Slashdot Log In
Adult .IE Domain Names Banned As Immoral
Posted by
kdawson
on Sun Oct 15, 2006 03:25 AM
from the naughty-naughty dept.
from the naughty-naughty dept.
An anonymous reader writes, "The Irish domain prefix, .ie, is controlled by an organization called the IE Domain Registry. In their terms and conditions they state, 'The proposed domain name must not be offensive or contrary to public policy or generally accepted principles of morality.' But this policy is only applied to sex words as this adult webmaster has discovered. Murder.ie is acceptable, Porn.ie is not. Can a word be immoral? And in this day and age, should a government-chosen domain registry be allowed to enforce their own moral code on the public?"
This discussion has been archived.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.
juden-raus.ie (Score:5, Insightful)
From TFS:
porn.ie is a poor example, since pornography has been a strict superset of free speech since the 1960's; how about: juden-raus.ie?juden-raus.ie, I suspect, would convert many here into willing censors.
Re:juden-raus.ie (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Just to set the record straight, I'm Arab and Muslim. When I said "here", I was referencing to /. not Ireland. That remark, sadly seem to make consensus.
If you don't see the west's double standards in treating Jews and Arabs let me refresh you memory; People get sent to jail for challenging the accuracy of the Holocaust figures, yet freedom of speech in invoked everytime someone gratuitousely insults the prophet Mohammed and his teachin
Re:juden-raus.ie (Score:4, Insightful)
I see a double standard, but let me rebutt yours before I argue mine.
People get sent to jail for challenging the accuracy of the Holocaust figures, yet freedom of speech in invoked everytime someone gratuitousely insults the prophet Mohammed and his teachings.
No one ever gets sent to jail in the west for insulting the Jews or their teachings. Insulting the prophet Mohammed (isn't there supposed to be an addition there?) is the equivalent of saying that Kabbalah is devil-worship; it's freedom of religion.
Those counties (of which the United States is NOT a part) that made denying the Holocaust a crime did so because they were complicit in the holocaust. It'd be as if the United States made questioning the reality of southern slavery a crime. You're comparing apples and, well, pears.
Israel gets away with a stockpile of nukes but no Arab country could dream of being allowed to develop them.
No arab country has millions of Jews planning on burning it from existance. And while Israel implies that they have nuclear weapons, they do not openly admit to having them, and they have never performed a nuclear test. It's entirely possible that they don't have a single nuke of their own, and are just mis-stating the presense of nukes installed by their allies.
As for how the Jews get special treatment -- you're right. They, as a part of their religion, believe that they're special, and as part of their politics, hold that they have a modern-day right to do so. Because they've done such a good job adapting to the west, the jewish idea of what is offensive and abhorrent is treated as an agnostic view, and so carries a fair bit of weight. This is, in essense, subversive, but it's not the sort of thing that my country is going to get riled up over. After all, Christians and Muslims have exactly the same access to influencing our country; they just need to play their cards right.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You're comparing apples to oranges here.
Freedom of speech would also apply to people insulting Abrahm, Jesus or any other prophet and their respective teachings.
I think that's a matter of culture. Israel is more o
Re:juden-raus.ie (Score:4, Interesting)
Ironically, your post illustrates my point; There's no way to have an intelligent debate when one of the parties dares to say that Jews don't have a monopoly over suffering. Emotions quickly take over and the word "anti-semite" is used as a wildcard. Wrong! I grew up in a country with a firmly rooted Jewish community. Early on, I learned to judge people based on what they do, not who they are. This wasn't the case for many of the bullies which agressed Jews for religious reasons. I was beaten up many times because I tried to defend the Jews. So, you agree that the west isn't accepting mainstream Arab culture? Ok, that was too easy.
The west is backing those same countries making any change of regime very hard. I can only back that claim with my own experience.
I don't blame the Jews for anything. Heck, I know most people in Israel are against the massacre the IDF is perpetrating.
I'm not gullible enough to believe in an organised racist conspiracy. Yet, I recognize a genocide when I see one; And the Israeli government is responsible for it. Granted, the Arab leaders are jerks and should have acknowledged Israel's right to exist early on but there are not actively responsible for the victims. Indeed you can. But you'd be wrong again. I live in Sweden ('cause of all the blondes and pirates). It was originally quoted in a book by Walter Isaacson, "Kissinger - A Biography", on page 561.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
And we would have gotten away with it too, if it wasn't for you meddling Slashdotters.
Re: (Score:2)
Or am I oversimplifying?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I disagree. You probably accept that the airwaves "belong to the public", and you probably accept that we need to regulate them technically to keep them usable. So regulation in some form is okay, right? Here's the part where we disagree... if the airwaves belong to the public, then the public should be able to determine their use. While our democratic process might be flawed, it remains our best option for determining how to use public property. In my mind, banning nudity during daytime TV is no better or
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I disagree, friend. Anybody with a receiver in range can pick up broadcasts, but with cable and "most" (not all) satellite services, you have to have a subscription. You're correct that satellite does use spectrum, though. I suppose it's tomato, tomahto.
I look at XM Radio (I have no experience with Sirius) as an example of where I believe the FCC should stay out o
Re:juden-raus.ie (Score:5, Informative)
juden-raus == Jews Out! From the Nazi era, and also a board game - of equal value.
Parent
Re:juden-raus.ie (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No, that'll be "bitte". Schnell is the German word for quickly
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Yes? So.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Isn't this standard procedure for most country TLDs? I just checked for my country:
From their webpage: [www.dns.lu]
Translation: The proposed domain name must not be offensive or contrary to public policy or generally accepted principles of morality
Thus, identical to the Ireland registry provisions. The real question here is, why someone would consider "murder" falling into that provision? I clearly don't. You see, this could be a website about prevening murder, or a forum for people seeking help that had a relative murdered. I don't know.
Also keep in mind that pretty much all "normal" sex-related words should be registrable just because of *that* reason. tits.com used to be about birds (the real, flying kind). Now, I do not know what the porn guy exactly tried to register (just checked the article: it was porn.ie). It would be hard to defend "bondagegirls.ie", but a case for "sex.ie" might be acceptable, if the content clearly is non-sexual. (Well, the applicant was a p0rn peddler, so good luck to that)
Oh, and I see he owns sex.ie... Now really, it's not as if sex.ie is registrable, so should be murder.ie.... He is complaining about nothing *at all*.
What I think that happens: the registration process is completely automated and the words just pass through an automated filter which, incidentially, just contains sex-related words. He should try "t1ts.ie" ;-)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Translated:
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why?
I mean, it isn't everyone's cup of tea, but clearly some people are turned on by this kind of thing, and so long as it's just a theatre of willing participants what's the problem?
If it isn't just a theatre of willing participants, then there are crimes being commited that need to be addressed by far stronger means than censoring website names, and anyone who is going to suggest that any resources be spent on censoring website names while such crimes are being
Stronger sense of morality there (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Stronger sense of morality there (Score:5, Informative)
I believe it makes them wrong but then I live here. Things have improved of late. I've noticed around the college I'm studying at now that safe sex is promoted heavily - even more than last year. I think there's been a realisation that promoting safe sex isn't promoting casual sex. I know when I'm looking at that chlamidya poster in the toilets I don't care if I never get laid again (althought that soon passes)
As for the
In summary, is Ireland a conservative, moralistic hellhole? Yes, but it's getting better. We no longer export pregnant teens and force them to surrender their children for adoption!
Parent
killing good, orgasms evil? (Score:2, Insightful)
That is disgusting. If true, I feel that IE Domain Registry is revealing their own sickness by enforcing such as bizarre standard.
So wait... Murder.ie is legal... (Score:2)
Ireland has got a history of that sort aof thing (Score:4, Informative)
Sit Down Young Lad (Score:5, Interesting)
Yeah it's all true. Playboy was Illegal, along with condoms and being homosexual until 1993. Yes 1993. Prior to thise, people were still selling playboys, condonms and being homosexual, but it was in fact illegal. We don't actually have an explicit right to freedom of speech in this country. In the Irish constitution, most if not all personal rights are, to use the exact phrase, "subject to public order and morality". Oy'veh!
Anyway, it's not like that over here anymore. Long story short, people got relatively wealthy and now have the money to be as debauched and decandent as they like, hence the laws got changed. The current Taoiseach of the country, that's the Prime Minister, is divorced and living with his girlfriend. Or he was at any rate, while still Taoiseach. He might have married her. Might. So no we are not currently talking about a conservative catholic theocracy anymore. Because it was a conservative catholic theocracy at one point. I've got witnesses who can testify to that.
However! There's still a lot of old guard catholic dead wood hanging around. The kind who thought that Vatican II was an opening of the floodgates of sin. They're here and there, usually in minor offical positions that they obtained through their connections to government. "Pillars of the Community" had a lot of government connections over here, mostly because everyone else had emigrated.
Anyway, these kind of officals tend not only to be catholics, they are very often members of some subversive catholic organisation like Opus Dei or the Knights of Columbanus. I believe the attoreny general in the infamous X case [wikipedia.org] was a member of the latter. Think Pat Robertson, only without the TV show. Trust me, these guys are the real pros, Robertson's just a wannabe.
Anyway, it's highly likely that someone of that ilk is running the
Parent
Public policy (Score:2, Insightful)
I wonder... (Score:2, Funny)
murder.ie? (Score:5, Funny)
.US Bans Names Too, such as FuckCensorship.US (Score:4, Informative)
For the timebeing, along with others, it's in perpetual limbo:
http://www.whois.us/whois.cgi?TLD=us&dn=fuckcenso
Ron
that top-level domain belongs to that goverment (Score:3, Insightful)
yes.
your right to free speech does not:
1. extend to other countries
2. usually does not extend to material unsuitable for minors, depending on the situation and audience.
(like creepy domainnames for porn site)
3. does not extend to other things, like slander, libel, false advertising, misrepresentation, etc.
mostly your right to free speech is there to criticize the government(your own government), it's not there so you can download child porn.
If you want to get upset, having a nazi.xx domain is illegal in most European countries. but as far as I know it is legal in the US. WHOIS for: nazi.com [dnsstuff.com], nazi.org [dnsstuff.com]
I personally find domains like IHR.ORG and VHO.ORG far more offensive, they belong to Holocaust denial groups. Relastically we should ban those domains before we ban BIGJUICYSLUTS.COM (is that a real domain? I bet it is)
Dibs on hairp.ie! (Score:3, Funny)
Bang goes my Irish convenience store chain. (Score:3, Funny)
Can a word be immoral? (Score:3, Insightful)
It's pretty much like asking "Is God fair?". I only hope you don't expect an objective answer, because morals are just as subjective as religious beliefs (and please don't hit me back with a Wikipedia link to an article about moral absolutism or moral objectivism).
Re:Murder or Porn (Score:5, Insightful)
You're still implying there's something wrong with pornographic actions, and that it's the role of the government to regulate them.
I'd suggest that whatever sexual activity takes place between consenting adults (or solo, given that this is Slashdot) is their own business.
Parent
Re:Murder or Porn (Score:4, Funny)
(or solo, given that this is Slashdot)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You're right, and that's really the only argument I see as being valid here. I'd say though, virtually every human activity can and will be misused. That's a good reason for effective laws and law enforcement, not a good excuse for censorship and repression.
It's the slavery (both physical and economic
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If women were told that they couldn't work any job, but porn, then you'd have a better argument.
The next time you see a guy breaking his back working shit labor, ask yourself if he's sure he wants to be there. This is, essentially, the trafficking of human beings.
Watch everything you buy. You don't know where it came from.
We should make buying shoes illegal; I hear that the people who are forced to make them don't have any alternatives. It's essentiall
Wait, what? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Religious fundamentalists (Score:4, Insightful)
No, we just thought they were restricted to America [guardian.co.uk].
Boom-cha! Thank-you, I'll be here all night.
Parent
Re:Religious fundamentalists (Score:5, Insightful)
No, we just thought they were restricted to America.
.IE decision cropping up from time to time. Give it another thirty years and you won't be able to tell an urbanite from Dublin or Galway from someone from New York or London, apart from the accents. Not saying its a good thing or a bad thing, but its how I see it going.
Actually even in Ireland, the situation is changing extremely rapidly. What the GP was referring to was the "troubles" in the north, which had almost nothing to do with religion - Catholic / Protestant was just a convenient title for the opposing camps. Republican / unionist would be better. All that is besides the point, however.
The gap between younger and older generations in Ireland is staggering. We basically went from ultra conservative, churchgoing folks to hedonisitic, hip, and tech-savvy in about thirty years. The older generation is still in political power however, which is why you see things like this
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:You miss the point ... (Score:5, Insightful)
The countries domain is a service provided for the country; privatized or not, it's supposed to be run in the interests of the people. If enough people of Ireland feel that their countries service isn't what they want then they have every right to demand that the government improve that service, again, privatized or not. They shouldn't have to use another countries domain name when their own government is supposed to be providing their citizens with a service that the majority of them like.
Would you argue the same about other privatized services? Water? Transport? "If you don't like it, use someone else?" In a lot of countries there is no viable competitor, and in this case, if Irish people want an Irish domain (surprise!) then they have no other service to go to.
Maybe the majority of them want the restrictions, and that's their choice. But you don't get to shut down the argument over whether or not this is a good choice by simply spouting some inanity about the market deciding blah blah blah. If the citizens want their own countries domain rules to change, they should.
Parent
Re:A rose by any other name... (Score:5, Interesting)
Except for, you know, the idea that we should be free to do whatever the hell we want, so long as we're not harming others. I know freedom (and liberalism) in general is out of favour these days, but still...
don't force those who adminsiter and check these to suffer your personal tastes, and don't cry foul by their decisions. That is what pisses me off.
So we should all suffer YOUR personal tastes? Or should we go with "majority rules" here, and fuck anyone who disagrees with the majority?
Meet Bob, he had the same rights as everyone. One day he fucked a watermelon, and loved it. Now he felt that he didn't have the same rights as everyone else and started a campaign for 'equal rights' and 'tolerance'
And so long as Bob isn't harming a soul while fucking watermelons, what precisely is the problem? If he's prevented by law from doing that, he damned well SHOULD campaign for equal rights and tolerance.
I think your poorly-veiled allusion to gay rights, plus your use of quotation marks around 'equal rights' and 'tolerance' speaks volumes about your position, though. You do realize that without 'equal rights', it's just as easy for someone to find something about you that is slightly different than the majority, and get after you about it?
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
This has very little to do with freedom to be honest. It's their tld, they've setup the rules. Don't agree with them, buy a .com name.
No, you should suffer the Terms Of Service of the registrar, like the ones many tld's enforce. Don't like it? Write to
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Personally, I think that the one who is the kooky one is the one who thinks that disagreeing with censorship is equivalent to being a fundamentalist. That's just my opinion though...
Here's a decent definition of censorship: The practice of suppressing a text or part of a text that is considered objectionable according to certain standards.
This is censorsh
Mod parent down. (Score:4, Funny)
Don't like personal freedom, cocksucker? Go to China. Stop fucking up the civilized world.
You heard me. GET OUT.
Parent
Re:Porn isn't free speech. (Score:4, Insightful)
I would argue that effective birth control has a lot more to do with this than "television". You're a LOT less likely to "take a chance" with that good looking guy you met if there's a high probability you'll end up with a baby out of a night's passion. Oh and why is it that girls sleeping around is no good, but guys sleeping around doesn't get a mention?
Women were culturally restricted to be a subservient class in a male dominated world. All this has changed, and now women fend for themselves, work for themselves, and educate themselves. Basically the sexual differences between male and female have been blurred now. There's no reason why they shouldn't entertain themselves sexually as well. What's good for the goose is also good for the gander.
While I agree that extremes in any situation including sex may lead to disappointing results, I feel that education, not imposition from the outside with stupid (and unenforceable) laws, is the solution. Outlawing something only makes it illegal. It does NOT stop people from doing it.
Morals are individual things. Respect for your fellow human being means you can't impose your point of view on them.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
You misunderstand. It's not sex that's immoral. It's sex between Democrats that's immoral. Personally, I even condone Republican-Democrat sex (if they're married of course), but Democrat-Democrat sex... ewwwwww.