it applies to the Internet as it exists today." In the future, however, O'Connor warned, "the prospects

Biography
Declan McCullagh is CNET News.com's chief political correspondent. He spent more than a decade in Washington, D.C., chronicling the busy intersection between technology and politics. Previously, he was the Washington bureau chief for Wired News, and a reporter for Time.com, Time magazine and HotWired. McCullagh has taught journalism at American University and been an adjunct professor at Case Western University.

More Perspectives

Neat

Making it mandatory would be very good IMO. I could just block all .xxx domains through my proxy and I'd have a guarantee that no employees spend bandwith on these sites. But as with CAN-SPAM they'll see how helpless they are against such a large industry.

[unknown unknown]

RE

U.S law doesn't apply in other countries. If the U.S did make .xxx mandatory there would still be tons of porn sites not covered.

[ThatAdamGuy]

How about hiring responsible employees?

I know it's a wacky idea, but instead of playing nanny, why don't you (and the majority of other companies that micromanage their employees like overbearing parents) simply trust your employees to do good work?

I agree that employees should *NOT* be surfing porn at work for a variety of reasons, but it's a slippery slope.

Big Brother at it again..

Here we go again.. under the falsehood of "protecting our children".. we enable more pressure and regulation to take away rights from adults. First i dont remember where in the constitution it says that children have more or presiding rights over adults.. and second.. how about asking these politicians to insist that the parents of these "at risk kids" become PARENTS. Maybe if they took their head out of the sand.. and tried to understand what little suzy is doing on the computer instead of using it as their babysitter so they didnt have to actually parent their kids.. this world would be a better place.. but welcome to America.. where its always someone else's fault.. and the governement needs to do something to fix it..

Hey.. dont worry.. with the national ID card Bush pushed through.. soon we will all be able to "Show your papers"... you know.. just like the nazis did.

[Razzl]

The right way to handle the current reality

Formal regulation of the internet became inevitable when it stopped being a low-use private network for adult academics and evolved into a full-blown utility for commerce and communication for the masses. There is no element of the entertainment or communication industries that has avoided some level of regulation once it becomes universal, so it's time to stop whining about the end of the pipe dream of keeping web regulation "voluntary" and concentrate on working out the arrangements that will allow maximal levels of freedom within a regulated framework.

"You can't compare content regulation to zoning. They're apples and oranges." Well, yes, content regulation will be exactly like zoning. Communities allow the sex industry to go on in regulated locations under formal rules so that minors can't partake of it easily; most American adults believe that system is a fair compromise and have not allowed the religious fanatics or politicians to wipe out the sex industry under the guise of zoning. Content regulation would enable software to achieve the same compromise to be played out in the virtual setting. As an adult who believes in the right of other adults to choose to view sexual content, I'm nonetheless appalled at how unavoidable pornography is for minors on the web--virtually any google search, no matter how innocent, will call up links to sexually explicit matter somewhere in the listings. It's clearly time for a workable compromise to enable filtering without all the dissembling technical excuses the Tech industry mumbles whenever the subject comes up. As with all liberties we have to accept some limits on extreme conduct while remaining vigilant about not losing our core rights. Vigilance is the price of freedom...

[Prndll]

This is nuts....

This is not something that government should do. I like the idea of creating XXX domains. This needs to done at the registar level. These things don't create themselves and if someone would actually use a computer the way it's meant to be used...it would not be a problem to obtain entire lists of porn sites that would just be forced in the XXX domain. With no change in price for existing sites and an increase in price for new ones. When the US government decides to control this, that's when it will end up so messed up that it wont work. This can work, but it won't work like this. This is exactly how government messes up everything. Porn does have a place online and creating this XXX domain is a great idea.

[Professor Curt]

Backward Spin

I have a question: if the government makes the .xxx domain maditory for adult material - WHO DECIDES what constitues adult material?? Will htey force legimitate medical, health and reproductive sites into the same category as triple-xxx movies??
Does anyone really believe they can keep little Jonnie away from these sites if he's determined to view them?? No software or blocking parameters can beat the Mark 1 Mod 0 eyeball of a concerned parent. Just a suggestion: When my own children were younger we kept the computer in the living room where I could see the screen while I was watching TV. I could and did ask questions about what they were browsing on-line and who they were talking to via IM or a chat room. So who needed censorware when I was paying attention to what they were doing??

[loooovemusic]

What about other off color sites?

Yes we need to protect the "kids" however this is not the way to do it. If something like this is mandatory it should not cost $60 to do. What will happen to the many sites that host somethings that are considered adult as well as non adult. sites that host "funny" material for some but not for others. There is a reason that programs like net nanny exist why go any futher. People need to get their act together and realize that no one is perfect and that no one is the same, they also need to know that people have different standards and beliefs what one person can find offesive another will find funny and what one person finds violent another normal or "not so bad". America needs to look at itself and realize that now we are fighting against what we at first tried to get by forming this country.

[samuelr7]

Your kidding right?

Are you kidding! You say:

"(Nobody is forced to click on links pointing to raunch and ribaldry, after all.)"

Do you know how many times I have entered a web site looking for something, actually guessing at what I think a site is, and wind up viewing porn.

Sometimes even misspelling a word can put porn in your face. Porn site use all kinds of subtle methods to draw you in, and once you're there, you can't close the browser. They put you in a popup loop and it just keeps on coming back.

It's amazing how society seems to want to protect the rights of certain things and to hell with the consequences, our children. Know one is saying here that porn sites must be banned just designated using the .xxx domain suffix, so it makes it easy for parents to protect their children.

It's like putting explicit materials on the top shelves in convenience stores. It's accessible for those who want it, and away from children.

[cort89]

Outright Stupid Idea

This is just a way the govenrnment is trying to control the flow of ideas and information. Granted it is porn, but whats to stop them from moving on to other "bad" things.

This idea simply won't work, it will end up being .xxx domains cost 50 bucks a year as others cost ten. and then this dosn't in any way stop somone in the uk forsay, from runing a porn site on a regular TLD or SLD.

If parents dont want thier kids to see porn then they have one choice, start watching them.

[ThatAdamGuy]

Other great domain ideas

I also recommend .com for conservative blogs, so I won't have to read their disgusting reactionary blatherings.

And how about .mus for those sites that subject me to automatically-played music (and often bad music at that)?

Of course, there also needs to be .vio for Web sites with violent content. Do I really want to see even cartoon characters beating each other up?!

It reminds me of one of those Gilbert and Sullivan operetta numbers: "...and none of them'll be missed..."

I dont know about you, but...

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...

[eviltoaster]

This is about PORN not abolishing free speech

I think the .xxx is an idea that needed to be implemented a long time ago. This effectivley adds porn as an 'official' category on the web.

Naysayers need a reality check. Nobody rioted like this over .biz! ONLY BUSINESSES can register .biz!!

Well, with .xxx ONLY PORN SITES can register.

Will this erase porn off the web? NO. But it will make it easier for parents, webfilters and us rational people to filter out smut.

The only downside for all the crazy porn addicts, is that they'll no longer be able to view porn at work. Big deal, you should be WORKING. Go Home.
Besides for them there might be a positive side, now you can go to www."whatever your fetish is".xxx and never have to search for porn again.


I think MANDATING that Porn sites must go to .xxx is irrational. The web is world-wide, its impossible to do with one law. Besides, the government isnt into BANNING. They like to do things like tax improper domain use.


And for all you conspiricy theorists, you will ALWAYS be able to get porn. Whether thats through proxies, p2p or your dirty smut shops. First Ammendment still exists, and money talks.



I say yea for .xxx Better organize the web, and give people power over what they do and DONT want to see at home.