I know you're joking, but many Europeans find it hilarious how those in the US who go on the most about bringing "freedom" to Iraq and Afghanistan are often amongst the leaders in wanting to limit freedom in America.

Like it or not, to be against pornography depicting consenting adults performing various sexual acts is to be against freedom. Freedom is one of the few black-and-white situations. Either you have freedom, or you do not. Any amount of censorship, however minor, automatically means that one is not free.

Incidentally, ".aero" works, sort of. If you type "<airport code>.aero", you get the web site for that airport. Sometimes. But that's just because the domain registrar set up dummy redirects. But they botched the job. Try, for example, dfw.aero [dfw.aero].

lax.aero [lax.aero] does work, if anybody cares. But it's just a redirect to the main site for all Los Angeles County airports. [lawa.org] It doesn't even go direct to the LAX site.

Totally unnecessary.

That article didn't really provide any information reguarding reasoning for allowing or disallowing. Would xxx domains be reserved for porn sites only like a .edu or .gov? That would be rediculous. As a "religeous zealot" I wouldn't mind owning a few myself. If anyone could use em lets face it, having xxx in your name would drive TONS of traffic to your website you might not normally get and even though perhaps the individual is looking for adult content ya might have a good website with other content they are interested in. It could prove to help out in marketing a little bit. And, I don't think having a .xxx added would make much of a differance. Chances are most currently established adult websites wouldn't 'move' their site over to a xxx domain, they'd just keep their .com and buy the .xxx too. This dispute is a total waste of time. More choices for domains would be great!

.kids.us is a better idea than .xxx. The US government could regulate content within the domain to its heart's content, and parents who want the government to raise their children for them could set their kids' firewall to only allow access to that domain. There would be no question of "who owns the TLD", like the current .com/.net/.org struggle, no worries about what people in other countries find kid-acceptable that would raise flags in the US (e.g., beach photos where mom is topless), restrictions and fines could be placed on all .kids.us operators for violations, and advertisers and others would be lining up to pay registration fees so as to be able to hit a target audience. And best of all, the politicians can claim that they are doing it all "for the children".

We don't let kids drive freely over real highways. Why are we letting them drive freely over the 'Information Superhighway'? Rather than forcing all drivers to 5 m.p.h., let us make a kid friendly bike-path.

Alternatively, how would one classify a foot-fetish site that depicted a fully-clothed model with bare feet? Obviously the intent is to "appeal to prurient interests" (at least for people who are into the whole foot thing,) but would that actually qualify as "sexually explicit?"

Even if the US were to attempt to limit the distribution of such material, there would be many in foreign countries who would help fill the void.

Who said the US was attempting to do any such thing? Because the US Commence Department asked for more time to hear objections? I'm not a prude but I'm still not entirely sure what the whole point of this TLD is supposed to be. The ease of filtering is a BS argument unless porn sites are forced into the domain -- which I would not want to see happen just because that would imply putting a Governmental or regulatory agency in charge of what's considered "porn". So what exactly is the whole point except to generate fees for ICANN and the registers as everybody rushes to buy domain names?

It's also kind of funny that everybody always mentions the US when it comes to censorship about pornography. I could think of at least one other nanny state [cia.gov] that completely puts to shame anything the United States has ever done

First one, here goes... wouldn't lumping all "objectionable material" into one place make it more tantalising for kids? Part of the thrill of being young is pushing the boundaries, and knowing that there's a place where everything is porn is going to make sure that the kids will know it's there, that all they have to do is find an unblocked computer or find a way around the firewall (single key to unlock *all* porn, yay!) and they'll be the coolest out there for doing something they've been told not to. After all, it's not going to be "You're 18 now, and here's something you've never been told before : .xxx is full of pictures of naked women." Prohibition tends to make things more desirable, not less.

a good read for anyone wishing to become thoroughly disgusted (or at least, morally and intellectually challenged) by the barrenness and degradation of the pornographic enterprise in general

The barenness and degradation of the meat packing industry is stomach-churning. I still love steak.

The barenness and degradation of the garment industry (mostly in third world countries) is terrible. I'm not volunteering to go naked (usual /.'er dimensions).

If you have a problem with industry practices, work to change industry practices rather than attacking the product. Most people attacking porn object to the product, and pointing at bad industry practices is just a red herring. Many cities have tried to ban strip clubs, because so much violence and drug use happens in and around strip clubs. Biker bars, they're kosher.

How is this statement relavent? For that matter, how is this entire tangential threat relavent. Catholics are not typically the opponents of such technological details as the .xxx first tier domains, rather it is fundamentalist protestants that lead the charge in extremism in American politics. Catholics are opposed to pornography as a fundamental disrespect for the dignity of humanity, and as sin, but Catholics are generally politically neutral. Certainly there can be statments made for how .xxx would improve or worsen the culture of sex in America (from either a liberal or conservative perspective). I haven't seen any official statement from the vatican or otherwise official Catholic channels either endorsing or condemning the idea, nor have the previous authors cited any. In short, STFU ... please.

Really the question is, should pornographers be given a special place (internet red light district) to do there business, would they move there voluntarily if there was such a place, or should they continue to operate until the internet category of "commerce"? Any way you look at it, pornography is the largest industry on the Internet, and it isn't going anywhere.