Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Internet Government Politics

New Vote on .xxx Internet Address Nears 214

Posted by Zonk
from the we'll-just-put-you-over-here-then dept.
Billosaur writes "ICANN is once more set to vote on the creation of the .xxx Internet address. Though the proposal has been voted down by ICANN's board twice before the group behind those previous proposals resubmitted after they 'agreed to hire independent organizations to monitor porn sites' compliance with the new rules, which would be developed by a separate body called the International Foundation for Online Responsibility.' Once more the proposal has led to pornographers and religious groups finding themselves on the same side of an issue, the porn industry worried that the domain would lead to government controls, the religious groups worried it would make access too easy and allow porn to expand even further onto the Internet."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

New Vote on .xxx Internet Address Nears

Comments Filter:
  • Why not? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ArcherB (796902) * on Friday March 23, 2007 @06:41PM (#18465819) Journal
    I fail to understand why we DON'T have .xxx domain names. If we did, we could lump all the porn sites together, making them both easier to find and easier to block. No one would accidentally stumble upon a porn site while looking for something completely unrelated (remember whitehouse.com?). This also gives the added advantage of freeing up porn sites to do more of whatever it is they wish to do. Gone is the excuse of "What about the children?" because blocking it would be so easy, than even an ISP could do it. Imagine, all you have to do is call your ISP and say, "Please block all html-based porn. Thank you." All your ISP would need to do is simply block all .xxx domain names. Your children are safe and porn operators have that much more freedom!

    I don't understand how this is NOT a win-win for everyone! (Except for those that either want to block porn altogether and those that want to make it that much easier to "stumble on." F*ck both those groups!)
    • by uberjoe (726765) on Friday March 23, 2007 @06:45PM (#18465869)
      The problem is that there is no way to define what IS and IS NOT porn.
      • by ArcherB (796902) *
        The problem is that there is no way to define what IS and IS NOT porn.

        I think it's a bit easier than "I'll know it when I see it."

        How about "if it shows nudity for non-educational purposes." If there's any doubt, you could set up a board or something to decide disputes. It's really not that hard to figure out. (pun not intended!) Ron Jeremy movies were not rated G for a reason.

        • by mrchaotica (681592) * on Friday March 23, 2007 @07:03PM (#18466081)

          How about "if it shows nudity for non-educational purposes."

          Is a family photo album site, which happens to contain pictures of a kid taking a bath, "educational?" Is artistic photography "educational?" I'd say "no" and "no." But neither of them are "porn," either!

          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by ArcherB (796902) *
            Is a family photo album site, which happens to contain pictures of a kid taking a bath, "educational?" Is artistic photography "educational?" I'd say "no" and "no." But neither of them are "porn," either!

            Current laws define what porn is and yeah, it's subjective. Photo processing labs all over the country deal with this every day. Sometimes people get stupid and call the cops over a baby in the bathtub picture. Sometimes, people get stupid and take a picture of their child in the bathtub when the "child"
            • by Cid Highwind (9258) on Friday March 23, 2007 @08:50PM (#18466927) Homepage
              Classifying any given email message as "spam" and "not spam" is fairly easy to do, too. Somehow I don't think that ICANN requiring all spam to be sent from mail servers in some newly-created .spam TLD would change anything at all to the stream of mortgage offers, penis pill ads, and stock scams that fill my inbox every day. My advice to the anti-porn crusaders^W^W .xxx TLD advocates: Have fun playing whack-a-mole with porn sites operated through the same type of tangled web of international ownership and hosting as spam and phishing sites. A decade of fighting with spammers teaches us that forcing a business that operates on the fringes of legality to comply with onerous new policies is very hard.
            • You're being far too US-centric. The proposals you outline might work -- I wouldn't go so far as to say "well," but might actually be feasible -- if you were talking about .xxx.us, but remember, we're talking about a global "porn TLD" here. You're being rather parochial.

              Your definitions of porn aren't going to be the same (or maybe not even close) to what some people in other parts of the world are going to think. Who gets to decide on those "case by case basis" situations you're talking about? You? Mahmoud
        • by mdwh2 (535323) on Friday March 23, 2007 @07:24PM (#18466259) Journal
          How about "if it shows nudity for non-educational purposes."

          What about non-nude pictures which have still been intended for sexual arousal? This is especially the case with less-vanilla stuff like BDSM material. And whilst you and I might count that as erotica rather than pornography, bear in mind that many people and Governments do not (e.g., the UK Government's definition of pornography in their plans to criminalise possession of simulated and consensual "extreme porn" [backlash-uk.org.uk] is any image which was produced for the purposes of arousal, whether or not it shows nudity or sex).

          On the other hand, there could be nude pictures which aren't porn, but aren't educational either. I mean, would a topless woman count? Breastfeeding? What about nudists?

          Another problem, even if we have a fixed definition of porn, is that it's not easily to split everything up into different websites. For example, what if someone wants to post an erotic picture on their LiveJournal? Suddenly we'd have to have LiveJournal.xxx, and split it across two domains.

          Personally I think rather than trying to split off "porn", it would be better to split off a "for kiddies [and anyone offended by stuff they don't have to look at] only" domain, leaving an "adult" Internet for the rest of us.
          • by ArcherB (796902) *
            What about non-nude pictures which have still been intended for sexual arousal? This is especially the case with less-vanilla stuff like BDSM material. And whilst you and I might count that as erotica rather than pornography, bear in mind that many people and Governments do not (e.g., the UK Government's definition of pornography in their plans to criminalise possession of simulated and consensual "extreme porn" is any image which was produced for the purposes of arousal, whether or not it shows nudity or s
            • by dryeo (100693)

              On the other hand, there could be nude pictures which aren't porn, but aren't educational either. I mean, would a topless woman count? Breastfeeding? What about nudists?
              Yes, probably no and yes.

              And yet it quite legal for topless women to walk down the street (and you do see the odd one) in my country (Canada) and not unusual to see a women breast feeding.
              At that in Canada we consider racism much worse then porn eg the famous super bowl with Janet's tit hanging out, the CRTC only got complaints about the beer commercial because it seemed racist.
              Perhaps any racist site should have its own domain as well. And another for sites promoting hatred.

              • by ArcherB (796902) *
                And yet it quite legal for topless women to walk down the street (and you do see the odd one) in my country (Canada) and not unusual to see a women breast feeding.

                Well, I certainly wouldn't consider breast-feeding porn. Quite the opposite, actually. Nothing has turned me off of breasts faster than seeing a woman breastfeed. Not that it's gross or anything, but when you see something used for what nature intended, it kinda takes the thrill out of it!

                But the first part of your argument is best I've read in
            • by 2short (466733)
              Right, so on a subjective, case by case basis, it's "doable" to go with with your personal prejudices. There are wildly varying porn laws on the books in different places, and they mostly don't work very well, and a lot of people don't think they are a great idea. Which ones do you think we should use, the ones from your hometown?
            • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

              I mean, would a topless woman count? Breastfeeding? What about nudists? Yes, probably no and yes.
               
              I think you're forgetting about "National Geographic" type photos of native women in Africa and so on. Would National Geographic have to move to an .xxx domain too?
            • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

              by Kadin2048 (468275)
              Tough call, but there are porn laws on the books now. I don't see why ICANN just adopt some of the currently existing laws and use those. I get your point but I think something like foot-fetish sites would serve as a better example. It will be subjective, no doubt, but it is certainly doable.

              So, which law would you like to use? The U.S.'s? (I mean, obviously we should copy the laws from a country with one of the highest teen-pregnancy rates in the industrialized world -- clearly they must have some good ide
        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by daeg (828071)
          There's no reason for a .xxx TLD. If you are worried about your kids seeing porn, maybe you should examine your parenting, or why your children have unsupervised access to computers to begin with, or perhaps, you should learn to trust and let go. If you can't trust them, examine why.

          Do not thrust your desire for someone else to do your baby sitting and force the creation of even more bureaucracy around the domain system, that, by definition, cannot work. Porn is on the Internet, you cannot regulate it away,
        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by Arcane_Rhino (769339)

          Actually, I think this is one of the few areas where capitalism really could resolve the matter since websites have turned into something of a commodity.

          If a someone wants to make money from porn, their site should be .xxx. So, to use an example from later in this post, if a website called "grape" is a site that depicts naked women doing odd things with grapes, it should be grape.xxx. If "grape" is about the Napa valley it should be grape.com.

          Here is how the capitalism/self policing works out: if the

          • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

            by mdwh2 (535323)
            Here is how the capitalism/self policing works out: if the Napa valley people want the site grape.com but grape.com is full of naked women doing odd things with grapes, they take their case to ICANN and sue for the site name demonstrating that it is a porn site and therefore should have the .xxx domain not the .com domain. Similarly, if farmer Joe discovers that people with foot fetishes drink a lot of wine so buys grape.xxx, but all it really depicts is a bunch of naked feet in grapes, the site that has th
          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by Randseed (132501)

            If a someone wants to make money from porn, their site should be .xxx. So, to use an example from later in this post, if a website called "grape" is a site that depicts naked women doing odd things with grapes, it should be grape.xxx. If "grape" is about the Napa valley it should be grape.com.

            Of course, ICANN, InterNIC, and their ilk completely shot to hell the entire notion of separate TLDs for different kinds of sites when they started giving out random .com, .net, and .org addresses. As far as I'm co

      • Thats why standards were invented. There will of course have to be some sort of rules created to define what constitutes porn. Hopefully standards that are very rigid and simple to cut down on the bickering. No "full nudity is ok if it somehow falls in the domain of "art". As much as I see an arguement for that, it's too easy to just call it all "art" and then the whole thing is useless. Nay, it has to be very simple...like "if the nipple or any identifyable portion thereof is shown in any form and any
        • So, for sake of argument, lets say I setup a site with Girls in business suits but no shoes stomping on grapes. That is the subject of the entire site. Its just barefoot ladies, so it shouldn't be porn, right? What if its setup and marketed as a "fetish" site, does that make it porn? What if I also own a winery, and want to use the same site full of pictures for my .com, and .xxx, would this be allowed?
        • by dryeo (100693)
          So if I take a picture of downtown and there happens to be a topless women (or man) it is porn?
          Some countries do believe in equal rights including the right for any one to take their top off and obviously someone walking down the street is not porn.
          The problem is the USA has some strange ideas about what is porn and doesn't have equal rights or the right to free speech and wants to shove that down everyone else's throat.
          (Most countries don't have free speech either, but at least they don't brag that they do
        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          Thats why standards were invented.

          ... like PICS [w3.org]. Of course, this has already been discussed in RFC 3675 [faqs.org].

      • by drsmithy (35869)

        The problem is that there is no way to define what IS and IS NOT porn.

        The person building the website (you know, the one who goes "I'd like to register penguinsex.xxx thanks") probably has a fairly good idea whether or not his site is pornographic.

      • Yeah I know. Like is furniture porn allowed to have a .xxx domain or not?
        Very tough decisions for ICANN.
    • by spyrral (162842)
      So who decides what goes in the .xxx domain? Who decides what is porn?
      • Re:Why not? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by fyngyrz (762201) * on Friday March 23, 2007 @08:02PM (#18466621) Homepage Journal
        So who decides what goes in the .xxx domain?

        <SARCASM>

        .xxx is for offensive material. Filth. Vice. You know, like Christian and Islamic websites. Surely we need to protect the children from this. They might grow up to be suicide bombers or abortion clinic bombers; get on television and lie to old people in a blatant attempt to extort money from them in return for "prayer." Or they might build on land in your town, claim they don't have to pay taxes, and saddle you and your neighbors with the portion of the tax burden they should be paying. Or they might encourage censorship, even online "ghettos" where material that doesn't fit into their ridiculous mythologies goes to be blocked by ISPs they control through PACs and other unsavory influences.

        Yes, I think we need to move all religious content to a tld such as ".xxx" or ".lie" or ".myth" so we can easily block it. As for sex, no need for that. My kids know sex is perfectly OK, and lying about superstition is not — they're smart kids. No need to lean back towards the dark ages. I was happy for them when they had their first sexual experiences. I'm just as happy they've managed to avoid being conned by these superstitious dimwits, but you know, not all kids are as smart as mine. That is why we have to put religion in its own tld. It must be blocked because I don't like it!

        </SARCASM>

        • Re:Why not? (Score:4, Insightful)

          by arkhan_jg (618674) on Saturday March 24, 2007 @03:50AM (#18468881)
          You know, as a European, I'd actually agree with your argument without the tags... Sex is a perfectly normal thing, and children wanting to learn more about it is also perfectly natural. Statistically, societies with much higher controls on pornography (and the repressive attitude that goes with it) also have much higher rates of teenage pregnancy, as boys work much harder to actually have sex instead of wanking to porn.

          Organised religion on the other hand, is responsible for inciting many of the past - and current - wars and atrocities. Iraq can oh so easily be classified as a religious war, just look at the portrayal of muslims in the US press. There really is a good an argument for filing religous websites away on a separate section we can easily filter - as much as there is for filing away sexual websites, anyway.
      • by drsmithy (35869)

        So who decides what goes in the .xxx domain? Who decides what is porn?

        The person registering the domain.

        "Let's have a .xxx TLD for pornography" and "let's force every pornographic website to use a .xxx TLD" are two very different - and very separate - arguments.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Kadin2048 (468275)
          They're two sides of the same coin; many of the people pushing for .xxx as a TLD are in favor of schemes which could only work if all pornography occurred there. In fact, many of the justifications they use for creating the TLD in the first place (e.g. "protect children") are meaningless if you can't somehow magically put all the porn there.

          If you accept that it's impossible to restrict porn to .xxx, and further realize that most porn sites will just register two domain names, one in .xxx and one in a regul
      • by Joebert (946227)

        So who decides what goes in the .xxx domain? Who decides what is porn?

        Well, if we quit sitting here with our thumbs in our asses talking about it, WE do.

        If it has an concentrated level of nerve endings in it, & you can see it, it's porn.
    • by Khaed (544779)
      Because -- who decides what constitutes porn?

      What guarantees porn sites will move? Some of their .com, .net, .org addresses are well known. Why should they have to move?

      In a perfect world, I'd agree. But as it stands, it just seems like it would cause a lot of fuss, and then we're just going to get a bunch of assholes arguing about what is and isn't pornographical. And trust me -- those people that would be making the decisions are going to be a bunch of assholes.

      And people should start ignoring the "What a
    • Re:Why not? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by solafide (845228) on Friday March 23, 2007 @06:52PM (#18465961) Homepage
      Because nobody will want only a .xxx domain. Let's say you're [pornsitehere].com and the xxx tld gets approved. You can't let [pornsitehere].xxx get snapped up by someone else and feed off the people expecting [pornsitehere].xxx to be the same as [pornsitehere].com. Thus the porn sites will now have 2 addresses: [pornsitehere].com and [pornsitehere].xxx.

      Meanwhile the legitimate high-profile .com sites will also need a .xxx site: there will be misspellings, and imagine the bad rap that, say, Microsoft would get from microsoft.xxx being a porn site. So the legitimate .com site owners will have to buy up the .xxx domains too.

      So now we have everyone buying a new .xxx domain name which points to their original site and keeping their own .com site. No porn site will move to being only .xxx because everyone is used to .coms, and no legitimate business will risk a domain-squatter in the .xxx domain. It's no easier to block porn as before, nor easier to find it. All this does is give the domain registrars more money and the DNS servers more headaches.

      The only possible way of moving all porn to .xxx sites is by legislating it, and it's impossible to have a legislative solution that works, because people's definitions of porn vary. So porn will always be a presence on the internet, and you are still responsible for your own filtering.

      • by fredklein (532096)
        Thus the porn sites will now have 2 addresses: [pornsitehere].com and [pornsitehere].xxx.

        And the .com will redirect to .xxx. At which point it would be blocked by those who block .xxx sites.

        What's the problem?

        the bad rap that, say, Microsoft would get from microsoft.xxx being a porn site.

        Image the lawsuit for using their name without their permission.

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by powerpants (1030280)
        I never realized until now that the name "Microsoft" is so very anti-sexy. That assumes, of course, that "Hugehard" is sexy. I think I got e-mail a while back saying something to that effect.
    • Re:Why not? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by eln (21727) on Friday March 23, 2007 @06:55PM (#18465987) Homepage
      You're trying to segregate objectionable content so you can block it. This just can't work, because everyone's definition of "objectionable" is different. If we decide to do this to porn, what's next? A special TLD for violent content? Or maybe politically objectionable/inconvenient content?

      The only possibly sane way to do this would be to have something like a .kids TLD, and then have kid-friendly sites voluntarily join it. Then you could make a "kid-friendly" browser by allowing access only to stuff in the .kids TLD. Of course, that would mean someone would have to constantly monitor sites on that TLD to make sure no objectionable content shows up. So, that's not really a perfect solution either.

      The bottom line is really that you're trying to mandate a subjective standard through technology, and that sort of thing just doesn't work. You can get rid of the obvious stuff with existing filtering technology, but at the end of the day you still have to actually watch your kids if you want to make sure they stay away from stuff you find objectionable.
      • by Kjella (173770)
        You're trying to segregate objectionable content so you can block it. This just can't work, because everyone's definition of "objectionable" is different.

        Yes, but the definition of illegal isn't. If you have a law that says something to the effect of "it's illegal to give pornography to a minor" there must be some sort of definition, or at least a helluva lot of precedent. Which magazines can a minor buy? What exhibitions can he go to? What cinema pictures can he go to? What videos can he rent/buy? Even if
        • by tm2b (42473)

          Yes, but the definition of illegal isn't. [...] Even if they only used the most liberal standard in Europe, they'd box in quite a lot of undisputably hardcore pornography.

          But that's one of the big problems, isn't it? The Arab countries, for example, have no use for this distinction, and would want their own standand. Meanwhile, the Netherlands and Poland are likely to have different standards as well.

          Time after time, history has shown that classification is the first step to regulation: witness the

      • The only possibly sane way to do this would be to have something like a .kids TLD

        Good grief, no. Use PICS [w3.org].

        (See also: RFC 3675 [faqs.org])

    • Re:Why not? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Penguinisto (415985) on Friday March 23, 2007 @06:56PM (#18466009) Journal
      "I know it when I see it"
      -US Supreme Court Justice Frankfurter, defining obscenity (IIRC)

      Therein lies the problem - what's porn? Nekkid chicks? Nope - half the Smithsonian's art collection would qualify. Is it nekkid people doing the nasty? Umm, nope - plenty of porn sites specialize in costumes and full rubber body suits. Sexual depiction? Well, there goes every health site which does 2d and 3d clinical cut-away renderings showing how human reproduction occurs.

      Also - let's look at a state like Utah... the place is hella restrictive on what it considers "porn"; I could see the Utah state legislature mandating that ALL ISP's who do business there block the entire .xxx TLD from its citizenry. Adults, kids, whomever... everybody looking for pr0n gets the firewall in the land of Deseret. I suspect that more than a few counties and towns/cities/etc in the Southern US would happily pass similar laws (see also alcohol and "Wet Counties" vs. "Dry Counties") Care to be a multi-state or multi-national ISP having to add that selective and patchwork firewall burden to your list of things to do?

      Just looks to be more trouble than it's worth on a macro scale, IMHO.

      /P

      • by ArcherB (796902) *
        Therein lies the problem - what's porn? Nekkid chicks? Nope - half the Smithsonian's art collection would qualify. Is it nekkid people doing the nasty? Umm, nope - plenty of porn sites specialize in costumes and full rubber body suits. Sexual depiction? Well, there goes every health site which does 2d and 3d clinical cut-away renderings showing how human reproduction occurs.

        Difficult to define or enforce should not be a reason to avoid a law. What constitutes murder vs. manslaughter vs self defense? What
        • by geekoid (135745)
          "Should we ban all laws where the crime is not plainly defined? "
          yes.

          "As for porn, it could be as simple as nudity for non-educational purposes. "

          no igt doesn't. SOme people might get off an a statue of David. Now it's porn? some people might just enjoy lokoing at it without any 'educational' value. Now it's porn?

          So a picture of a women on a topless beach is now porn?
          I culd go on and on with examples that wuold cause this to fail.

          "If that's what the good citizens of Utah want, then that is what they should
          • by ArcherB (796902) *
            "Should we ban all laws where the crime is not plainly defined? "
            yes.


            Uh, like rape (vs. rough sex), murder (vs self defense), parody (vs libel or slander), driving while intoxicated (drugs, not alcohol) and the list goes on. So, you are saying we should repeal all these laws because they are subjective? Subjective laws are not a bad laws. They allow for common sense.

            "As for porn, it could be as simple as nudity for non-educational purposes. "
            no igt doesn't. SOme people might get off an a statue of David.
        • Re:Why not? (Score:4, Insightful)

          by Penguinisto (415985) on Friday March 23, 2007 @07:45PM (#18466467) Journal
          "What constitutes murder vs. manslaughter vs self defense?"

          Intent, as proven or disproven before a jury at trial. If the prosecutor screws up and mis-names it, he loses.

          "What is the difference between libel and parody?"

          Intent, as proven or disproven in civil tort at a lawsuit.

          Notice the similarities? The examples you posted as per law require either a trial or lawsuit to hammer out. You, umm, really want to have that happen on a case-by-case basis with (at level best) tens of thousands out of a porn-site ownership pool numbering in the millions, if not tens of millions?

          Notice the differences? The examples you posted involve action against individuals or highly definable entities for the most part (you sue a single entity for libel, you try a single person or at most a small group of persons for murder vs. manslaughter).

          "As for porn, it could be as simple as nudity for non-educational purposes."

          I have a coffee table book at home, called "Fille d' Joie: A History" (IIRC - I'd have to check @ home for the exact title). It contains a rich collection of stories, illustrations, photographs, personal accounts, insights, artifact images, and historical data - from prostitutes, madames, pimps, and historians throughout time. Many of the images in there are rather graphic, and there are probably more than a few sites who would dearly love to make money from displaying most of it - sites which feature pornography from a time when most folks' grandfathers probably spanked their collective monkey to 'em.

          I bought it at the local bookstore, where it sat plain as day, for anyone with the funds and the means to carry it to the checkout stand. As a book, it's apparently just fine for sale in the Historical section where I found it. Online, it would likely get slapped with an ".xxx" TLD. It is after all educational, if one actually reads it. OTOH, anyone dying to get their jollies can prolly just flip through the pictures.

          "Otherwise, don't do business in Utah. What's the problem here?"

          So everyone there will automatically have the means to simply pack up and leave, right? (FWIW, I'd moved out of there a period of time ago). It's very similar to the anti-smoking laws that are soon to hit the state... easy enough to say "well if you want to smoke in a bar, do it in Nevada, or Wyoming, or just move elsewhere..." but for folks not able to simply do so, that's an awful big burden to place on them. I realize that we're just talking ab't pr0n here, but what happens when the subject gets more serious (e.g. anti-smoking laws getting too intrusive, etc)?

          Sure, big ISP's will have local DNS servers in place (but not necessarily per-state). Now they would have to have one per state, or per county or town (in the case of selective county or municipality laws to such an effect, etc)... Do we get to the point where every single IP address user has it's own personal DNS server, and has to to correspond to a physical area just to comply? If so, we'll have to stock up on IPv6, 'cause IPv4 numbers will start getting tight much sooner than anticipated.

          I'm just weighing the benefits vs. burdens, and apparently the burdens win out by a large margin IMHO.

          /P

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by rrohbeck (944847)
        > I could see the Utah state legislature mandating that ALL ISP's who do business there block the entire .xxx TLD from its citizenry.

        Now what I'm wondering is how Utah is going to force all pr0n sites to change their domain name (and give up their old DNS name.) Especially the many sites outside the US. And let alone the many sites that have tame and XXX sections, and much in between. Like blogs, pic sites etc.

        Just making pr0n sites register a .xxx DNS name is going to change nothing at all. Making pr0n
      • by OakLEE (91103)

        "I know it when I see it"

        -US Supreme Court Justice Frankfurter, defining obscenity (IIRC)
        FYI, it was Justice Potter Stewart. Source [wikipedia.org].
    • Re:Why not? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by vivaoporto (1064484) on Friday March 23, 2007 @07:03PM (#18466083)
      If we did, we could lump all the porn sites together, making them both easier to find and easier to block.

      1) Will it be voluntary or mandatory? If it is voluntary, it will not work on principle, because every porn operator out there knows that the so called "blocks" will not be implemented only for children, but for everyone that is under anti-porn zealots internet jurisdiction, even who wouldn't mind to access this kind of content. Just see what happens now, the whole bias the media already has (both ways, liberal and conservative). Imagine it being imposed ISP level too, if you have no choice of ISP and the owner is against porn, he can simply impose his view. Now, if it is mandatory, it could work, but ...

      2) How will you define porn? Is it sensual posing? Partial nudity? Full frontal nudity? Simulated sexual intercourse (softcore)? Pixelated sexual intercourse? Uncensored sexual intercourse? Is it only for pictures? Movies? Radio podcasts? Will it include foreign porn? Are written stories going to be censored? If so, only the online version or the good old printed book too? How will the foreign ones be translated? And, the most important question: Who will define porn? Who will catalog every internet content and create the blacklist and the whitelist? Who decides what is an acceptable expression of art and what is filthy debauchery?

      People have to understand that you cannot both regulate artistic expressions (whatever kind it is) and have free speech at the same time. The judge that stroke down the COPA [slashdot.org] understood that you cannot deprive the whole society of its liberties in order to protect the children, specially because they will grow and become adults someday, and they will be entitled to those freedoms too, unless we take it away from them. If you are concerned about your children browsing habits, there are already software available out there [wikipedia.org]. There is no reason to legislate everybody to suit to your personal needs.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Un pobre guey (593801)
        You are making a classic mistake, the rational analysis of the benefits and liabilities to average citizens of a fundamentally political question, as well as the practicalities of actually making it work. This has nothing to do with whether this or that is better for society or for children, or whether pornographers will benefit or lose from it (porn will continue its current dynamics regardless), or who will decide what is porn and what is not (good luck to the poor bastards). It is a pure distillation of
    • by Tim C (15259)
      I fail to understand why we DON'T have .xxx domain names. If we did, we could lump all the porn sites together, making them both easier to find and easier to block.

      All of them? Even the ones that aren't hosted in the US and don't use one of the international tlds? In short, what makes you think that anyone in any country other than the US is going to take a blind bit of notice of the .xxx domain?

      The way I see it, it's a large amount of effort for little or no real benefit; the only ones who would benefit wo
    • by Joebert (946227)
      The reason it's being fought against is simple.
      If it's blantently labeled, nobody has an excuse to be looking at it when they get caught.
    • I fail to understand why we DON'T have .xxx domain names.

      That's because you failed to read RFC 3675 [faqs.org].

  • by User 956 (568564) on Friday March 23, 2007 @06:43PM (#18465849) Homepage
    Once more the proposal has led to pornographers and religious groups finding themselves on the same side of an issue

    Yeah, they both use the phrase "oh god, oh god" on a daily basis.
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by geekoid (135745)
      As well as get down on their knees.

      The similarities end there. After that religeon gets gross.

  • by Cstryon (793006) <.moc.liamg. .ta. .noyrtsC.> on Friday March 23, 2007 @06:44PM (#18465863)
    To avoid porn. I hate going to a .com and getting porn, all the time. A simple google search for Virginia will get you porn, all you have to do is make a typo. But with a .xxx it will make it easier to know which links NOT to click on.
    • But with a .xxx it will make it easier to know which links NOT to click on.

      ...so would checking the summary blurbs on Google's results for phrases like "the home of hot wet teen girl-on-girl action!", one would suppose...

      /P

  • expanding porn? (Score:5, Informative)

    by PlusFiveTroll (754249) on Friday March 23, 2007 @06:47PM (#18465897) Homepage
    ...allow porn to expand even further onto the Internet.

    Is that even possible... I mean unless Disney starts up an XXX line porn is pretty much everywhere already.

    • I haven't seen any at any site with a .mil extension...

      (but then, certain there are certain firearms afficinadoes who would argue with me on that point...)

      /P

  • Strange, but... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Penguinisto (415985) on Friday March 23, 2007 @06:49PM (#18465923) Journal
    ...wouldn't open proxies (and even to an extent anonymizers, depending on setup) obviate the whole ISP blocking of ".xxx", or any blocking software that parents/preachers get put on to avoid making it too easy to access?

    Besides, considering the outright abuse of .org, .com, and .net, what's to stop ".xxx" from being turned into a mush of sites which may have little or nothing to do with porn? After all, I can think of lots of groups that would love to have an .xxx extension, just for the cool factor (bloggers, artists, and not-so-intelligent l33t h4x0r sites just as a ferinstance). Unless they have some intensely strict rules w/ the registrars - more than what they propose for it (e.g. give 'em the rules required to get, say, a ".mil" extension), it won't be just for pr0n - at least not for very long, IMVHO.

    Don't even get me started on the domain-squatting and name-grabbing/auctioning, either... it'd make the Oklahoma Land Rush of the 19th Century seem tame by comparison.

    Considering all of that, ICANN can prolly say "nope" yet again and call it good, for all the good it'll do. Seems like a headache all-around; and when both porn industry and fundies BOTH get all ate-up about not having it, you know something's inherently wrong with the idea.

    /P

    • Besides, considering the outright abuse of .org, .com, and .net, what's to stop ".xxx" from being turned into a mush of sites which may have little or nothing to do with porn? After all, I can think of lots of groups that would love to have an .xxx extension, just for the cool factor (bloggers, artists, and not-so-intelligent l33t h4x0r sites just as a ferinstance).

      A lot of .xxx domains will be registered for defensive purposes. It's likely that company running the registry will make a hell lot of money as
  • by Original Replica (908688) on Friday March 23, 2007 @06:53PM (#18465967) Journal
    allow porn to expand even further onto the Internet."

    Is that really possible? In all seriousness,"Internet porn is a $2.84 bln market"http://www.itfacts.biz/index.php?id=P7960 [itfacts.biz] How much of paypal's success is tied up in that $2.8 bil? What about faster bandwith, or video compression, or antivirus software? Gaming certainly plays a significant part in the adoption of faster computers, I think porn might play a similar part in the relm of data transfer. We are more eager to get new toys than to work more efficiently.
  • by Frosty Piss (770223) on Friday March 23, 2007 @06:56PM (#18466011)
    It's just a real estate grab that has little or no practical use in managing porn on the Interweb. It's not like all these sites will give up their .com / .net / .org names, and I'll bet within 24 hours (probably a lot less) of .xxx going "live", there will be no names worth buying left. Land grab, pure and simple, there is really no compelling reason to have the .xxx TLD.
    • don't tell me you wouldn't be right there with everyone else with a perl script and a while loop trying to be the one to register se.xxx, sex.xxx, teen.xxx, teens.xxx, asian.xxx, asians.xxx, ...

      Set for life. Let the morons who bid for it figure out that it's worthless next week
  • "...the religious groups worried it would make access too easy and allow porn to expand even further onto the Internet."

    Yow! There is a physically possible act that has not yet been carried out that can allow porn to expand even further onto the Internet! What can this mysterious act be? Does it involve high energy particles from some monstrous new accelerator? Have aliens finally arrived from a distant galaxy, ready to share their vast and incomprehensible technologies? Is there now a 5th dimension, asid

  • The reality is that .xxx content is the most profitable Net carrying traffic segment, with the highest markup, so all common carriers will carry it, just at a premium.

    Anyone who doesn't will lose 4/5ths of their revenue.
  • I wrote a letter years back to my congressman recommending the .xxx domain, who later co-authored the first version of this bill, can't remember his name anymore. Anyway, to anyone who's the least bit technical, this appears to be the simplest method of segregating the pornography from the rest of the information on the net.

    I don't feel that it should be required that all xxx material be hosted in the xxx domain, however I would imagine that most of the legit porn sites (feels funny saying that) would happ
    • Re:PLEASE!!! (Score:4, Insightful)

      by jtn (6204) on Friday March 23, 2007 @07:40PM (#18466419) Homepage
      Sorry. DNS is not a content-definition system. It is a system for translating IP addresses to human-readable (usually) names and the reverse. It is not for balkanizing the Internet into "districts".

      It sets an ugly precedent for further dividing content into groups easily blockable by groups in control (governments, corporations, etc). Would you like to wake up some day to find that negative discussions regarding your government are deemed inappropriate, and subjugated to a TLD (by US law perhaps?) and then blocked by a majority of access providers?

      Finally, uou nor anyone else are fit to define what content is available or grouped for everyone else. You are responsible for your OWN content viewing, and those you are legally considered guardian of, no one else.
    • by geekoid (135745)
      IT's not a solvable problem. The internet is not TV.

      It is a very large ditributed network.
      That means you can not enforce it.
      Here it is again:
      You can NOT enforce a domain specific activity.

      "however I would imagine that most of the legit porn sites "

      Why does that feel funny? Pornography is a perfectly legal trade.
      But you hit the problem, many site would not move there..they would set up there ALSO. You can't control the world.

      OTOH, don't like it? don't go there.
      Or evelop sopme thick skin and a sense of humor.
    • You cannot control what DNS entries refer to you. Read one of the RFC's titled .sex considered harmful for a discussion of all the problems. Also, what is porn? My standards for obscenity can be very different from yours.
  • by grumpyman (849537)
    I like you. I like sex, it's nice.
  • Convincing the extremists is hard.

    Pornography, is sexually explicit content who's purpose is to entertain, stimulate, or pleasure. Nudity is not pornographic, sex is not pornographic, however videos/images of nude people engaging in sexual activities intended as a source of entertainment for adults is pornographic.

    I agree that people try to move that line in both directions, but I think anyone rational will agree that the above is a fair definition.

    Perhaps we need a new word, instead of pornography we can
    • by geekoid (135745)
      I engage is sex for the entertainment of adults. specifically my wife and myself.

      bzzzt try again.

      ""sexual entertainment""
      yes, it would be defined by religous groups to mean what ever they want it to mean.
      Do you know there are people who consider a penis on a statue pornographic?

      " but as long as they are written"
      good luck with that. People have only been trying to do that for hundreds of years.

      Why do I have to explain this on /. of all places:
      "Hell, we do it with movies and music, we can do it with the inter
    • videos/images of nude people engaging in sexual activities intended as a source of entertainment for adults is pornographic.

      I'm not sure if you're a troll or if you seriously believe the utter bullshit you've ejaculated into this discussion.

      Do you actually believe that there is something morally wrong with the type of content you mention in the quote above? Do you actually think that sex is "dirty" (whatever that means)? Come on, we ALL do it. Even bacteria conjugate.

      You are claiming that th

  • Actually it just sounds like a money grab by this ICM company.

    They still insist it is voluntary, so it does nothing to help keep it out. Tempting to add just to spite the idiotic rightwing arguement that with .com AND .xxx there would now be twice as much porn tho :O So i guess i disagreement with both arguements against it and am still against it....

    They think these sites will rate themselves and need to spend more than a current .com registration to ensure compliance ?!? WTF, Putting up a .xxx and then s
  • The Wrong Way (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Bios_Hakr (68586) <xptical.gmail@com> on Friday March 23, 2007 @08:25PM (#18466769) Homepage
    The person who came up with .xxx should be slapped. I mean, what kind of fucking idiot is this person/are these people?

    If you want to clear the internet of pr0n and make it safe for kids, create a .fam domain and then make the registrar a board consisting of the LDS Church, Christian Coalition, Southern Baptist Conference, and Catholic Church. Before any site is accepted, a scan will be done on their code to ensure *every* link on the page ends in .fam.

    Create e-mail servers that require a name, address, SSN, and valid phone number to activate e-mail. Have monks (like they have anything better to do) call every person who registers and verify their information.

    After that, sell software that only allows .fam domains to be processed. Nothing from an IP address outside the .fam will be accepted.

    Users should be classified based on their ages. If you are between 8 and 18 and you e-mail someone more than 1 year older than you, the e-mail gets sent to LDS missionaries (give them something to to besides annoy me) for review. If the content is inappropriate, your e-mail is revoked. Make it work the same way for older people e-mailing younger people. Just give more leeway.

    In about 30 days and with absolutely no resistance, you could create a family-safe internet.

    Seriously, if you or someone you know came up with the idea of .xxx, please turn in your geek card and go work a help desk in India and leave the real thinking to much smarter people.
    • by 2short (466733)
      "create a .fam domain and then make the registrar a board consisting of the LDS Church, Christian Coalition, Southern Baptist Conference, and Catholic Church."

      Yikes! You think I want my kids exposed to those guys freaky ideas!?!?! That's your idea of "family-safe"? Scary! Keep those guys the hell away from my kids.

      As for whoever came up with the .xxx domain, I think you're missing the key to the matter. They're not dumb, they're greedy. There may be some dumb ones defending the idea on slashdot, but t
    • Excellent points. Of course, this places the burden for the cost and tedium of administrating such a kid-friendly program squarely and solely on the potential "benefactors".

      Nevertheless, they're testing out the possibilities: see Conservapedia [conservapedia.com]

      A week ago they didn't even have an article for Sex. Now it just redirects to "Gender".

    • by cptgrudge (177113)

      In about 30 days and with absolutely no resistance, you could create a family-safe internet.

      And even better, in another 30 days it would collapse as every user gets booted for minor infractions!

      • by Bios_Hakr (68586)
        Since it's run by Christians, I assume they would forgive one-time minor infractions.

        Maybe after praying with your pastor or confessing to your priest, you could get back on.
    • If you want to clear the internet of pr0n and make it safe for kids, create a .fam domain and then make the registrar a board consisting of the LDS Church, Christian Coalition, Southern Baptist Conference, and Catholic Church. Before any site is accepted, a scan will be done on their code to ensure *every* link on the page ends in .fam.

      How about we keep the big fat noses of any religious zealots out of it in the first place.

      Let's face it, if the religious groups were doing their job correctly anyhow, we

      • by Bios_Hakr (68586)
        The Christian Right are the ones forcing the discussion of censorship on the internet, radio, and on TV. If we create a domain for them to bask in, then they will have no excuse to blame anyone else.
  • the religious groups worried it would make access too easy and allow porn to expand even further onto the Internet

    Er ... is that possible??

    OK, I'm religious, but that's about the stupidest argument *against* a .xxx domain I can imagine.

    An .xxx domain and the restriction of adult content to it would be the best thing to help parents filter porn from their kids. But it's a pie in the sky idea. There's no way to prevent people in other countries from putting porn on whatever URL they want.

    boxligh
  • I hope this d*** thing DOES pass this time so I never have to hear another f****ing article about the pros and cons of the XXX domain. Seriously! Get it overwith!!!
  • Who then, will register Disney.XXX, Apple.XXX, Microsoft.XXX? Do those companies want to be associated with porn at all?, but do they want to risk letting someone else get their name? I offer a very simple solution to that particular problem: Notice how a lot (if not most) web sites on a domain have a specific prefix added to the front? WWW.example.com? Why not replace the WWW. portion with XXX.? A domain holder can choose to offer both a regular website, and an adult website, without a new TLD provide
  • You people are idiots. (Score: -1, Redundant... This is Slashdot, after all.)

    Please do the world a favour by tagging this article "rfc3675", then go read it [faqs.org].

  • by Schraegstrichpunkt (931443) on Saturday March 24, 2007 @12:42AM (#18468051) Homepage
    tu.xxx - Penguin Porn!

Man is the best computer we can put aboard a spacecraft ... and the only one that can be mass produced with unskilled labor. -- Wernher von Braun

Working...