Perspective: Time for a .xxx domain?

There's no use in hiding from the truth. Adult content, including explicit sexual pornography, runs rampant on the Internet.

Internet users can implement specific searches looking for such content and, normally, they will find what they are looking for. Other times, people inadvertently will stumble onto such explicit content when searching for something else. Indeed, while a domain name may give one the impression that the site is suitable for a general audience of all ages, it may well turn out that the site displays graphic sexual content that is inappropriate for minors and for adults not wishing to view such content. So, what to do?

Internet users could more easily judge, based on seeing a .xxx domain name, what kind of content a site would feature before even clicking on a link to it.

One proposed concept has been a .xxx Internet domain for sex-oriented Web sites. Just like .com is designed for businesses, .gov for government, and .edu for educational institutions, the idea behind .xxx is that there would be a specific domain name category for adult Web sites with sexual content. Internet users could more easily judge, based on seeing a .xxx domain name, what kind of content a site would feature before even clicking on a link to it.

The Internet Corporation of Assigned Names and Numbers, or ICANN, is awaiting recommendations from a particular committee that is evaluating this proposal. ICANN had been proceeding with its evaluation of the proposal until the U.S. Department of Commerce sought more time to hear objections. ICANN cannot move forward without Commerce Department approval. At this point, it is not clear when the proposal will be fully and finally evaluated.

The proposal has had its share of critics. Some of them claim that a .xxx domain would provide legitimacy to the pornography industry. Supporters claim that a .xxx domain would make it easier for people to filter out content they do not want.

Time will tell in terms of where this all is heading. Your humble author believes that information is power. Namely, if one knows in advance the type of content displayed on a Web site by way of a domain name designation, that individual then has the power and free will to decide whether or not to view that content. That is better than stumbling onto content that does meet one's standards of suitability and taste.

Biography
Eric J. Sinrod is a partner in the San Francisco office of Duane Morris. His focus includes information technology and intellectual-property disputes. To receive his weekly columns, send an e-mail to [e-mail] with "Subscribe" in the subject line. This column is prepared and published for informational purposes only, and it should not be construed as legal advice. The views expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the author's law firm or its individual partners.

More Perspectives

[andrew999999999]

xxx delay controversy

Wired just named the .xxx delay one of the 10 worst tech moments of 2005 ( see http://domainnamewire.com/2005/12/27/wired-magazine-xxx-worst-tech-moment-of-2005/ ).

One of the survey questions in the 2006 Domain Name Wire survey is whether the .xxx domain should be approved. So far respondents are in favor of .xxx, but not by much. The survey info is here: http://domainnamewire.com/survey

Nothing new

This article contributes nothing new. It simply rehashes an old argument, provides a link to an article about the Bush administration opposing it, poorly summarizes the debate, and then lends the author's credence to those supporting such a domain.

I object to this type of TLD creation, for both moral and technical reasons. However, I would desire more intelligent debate, not just a rehash of old arguments. It does nothing for either camp to simply chew on talking points.

[SteveDave2]

Please explain

I understand why someone would be morally opposed to having a .xxx domain, but why are you technically opposed to it? Just curious.

-sd

[CloakedMirror]

Not really anything new

Proposals for this TLD have been made several times in the past. I proposed something similar back in the mid-90's, just as use of the web was getting going. The thing I find interesting/disappointing is that the US administration (via the Dept. of Commerce) is trying to put a damper on the situation. Perhaps the companies that produce products like Net-Nanny are pushing to keep it from happening, since it might make it easier to filter content without them.

[fredmenace]

The biggest problem with .xxx...

...is that it wasn't done 10 years ago. I definitely agree with you on this.

The "porn is taking over the Internet and you can't escape from it (or protect your kids from it)" problem likely would never have been perceived as a problem in the first place. Presumably most ISPs, schools, libraries, workplaces (as well as web browsers, search engines, email programs, etc.) would allow the option (perhaps even set as the default) not to display .xxx pages or results and to automatically junk/delete email from @xxx. This wouldn't make it impossible to access, just less convenient, far more unlikely you'd stumble across it by accident, and easier to shield kids from it.

It also might allow for more restrictive policies outside of .xxx, in the sense that community standards could legitimately be invoked without trampling on free speech rights. For instance, porn sites outside of .xxx might need to present only a roughly "PG-13" type appearance in areas that would be accessable by minors (requiring, for instance, a credit card or some other form of adult verification to log in before seeing even previews that are explicit - I know, some kids have access to credit cards, but usually either their parents will be monitoring activity on those cards or have given their kids a great deal of trust), and such laws might actually have a chance of standing (though they still might not). This is similar to the covers of magazines and videos sold in mainstream stores being tamer than their contents, or else being covered up, with the rack in plain sight of employees to discourage kids from browsing (but without going to the extreme being behind the counter and under lock and key). But hopefully nearly all pornographers would move to .xxx voluntarily, removing the perceived need to tighten community standards in the first place. At present, these two interests butt heads, and pornography almost always wins.

In my opinion, the people opposed to .xxx aren't really interested in protecting kids (any more than those opposed to condoms are actually interested in reducing unwanted pregnancy, abortion, or STDs), or even allowing porn to co-exist the way it does in other domains (such as adult book or video stores, adult sections of stores, adult magazine racks, adult movie channels, etc.); they want to wipe it out completely, to outlaw all forms of pornography (as well as anything they consider "deviant" sexual behavior) for all people. For better or for worse, they are never going to succeed due to free-speech rights, but they can sure waste a lot of time, **** a lot of people off, and kill off rational approaches to solving the problem in the meantime by opposing anything that in any way appears to legitimize porn.

[Goose]

Amen

I do enjoy porn and I can openly admit it (unlike most)
But I think ALL porn sites should be forced to .xxx and give
up .coms, like whitehouse.com
It should be punishable, criminal offense to use other extensions
for porno.
I don't want my kid to stumble on x-rated material and if all
porno sites share .xxx extension, it would be very easy to filter
it out.
This is why control over extensions should be in international
hands and not in US Senators hands.

[thedreaming]

the truth

I think the problem is that they don't want to move all the adult content to a .xxx domain because then they can clearly see just how much of it there is on the net but it would make filtering it all out easier, just don't allow anything from the .xxx and as long as all adult content stays there, the rest of the internet should be clean, at least from porn.

[Goose]

or...

or maybe they want to make money off of it?
.xxx will cost much more than .com, and they see how much
money porno industry makes so they want a piece of it.

[edrudis]

Why not?

The different cities (in Europe) I know only have problems with the sex industry when it is practiced in the open. An .xxx TDL is the equivalent to a "red light disctrict" in Internet. If you feel like it you go in if you don't you avoid it. No surprises.

[asbreger]

Long Overdue

Anyone who feels that this would just legitimize the adult industry in the internet is in serious denial, or is living in a cave. Any tool that can help insulate children or adults (not wishing to come across this content) is a good tool. Rather than and extension of .xxx how about .mat for mature content.

[USA dad]

Adult Websites are here to stay

Adult websites are the biggest thing on the internet and are not going to go away. I don't see what the problem is with requiring an .xxx designation. Anyone (adult or child) who surfs the net, or gets unfiltered email, knows how prevelent it is. I have heard that there are hundreds of thousands of porn sites and that they are the greatest money producers on the internet. How can anyone say they are not already legitimate? They are here, they are making money, and they are not going away. Mr. Bush and his cronies are not going to make it go away, .xxx or not.
I'm in favor of the .xxx, because I know how many children surf and have seen how often they are hit with a porn site pop-up, or accidently find a porn website. I found out about "whitehouse.com", the same way that my nephew did. Fortunately, it is tame compared to many of the sites out there. An .xxx designation would make it easier for parents to filter. Just like cable TV, if you don't want to watch explicit material, you can go to another channel, .xxx would just make it easier to find or avoid.

[Liquid06]

Just Accept It!

Agree that anyone who doesn't see that the porn industry is here to stay must be computer illiterate or in complete denial. I think a .xxx would be a great way to filter unwanted porn. The only trouble is that it hasn't happened yet.

I don't need the internet to be as unpredictable as p2p software turning up hardcore porn with any search topic or filename. I searched for "Sheet music popular" and turned up nothing but porn on my p2p interface. I don't like it when my internet browsing becomes like that.

Maybe you see a myspace profile with a suggestive image, then a couple clicks later it's not acceptable anymore. A .xxx would let any user know when they've crossed that line if they haven't already realized it.

*Agree* with the person who likened it to the red light district of the internet. Kudos.

[Liquid06]

oh yeah...

http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/internet4porn

The Internet is for Porn ok?

:)

[tpluma]

xxx domain not going to help

Many consumers, including concerned parents & network administrators think that by simply designating a site with an .xxx that they'll be able to block or filter all porn from showing up. Well, sure they'll be able to filter out an .xxx TLD but since there's no requirement that existing porn sites move to an .xxx TLD (and probably never will be due to free speach protections) they're still going to see tons of adult sites.

The only thing .xxx will do is double the amount of porn on the Internet because not one adult webmaster will abandon their .com TLD but will, rather, simply add or copy their site(s) to the .xxx TLD to increase their presense and income.

Bottom line is that .xxx is being pushed by the guys who will profit from it and will do nothing to protect our children or employees from accessing porn either intentionally or inadvertantly so I say drop the .xxx proposal.

[fredmenace]

I disagree

There is no requirement now, but I can imagine "comunity standards" laws that say "porn is OK, but it needs to be in an appropriate place", and that such laws might stand where "porn is banned on the Internet" would not. (I am not sure that even such laws would pass muster, particularly considering the global nature of the Internet, but even the threat of them would prompt most porn operators to move their content over, and many would want to have done that even without any legal threat.)

In general, migrating over to .xxx should be easy and cheap to do. You may think it increases their business by providing two sources, but I doubt that's how it will happen. Many will remove most explicit content from .com, and with the .xxx blocked by many homes, schools, libraries, businesses, and other locations, a smaller number of people will have access to them. I think their business will be about the same either way, but porn will become less visible on the Internet generally, and there will eventually be less confusion, less "guess whether that domain name is suggestive, and thus likely to be porn" (let alone "I'm looking for the President of the United States. How did I get to a porn site???").

Also, while it will take a while to migrate the content over, and they may not actually give up the .com domains, I expect that before too long the .com site will only be a suggestive portal that leads to the explicit .xxx site where the actual hardcore content is.

[pfn92]

who is against this?

I agree that there is probably a large group of people who are against this as it might be seen as "validating" porn. They are foolish and yes, as someone already stated, not really concerned about children as they may say.
BUT I think a large portion of the porn industry is against it too. They probably get a good portion of their business by "hooking" people into it who weren't really looking. (Really, I read recently that at some of these "rehab" clinics that treat addictions, people addicted to porn and sex outnumber all the rest-- so "getting hooked" is a serious issue.)
Also, I'm guessing that if there is a .xxx domain, it will be harder for a lot of porn surfers to do it as secretly as they may wish-- and that secrecy is the lifeblood of the industry.
Anyone ever hear the "porn industry's" take on this?

[joezeppy]

.XXX Is Not a Good Idea

Articles like this prove that .xxx is a bad idea. This writer has not researched this topic enough. He states that "information is power". Unfortunately, the campaign for .xxx is too full of misinformation.

Here's proof. About 5 out of the 10 responses to this article (and the author himself) have intimated that they believe that .xxx would make it easier to filter out porn. One of them actually stated that he hopes that most adult webmasters would migrate to .xxx voluntarily.

This is the same message that unsuspecting parents are getting about the .xxx proposal and it is completely wrong. Adult webmasters will not migrate voluntarily. It would cost them too much money.

All that .xxx will do (in its present form) is to more completely confuse parents who really need easier ways to protect their kids online without having to ban them from going online at all.

For it to work, the .xxx proposal must be accompanied by some type of legislation that would force adult sites to migrate away from the .com, .net, and .org endings. Otherwise adult sites will keep their (very profitable) .com sites and just have more space to expand. Nothing more. Parents will just be more misinformed, confused, and more ill prepared on how to deal with the problem.

The .xxx proposal as is, contains no rule nor any compelling reason for adult webmasters to move away from .com. In fact the organization behind it has publicly committed over $250 thousand dollars to fight any efforts to require adult content to migrate to .xxx.
http://www.icmregistry.com/legalprotections.pdf

Their board of directors has only one position for a child advocate (out of 7 )
http://www.iffor.org/images/IFFOR_Org_Chart.gif

The entire concept is fraught with misunderstandings because .xxx has tried to frame this as an effort to "safeguard children online". It just is not that.

So what will end up happening is that parents will take comfort in the message that .XXX is the only place where adult sites will be found, or that they can now solve the problem by just filtering out .xxx sites. At the same time, nothing will have changed. Children will still have easy access to pornographic sites just like they do today. More confusion will ensue.

By the way, two things to this author...

1. There is already a law against showing adult content on innocuous domain names called the Truth in Domains Act http://www.cybertelecom.org/dns/truth.htm. It is one of the reasons that whitehouse.com changed its act so at least it is working in the most egregious cases.

2. .Com is nothing like .gov or .edu. Both .gov and .edu attempt to enforce standards before allowing domain registrations. You cannot typically register a .gov or a .edu if you are not a government entity or a bona fide educational institution. All you need to register a .com is a credit card, nothing more; no qualifications at all.

Finally, there is some merit in a Virtual Red Light District. If ICM (The sponsor of .xxx) really wants to safeguard children online, here is what they should do...

1. Work with the U.S. and any cooperating governments to get laws passed that would require adult sites to migrate to an adult domain. Just start with the U.S. and Canada and go from there. I'm sure many countries would cooperate and others would follow.

Some might not want to follow and if that's the case, let them remain the countries that want to allow easy access to porn for kids and a convenient set of country codes for parents to filter out.

Your company has access to most governments at the ICANN meetings ( www.icann.org ). Talk to them.

2. Choose a less offensive ending. There is plenty of adult content which is not necessarily .xxx. I prefer a ".adult" ending which translates pretty closely in many Latin languages and which doesn't matter for most of the other languages since the English Language Internet still doesn't translate well yet anyway.

.adulto - Spanish
.adulte - French
.adulto - Italian
.adulto - Portuguese
.Erwachsener - German (oh well)

One poster above suggested .mat (for mature). That's interesting as well.

3. Create a Board structure that truly would "safeguard children online". Get proven children's advocate organizations to participate in what is now a puppet IFFOR (IMHO).

4. Dump the $250 thousand dollar fund designated for fighting any efforts to require adult sites to migrate to .xxx (or .adult or .mat, or .whatever). That action would create a sense that you really are trying to safeguard children.

[booboo1243]

Exactly

The author of this article has either failed to do his research (and been fooled entirely by the porn industry) or he's in cahoots with them to get .xxx created as is.

.xxx is only worthwhile if the pornography is isolated to that domain but currently most of the porn industry is on record as planning to keep their .com addresses and even actively fighting any attempt to isolate them to one domain.

There is another side to this though, who's going to decide something is pornographic as opposed to "artistic"? There's the seed for a huge series of new battles right there.

For now though, unless the porn industry is completely moved to the new domain there's no reason for it to have a domain.

[just_some_guy]

You are the only one here that get's it.

Congratulations!

:)

You'd make a good replacement for the author at Cnet.

[rob_easton]

Very thoughtful

I like these comments, very well thought out, I agree that some kind of legislation and some other .domain would be good ideas.

[fredmenace]

Odd

You make some interesting points; however, the gist of your arugment seems to be that .xxx actually IS a good idea, which contradicts your subject line. You just don't want it to be called ".xxx". Suggesting ".adult" as an alternative is a valid argument, and I have no particular opinion regarding what it's called. That doesn't make it a bad idea, it's just a detail.

You say parents will be more misinformed and confused. Why? How could it be worse than today? How is having to deal with a universe of porn sites better than having to deal with only a galaxy of porn sites? (I mean, it might not be measurably better at first, but how could it be WORSE?) Are you saying that if you can't filter 100% of porn sites, you shouldn't filter them at all? If you can't get none, you'd rather have all than just some?

What WILL confuse parents, more likely, is when politicians smile and shake hands saying they've just banned porn outside of .xxx... Then parents WILL think the problem is solved. Simply creating a domain is not going to make anyone think porn is going to disappear overnight.

In addition, you want laws passed to require its use. Such laws will likely follow anyway (though they may or may not stand as constitutional) - laws have already been passed banning porn on the net (that were later struck down); I don't know why they wouldn't try again, especially if it now can say "porn is ok, but must be in an appropriate place", which seems more likely to pass muster with the Supreme Court. But I don't see why the existence of .xxx should be predicated on first having the laws in place. This doesn't make any sense to me. Some of you are assuming that all pornographers will resist .xxx and really want to be out in .com land luring kids and nuns to go to porn sites until they are legally compelled to stop. I don't think this is actually the case and I expect they are resisting legal solutions more as a matter of principle and because any business will tend to oppose legislation regulating its industry, and also because they don't want some drop-dead date that they suddenly have to be in compliance. In addition, they want to keep their .com domains as entrance portals, even if the actual hardcore content is moved to .xxx. Let's just see what happens, the laws may not even be necessary (though they're likely to happen eventually anyway). The WORST that could happen is that nothing will change, which is what will happen anyway if .xxx (or whatever it might be called) is not approved.

[namecritic]

some good points

But overly optimistic. $250,000 is a drop in the bucket compared to what companies that have domain names like sex.com that is worth 18 million dollars.

Their first question might be, who is going to reimburse these legal businesses for the cost of their domain names in.com, .net, etc. Who is going to reimburse them for the marketing expenditures that has built up their traffic to the point it is at now?

The fact is, porn websites are legal. The supreme court has determined they are protected as free speech.

The fact is, they are businesses and in the eyes of the law, legal businesses.

The fact is they have spent millions marketing their businesses and some are multi-million dollar corporations that wallstreet sells stock in.

The fact is that US Laws will not matter to those who are in or who would move to other countries.

The fact is, most adult businesses do not "target" children or teens. They are there to make a profit. They can't make a profit selling porn to those that do not have the money to buy it.

Fact is, that those who don't care who accesses their porn content, the sleaze of the industry, will never adhere to new laws. They already ignore the laws that are in place.

The fact is, the two largest distributors of porn in the US have been AT&T and GM.

Google, Yahoo, MSN, AOL and all the other major companies who make money making it easy to find porn on demand are not going to go away.

Fact is the TLD, the part of the domain name after the dot, doesn't matter at all. People use search engines and they click links. They do not check the tld first or care how the domain name system works. They care only that click here takes them where they want to go.

Fact is, I support .xxx being created as well as .cars, .lawyer, .doctor, and thousands of other tlds. I support tlds that are in other languages being created. Limiting or governing which tlds are acceptable and which are not is restraint of trade. ICANN, nor the governemnt, should be able to tell us what is or is not a viable or legitimate tld. Let the market decide.

Fact is, there is no technical reason that any new tlds or thousands of new tlds cannot be created by companies who wish to market their domain names on.

The fact is, as parents we need to educate our children and be involved in their lives to the point that they will not go to websites that have porn on them and that if they do happen across it anyway, they should tell you and you, as a parent should take the time to report these to the proper authorities. Obscenity laws do exist.

Chris McElroy
http://www.missingchildrenblog.com

[RoutinelyCalled]

Let the gov't decide?

The real reason the .xxx domain is a bad idea is because the only way it could work it to force all porn websites to move off the .com domain and into .xxx domain. And the only way to do that in the US would be to pass a law.

And that opens the door to (depending on the whims of the party in power) requiring other "types" of websites to be segregated to their own TLD. All sites about gay interests would need to move to the .gay domain (to protect children from the horrific gay community) and all pro-choice websites could be forced to register in the .kill domain world (to segregate baby-killers from civilized society's web), etc.

This .xxx idea would never work as intended, and if it did (as I've described), stay tuned for a run on internet freedoms.

[tomhymes]

.XXX Domain a Very Bad Idea

Mr. Sinrod fails to mention that the application currently before ICANN is for a voluntary .XXX top-level domain, which means that some people will park their sites there and some will not. Therefore, it will be of very limited use as far as getting a handle on the global proliferation of adult websites.

It is also a sponsored application, which means that the industry in question, in this case the adlut entertainment industry, must approve of the idea. I am the Communication Director for the Free Speech Coalition, the trade assiciation for that industry, and it is quite clear to us that the applicants have no such mandate from the industry. Far from it.

But there is another reason why .XXX is a terrible idea. Yes, it would help allow people and institutions to filter out that domain, which could lead to serious censorship problems. But even worse, whole countries could filter out the domain, and if you can filter it, you can track it. We are very concerned that .XXX will give repressive countries yet another tool to repress their own citizens. What about those unwitting people who try to access a .XXX website and a short time later get a knock on the door from the authorities? Why would ICANN even consider handing over a potential tool of repression to contries who would surely use it?

No, there is no reason for .XXX other than to make a few people rich at th expense of many. It is a bad idea that will not work.

Tom Hymes
The Free Speech Coalition
www.freespeechcoalition.com

[icanmold]

Dvorak's written about this a bunch

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,1896410,00.asp

[Earl Benser]

And.....????

Dvorak's written about all sorts of things, must of which are less
than significant. What makes this article different????

[namecritic]

ludicrous

And what makes you think those porn websites with a .com name, a .net name, or another name in other tlds is going to give up their current domain name for a .xxx?

There will still be porn websites out there that are already built and getting traffic. This tld .xxx just gives them more space for more websites.

I'm all for opening up the market to allow all sorts of tlds to be created. In a free enterprise based society, it's the only solution.

But to think it will somehow help with the porn situation is ludicrous.

Chris McElroy
http://www.newsandmediablog.com
http://www.wholettheblogout.com
http://www.mostwantednewspaper.com

[namecritic]

And . . . BE A PARENT!

Something most do not realize, is that people who are in the porn industry are in it for the money.

Since children do not have money, they do not "target" children. They might not do anything to keep children from seeing it, which is bad enough, but they have no financial interest in targeting children.

This is simply a tactic used by those who oppose the industry to get people on their side.

The supreme court has upheld porn as free speech. That makes it legal. We cannot change that no matter how many pictures we paint of them trying to "target" children specifically.

It's easier to believe they do target children than it is to admit as parents that we did not monitor our children's activities or worse yet, THAT OUR CHILD ACTUALLY WENT OUT AND LOOKED FOR IT.

Many men, if they are honest will admit that when they were young, they sneaked into the garage or the attic and looked a dad's old playboys or found some other way to access porn in the pre-internet days.

I'm just saying don't assume that whenever you find porn on your computer that someone sneaked it on there to expose your child to it.

Put your computer in a common area and restrict your child's use of that computer. Don't use it as a babysitter, then expect the government to police the internet so you don't have to bother parenting your child.

One of the biggest current child porn problems is teenagers using their webcams to take off their clothes and commit sexual acts for men to pay them money through paypal. These teens are doing this in their own home. Where are their parents?

Before you flame me on this thread as if I am pro-porn, think twice. I run a nonprofit missing children organization. I teach children how to be safe on the Internet. I teach parents how to keep their children safe from online predators.

I am not pro-porn. I am pro-be-a-parent-and-know-what-your-child-is-doing-online. I am anti-let-the-government-solve-all-my-problems-for-me.

Chris McElroy
http://www.kidsearchnetwork.org
http://www.kidsearchnetwork.org/forum/
http://www.runawayteens.org

".xxx" WONT "protect children". But then, it ISNT really designed to...

(I have already posted this before, 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.

More-over, I find it particularly telling that many of those that support the ".xxx" domain the loudest, just cannot seam to refrain from embarking on a continual-series of tirades against virtually all forms of "sexually explicit material" every time they are, supposedly, just trying "...to protect children".

Let me put this bluntly. These people ARE very-clearly, MERELY EXPLOITING, "children" as a means to achieve their desired-end of CENSORING a large swath of "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 so-called "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". So, 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 web-sites which do 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, if this ".xxx domain" is pushed through, 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 have been 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 a much more burdensome form of 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 legislative-means, to implement these same 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.


And finally, it should be noted that the "Bush administration" which originally supported this ".xxx" domain, next, quite surprisingly (sarcasm intended), stated that they opposed the very initiative that THEY promoted in the first place (isnt politics great). But of course, I expect that in the end, the administration 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-protected free-speech.

...All in the name of, "...protecting the children", ...of course.

[James_U]

Yes, It Will

I am going to assume that you fully understand the pervasiveness and ease of access to the most graphic, vile content imaginable on the Web. This content is extremely harmful to people whose minds are still developing. What illegal drugs are to the body, pornography is to the mind, particularly for younger people. This is why we have different laws for our children. Even without laws, inate common sense instinctively causes a parent to want to protect their young.

To say that this is not for children is simply incorrect. It is a step in the right direction, and lays the foundation for helping to prevent further damage to our younger population. It would be far easier for parents, who are often less technically sophisticated than their kids, to limit their home from filth with this. It is also easier for business and government to take action as well.

Furthermore, to call this child "exploitation" is sad. Parents care about their children, whether they are the "church goers" you refer to or whether they are not. Anything that will help them protect/limit their children from expousre to something that can harm them is welcomed by nearly all parents.

I applaud this, and all other actions, that introduce some common sense into this issue. Without any action, this problem will only get worse, and yes, our children will suffer the most. There is a reason the industy is referred to as "adult". That means it is not for children.

[aabcdefghij987654321]

Reality check? -- You fell off the clue boat.

You said that the US and China plus "other" groups you didn't name pushed for this .xxx domain. That's wrong, totally worng. It's the US government which used it's limited oversight to STOP the .xxx domain and it's the PORN industry which lobbied for the creation of the domain.

Thus falls the whole house of cards your argument created.

[aabcdefghij987654321]

This guy addressed that subject months ago along same lines

Not a copy paste but pretty close...

Boring... we could just copy paste the previous discussion.

My advice: put blinders on so that you don't see what you don't like

[Bob Brinkman]

I'm glad some one else noticed

That they are running this over and over

[MTGrizzly]

A Bad Idea...

The idea of a ".xxx" TLD is a phenomenally bad idea for several reasons:

The proposal for the ".xxx" TLD is not a proposal to "protect children" or any other noble, (real or imagined), cause. It was made by a commercial registrar seeking to make profit off others by selling them something. The idea that it might do anything but make them a profit didn't even enter in to it. All the extraneous stuff has been brought up, to the benefit of the registrar, by other people. I believe this was intentional on the part of the registrar.

Although, at the current time, the proposal is for voluntary sequestering of websites with adult content, ("WWAC"), within weeks of the ".xxx" TLD being proposed, bills were introduced in both houses of congress to require all WWAC's to use the ".xxx" TLD ONLY. I believe this is what the persons proposing the TLD were counting on. If movement to the new TLD is volunatary, no one will use it. Especially since the company managing the new TLD wants to charge $70 a year for domain registrations. There is no way maintenance of this TLD will be economically feasible unless WWAC's are forced to migrate there. The registrar is counting on the government forcing WWAC's to them and, thereby, giving them a guaranteed income stream.

Many WWAC's have invested millions of dollars in promoting their domain names. As a result, these domain names are worth quite a bit. Forcing the abandonment of these domain names and moving to the ".xxx" TLD could, potentially, constitute an unlawful "taking" without due process of law. It would be disingenous to think that, once WWAC's were forced to give up these widely publicized ".com," et cetera domain names, that others would not register them and use the "value" added to them by the their former owners. For this reason, the owners of these websites will not, voluntarily, give them up. Given the amount of money involved in WWAC's, they will fight in the courts to keep the domain names they have spent so much money on.

The suggestion by one poster that access to domains in the ".xxx" TLD could be regulated by "adult verfication" - i.e.; credit cards - has already been struck down by the supremes when they declared that part of the Computer Decency Act unconstitutional. Any attept to restrict access to content - on the Internet or elsewhere - by "generalizing," (such as classifying it as "adult content" and requiring "adult verification"), will, ultimately be judged unconstitutional. History has borne this out on both state and federal levels.

Once all "porn" was forced into the ".xxx" TLD, it would be extremely easy to turn it all off. Instead of having to block thousands of WWAC's, all a government agency would have to do is block one TLD - remove it from the look up tables on the domain servers. If anyone believes this will not happen, they are seriously out of touch with the current political climate in this country. The approval of the ".xxx" is one step a gradual attempt to ban access to all content, (and it will not stop at porn), that the current junta doesn't like.

Just the threat of the government forcing WWAC's onto a "porn domain," as the ".xxx" has been called, will lead to self-censorship by owners of any website that might be considered a WWAC. The current draconian controls - which make all adult content "child porn" until otherwise proven - under Title 42 USC 2275 have already caused hundreds of websites to either self-censor themselves or go off-line because of the danger to the operators of potential criminal investigation and/or prosecution. For these operators, there never will be a finding issued by a court about whether or not what they contain is "obscene" - they have been censored by administrative fiat. They cannot afford to fight the government, so they shut down and, thereby, the government wins. Creation of a ".xxx" TLD will only make this worse.

The biggest problem with the ".xxx" is what constitutes "adult content" or "porn" is not specified. Reasonable persons disagree on this. There is no provision in the proposal for the new TLD as to who will have the authority to determine who must register with it. The bills introduced in congress to require movement of all WWAC's to the new TLD didn't specify who decied what was "adult content," either. Obviously, if movement to the new TLD is made mandantory and what constitutes a WWAC is left up to the registrar, they will have a financial interest in moving as many domains to their service as possible. The government, because of the first amendment, does not have the power to classify speech in a manner that restricts it, unless they restrict it in the least possible way. That means obscenity or child porn.

Like so many other laws, regulations, commercial ideas that purport to "protect the children," the ".xxx" is an unworkable and unconstitutional proposal. If it passes, even before the government tries to make use of the ".xxx" TLD mandantory, it will result in huge court battles that will cost the taxpayers millions. And, in the end, it will be found unconsitutional. Myself, I am tired of "do gooders," moralists and religious fundamentalists supporting and passing laws that any reasonable person can see are unconstitutional. I object to having to finance the court battles that result when legislators pander to the right by passing clearly unconstitutional laws that restrict my freedom of speech in an attempt to further their moralistic agendas. It is the responsibility of legislators to act for the good of the entire population, not just the special interests.

[westrajc]

XXX Domain = "Caution Open Sewer" Sign

Let's face it, the "plumbing" of the Internet, thanks to the pornography industry is laced with open sewers of filth. The easily accessed, spam-marketed cesspools of fecal information are a "drowning" hazard for many, especially children.

Why do we cordon off and post "No Swimming / Danger" warnings at gravel pits, but refuse to do the same thing for online pornography? Have the pornographers, pedophiles and other social degenerates completely purchased the ?right? to define ?free speech??

Now that ICANN has approved the .xxx domain, US legislators need to get busy and pass legislation that forces ISPs to block access to any pornographic content that does not emanate from an .xxx domain extension. They should also require ISPs to offer host-based content filtering that allows every US Internet user the choice of blocking the .xxx domain entirely. Only then will the .xxx domain have any value for the majority of Internet users who are completely fed up and disgusted by the filth that flows so freely throughout the Internet.

As I?ve stated previously, I would personally like to see the legislation go one step further. I believe we should have a special task force, most likely part of the FBI, whose mission it is to conduct Denial of Service attacks on any ISP/Host that KNOWINGLY allows/promotes the transmission of pornography outside of the .xxx domain structure.

"Civil" Libertarians will of course respond to this proposal as a violation of 1st Amendment "Rights," heavy handed and authoritarian. BULLSH!T; No one has the right, under MY Constitution to assault me or trespass on my property. Let's face it, if a pimp pushed his way into my home (spam) and attempted to assault my family by encouraging them to engage in deviant behavior (pornography), I would have the right in all 50 states to put a bullet between their eyes.

If we don't start protecting our virtual homes from cyber criminals, be they sexual predators or thieves, in the same way we protect our physical homes and safety, we will lose the war and our very civilization to the barbarians who even now are swarming the gates.

For those who are interested, I recommend the following article by David B. Hart:
http://www.thenewatlantis.com/archive/6/hart.htm

[booboo1243]

You are not forced to go anywhere

Nobody forces you to open *those* doors. And, no, you do not just "stumble" on them. It is very rare (if ever) that Google returns a porn site when your settings are set "safe".

So, you are free to put iron curtain like blinds on your windows. Let me handle mines.