Slashdot Log In
Senators Renew Call for .XXX Domain
Posted by
Zonk
on Fri Mar 17, 2006 10:20 PM
from the subject-they're-familiar-with dept.
from the subject-they're-familiar-with dept.
An anonymous reader writes "It's an election year again, and the usual PR causes are being picked up. Senators are once again pushing for a .XXX top-level domain to 'corral pornography'." From the article: "The bill suggests, but does not require, that .xxx serve as the domain name ending. Any commercial Internet site or online service that "has as its principal or primary business the making available of material that is harmful to minors" would be required to move its site to that domain. Failure to comply with those requirements would result in civil penalties as determined by the Commerce Department. It's unclear whether the measure will go very far. First of all, it could be struck down as unconstitutional, said Marv Johnson, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union. "
Related Stories
[+]
ICANN Finally Rejects .xxx Domain 245 comments
stalebread writes "Faced with opposition from conservative groups and some pornography Web sites, the Internet's key oversight agency voted Wednesday to reject a proposal to create a red-light district on the Internet." From the article: "In a split 9-5 board decision, the organisation acted ruthlessly, against its own previous position, in order to put an end to an increasingly difficult and controversial issue - the approval of a .xxx top-level domain. The .xxx registry application has been the focus of enormous political pressure on ICANN for the past six months and was used at one point as a political football in a wider tussle for power within the internet."
[+]
Why the .XXX Domain is a Bad Idea That Won't Die 322 comments
Reader tqft tipped us to an opinion piece on the UK site The Guardian, which lays out the reasons why article writer Seth Finkelstein feels the .XXX domain is a terrible idea. You may recall that last year (being an election year and all), the concept of a triple-X ghetto was revived, considered, and then quashed all in the space of a few months. We also recently discussed the fact that the idea just won't die, as the company ICM Registry pushes ICANN to allow them to pass out the names by Summer. Finkelstein primarily argues that the new domain is a bad idea from a business point of view. Ignoring for a moment the issue that much of this content is already labeled, he sees this as primarily a means for ICM Registry to gain a monopoly on what is sure to be a hot-selling product. Speculators, pornographers, and above-board companies will all jump on the namespace in an effort to ensure that their domain is represented ... or not, as the case may be. Where do you fall on this issue? Would a .XXX domain be helpful for parents, or just a political salve/moneymaking scam?
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
pron.awesome (Score:5, Insightful)
I hate grandstanding.
Re:pron.awesome (Score:3, Funny)
porn.com.xxx, porn.net.xxx (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:pron.awesome (Score:5, Funny)
So focus on the family is going to move to family.xxx and the discovery institute is going to have to use discovery.xxx? Sounds like a plan!
Parent
Re:pron.awesome (Score:5, Funny)
A true programmer.
Parent
Re:pron.awesome (Score:5, Insightful)
That's like complaining about being made fun of by spanish grammar nazis when you use english grammar with spanish words...you're still wrong.
Parent
Re:pron.awesome (Score:5, Funny)
I wish it too. I heard a news item a few years back that said, verbatim,
"Scott Peterson told Amber Frey that his wife Laci had died at a party in an attempt to solicit sex."
I almost crashed my car, laughing. For those of you whose first language isn't English, the actual statement should have been:
"In an attempt to solicit sex at a party, Scott Peterson told Amber Frey that his wife Laci had died."
Damn those clause modifiers.
Solomon Chang
Parent
Re:pron.awesome (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:pron.awesome (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:pron.awesome (Score:5, Insightful)
There was an advert a few years for shower gel that had been shown all around Europe without any problems but provoked major complaints in Britain. The reason? It showed a naked woman in the shower and you saw her erect nipple for all of 2 seconds. Sad. Time we all grew up and started treating sex as part of life, not some dirty secret to be embarrassed about.
Parent
Re:Hmmm, I seem to recall a (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not so much a matter of "the Bible says X, so we believe in X" as it is "we want Y, let's find support in the Bible".
Parent
Re:pron.awesome (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, freedom of speech does mean unlimited distribution. That's what the word "freedom" means - that no one tries to stop you. As for the material distributed being "sleazy", that is an appeal to emotion as well as ad hominem attack. Sleaze is in the eye of the beholder - the exact same pic could appear in a porn site or a breast cancer information site.
I didn't know that there was a law about the correct use of ".org" domain. Nor does it matter, since it is a lot easier to make appeals to emotion (like you did) for censoring the xxx domain, while it is a lot harder to use "save the children" -arguments to get rid of the org domain webpages.
False argument. New York Times is a privately owned newspaper, and no one has argued that it should be forced to carry your writings. No, the argument for the XXX domain is analogous to making it illegal to distribute your flyer except in a government-guarded building (the xxx domain), where anyone who enters is logged by traffick analysis and the most politically active groups - such as university students living on campuses - are prevented from entering at all.
Another analogue are the Free Speech Zones - the government doesn't need to silence its critics as long as it can simply move them where no one can hear them. That works as well and pays lip service to the law.
Parent
OK, I knew they were pervs.... (Score:5, Funny)
What will their wives say? (And you can leave Barney Frank out of that - his "friend" pimped a gay sex ring right out of the Senator's apartment...)
Free Porn (Score:5, Interesting)
For example, a few years back, there was the stupid suggestiong that giving a credit card numbers for age verification would prove a person was old enough to view porn. Getting the credit card number is the hardest part of making an online sale. This idea taught a generation of teenage boys how to steal credit card numbers. It also put a lot of money in the hands of pornographers.
The
Parent
Re:Free Porn (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
This applies everywhere? (Score:5, Insightful)
Which means big freaking whup for internationally hosted sites?
Re:This applies everywhere? (Score:3, Funny)
Oh, No, To war we will we go for the .XXX (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Oh, No, To war we will we go for the .XXX (Score:4, Insightful)
They recently blocked overseas gambling, why not block overseas porn?
Parent
Re:Oh, No, To war we will we go for the .XXX (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Time to register (Score:5, Funny)
BBH
It could be struck down beacuse... (Score:5, Insightful)
There are a lot of places that, surprisingly, are NOT The United States of America. I hear that those places are prone to ignoring laws passed by the United States. I cannot fathom why those things that are not America would not follow our laws, but I do believe it would make it hard to use a United States law to get them to move thier titties and cockies to a different server.
Re:It could be struck down beacuse... (Score:5, Insightful)
You can't get the whole world to switch at the same time. AGREED. But
you can try to achieve it over a longer timespan: You show the example by switching in your own country. Other countries will look at you, and if they think that it's a good idea they will follow.
Pretty much the same happened with Copyright Law. Some countries started it. Year after year more followed because they thought it made sense for them too. Eventually so many countries had a copyright law that they felt the need to standardize (Berne convention). Nowadays almost everyone has it and it is considered "uncivilized" to not have a copyright law, which puts pressure on the few who don't have it.
The same thing could work for this
Parent
Re:It could be struck down beacuse... (Score:5, Insightful)
The same goes with countries fighting drugs at home -- those were profitable businesses that local governments probably didn't care about, until we told them they needed to care if they wanted funding from us.
Yes, it's their choice every time, but let's not pretend it's always about us having bright ideas nobody can resist. We have the market, deep pockets, and military power they can't resist, which is different.
Parent
useful change (Score:5, Insightful)
*If* it could happen, it would be great for many of us who want to block it out. Which is the purpose of the bill, of course.
Any mail that references an
It's also possible for this to happen, I believe, to an extent; at the very least, due to the wonderful recently-showcased fact that the US controls the Internet naming infrastructure. Even foreign sites can be forced to comply by simply removing them from the top-level domains, and threatening to remove sites from top-level domains that host adult content.
One thing I'd worry about though is how one defines what is pornography and what isn't. Is a site that talks about STDs and safe-sex going to be labelled as adults-only by the religious right? Is a nudist colony site pornographic or simply counter-culture? Is a site that has "bad words" an adult site?
I would want to see a very clear, objective, strict, narrow definition of adult/pornographic content for this bill. i.e., "Images displaying sexual intercourse." (That is slightly too narrow, I'd think, but the intent should be clear.)
Re:useful change (Score:5, Insightful)
And by "Republicans", you mean "Democrats":
I know this is a difficult concept for Slashdotters to grasp, but neither party has a monopoly on stupid ideas. Vent your anger at the people doing the harm, not at whichever party is the one you don't happen to affiliate with.
If you're a Democrat, write your senator and tell them that you don't approve of these actions. I, a Republican, have done exactly that several times lately. Maybe if we all do that enough, someone will finally get the idea.
Parent
Harmful? (Score:5, Insightful)
How the hell is porn harmful? That's the worst part of this American culture. Killing people is glorified but OH CHRIST DON'T LET ANYONE BE SEEN MAKING LOVE!
Re:Harmful? (Score:4, Informative)
Exposure to porn makes people more likely to believe that rape is acceptable. Exposure to porn makes people more likely to believe domestic violence is acceptable. Exposure to porn makes people more likely to be opposed to women's rights. Exposure to porn makes people believe fringe sexual activities like beastiality are more common than they really are. Exposure to porn makes people less happy with their own sexual partners and their sex lives.
And that's not even getting into the harm it does to the women actually appearing in pornography. That's just the users.
I used to think porn was harmless too, but there's a whole heap of research that shows it is anything but.
Parent
Re:Harmful? (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, in all fairness, I'm actually for banning American porn.
The bang! bang! 'enjoy what I'm giving ya!'-mentality that seem so amazingly permeant throughout it is fucking degrading and has bloody nothing to do with real life. It teaches people to view women as objects and not as actual persons, which really, really is a dangerous line of thought. Impersonalisation of sex is a bad, bad thing.
My own experiences with young Americans and their views on sex has basically lead me to believe that majority of you are semi-psychopathic, ie unable to empathise and recognize that other people are actual people with feelings. This is scary.
Parent
Once upon a time... (Score:5, Insightful)
There are economist who think like that (Score:5, Interesting)
Now imagine a town that has a problem with thieves breaking windows so they can get into stores and houses to steal TV's. Here is ranking of the TV owners' preferences:
1) No TV's be stolen or windows broken.
2) Windows broken, but no TV's stolen.
3) TV's stolen, but no windows broken.
4) TV's stolen, and window's broken.
Here is the typical thief's order of preference:
1) Get TV's, but not have to break windows.
2) Get TV's and have to break windows.
3) Not get TV's and not have to break windows.
4) Break windows for no reason.
Currently, option number 4) on the TV owners' list, and option 2) on the theives' list are prevailing -- TV owners lose TV's and windows. Thieves get TV's but have to break windows.
Now here's the kicker:
For some economists, an "efficient" move would be to give the thieves free TV's! Why? Well, the thieves are better off -- they get TV's, but no longer have to break windows. The owners are better off because, while they still lose some TV's, at least their windows aren't broken! Everyone wins! Yay!
Except, as anyone with a functioning brain knows, all that would accomplish is that the thieves would get TV's, and then some of them (or newcomers to the thievery profession) would still steal more TV's. The problem, like with the "separate plot for weeds" that you bring up, is that you can't corral thieves by giving them free stuff. Give weeds a place, they'll demand more. Give thieves TV's, and thieves will take more.
It amazes me how the average person sees this, but some economists don't.
Parent
"harmful to minors" (Score:5, Funny)
Going about it all wrong (Score:5, Interesting)
Then let the individual site operators decide whether they want the liability shield. Guess what? They want it. And if that means they elementary schools will have an easy time blocking access I guarantee they won't shed a tear.
Degrading standards of society... (Score:3, Insightful)
Probably constitutional (Score:3)
You people really need to get over the "first amendment + internet = whatever we want" thing.
Hmm.. if this extended to cable television (Score:5, Funny)
There are far more greater dangers our children are exposed to on a daily basis than internet porn. I have a 4 month old and quite frankly my fear that she'll have clean air to breathe is more startling to me than what she might or might not be able to access on the internet. But
This is the result of lazy parents who want their p4 to babysit their children safely, without much attention from them.
Much like our lawmakers, parent's need to understand technology before exposing their children (or their legal pads) to it. I think congressmen should have to display a CCIE / CCIP along with that spiffy Harvard degree if they wish to legislate the portion of the internet US entities serve.
But in the spirit of cooperation and being a good citizen, I'll take ta.xxx please.
Could someone much smarter than I am please calculate the amount of oxygen that has been processed (and wasted) on this effort?
Maybe a .kids domain? (Score:5, Insightful)
By contrast, a
There will always be a clash between people who think that "public space" is "unregulated" space and that people who want "regulated" space should get a private area and people who think that "private space" should not be regulated and that people who want regulation should keep it to the "public areas". Society simply does not agree. That points to the notion that there must always be two kinds of public space, and it should not be thought of as all of one kind. So let there be
Re:Domain Name Squatters (Score:3, Funny)
Re:unconstitutional? (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:inconstitutional? WTF? (Score:5, Insightful)
- "Harmful to minors" is in the eye of the beholder. It is unconstitutional for a law to be vague, since it means people can't know if they're breaking the law or not. Is a warez site "harmful to minors" since it corrupts their morals? How about frank discussions of wartime atrocities? Sites that debunk Santa Claus?
- This particular proposed law would require, for instance, websites for crappy teenage hijinks movies (Dukes of Hazard, etc) to use the
- Laws like this impringe on adults' rights to free speech. Have a blog where you share your innermost thoughts? Hosted on a
And, of course, in addition to the blatant unconstitutionality, there's the fact that it's pointless:
The only solution for this kind of thing is a
-b
Parent
Re:inconstitutional? WTF? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:inconstitutional? WTF? (Score:3, Interesting)
And if Wikipedia doesn't have to split its content off, does that mean that full-on porn sites can simply copy some wikipedia content onto their site, and therefore claim that the site is not primarily/exclusively meant
Re:inconstitutional? WTF? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:inconstitutional? WTF? (Score:3, Interesting)
http://www.artrenewal.org/articles/2003/Best_of_AR C/best1.asp?msg=716&forumID=56 [artrenewal.org]
So what would happen to an art-related site that has nudity, either in the form of art or reference for art? Should it be forced to use
Re:inconstitutional? WTF? (Score:4, Informative)
Its a classic "divide and conquer" move from the religious fundies. The intent behind the .xxx tld is to be able to segregate the porn from the rest of the internet. Once you have achieved that, its a simple matter for fundamentalists to shut down all the pornography on the internets by blocking the domain.
In theory, anyway...
Parent
Re:inconstitutional? WTF? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:inconstitutional? WTF? (Score:3, Funny)
is photographing a naked person porn? two people making love? Is it two people and a donkey covered in Jell-O instant pudding, making love? With half-a-dozen vibrators and bondage tape and a gimp mask?
Yes.
Re:inconstitutional? WTF? (Score:5, Insightful)
-Gloria Leonard
--
BMO
Parent
Re:inconstitutional? WTF? (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm often surprised by how true this is - there's a surprising number of people out there whose sexuality would be considered "deviant" at best by mainstream society, and who will still berate you for being a sick pervert because you have some fetishes they don't have. Talk about cognitive dissonance...
Parent
Re:Come again? (Score:5, Insightful)
They wont pass national healthcare, so millions of children do not have healthcare.
They do not properly fund education, thus hurting millions of children
They allow corperations to dictate our country and outsource jobs at an alarming rate, thus putting the parents of children out of work, thus taking away any healthcare they had. (if they had any)
They send the children of parents off to die in an illegal war, started by the criminals that run our country. Bush, Cheney, Wolfiwitz, Rove, Powell, Delay, Abramof, Frist, Santorem, hatch, Leiberman, Kerry, and countless others... AND the ones that survive... come back seriously injurred and need special care their entire lives... which the government fails to provide.
They most certainly do hurt far more children than all the pedophiles on the planet combined.
Parent