Manage updates with the Download App
- Related Stories
-
ICANN drops plan to approve .xxx
December 2, 2005 -
Decision on .xxx domain delayed again
September 16, 2005 -
The Internet again in the political crosshairs
August 29, 2005 -
Vote on .xxx pushed back a month
August 16, 2005 -
Bush administration objects to .xxx domains
August 15, 2005 -
The politics of .xxx
June 6, 2005 -
Is the new .xxx domain a good idea?
June 3, 2005 -
Porn-friendly '.xxx' domains approved
June 1, 2005 -
New Net domains near approval
October 29, 2004 -
The battle over triple 'x'
March 22, 2004 -
ICANN surveys proposed Net domains
March 19, 2004
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?
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
83 comments
Join the conversation! Add your comment
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: <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://domainnamewire.com/survey" target="_newWindow">http://domainnamewire.com/survey</a>
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.
-sd
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.
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.
.xxx will cost much more than .com, and they see how much
money porno industry makes so they want a piece of it.
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.
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.
The Internet is for Porn ok?
:)
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.
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.
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?
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.
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.icmregistry.com/legalprotections.pdf" target="_newWindow">http://www.icmregistry.com/legalprotections.pdf</a>
Their board of directors has only one position for a child advocate (out of 7 )
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.iffor.org/images/IFFOR_Org_Chart.gif" target="_newWindow">http://www.iffor.org/images/IFFOR_Org_Chart.gif</a>
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 <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.cybertelecom.org/dns/truth.htm" target="_newWindow">http://www.cybertelecom.org/dns/truth.htm</a>. 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.
.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.
:)
You'd make a good replacement for the author at Cnet.
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.
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
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.missingchildrenblog.com" target="_newWindow">http://www.missingchildrenblog.com</a>
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.
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
than significant. What makes this article different????
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
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.newsandmediablog.com" target="_newWindow">http://www.newsandmediablog.com</a>
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.wholettheblogout.com" target="_newWindow">http://www.wholettheblogout.com</a>
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.mostwantednewspaper.com" target="_newWindow">http://www.mostwantednewspaper.com</a>
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
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.kidsearchnetwork.org" target="_newWindow">http://www.kidsearchnetwork.org</a>
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.kidsearchnetwork.org/forum/" target="_newWindow">http://www.kidsearchnetwork.org/forum/</a>
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.runawayteens.org" target="_newWindow">http://www.runawayteens.org</a>
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.
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.
Thus falls the whole house of cards your argument created.
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
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.
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 Ive 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:
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.thenewatlantis.com/archive/6/hart.htm" target="_newWindow">http://www.thenewatlantis.com/archive/6/hart.htm</a>
So, you are free to put iron curtain like blinds on your windows. Let me handle mines.
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.
- 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
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.
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?
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.
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
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.bladam.com/" target="_newWindow">http://www.bladam.com/</a> <-- Life, Liberty, Love and Stuff
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.
>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 isnt 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 TLDs 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 dont 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 dont 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.