Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Internet Censorship Your Rights Online

New RFC Considers .sex TLD Dangerous 421

Posted by michael
from the sex-with-sue-almost-as-dangerous dept.
netcentric writes "A post on CircleID has reported about an RFC prepared by Donald E. Eastlake 3rd and Declan McCullagh, CNET News.com's Washington D.C. correspondent, analyzing proposals from various parties to mandate the use of special top level domain names (such as .sex or .xxx) or an IP address bit to flag 'adult' or 'unsafe' material or the like. The analysis explains why these ideas are dangerous and ill considered from legal, philosophical, and technical points of view. Here is the post to this report on CircleID along with some commentaries and link to the entire RFC 3675."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

New RFC Considers .sex TLD Dangerous

Comments Filter:
  • Once again... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by darth_MALL (657218)
    ...I am releived of the burden of being a responsible, involved parent. Thanks Mr. Eastlake. *sigh*
    • RTFA (Score:4, Informative)

      by k98sven (324383) on Friday March 19, 2004 @07:47PM (#8616591) Journal
      If you bothered to read the article, or even the summary, you'd see that the RFC prepared by Mr. Eastlake is against a .sex top-level domain.
      • Re:RTFA (Score:2, Funny)

        by darth_MALL (657218)
        goo....My bad that's what you get for scanning the headlines at work *shame*
        • Even the headline makes it pretty clear, unless that "Dangerous" word was added after you posted of course...
      • No, YOU RTFA. (Score:2, Insightful)

        If you bothered to read the article, or even the summary, you'd see that the RFC prepared by Mr. Eastlake is against a .sex top-level domain.

        That's the point. What's your problem with .sex? That the kids will now ahve (even) liess problems finding the porn? Well if their finding and viewing the porn RIGHT NOW, and you don't like it, what are you doing about it RIGHT NOW? There is no down side to .sex at all. As far as the kiddies locating pron, they will find a way, .sex or not. It is left to YOU as a pare

        • Re:No, YOU RTFA. (Score:5, Insightful)

          by JDRipper (610930) on Friday March 19, 2004 @08:46PM (#8617056)
          Read the RFC and you'll understand the problems with a mandated TLD. It's not about protecting the kids, it's about being forced to have a TLD that might not be appropriate for your website. If you discuss abortion rights, would you need an adult TLD? If you discuss condoms, would you need an adult TLD? Who decides what is adult? The FCC? Congress? RTFRFC
          • Re:No, YOU RTFA. (Score:3, Insightful)

            by Jim Starx (752545)
            That's why I think the .xxx or .adult sites are a bad idea, cause for them to be effective you would have to force all "obscene" content to go under that domain. But I really like the kids.us idea, it can still work even when it's entirely volentary. There's still gonna be issues about grey area, maybe this is appropriate, maybe it isn't, but all in all I think the idea has merit.
      • Re:RTFA (Score:3, Funny)

        by dasmegabyte (267018)
        He was being serious.

        After all, a person who doesn't have time to RTFA isn't going to take the time to watch their kids, either.

        I'd be more insightful, but I think my puppy is eating my couch.
        • Re:RTFA (Score:3, Funny)

          by Anonymous Coward
          Maybe, he's not got time to RTFA because he's watching his kids.
    • That's "Post" by the way. Quoting from the (usually inaccurate but not this time) story blurb at the top of the screen:

      The analysis explains why these ideas are dangerous and ill considered from legal, philosophical, and technical points of view.

      Emphasis mine.
  • Lieberman (Score:5, Funny)

    by kundor (757951) <kundor@member . f s f . o rg> on Friday March 19, 2004 @07:36PM (#8616474) Homepage
    At first blush I would consider this a good idea, but seeing that Lieberman endorsed it, I'm forced to knee-jerk the other way.
    • Re:Lieberman (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Alan Cox (27532) on Friday March 19, 2004 @07:41PM (#8616518) Homepage
      The problem is that you have to decide what it means to be "adult content". Even between the UK and France you can find the same film labelled "12" in France, while cut and labelled "18" in the UK

      At least the ICRA content rating model put the value judgement in the hands of the viewer.

      I can see xxx.us working (kind of), and maybe xxx.randomcountry. Personally I'd rather there was a reliable register of adult URLs rather than a bunch of companies all trying to make sure they alone own the filter lists. ".xxx" is addressing that problem but the wrong way IMHO.
      • Re:Lieberman (Score:5, Interesting)

        by kundor (757951) <kundor@member . f s f . o rg> on Friday March 19, 2004 @07:45PM (#8616566) Homepage
        I think that the PC gaming industry has showed that self-regulation can work. It's really in the sites' best interest to let interested adults find them easily, while enabling other venues to block them.

        Perhaps if there was a gradation similar to the one used by the ESRB, different locales with their different mores could set different thresholds.

        • Re:Lieberman (Score:2, Interesting)

          by DJerman (12424)
          I think that the PC gaming industry has showed that self-regulation can work. It's really in the sites' best interest to let interested adults find them easily, while enabling other venues to block them.

          Poop. Pfiffle. Poppycock. Any plan that depends on self-rating may as well pack up and go home. You're ignoring human nature and the reach of legislation if you think otherwise.

          One name: goatse.cx

          There will always be someone who doesn't care, who wants to shock, who wants to reach the most eyeballs.

        • Re:Lieberman (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Babbster (107076) <aaronbabb@@@gmail...com> on Friday March 19, 2004 @08:32PM (#8616948) Homepage
          No, actually it's not in the adult sites' best interest. Just like any other for-profit web presence, they want as many page views as possible. If they really wanted to restrict access to adults only, they wouldn't buy misleading URL names, they would put the letters XXX in ALL of their URL names, they wouldn't sponsor pop-ups on non-adult sites, etc.

          There's no way the porn industry would restrict themselves to a separate TLD, if for no other reason than it would make it far too easy to screen that domain and prevent access on any system.

          The reason self-regulation has worked (to some extent - retailers need to get better about giving some support in terms of enforcement) in the video game industry is that they have a vested interest in alleviating parental concerns. If they ignore the concerns of parents, many of those adults are less likely to buy ANY video game for children, which constitutes a large part of their market. In the porn industry, they care less about the concerns of conservative parents because that's not their audience.

          • Re:Lieberman (Score:3, Interesting)

            by enjo13 (444114)
            Not true.. since (most legitimate) porn sites are *gasp* content based and not dependent on ad revenue so much as subscription revenue. They are interested in maximizing the page views of POTENTIAL SUBSCRIBERS, in general those with an actual inkling to download adult content. Everyone else is wasting their bandwidth..

            Most of the people spamming and installing malicious pop-up-ware aren't the content providers, but rather advertisers who get paid by driving people to the site. I think the adult webmasters
      • Re:Lieberman (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward
        Of course, *.xxx.us isn't really small enough, though, is it? Wouldn't you think that xxx.ky.us and xxx.nv.us would have different standards? And even then, there's places within each state where taking the lord's name in vain is obscene.

        I think attempts to apply technological "solutions" to the "problem" of obscenity just helps mask what the concept of "obscenity" is. In the past, it's been a segment of society deciding what the whole of society can and cannot do IN PUBLIC (or, more accurately, at priv
      • Re:Lieberman (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Sheetrock (152993) on Friday March 19, 2004 @08:17PM (#8616807) Homepage Journal
        I think there is another subtle problem, and one that has occurred to me after seeing how our legislators have reacted to the situation regarding Janet Jackson; a .xxx domain will become a bin that the government will want to sweep everything that could be considered remotely offensive into.

        But could this mean, for example, that a website such as this which is providing a forum to the public will have to more vigorously scrub the content of its users in order to remain visible or within the law? I fear that this wave of neopuritanism in the U.S. would wield a domain such as .xxx as a club against websites that are not deliberately providing prurient content yet manage to provide offense (much like a radio show that accepts calls from listeners and is forced to block their obscenity or face steep fines.)

        Far better to determine a system like the ICRA to leave it up to the viewer, as you say. We've got mandated V-chips in our television sets that permit the set owner to restrict programming to a particular standard which is apparently broadcast with the TV signal, but the broadcasters still censor their content. A .xxx domain will not satisfy the vocal minority that has been responsible for pushing censorship in movies, music, or radio because they are not content to control what they consume, but what we all consume.

      • Re:Lieberman (Score:2, Insightful)

        by moviepig.com (745183)
        The problem is that you have to decide what it means to be "adult content".

        The problem is inherently intractable, when viewed from the top like that. There will always be a large, single-minded group intent on writing its taxonomy onto everyone's sky. And, where there's one group, there's many.

        The only approach that's even theoretically workable is from the other end, via opt-in domains, e.g. '.angel' or '.moral'. Then, every sect that finds itself blessed with the One True View could spawn its own h

  • by Nashirak (533418) on Friday March 19, 2004 @07:36PM (#8616476) Homepage
    Now would this "adult bit" be incorporated into the evil bit [rfc-editor.org]? Or what?
  • I didn't know they weren't using virtual protection methods!
  • by Anonymous Crowhead (577505) on Friday March 19, 2004 @07:37PM (#8616490)
    The Sticky Bit?
  • hahah (Score:5, Funny)

    by crayz (1056) on Friday March 19, 2004 @07:38PM (#8616498) Homepage
    I just told someone at work about this, and he said ".sex? What would that be for...porn sites?"

    Lets just say I should hope so
  • Always amusing... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Homology (639438) on Friday March 19, 2004 @07:39PM (#8616506)
    The analysis explains why these ideas are dangerous and ill considered from legal, philosophical, and technical points of view. Here is the post to this report on CircleID along with some commentaries and link to the entire RFC 3675."

    ...to read why showing a nipple on US TV is immoral, while executing the said owner of the nipple and selling the nipple is a good deed.

  • from the sex-with-sue-almost-as-dangerous dept.

    Does she have the clap or what?

  • Amazon.sex (Score:5, Funny)

    by superpulpsicle (533373) on Friday March 19, 2004 @07:40PM (#8616513)
    I don't know about you, but it certainly gives new meaning to some already existing sites.

    tomshardware.sex

    slashdot.sex

    irs.sex

    gateway.sex

    Internet's about to get real interesting.
    • "I don't know about you, but it certainly gives new meaning to some already existing sites.

      tomshardware.sex

      slashdot.sex

      irs.sex

      gateway.sex"

      Don't forget about Microsoft.sex. Of course, it would be a source for penis enlargement spam, or leaked video footage starring Mr. Gates or Mr. Ballmer.

      And no, I did not suggest the video would feature both of them together, thank you very much!

    • by argStyopa (232550)
      slashdot.sex

      Error 404--Not Found
      From RFC 2068 Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1:
      10.4.5 404 Not Found
      The server has not found anything matching the Request-URI. No indication is given of whether the condition is temporary or permanent, but naturally we hope it's not.

      If the server does not wish to make this information available to the client, or if the client is a prude, the status code 403 (Forbidden) can be used instead. The 410 (Gone) status code SHOULD be used if the server knows, through some i
  • by wideBlueSkies (618979) on Friday March 19, 2004 @07:41PM (#8616517) Journal
    At first I read it as .sex STD.

    Now _that_ would be a dangerous series of websites.

    wbs.
  • by victorvodka (597971) on Friday March 19, 2004 @07:44PM (#8616561) Homepage
    1. Create a special place for something considered deviant.
    2. Mandate that this is the only place where deviance can take place.
    3. Eliminate special place for deviance.
    4. ?????
    5. Profit!
  • by igrp (732252) on Friday March 19, 2004 @07:45PM (#8616572)
    I'm fairly sure that if they took all the porn off the internet there'd only be one website left and it'd be called "BringbackthePorn.com".
    • by Anonymous Coward
      sigh...
      why don't you people use hyperlinking? I had to cut and paste that into my address bar.
      • y'know, if you're using Mozilla, you can just select an addy with the mouse and right-click on it to go there....
        • y'know, if you're using Mozilla, you can just select an addy with the mouse and right-click on it to go there....

          Mozilla 1.6 here, and the options I got were "copy", "select all", "web search for", and "view selection source".
  • by brucmack (572780) on Friday March 19, 2004 @07:48PM (#8616596)
    I don't think that any sites should be forced into doing this, but that it would be cool if sites did it voluntarily. I mean, I'm sure the sites don't really want kids visiting anyway... they probably aren't going to be able to find a way to pay for content.
    • by forevermore (582201) on Friday March 19, 2004 @08:44PM (#8617042) Homepage
      This has been brought up before, I think (sorry, no links), and personally I think it's a great idea. Not only would it provide an easy-to-filter TLD for those people who don't want anything to do with porn (or whatever), but it would also provide an easy place to look for those who do want to see porn. Forcing sites into the TLD causes all kinds of issues that happens with censorship, let alone the issues that arise from one government trying to regulate something as international as the internet. There are just too many cases of misinterpretation causing problems.

      I guess it's time for someone to start thinking about registering goatse.xxx.

    • I don't think that any sites should be forced into doing this, but that it would be cool if sites did it voluntarily.
      Why would it be "cool" exactly?
      ... [kids] probably aren't going to be able to find a way to pay for content.
      So then what difference does it make if it's in .sex?
  • Free-Speech Zones (Score:5, Insightful)

    by LGagnon (762015) on Friday March 19, 2004 @07:52PM (#8616619)
    While this seems to be a good idea in some ways, I can't help but be reminded of those "free speech zones" they command protesters to stay within if they want to protest something. After all, the entire country is supposed to be a free speech zone, and the entire internet is supposed to be open to any form of speech (that is, within reasonable limits).
    • Re:Free-Speech Zones (Score:5, Interesting)

      by maximilln (654768) on Friday March 19, 2004 @08:01PM (#8616695) Homepage Journal
      "Please stay within the free speech zone so that we can use less tear gas to subdue you when Tipper Gore gives the signal."

      Am I cynical, enlightened, disillusioned, or just fed up with being pushed around by Washington bureaucrats? If I want to look at pr0n then, by doggammit, I'm going to. If GW Bush doesn't want me to look at pr0n then perhaps he should donate one of his daughters to my harem. For cripes' sakes. I'm 28, in good physical condition, educated, I have a libido like any other man on this planet, and I have standards which say I'm not going to screw the town nasty-mattress just to get off.

      If they don't want to deal with my spooge then figure out a way to hook me up with a woman who will. It's hardly my fault that I have to spend my life locked up at work just to pay taxes so that they can continue to propagate this kind of useless b_llsh_t which costs me money even though I voted against it.

      If the police state that we live in is so doggone perfect then quit hassling me about not having a suitable mate.
  • VinDiesel.xxx

    And then sell the domain to that loser for hefty sum.
  • by rjstanford (69735) on Friday March 19, 2004 @07:53PM (#8616632) Homepage Journal
    Let's work through this. If they came up with ".sex", many workplaces would filter out sites that were listed in .sex. I mean, wouldn't you? Now, let's pretend that you've got a porn site. You want as many people to see it as possible. You could host it at whitehouse.sex and get some traffic, or at whitehouse.com and get more traffic. Which do you pick?

    Both, of course.

    I mean, why wouldn't you?
  • by waynemcdougall (631415) <slashdot@codeworks.gen.nz> on Friday March 19, 2004 @07:58PM (#8616664) Homepage
    I knew this would happen. You kids with your whiles and fors and do untils....you've brought this all on yourselves.

    Yes, yes you were all happy when the GOTO [acm.org] was considered harmful. But it didn't stop there. Oh no. I warned you, I did.

    And now see where it's led? Sex considered harmful!

    Bring back the GOTO before it is too late!

  • Yes! (Score:5, Funny)

    by fluxrad (125130) on Friday March 19, 2004 @07:59PM (#8616675) Homepage
    I'm all in favor of this kind of TLD.

    Preferably something easy to type with one hand.
  • Of course sex is dangerous.

    Just ask any parent.

    Ask your own parents... Another fine mess you've got us into, dear

  • by DeltaSigma (583342) <onu.public@gmail . c om> on Friday March 19, 2004 @08:04PM (#8616712) Journal
    Create the TLD (preferrably .xxx to indicate an "adult" nature, as opposed to .sex which indicates, well, sex. Not all "adult" material is sex). Encourage the porn community to use this new TLD. Let them keep their .coms, .org(ie)s, and .nets. But encourage them to have those domains forward to the .xxx domain. There are responsible site owners in the community. If a .xxx domain suggesst to the potential customer that the site is more legitimate with its business that will create a competitive edge for .xxx domain businesses.

    If it doesn't take, maybe then we can discuss this mandate.

    Essentially, give them the freagging tool and see if they take to it before forcing them to use it. What ever happened to the "graded-approach?"
  • by PCM2 (4486) on Friday March 19, 2004 @08:12PM (#8616762) Homepage
    While I agree that a .sex TLD is 1.) a dumb idea, and 2.) a potential legal and regulatory morass, I think it's shortsighted to just roll your eyes and write it off as another "won't someone think of the children" proposal.

    Some people just don't like being inundated by porn when they use the Internet. Period.

    I mean, come on -- we all know that if you spend time randomly surfing the Web, you can hardly go an hour or two without randomly stumbling across some porn -- or reference to porn -- in the form of an advertisement or a pop-up or a joke site or whatever. Half the spam you receive -- and you can't help receiving it -- falls under most people's definition of porn.

    So why is that? We don't put up with it in the rest of our day to day lives.

    Most communities regulate porn theaters, porn magazines, etc., very strictly. Even if you, personally, like and consume porn in the privacy of your own home, if you leased an office building, you probably wouldn't want a porn theater opening up on either side of you. If your office had a magazine-swap rack in the break room, you probably wouldn't want your employees leaving porn there. Very few people would vote to let their city accept advertising from porn companies on park benches and bus stops.

    I don't think it's out of line to have a reasonable expectation of being able to spend your day without viewing porn. So how to tackle that problem on the Internet?

    It seems to me that the porn industry has a lot of money, and they're willing to pay it to people to get their advertising and their products out there to where people will pay to consume them. If that's the root of the problem, then it does not seem unreasonable to me to propose possible ways of regulating the way the porn industry does business. The .sex domain is one such idea.

    Not the best one, perhaps, but a legitimate one nonetheless.
    • Agreed.

      The RFC correctly identifies that it would be impossible to create a perfect system.

      Like anything else is perfect. .com isn't always commercial. .org isn't always non-profit. But there's a helpful categorisation there.

      Instead of 2^300 categories even just 2 (adult and not-adult) may be helpful for those who choose to use it.

      The objection that people may be persecuted for accessing the 'adult' section is a straw-man. It's not hard to identify where people are browsing now.

      The one serious obj

      • Even if there is no perfect system, the one proposed in the RFC (hooks to allow browser software to consult your choice of 'rating authority') seems to be much more promising than this TLD nonsense.

        As the RFC points out, if you create 'adult and non-adult' TLDs, how do you decide (on a global scale) what it means to be 'adult' or 'non-adult' when countries, religions and communities have such incredibly divergent views of what they should be? For any answer to work, it -must- take this into consideration,
    • by lkaos (187507) <anthony.codemonkey@ws> on Friday March 19, 2004 @08:34PM (#8616963) Homepage Journal
      While I agree that a .black TLD is 1.) a dumb idea, and 2.) a potential legal and regulatory morass, I think it's shortsighted to just roll your eyes and write it off as another "won't someone think of the children" proposal.

      Some people just don't like being inundated by black people when they use the Internet. Period.

      I mean, come on -- we all know that if you spend time randomly surfing the Web, you can hardly go an hour or two without randomly stumbling across some black person -- or reference to black people -- in the form of an advertisement or a pop-up or a joke site or whatever. Half the spam you receive -- and you can't help receiving it -- falls under most people's definition of black culture.

      So why is that? We don't put up with it in the rest of our day to day lives.

      Most communities regulate who's allowed in it, housing prices, etc. very strictly. In fact, in the South there are still many towns that do not have a single black person. Even if you, personally, like and talk to black people in the privacy of your own home, if you leased an office building, you probably wouldn't want a black person moving in on either side of you. If your office had a magazine-swap rack in the break room, you probably wouldn't want your employees leaving a rap magazine there. Very few people would vote to let their city accept advertising from Gangster Rap labels on park benches and bus stops.

      I don't think it's out of line to have a reasonable expectation of being able to spend your day without viewing black culture. So how to tackle that problem on the Internet?

      It seems to me that the NAACP has a lot of money, and they're willing to pay it to people to get their advertising and their agenda out there to where people will pay to consume them. If that's the root of the problem, then it does not seem unreasonable to me to propose possible ways of regulating the way the NAACP industry does business. The .black domain is one such idea.

      Not the best one, perhaps, but a legitimate one nonetheless.

      Note: It's amazing how quickly a s/porn/black/g can demonstrate how unreasonable you're actually being.
      • by spRed (28066) on Friday March 19, 2004 @09:41PM (#8617562)
        old: replace the operative word with "black" or "white" and see if the sentence still makes sense. If It doesn't -- you're a racist!

        new: replace the operative word with "freakishly tall librarian" and see if the sentence still makes sense. If it doesn't -- congratulations, this issue isn't black and white!

        we call them cliches because they didn't die when they stopped being useful.
      • That, sir, is the single stupidest thing I have ever read on Slashdot, far exceeding the GNAA trolls. I would like a full explanation as to how operating a pornography business is the same as being black, and how anyone opposed to pornography, but not blacks, is a hypocrite.

        It looks like you just took the word pornography and replaced it with a random politically correct word in a vain hope to try to associate the struggle to sell pornography with the struggle for equal rights. That, sir, spits on the grav
    • In the Internet's defense, how many of us have done the truly random surfing thing since, oh, 1998?

      Yes, the .sex domain name is "one such idea." A horrible one, for the reasons described in the article. I don't see any way of classifying content in such a way that it would please the governments of the U.S., Saudi Arabia, and Denmark. And it would have to, because the TLDs are meant to be a worldwide service.

      So the U.S. passes a law saying that all U.S. porn sites must operate under the .sex TLD
    • I mean, come on -- we all know that if you spend time randomly surfing the Web, you can hardly go an hour or two without randomly stumbling across some porn -- or reference to porn -- in the form of an advertisement or a pop-up or a joke site or whatever.

      What sites are you visiting? I can go for months without coming across a site more adult-oriented than anything on primetime network TV.
    • Most communities regulate porn theaters, porn magazines, etc., very strictly.

      Which is entirely possible when there's a locality involved. The theatre is in a known place and the magazines are tangible objects. The applicable community standard is that of the community in which the theatre or magazine is found. How does a politician in the USofA regulate a web server in Russia? If a teen in Oklahoma visits debbie.does.donkeys.da.ru where does the offense take place? Sure, YOU can create a .xxx domain,

  • As I had stated in another /. post [slashdot.org], I really think that we need to re-think the way we compartmentalize information on the web. There are a number of reasons, but primarily the fact that we let any and all websites sit anywhere on the TLDs that were originally meant to be a *starting point* for site hierarchy just proves that people are being resistive and lazy.

    I really think we need several more TLDs for more things than jsut porn;

    -.com - company commercial sites.
    -.org - NFPs and other groups that are no
    • But the big problem is that you can't define what should go in some of the different categories. What you think is porn, someone in the Netherlands may think is family entertainment. What someone in Iran considers immoral and offensive you may think is just fine, and what you consider youth-oriented I may not want my kids seeing. So until you can come up with a one-size-fits-all definition for "kid safe" and "adult" then this won't and can't work.

  • by whoever57 (658626) on Friday March 19, 2004 @08:23PM (#8616862) Journal
    Imagine that I run a site with adult content (I don't, but just for the sake of discussion let's imagine I do). Imagine that sites with adult content are required by law to exist only within the .xxx domain. and I comply by hosting my adult site with a ".xxx" domain name.

    Now, some person bent on mischief registers a ".com" domain name that points to my website.

    Am I in trouble here? Who committed the offence?

    Now, imagine, I pay some person in Nigeria cash to set up domain names in ".com" that point to my website and continue to do so as each domain name is taken down.

    So much potential for abuse by or against adult webmasters.

  • by nathanh (1214) on Friday March 19, 2004 @08:27PM (#8616906) Homepage
    A post on CircleID has reported about an RFC prepared by Donald E. Eastlake 3rd and Declan McCullagh, CNET News.com's Washington D.C. correspondent, analyzing proposals from various parties to mandate the use of special top level domain names (such as .sex or .xxx) or an IP address bit to flag 'adult' or 'unsafe' material or the like.

    So now the underlying protocols that drive communications for the entire world need to have bits to designate "sexual content", just to appease the ridiculously puritanical Amercians.

    Sometimes I wonder what the hell happened to your priorities. You'll go to war and kill 1000s of people to find WMD (which it seems never existed). You'll televise your murderous rampage to the world in all its horrifying brutality. Yet if a woman shows a breast on television then there's a "moral" outcry. Whose morals? It seems your society's morals are those of a prudish spinster.

    The incredible thing is that in the area of morals and censorship, America shares more in common with religious regimes like the Taleban than with any other group. I can only think of two regions in the world that are so ridiculously out of touch with their human nature: the USA and the religious nutcases in the Middle East.

    It'd be so easy to dismiss this rant as a troll or flamebait. Sure, it's easier to ignore that which you wish wasn't true, but you know that I'm making you uncomfortable because I'm telling the truth. There's a serious problem with morals in America right now. Your laws are repressing a natural part of the human existence, imposing an incredibly puritanical view of humanity onto millions of people, yet your same lawmakers allow a 10 year old child to see a man murdered on television. What the hell is wrong with you people?!?

    • by chefmonkey (140671) on Friday March 19, 2004 @08:38PM (#8616987)
      Ermmmm... RTFRFC. The entire point is that putting morality-related bits in the protocols or partitioning off morality-related TLDs is a tremendously horrid idea. It was published to warn off any misguided attempts that might arise along those lines.

      That's not to say your rant is completely invalid, but I do take objection to your painting a group of several hundred million people with a single broad stroke. Your beef is with "the religious nutcases in the USA", not "the USA."

      • To nathanh (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Jerf (17166)
        And yes, nathanh, your country has religious nut cases too. I don't even have to ask what country it is.
    • Not all of us are (Score:4, Insightful)

      by shadowbearer (554144) on Saturday March 20, 2004 @01:15AM (#8618746) Homepage Journal
      You are painting with just a broad a brush as the idiots who are pushing this .sex shit are.

      This is not productive. What would be productive is sharing with those who agree with you, and working to change it. Every culture has it's dissidents, man, including America. Dog knows we need it right now...our government is going batshit crazy...but support for the people who don't agree with it would be nice, generalization about how all americans think that way isn't.

      A lot of Americans are pissed off at the idiocy here. Why do you paint us as all being a lot of greedy, grasping nutcases? From a personal standpoint, Fuck You. I've spent nearly twenty years fighting against the idiocy in our government. You know what? It's a losing fight - which I know goddamned well that a lot of Europeans are familiar with - so why are you so busy flaming rather than helping out?

      I don't know whether we can stop these out-of-control powergrabs. I don't know if there any real solutions short of violent revolution. But it'd be nice if the Rest of The World would realize that we're not all a lot of greedy morons. You know, we just might need your support if it comes to stopping this shit. We certainly don't need more hatred.

      Goddamn. I am seeing way too much of this on slashdot recently. Some of it is justified. Some of it isn't. We're losing the fight here, hey, and we could use all the support we can get! If we lose this fight, the world is probably going to be pretty fucked up. So quit flaming us and help out, godammit. Any way you can.

      I'm sorry for the rant, but I also get the impression that a lot of the world doesn't understand the agony in the US these days. For some reason, it reminds me of the international reactions to the craziness that was going on in Germany in the 30s. Don't know why.

      Sheeezus.

      SB

  • by Anonymous Coward
    So we should ban it; especially as it creates the very kids we are trying to protect from it, shame on you!
  • That this is a good idea, that way people stop making random porn .coms, .nets, etc. And just go .sex and .xxx, etc. That way you can just have your broswer deny access to .sex or .xxx domains, and you don't have to worry about your children stumbling upon them. This, of course, wouldn't put an end to .com porn, but it would still be a big help in filtering out porn in the future.
    • This is a -horrible- idea, and the RFC describes why, in at least three different ways.

      Some of the key points, in very brief:
      * The owner of a server has no control over what domains choose to point what names at his IP address.
      * A TLD is a global designation, but there is no global consensus on what constitutes 'pornographic' or 'unsuitable' material.
  • I'd be for .sex (Score:4, Interesting)

    by ajs318 (655362) <<ku.oc.dohshtrae> <ta> <2pser_ds>> on Friday March 19, 2004 @08:37PM (#8616983)
    I have thought about this a few times, and I actually think the benefits in terms of keeping pr0n away from people who do not want to see it outweigh the risks in terms of keeping pr0n away from people who do want to see it. After all, where there's a will(y), there's a way.

    However, I also think it's unlikely to happen. The UK and US governments seem to think that there is something wrong with sex -- especially the non-procreative varieties -- but prefer to deal with it by pretending it doesn't exist. Creating a special domain for pornography and then taking action to ensure it is used properly would mean having to admit that people do enjoy sex.

    And that's something I really can't imagine the authorities ever agreeing to, given the way the USA reacted to a lady's chest being shown on TV, and the fact that until recently, you weren't even allowed to depict a hard-on in Britain. The only way it would ever gain any sort of approval would be if someone else started it off. But in countries where sex is seen as just being something people do, they probably would not see the need for a separate place on the Internet.

    I could be wrong. I'd like to be wrong. But it's going to require a pretty major attitude shift somewhere.
    • I can't believe how far I had to scroll down the page before coming across someone who thought it was a good idea. Oh wait, this is Slashdot. Okay, I can believe it.

      I can't believe their's an RFC for this! Somebody's trying to use the RFC name to add authority to their opinion.

      I gave the RFC a quick read, and can't say that I found its arguments very convincing.

      The slippery slope argument that creating one special TLD will lead to everything being required to reside in a specific TLD hardly seems like

  • How about .PRUDE? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 19, 2004 @08:45PM (#8617052)
    Instead of trying to figure out what's naughty and what's not, we can just whitelist all white-middle-class-evangelical-family-friendly content, put it in .PRUDE, and they can block everything else.

    Advantages: the evangelicals are happy because they can be pure and clean without having to actually make any moral choices, and the rest of us can use this thing called "free will", which allows people to view and avoid whatever content they desire.
  • Parents (Score:5, Insightful)

    by nnet (20306) on Friday March 19, 2004 @08:50PM (#8617099) Homepage Journal
    In all this, one recurring theme repeats itself. Its the parents responsibility, not the govenments, to make sure children can't access adult content. If, as a parent, you don't have the time to ensure this, you have no right HAVING children, simply because you cannot give them the time required to properly educate, supervise, nurture, and raise them. TV and the internet are NOT babysitters. There wouldn't have to be government intervention online if parents took their child-rearing responsibilities 100%. And don't give me the "but I HAVE to work 80-24000 hrs a week to support my family" crap because it simply isn't true. Thats pure greed talking. I know, I'm a father of three, and while I'm nowhere near rich monetarily, I'm drowning in the wealth of my love for my family, and their love for me. And I can enjoy that wealth because I'm not at work for the majority of my waking time. When my kids go online, my wife or I supervise, and educate them. When something untoward happens, like a porn popup, we explain to the kids what it is, whats its meant to do, and why its unacceptable/illegal/inappropriate for them to access such content. Too many of todays, and yes, older parents, turn a blind eye to their kids online activities, until the cops come to the door, then they have the audacity to blame the kid when it is in fact their own fault.

    Dummy up you parents, start taking back control of your kids lives instead of letting MTV and the internet be in control.

  • by 200_success (623160) on Friday March 19, 2004 @08:58PM (#8617204)
    Who wants to write for Java or .NET when you could do it in .SEX instead?
  • by chris_sawtell (10326) * on Friday March 19, 2004 @10:50PM (#8617924) Journal
    There is no need to set up any new TLDs, becuse it is simply a doddle to run the webserver using a port number appropriate to its content. There is nothing 'sacred' about the number '80'. You only have to change the number 80 in line 96 in /etc/apache2/conf/apache2.conf. Change the Listen parameter from 80 to whatever you want. This would allow the freedom of speech enthusiasts to say what ever they want to say and yet at the same time make it simple for those folk who do not want to hear that speech to eliminate it with ease. In effect this would allow for the creation of lots of WWWs. For Example:-

    69 - SEXplicit Cunni-lingus Movies. ( Trivial File Transfer Protocol will have to be moved to 6969, drat! that's the orgy number. )
    80 - Innocuous censored stuff.
    81 - Computer Cracking.
    82 - Sex Education.
    83 - Free Software Source Code. ( Like your new neighbours? )
    84 - SEXplicit Copulation Movies.
    85 - Commercial Software Advocacy.
    86 - Racial Supremacy Advocacy.
    87 - Currently taken by ttylink.
    88 - ditto kerberos.
    89 - Artistic Nudes. ( High quality print ready .tif files only. )

    Then there are also literally dozens of high number ports available if needed. Never happen of course, because of the huge financial interests of the network nannies, but it could create a new industry called the Net Content Classification Tribunal. The whole exercise could be run by the UN and suck up billions of dollars.
  • by GeoGreg (631708) on Friday March 19, 2004 @11:06PM (#8617993)
    I started reading the RFC and I was initially alarmed by the title ".sex Considered Dangerous". Then I realized that I am a Slashdot reader, so I am unlikely to encounter any actual sex. Whew! That was close!
  • Does Anyone Think??? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by The Woodworker (723841) on Friday March 19, 2004 @11:55PM (#8618287) Homepage
    First, let me start by saying I don't have an answer to the problem of kids and porn on the net. Having said that, a few observations.

    1. I don't think there is a kids and porn problem. Raise your hand if you viewed porn at one time when you were a kid. Now keep your hand up if you turned into a social deviant. Not many, eh! Speaking from personal experience, the people I knew growing up who turned into social misfits and freaks are the ones who were shielded all of their lives (see home schooled and religious fanatics).

    2. Aside from border problems, HOW DO WE CATEGORIZE PORN?!!!!! Do art websites qualify? What if I model a naked woman in Maya and put that on the web? Or is it just 'real' photos and video we're concerned with. What about dirty letters? What if I run a site with pictures of a clitoris? Now what if I put info about women's health on that website? Whether or not I'm creating a site for commercial purposes is irrelevant to me. The fact is as someone who puts content on the web and views content, porn or whatever, I don't want censorship. If you don't like it, set the BIOS password on your computer and try PARENTING your child, instead of giving them the internet as a babysitter.

    3. Does anyone realize how quickly content would be eliminated from the web if this were to go into effect? Do you think AOL or Earthlink will allow access to those sites when parents groups protest? This is not making it easier to identify this type of material, it's aimed at eliminating it.

    That's my three bits. Take it with a grain of salt. Disclaimer-I run a website for profit (about $25 per month profit, but I just got it going). It has adult material on it. It's at http://www.aliengoods.com/ and I sell bondage furniture. And guess what? I have a disclaimer page that most content filters should catch and block. I don't care because I don't sell to children (let's not get into a public library filters debate - they anger me).
  • summary: (Score:3, Interesting)

    by tverbeek (457094) on Saturday March 20, 2004 @10:02AM (#8620422) Homepage
    Creating .sex or .xxx could only make .com and .net kid-friendly if it all porn were legally required to use it. Due to varying worldwide standards and attitudes about free speech, and the difficulty of enforcement, that would not work. Since the creation of a porn-free space is the only compelling argument for creating such a gTLD, and there are compelling arguments against it, it's simply a Bad Idea.
  • by t_allardyce (48447) on Saturday March 20, 2004 @11:24AM (#8620773) Journal
    Why the fuck should it be this way around?? there is no advantage. The solution is simple, you make a .safe domain and you enforce strict rules on that domain only, you leave the rest of the internet alone. Already we have domains that are restricted (AFAIK) you cant get a .gov address unless.. your with the government, and the same for .ac/.edu - the next logical step is to do the same for this, not the other way around.

    Lastly, if a kid is too young to risk seeing anything dodgy, then they are probably too young to even gain anything from using the internet as a whole for education. Think about the (educational) things you use it for, do younger kids need that?

I'd rather just believe that it's done by little elves running around.

Working...