Slashdot Log In
Top Level .xxx Domain Concept Under Scrutiny
Posted by
Zonk
on Tue Aug 16, 2005 03:46 PM
from the not-in-the-cards dept.
from the not-in-the-cards dept.
An anonymous reader writes "The Bush administration is objecting to the creation of a .xxx domain, saying it has concerns about a virtual red-light district reserved exclusively for Internet pornography. This is despite the the .xxx domain being approved in June and New.net selling domain names using the .xxx suffix for many months before the approval." From the ZDNet article: " The sudden high-level interest in what has historically been an obscure process has placed the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) in an uncomfortable position. ICANN approved the concept of an .xxx domain in June and approval of ICM Registry's contract to run the suffix was expected this week Other governments also have been applying pressure to ICANN in a last-minute bid to head off .xxx. A letter from ICANN's government advisory group sent Friday asks for a halt to 'allow time for additional governmental and public policy concerns to be expressed before reaching a final decision.'"
Related Stories
[+]
Politics: 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This discussion has been archived.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.
US Constitution vs. Censorship (Score:3, Interesting)
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
I'm not justifying pornography, in fact... I find much of it is deplorable. BUT, doesn't the Constitution afford us freedom of speech/ press? It seems to me the government trying to thwart the .xxx campaign, is flirting dangerously close to being unconstitutional.
Or not... (Score:5, Insightful)
So this would open the doorway for regulation to go after merely indecent material on non-xxx domains. They could argue in court briefs that it's not preventing them from existing. This would make it far easier for the merely indecent material to be isolated out of the mainstream Internet. Then the filters get put in place and suddenly people get a controversey free Internet.
So for once I agree with the Bush administration but probably for the exact opposite reason.
Parent
Re:Or not... (Score:3, Insightful)
Once you have a
Re:Or not... (Score:5, Insightful)
I simply prefer that web sites, movies, video games be up-front and honest with what they contain and let us make the decisions for ourselves. Doing stuff like "hiding" porn in places like whitehouse.com instead of allowing it to be in whitehouse.xxx just seems wrong to me.
I don't buy the argument that once you can identify porn, all of a sudden it will be censored by the government in a way that prevents or even hinders adults from accessing it. Its not like you can't walk into just about any convenience store and buy porn in the US. The web will be no different.
Parent
Re:Or not... (Score:5, Interesting)
A porn domain won't fix that. There are a million things that aren't porn that I'm sure you don't want them to see. The only thing that will help you there is a ".kids" TLD with a central vetting authority. Of course, it would probably have to be US-only (or at least a ".us.kids", ".fr.kids", etc), as every country has their own idea about what's kid-friendly.
Parent
Re:Or not... (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Or not... (Score:4, Insightful)
It won't be limited to just obvious porn. Proponents will argue that other kinds of "objectional" material are also pornographic and should be restricted to the
I simply prefer that web sites, movies, video games be up-front and honest with what they contain and let us make the decisions for ourselves.
We already get to make the decisions for ourselves. The point is to not let others *make the decisions for us*. These fuckers need to shut up and mind their owned damned business for a change.
Max
Parent
Re:Or not... (Score:5, Interesting)
Most "reputable" pr0n sites will have a "Only click here to enter if you are over 18" splash page. Of course, it doesn't stop little kids... but it *does* make the kids aware that they're about to do something "wrong". A lot more sites require a credit card, which effectively stops kids dead in their tracks... though enough "free samples" are given out that there's plenty to see without paying for any of it. Don't think that anyone who buys a .xxx domain is going to suddenly abandon their existing .com domain, though, and don't think any kind of meaningful censorship can ever be imposed on .com by any government at this point: China can't do it, and they're supposed to be a 1984-style authoritarian nightmare state, so how are governments of "free" countries going to be able to do it?
Doing stuff like "hiding" porn in places like whitehouse.com instead of allowing it to be in whitehouse.xxx just seems wrong to me.
AFAIK, whitehouse.com was originally a print magazine called "White House". If that's the case (and I'm sure someone who knows will correct me if I'm wrong, as I can't remember the details), it made perfect sense to have a site called whitehouse.com: They were called White House, and they were commercial. The site went up many years ago, when everyone on the 'net knew the difference between .com and .gov (or at least, everyone was expected to know).
My take on the .xxx thing is that it's just a money-grab by Verisign (or whoever's pushing it): a way to sell existing businesses the same domain names they've already bought. If you own www.somepornsite.com, you do NOT want to let your competitor(s) buy up www.somepornsite.xxx; it'd be dilution of your brand.... so you're forced to pay yet again, when .xxx becomes available. 5 years later, you'll have to buy www.somepornsite.sex or whatever the "new, improved" top-level domain is by then. Verisign & co. can write their own ticket, since what they're selling costs nothing to produce, and they have a monopoly (nobody else can "invent" new TLDs). It's like printing money, except somehow it's not against the law...
Parent
Re:Or not... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Or not... (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, that's local zoning law, which is rather questionable on its face.
We place black bars on risque magazines so that minors can't see them.
Actually, risque magazines are usually kept behind the counter. So, the we is store owners who fear losing customers after a vocal threat of boycott.
Movies are labeled 'R' or 'NC17' identifying them as adult-only.
Most porn movies aren't labeled. Rating is a voluntary process. It's mainly the fact that most theaters choose to not carry NC17 rated films nor unrated films (again, threat of boycott) that force such films primarily to be sold as VHS/DVD.
We have ESRB ratings on games,
Again, voluntary. Of course with games, getting AO games is relatively hard (smaller market than movies) and M games are on the shelf by other games.
V-Chip ratings on TV shows,
Okay, this was forced by the government. For at least the broadcast stations there's at least a legitimate basis by which the government can support this, but I can't see how pushing it on cable/satellite is legal.
and explicit lyric labels on CDs.
That's a combination of (proactive) stores and record labels caving to threats of boycotts.
The reason I mention all of these separately is to point out that in all but two cases it was voluntary, economic interests that were the root behavior modifier. If anything, to me that indicates that we don't need the government to step in and block people.
Has any of this censored the adult industry or put them out of business? No,
Yes. At least some adult shops have been forced to close as a result of zoning laws. Also, indirectly the unified rating system combined with the forced v-chip rating system has certainly caused some films to be censored so they are an "acceptable" rating. For the rest, the government wasn't involved, so censorship hasn't occurred. No, the industry as a whole has not been "put out of business".
what it has done is to inform people about questionable content, so stupid parents don't accidentally plan their seven-year old son's birthday party at a strip bar.
Nothing can overcome the stupidity of people. Besides that, I question just how many seven-year old boys really have had that happen. I certainly wouldn't stake forcing behavior on a group to try to overcome such an issue.
It's still illegal in the United States to sell pornography to a minor, and if I walked up to your kid on the street and showed them porn, I'd be arrested.
Yes, it's illegal to knowingly show porn to a minor in most locals. To me that's pretty crazy, given that a minor is defined as anyone under 18.
I don't see why the same rules shouldn't apply on the Internet, especially in this age of popup teasers, porn spam, and misleading domain names.
Actually, the same rules do apply already. There's already law that requires that US commercial pornography sites are required to have the user sign an electronic waver stating their date of birth under penalty of perjury.
So what if the porn industry is forced to use
There's many problems with this. Not all places are under US law, so they do not apply. As you might have noticed above, current law about porn doesn't apply to non-commercial content. This is because commercial speech is granted less privilege than non-commercial speech. As a result, a blanket push to require all porn to be on
Parent
Re:Here's why (Score:4, Insightful)
I just don't understand what the big friggin' deal is. Children run around either semi- or completely naked a lot of the time, but usually nobody associates anything "dirty" with that.
I really wish people would decide for *themselves* and not peek over everyone else's shoulder and tell them their opinion is sooo wrong we need to make a law so that EVERYONE follows their morality.
A.A
Parent
Re:Here's why (Score:4, Insightful)
OK, I am NOT all that upset by my children seeing a picture of a naked body as such, but I AM upset by my children seeing one or more naked bodies engaged in activities that most parents (in most but certainly not all societies) agree they are simply not ready to see.
To make it really simple:
Naked body: no big deal
Naked body with farm animals and medical implements (and possible violent acts): NOT OK
Let's be honest; 'net porn is NOT just some pictures of naked bodies.
I really don't care what other adults do, but I would appreciate some mechanism by which I could *reliably* choose what my children have access to. Games, movies and TV have ratings that I can use. It would be nice if the 'net had something similar.
I have long favored the ideas of either a "red light district" with a .xxx designation (or even better .x .xx and .xxx -- maybe even a .xxx!) or a .kids. Either way I would have at least SOME semblance of a chance of choosing what my children can see.
When they become adults it will be their resposibility to choose what they want to see. Until then it is my responsibility. I just want better tools than the ones that have thus far emerged.
Parent
Which is not unconstitutional at all. (Score:5, Insightful)
So this would open the doorway for regulation to go after merely indecent material on non-xxx domains. They could argue in court briefs that it's not preventing them from existing. This would make it far easier for the merely indecent material to be isolated out of the mainstream Internet. Then the filters get put in place and suddenly people get a controversey free Internet.
The constitution gives you a right to freedom of speech. It does not give your a right to have people want to hear what you have to say, nor does it give you a right to force people to listen to you.
Forcing porn site operators to operate on a .XXX TLD would be no different from forcing them to be rated X and thus not accessable to minors. it is not unconstitutional at all so long as it is available to those looking for it ( if the government forced Google to not index .XXX for example, *that* would be crossing the line ).
Parent
Re:Which is not unconstitutional at all. (Score:4, Informative)
1) X has be superceded by NC-17 in the United States.
2) The MPAA movie rating system is a *VOLUNTARY* rating system that most movies are given as many theatres will not run "unrated" films. This is very different from a government (or even a quasi-governing body like ICANN) administering a
I'll leave the "slippery slope" arguments to others and stick to the nit-picking for now.
Parent
Re:US Constitution vs. Censorship (Score:3, Insightful)
I never understood the .xxx domain (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I never understood the .xxx domain (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:You can't filter based on a TLD... (Score:5, Informative)
But this breaks for four main reasons:
1) DNS names can map to one or many IP addresses. "hugeyams.com" might be a server farm, or a mapping that changes every night. The mapping isn't 1-to-1, it isn't constant, and you can't rely on your information being current with broken caching servers out there.
2) "1.2.3.4" could be a single server hosting thousands of "separate sites" including hugeyams.com and aclu.org. Block one and seriously violate the constitutionally-protected speech of the other (political speech trumps all other speech).
3) A huge number of IP addresses do not have the right DNS name mappings (PTR to CNAME records in the in-addr.arpa domain), or they may have no PTR record at all. ('Net history: at one time the only incentive at all to fix this was to get access to the download site for the 128-bit encryption version of Netscape.) Getting 100% of the 'Net admins to maintain PTR records is practically impossible.
4) Even if a PTR record exists, the web site owner has no control of it, the ISP of their hosting company does. What you (as a porn operator) pay $50/year to call "hugeyams.com" they might call "39876fb-box55-eth1.sf.us.bigassisp.net" .
So even if ".xxx" is adopted as a TLD it can be trivially bypassed by disregarding DNS, and forcing everyone to use DNS is practically impossible and could break lots of other low-level things too.
Technically, a bad idea. Socially, a stupid one.
Parent
Re:You can't filter based on a TLD... (Score:4, Insightful)
Even Google contains "information that can be used to reach porn" as it is a search engine. So does this post, since it mentions you can go to Google. So does Slashdot because it has this post. You need to lose that last phrase there - it is WAY too encompassing.
Parent
.XXX - It's not just for Porn! (Score:3, Funny)
Re:I never understood the .xxx domain (Score:4, Funny)
That's all there is to understand about it. All it means is that if I randomly type in nice-tits.xxx I can be sure that the site I get will have pictures of exposed breasts and not something like nice-tits.org [nice-tits.org] a bird watching site.
Parent
.xxx is a flawed concept (Score:5, Insightful)
As is pointed out elsewhere, why will
The failed
Parent
Re:.xxx is a flawed concept (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm surprised no one has touched on it, but what about the
This raises issues for the owners of non-.xxx non-pornographic sites. Do you register a
As far as blocking, what is more likely to happen is the people who do have
It's a win for the registrars, basically a tie for the porn site operators, and a lose for everyone else.
Parent
Re:.xxx is a flawed concept (Score:4, Insightful)
Last time I checked the Internet doesn't "flood [my] home" with ANY content. I get the content I seek out. I do occasionally get hit with a fake entry on Google that's a porn site instead of what it claimed to be when Google indexed it but a .xxx domain won't make that more common. In fact it'd make it _less_ common since you could see the URL in question was at a .xxx domain and therefore unlikely to have the info you were seeking (unless it was porn but then it'd be a valid search response anyway).
Another Gem:
...
"The volume of correspondence opposed to creation of a .xxx (domain) is unprecedented," according to the Commerce Department's Gallagher.
According to the US Census Bureau's Population Clock [census.gov] there are currently 296,908,022 people in the US. Out of those 6000 wrote the Commerce Department to complain about the .xxx domain. That's around .003% of the population. If that's unprecedented then American's apathy about political issues is far worse than any of us thought!
Brazil has a bit stronger argument:
While I'm sure different countries view pornography from different value standpoints, I fail to see why creating a top level domain for adult sites is a major problem. It's not like having a .xxx domain will suddenly open the floodgates of hell and every man, woman and child will be deluged with vast amounts of pornography. All it means is there's a different top level domain that adult sites can use (and I believe are encouraged to use, but I haven't checked). The porn sites will exist whether the .xxx TLD is created or not!
And the final lunacy:
At the time, politicians lambasted ICANN's move. Rep. Fred Upton, R-Mich., demanded to know why ICANN didn't approve .xxx "as a means of protecting our kids from the awful, awful filth, which is sometimes widespread on the Internet." Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., told a federal commission that .xxx was necessary to force adult Webmasters to "abide by the same standard as the proprietor of an X-rated movie theater."
So 5 years ago the fact that ICANN didn't approve a .xxx TLD was a catastrophy but now that they HAVE approved it, it's also a catastrophy. Even for politics that's one hell of a flip-flop.
Parent
ICANN, do something correct for once! (Score:5, Insightful)
People who are petitioning the government: Learn to use your computer and block out connections to
I realize that the current administration (and quite a few other politicians outside of the White House walls) want to have everyone come crying to them to "think of the children" but we need to remember *real* freedom first - not the created/imagined freedom the Bush Administration and fellow politicians have decided exists in 2005. This type of behavior in response to a few letters? No thanks.
We are talking about 6000 letters. There are what, ~270 million people in the USA? Sorry but ~6000 letters doesn't give equal footing for their voice, regardless of whether or not it "looks good" politically or it fits the Administration's religious agenda. I realize that "morality" is a huge buzzword in America these days but I should be able to do, see, and view whatever the fuck I want regardless of whether or not children could view the material. The Government should be representing more than just a tiny portion of the population. Just because the pro-porno people aren't stepping up to the bat (for obvious reasons) doesn't mean that their silent voice should be ignored. I'll be more likely to understand when you get something like 80 million letters.
If anything, I would think that the current administration would be thrilled with the prospect of having all the porno in one location. It's easier to track the "undesirables" and ban freedom and artistic expression. At least, much easier than the current setup allows.
ICANN, you fuck up enough, ignore these pointless requests from the Nation of the "Free" and go about your business properly.
Re:ICANN, do something correct for once! (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm also surprised the administration can't see the benefit of corraling all the porn into one TLD (shhhhh, really, it will work, shhhhhh).
Parent
Or Christopher Walken (Score:4, Funny)
(Yeah, I know it's a hoax)
Parent
Who's surprised? (Score:5, Insightful)
I got a TLD for them... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I got a TLD for them... (Score:5, Funny)
Personally, I'd think they'd have far more success with this idea of tying up all of the porn into one gTLD if they had proposed a ".bush" gTLD and then perverted it... That way we'd really have the problem licked; all of the pron and endless Pro/Anti NeoCon rhetoric caged into one easily filterable place should anyone choose to do so.
Not that I think the idea is ever really going to work even if it does get approved though.
Parent
Government should stay out of the way (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't they have better things to focus on? (/me avoids the obvious flamebait by not mentioning liberation
Ironic... (Score:3, Funny)
What's the Problem? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What's the Problem? (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, no .xxx = no pornography (Score:4, Insightful)
More insightful policymaking from the Bush administration. I know I'm going to get modded down for this, but what exactly is the point of social conservatives objecting to this? It seems if anything this would be in the social conservative's best interest, because by delegating porn to a particular TLD you can more easily shut it down.
Yes, it's unlikely to ever occur. The prominence of .com porn sites will probably never go away. But if your goal is to rid the world of pornography, or at the very least reduce it, wouldn't you want to at least move in the direction of having it all in a centralized, easily controllable place?
Re:Yeah, no .xxx = no pornography (Score:4, Insightful)
Think of it as analogous to legal prostitution. Nearly everybody knows that prostitution cannot be entirely eradicated (especially when they exist in the form of marrying for money). Some people respond to that by allowing prostitution, and regulating it to various degrees. Others would rather prostitution exist in the shadows for fear of legitimizing it.
Their objective, if I may venture a guess, is to eradicate pornography, not merely to control it. That's why a .xxx TLD does nothing for them and might even make it look like they approve of it implicitly. Look, we're talking about people who consider abstinence the only way to control third world overpopulation, teenage sex, and sexually-transmitted diseases.
Parent
Re:Yeah, no .xxx = no pornography (Score:5, Insightful)
I think this is actually a side-effect, not the goal. There goal is to impose themselves on their neighbors, either by preventing said neighbor from doing something the neighbor wants to do, or by forcing the neighbor to do something they don't want to do. For most people the only true measure of power is using it to inconvenience others in large or small ways.
Internet porn is the hot topic for some. If they score here they manage to prove to themselves and others that they really are more important than the average prole, and that they're capable of making at least some small segment of the population miserable. That's real power, however watered down it might be. Petty and vicious to be sure, but still power.
But power is like any other drug, and eventually the high wears off. These same folks will then have to find a new 'cause' to champion, something that'll allow them to shit on yet another segment of the population. And if they win there they'll soon move on to cause #3, and #4, and so on.
Porn isn't the issue. The thrill of screwing with other people at the point of a government gun is the real motivation. These people do not go away, and are never more than temporarily satisfied.
Max
Parent
Don't mention that TLD (Score:3, Informative)
.XXX would be EASY to block! (Score:3, Funny)
Well, duh. They can't morally support a .xxx TLD (Score:5, Insightful)
However, it's damned obvious that the reason they don't support the
If you oppose pornography and adult content, you can't very well go and support having a special area for it. These people don't care about the constitution or freedom of expression or speech or allowing adults to do what they wish. They don't want this material, PERIOD. It's the same reason they oppose medical marijuana. Not because it may not have medical benefits. Not because it can't be used responsibly. Not because it's seriously harmful or will destroy the fabric of marriage between a man and a woman yadda yadda yadda. Simply because it's "not right" and you can't support such things AT ALL or your constituency will eat you alive.
It would be a lot like the Bush administration saying "prostitution is horrid and evil and wrong and
So I have to say, I'm stuck on this one. Yet another stupid TLD is retarded. Squeezing all adult content into one place is retarded (by the way, because one or two pages of my site might have adult content, does that mean my friends and family can't access my site AT ALL from work or a hotel or a library?). On the other hand, the reason Bush opposes it is retarded, too. In this case, both "enemies" are enemies of my enemy. Heh.
Re:Well, duh. They can't morally support a .xxx TL (Score:5, Insightful)
But they don't care about that. Remember, Bush has the support of the type of people that form organizations who then go and send a 250,000 complaints to the FCC about ridiculous things on television from three or four individual people claiming to represent the entire country. He has the support of people like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson who think 9/11 was God's way of telling us that lesbians are evil. He has the support of people who think that a flash of a boob with a pin-covered nipple for one second on television is going to harm people.
These are groups that want all "inappropriate" material to be done away with. It isn't a matter of "only adults should have this". It's a matter of "this is filthy and we should burn it". Politically, his most staunch supporters would see any step to set aside an area just for porn as condoning it.
Oh, and using the ESRB to suggest that this is just "a way of rating content" is silly. How are you going to rate content that belongs in
Would the web-equivalent of what you see on Fox News Channel be considered
Should I have to register my entire domain as a
Since Netflix rents rated R movies, does that make them an adult site? Do they have to become a
Is a website about boxing or professional wrestling acceptable, even though it "promotes violence" but a site about swimsuit models isn't? Is ICANN going to become the arbiter of what is is "adult" the world-over? Or is some American agency going to be responsible for that? If I'm Korean and I have a
What about Amazon.com? What about your local library's card catalogue? Both link to and provide adult content (everything from Fanny Hill to "art" books of lesbians in latex whipping each other and sex manuals). Do they both have to move into the
And, more importantly, if we MUST do something stupid like this, doesn't it follow more with the Supreme Courts previous rulings to have a
Anyway, in my entire life I've never accidentally come across mass quantities of adult material. Or any quantities really. You have to go looking for the content. If you're coming across hard core facial sites or something, it's because you're looking specifically for them or you're clicking on links at illegal warez sites. Either way, your eight year old is not going to "accidentally
Parent
With or without .xxx (Score:5, Insightful)
It doesn't matter what the rules are, or what the government says. Everything people do, in one way or another relates back to reproduction. It's in our genes at the most basic level. We're going to have sex no matter what. We are programmed to seek sexual pleasure in whatever form is available. We'd all prefer to have that pleasure be shared with a warm-bodied partner, but we will also seek the pleasure alone, or through the stimulation of one or more of our senses.
How many activities do we engage in which use all five of our senses? There are two of them. Eating and fucking. But if we have a head-cold and can't taste or smell food, we will still eat based on sight, sounds, and texture. If we can't touch the object of our sexual interest, we still become stimulated by the sight or sound of that person. Porn is just a variation on a theme. And it's going to remain popular until something better (like the Holo-deck) comes along and steals porn's thunder the way VHS porn did to printed porn.
Now get that banana out of your ear, and get back to work.
I Hate To Admit It (Score:5, Funny)
US control of the DNS servers (Score:4, Insightful)
I seem to remember a large number of US citizens saying things like, "the US has never abused it's power (over domain names)", "the US would not impose its views on other countries by interferring with the domain names", and so on.
Some of us who posted that we didn't want the US to have controll over the domain names because we didn't trust the US administration got flamed to a crisp.
Well. This is exactly the kind of tampering that we didn't want. Top level domains should be controlled by an international group that does not let one country impose its views on the rest. I hope people now see why some of us want this.
Re:Cue (Score:4, Funny)
But they aren't, so my investment in the is-teh-su.xxx domain name seems to heading down the drain...
Parent
Re:Cue (Score:4, Funny)
- and we can let the alcoholics have the .xxxx TLD, (remember the xxxx rotgut from the Bugs Bunny - Yosemite Sam cartoons>).
And illiterates can have the .x TLD (they don't have to sign for anything, just make their mark).
So that leaves the double-x TLD. Isn't 2x the size of some fat people's clothes?
So, the assignments are as follows:
Parent
Re:Cue (Score:4, Insightful)
The ONLY conclusion I can see is: "maybe if we do not allow the
Time to take the correct color pill and see this in the light of reality, porn is NOT going to disappear. At some point, when reality sets in, people have to learn to deal with it, one way or the other. So whether it is 'free speech', 'protect the kids', 'ban porn' or '1st amendment rules!', I would think people would back this.
I fact if I thought ANY crowd would be against it, it would be the Liberals not the Conseratives. The Liberals MIGHT complain that segregating it to a different domain makes it too easy to block.
I don't know, is this a
-- sign me confused
Parent
Re:Cue (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Cue (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Legally force - under whose authority? (Score:3, Insightful)
What's the USA going to do, cut off all domains registered by my registrar, or worse, start a war?