Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
The Courts Government News Your Rights Online

Dirty Domains 82

EraseMe writes "Sucks. A quick whois shows that a whole slew of offensive domain names are owned by the Central District of California US District Court. Is this an attempt at using our tax dollars towards lucrative purchases, or simply a censorship of our global freedom?" The second, but not in the way that you think. The court holds the domains because there's an ongoing suit which is challenging Network Solutions' refusal to register domains based on the Pacifica "seven dirty words" case. It was covered a few months ago in various news outlets.

Even more interesting is NSI's practice of refusing registrations to some registrants but granting them to others. Various registrants tried to register "", and were refused, before NSI permitted the NAACP to register it (although why the NAACP wants to be associated with is hard for me to grasp). Why do some organizations get special treatment for registering domain names?

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Dirty Domains

Comments Filter:
  • (although why the NAACP wants to be associated with is hard for me to grasp).

    I read about this recently, I thought on /., but perhaps not. Anyway, they are registering domains like this in order to prevent hate sites from registering them.
  • What I find laughable about this whole arguement is that NSI is claiming it doesn't want to "advertise" for these dirty words. The only way to get to one of these sights would be to type it into a browser, just like any other site. The don't want to "promote" these dirty words, yet they will register domain names that are more offensive (see any of the racist/homophobic sites) and they will register sites that they know will be used to luring unsuspecting people into porn sites (see I wouldn't care as much if they would just register domains that were offensive in general, instead of pointing the finger at 7 words, which aren't considered all that shocking anymore.
  • Anyone remember quite a few years ago when Justin Hall tried to register and Internic came right out and told him he couldn't? Anyone remember Justin Hall at all? Wonder where he's at and what he'd think of this since, at least historically speaking, he's got about the best claim on at least that one domain name.


  • by Chops-Frozen-Water ( 2085 ) on Friday October 08, 1999 @09:29AM (#1628831) Homepage
    Well, I can see why NSI wouldn't allow some of them, but there's really no policy that can be applied globally, given language variance, even American English vs British English vs Australian English. NSI's allowed the NAACP to register '' but turned down others. Where's the line drawn? was allowed, would be? Or would they only allow (e.g.) the NAACP to register it to present their side of it?
  • It's interesting that netowrk solutions would directly apply the pacifica case directly to internet domains. Actually it doesn't suprise me. They're more interested with not offending anyone (if they allowed the words) because they could lead to lawsuits, loss of sales, etc (are they really a not-for-profit organization? I find that hard to beleive). Of course on the other hand this brought on the lawsuit in the other direction anyway.

    The "George Carlin" case was 26 years ago. I think it's time to reexamine how important it is to censor these words. When you can see sex and murder on TV, how important is it to ban the word "piss"?

    The fact that the Central District of California US District Court owns some of these domains is also interesting. How did the court get to register Did they threaten network solutions? I don't understand it. Are they taking away our right of free speech? I'm not sure, but doesn't this suggest that the court has its own political agenda? I thought courts were only for applying law...

    Sometimes I wonder if certain people/organizations shouldn't be able to register certain domains, but that amounts to censorship as well, exactly what I'd like to avoid.
  • It seems as if most of the people complaining are people in America.
    Solution: 1) Create new nic handles for certain "businesses." eg:
    *.sex for Adult Oriented pr0n sites. *.h4c for all the geocities hax0r groups. *.sec for true blue Security sites. *.own for sites that lack security. *.cus for those who want domains like. fuck.* or bitch.*...
    2) Just let someone register the domain and get over all this political correctness.
    3) Line up the people over at NSI and this District Court of Whereever, audit their PC and say "AHA... Dirty words huh? WHATS THIS pr0n ON YOUR PC."

    I'm sure after the embarassment they'll definitely get over their childishness on dirty words.

  • by PenguinX ( 18932 )
    Well, I've been thinking of starting up a porn site, would be quite a wonderful domain for such activity. Now that I think about it - as soon as cybersquatting becomes illegal I may just sue the state of CA for lost revenues...

    Yeah, I stole your idea and posted it heh

  • I tried to register, and was rejected. I put up a quick and dirty web page calling NSI a bunch of hypocrites.

    A couple of days ago, and AOLuser writes me claiming that it is the NSF that has the seven dirty words policy, not NSI. He claims to be an employee [of NSI?], and that he therefore is so much better clued than the rest of the world.

    If it is the NSF with the policy, why is NSI in court over it? []
  • Yup... those were the good ol' days, when Justin Hall's was one of the good few sites on the web.

    But wait! [] is still around and kicking just fine... and Justin occasionally throws new stuff in.


  • by richnut ( 15117 ) on Friday October 08, 1999 @09:48AM (#1628837)
    Take a step back people.

    Not everything is about curtailing your personal freedom.

    We do live in a civilized (so I'm told) society with rules and values and norms. Not everyone is supposed to be allowed to run around and say whatever they want about anyone. Just becasue I can say "Eat shit and die" does not mean I'm supposed to. Just because there can be hard core porn on the net doesn't mean there should be. Just because the net can be used for just about anything does not mean that it should. We are giving access to our kids and third world countries here. Not everyone has the right to be anonymous.

    I'm not saying to start stomping all over the 1st ammendment, just to think about what you people are talking about. Not being able to register or whatever is NOT the same as being shot because you say you hate the government. That's real censorship. There's real people in this world being opressed for real beliefs and people on /. are all bitching and moaning about not being able to register a domain name with the big bad man.

  • This is a poor excuse. Reminiscent of the not In My Back(barn)Yard moves. Personally I think anyone should be allowed to register whatever they want to. Why should it be free speech for some (NAACP) and not-so-free speech for others.
  • Frankly, I think any combination of symbols allowed by the DNS protocol should be legitamate.
    The semantics of those symbols is irrevalent.

    Unlike the radio where you are a captive audience
    on the internet you have to dileberately choose
    to go somewhere. True there are exceptions such
    as automatic redirects but generally speaking no one is forcing you to go anywhere.

    If you find it offensive, simply dont go there.

  • Last time I checked, the Internet was a place to communicate and exchange ideas. Now, I, personally, am completely against hate groups and the such, but they still have a right to express their opinion, no matter how bigoted it may be. But where does anybody get the right to say who can name their site what? If it's a problem of decency for, say, AOL, or protecting children, then the individual ISPs providing those families with service can choose to not allow access to those sites. But the government has no right to do that. Let the parents and the ISPs decide what's proper.
  • so THAT's why I couldn't register
  • What exactly is the problem with these domain names? Who is it that is injured if they are allowed to be registered?

    There seems to be a notion that domain names can be divided into two subsets, offensive and acceptable. Across all languages and cultures. Perhaps they should submit the complete list for public approval first. Will they allow This smells like a bureaucracy where each new domain name has to pass thru a dozen cultural "experts" who measure it's offensiveness. No wonder it takes months.

    You don't want to see offensive domain names? Then don't type them into your browser. If you're on a page with a link to one, chances are you're already offended. If your kid is typing in, they could undoubtedly manage, and search from there for the same material. The domain name registrars should concentrate on proper syntax and leave the semantic checking to others.
  • Good point. Regional language differences certainly could cause trouble. A fag in England is a smoke? What about ""? You really think this site would be about sausages? Regional differences could really play havoc with the censors or whatever you want to call them. Because the internet has no physical, cultural or territorial boundries, how will\could this be policed? Just a thought.
  • by Anonymous Coward
    A rude bastard friend of mine owns He goes into #christian, #bible etc as and tries to convince them that that's "just what my ISP gave me!"
  • OK, summation: NSI now has competition. If you don't like their policies, and many don't, go elsewhere.

    COREnic will happily register whatever domain-name you put in front of them.

    For example:
    ~ > whois
    berkens michael (template COCO-395) CORE-78
    po box 4756
    seminole, fl 33775 US

    Domain Name:
    Status: production

    The domains are in the root-servers just like any other .com/.net/.org/etc. There was an article on this several months ago, mocking how the whole NSI case was useless because the competitive registries will allowing exactly what NSI was forbidding.


    I am bored at work... How can you not be able to register and be able register these atrocious domains?

    I am not saying that I want to register these domains myself. I don't want children to have sex. I am not racist. I am jewish myself. I am just trying to make my point that these are allowed by network solutions.
  • "They came for the communists, and I did not speak up because I wasn't a communist; They came for the socialists, and I did not speak up because I was not a socialist; They came for the union leaders, and I did not speak up because I wasn't a union leader; They came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak up for me." -Martin Niemoller, 1892-1984 Any questions? -Dave Turner, AC of convinience
  • .sex for Adult Oriented pr0n sites. *.h4c for all the geocities hax0r groups. *.sec for true blue Security sites. *.own for sites that lack security. *.cus for those who want domains like. fuck.* or bitch.*...

    What if I have a site that impliments all of these methods of speech to describe a product I'm selling? You know how sex sells, offensive words in source code comments ("Who the fuck wrote this line:") and you know it takes hacking to perfect the art of security. So, how can we seperate the diverse personalities among those of us who are well rounded?
  • It's one thing that you're not "supposed to" say "Eat shit and die" (because our society disapproves of it), it's another for the government to enforce that. The problem with censorship is that you are giving the government the right to choose what is appropriate, which is a very dangerous move. I absolutely agree that certain things "shouldn't be said", but I think it is a disaster to set up a group which has legal power to make people adhere to that.

    To me, that is what the First Ammendment is all about -- all speech is protected, not just what someone considers "important" or "decent".

  • wow, i fondly remember justin's links to the underground...then he got gobbled up by wired.

    i seem to recall that at some point he had succesfully registered; i have vague memories of visiting it...

    although whois says if it was justin hall's, it ain't now...

  • "Unlike the radio where you are a captive audience"

    Why? Are you unable to turn your radio off? Do you have to go to the store where the DJ on the piped in station is swearing?

    You have choice, to be offended, or not. It's all up to you.

  • "Unlike the radio where you are a captive audience"

    Why? Are you unable to turn your radio off? Do you have to go to the store where the DJ on the piped in station is swearing?

    You have choice, to be offended, or not. It's all up to you.

  • It's just a difference in magnitude.

    Any censorship, no matter how minor, harms a free society. In addition to freedom of speach, freedom to *listen* is just as important. If I want to view a website about any subject, I have the right to do that. It doesn't matter if the site's about planting flowers or screwing pigs, it's not up to someone other than me to decide what I can/should/am allowed to see.

  • Just ignore those guys. I have an e-mail address at [] (no, sorry, no e-mail listing here 8) - can't recall where I heard about it originally... go have fun if you're into it...
  • -- When you can see sex and murder on TV, how important is it to ban the word "piss"? --

    Because you mentioned George Carlin in your post, I want to mention something else he said.

    "I would rather have my child watching two people making love than two people trying to kill one another." or something like that.

    Susan Struthers (I think) said it a little more bluntly "I don't understand why it's worse to show a breast being kissed on TV or the movies, than for it to be hacked off."

    I dunno. Turn off the TV, in any case.

    I don't have 2 cents, just 3 bucks.
  • {SATIRE}Why don't we all just ban all domain names that have combinations of letters that have any meaning in english? Hey, why not take it a step further and also ban numbers that have "bad" meaning (e.g.

    Heck, let's just remove all domain names and switch to random letters and numbers to prevent anybody from being offended! If we all can't understand what we're typing, then we can't be offended, right?{/SATIRE}

    What I'm trying to get at is that *somebody* will be offended by something. And if you try to please everybody, you will only end up pleasing nobody.

  • You or anyone else could have registered Nobody stopped you. If the NAACP wants to register it who are you or anyone else to say its not "right"? They paid their $70 dollars and if they decide to do nothing with it so be it. I don't see the problem here

  • This whole issue is riddled with hypocrisy. I tried to register for a client and it was declined (by a damned script, for crying out loud!). Yet I saw recently that someone succesfully registered it with

    And what about [], which is owned by the "font guru" Chank Diesel. Chank will sell you an email alias at [] for $25.

    NSI has really fucked things up IMHO. Had they had some spine to begin with, we wouldn't have all these lawyers running around thinking domain names = trademarks or that DNS = web phonebook.

    "Cyberspace scared me so bad I downloaded in my pants." --- Buddy Jellison


    I am bored at work... How can you not be able to register and be able register these atrocious domains?

    Availability does not equal the ability to register. Any damn thing that isnt already taken will appear to be available. It isn't until you attempt to actually register it that you'll be declined.

    "Cyberspace scared me so bad I downloaded in my pants." --- Buddy Jellison

  • I registered [] - just get a friend who can read spanish, and register through spain (or whatever) - it's not a curse word, there, so it goes right through!

    It's too bad stupidity isn't painful"

  • Whats up with the moderation of the above post to Informative??? Its a clueless post, he implies that because whois returns "no record found for" that network solutions will allow it to be registered. Not so.

    "Cyberspace scared me so bad I downloaded in my pants." --- Buddy Jellison

  • So don't they have the right to decide what they want to sell? If they don't want to register FOO.COM for whatever reason, they should have that right.
  • >You or anyone else could have registered Nobody stopped you.

    Ah... No. Reread the story up top: NSI refused it to others before allowing the NAACP to register it.
  • I'm sorry, did I read more into the comments above than I should have? What I read seemed to imply that other groups tried to register first and were refused but when the NAACP tried to register it, they were successful.

    If this was, in fact, the case, then how do you propose that he/she would have had more success registering it than anyone else?

    Just wonderin'...
  • Susan Struthers (I think) said it a little more bluntly "I don't understand why it's worse to show a breast being kissed on TV or the movies, than for it to be hacked off."

    Okay... Useless correction here, but I heard this statement this very morning.. It wasn't Susan Strothers, but rather Jack Nicholson who said:

    "If you suck on a tit the movie gets an R rating. If you hack the tit off with an axe it will be PG."

    I confirmed this at
    "A mind is a horrible thing to waste. But a mime...
    It feels wonderful wasting those fsckers."
  • is in my opinion much worse than Just because it isn't a "dirty" word or phrase doesn't mean it isn't obscene. And so what if a "dirty" word is in a domain name, we hear and see them everyday. It's not like those words are doing us any harm. Hate speech is much worse than silly old "dirty" words, but we seem to tolerate it, so why not "dirty" words?
  • I noticed,,, and are still available.
  • I was really bored the other day, wandering around, and I found apparently someone went out and registered a bunch of pretty funny 7-dirty-word domains.. such as

    and a whole slew more..

    I think its $15/year for a forwarding and $25 for a POP3.. and no, I'm not in any way affiliated with this guy, I just think it would be hilarious if everyone started using more.. um.. interesting email addresses around here.
  • NSI used to be in the position having been granted a goverment supported monopoly. Now that they are supposed to have competition, let them deny people domains. Some other company will just get that business. But with a monopoly it's not fair for them to pick and choose what domains they will let people have. It's like the telco refusing to let Jews have phones, because they could use them for their secret plots to take over the world.
  • Actually, the first amendment has been and is infringed on all the time, in the interest of "public safety" or "community standards". Given that the internet is, like it or not, a PUBLIC space and therefore is subject to "community standards." So in this sense, Rich is probably right.

    Problem is, how does one define "community standards" for a community that is so mind-bogglingly diverse? I suppose that you could try the FCC's enforcement model - it's only a problem if someone complains - but odds are someone would complain about almost anything, if for no reason other than spite.

    So we're (or, as others have pointed out we WERE) left with NSI as the final arbiter of Good Taste. Unfortunately, NSI's guidelines don't (didn't) make sense to most Americans, let alone any one from anywhere else on the net.

    What I'm getting at is that while decency and politeness on the net is a lovely idea, it just won't happen in this type of community. Not because internet users are particularly anti-social, but just because there are too many different ideas about where the boundries of politeness lie.

    Do you think this whole global-village sensitivity thing is a load of P.C. crap? Could be. But consider the first rule of politeness: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." You want community standards? Then you start by upholding my right to make an ass of myself by registering a domain name like ... You don't have to look at it if you don't want to, and I promise I won't get my left-wing liberal panties in a knot when you register


    -b. Internet domain names are no exception. If you find the notion of to be offensive, you'll just have to get better filtering software. It's the only just solution. Anything else just leads to the slippery slope of 'no one left to speak for me'.

  • Justin Hall here, I did try to register in 1994 and I met reistance at all channels, until I finally spoke with Jon Postel on the phone to get an ultimate no. I couldn't get much of a reason out of him until I met him in person at the Rand Corporation, and he told me that if he let me have, he might lose his power to distribute domains. I didn't have much of an arguement against that, because I didn't see why he should be personally responsible for the domain name registration, and he wasn't talking about it.

    Since I did attempt to register it early, perhaps I could fight to lay claim to it these days. It certainly would be fun to have! Right now I'm trying to pay my bills, play computer games, and make sweet love to my woman, so if I get all that done, maybe I'll call up a lawyer.

    I wrote up the quest here: []

  • Yeah I do have a question, since I've always loved how that quote sums up how Hitler came to power, and it's important people understand that he became what he was becasue no one was willing to complain.

    My question is what do Nazi's have to do with domain names? Really. I'd love to know. If you want to talk about the big bad man taking control of our lives through censorship lets talk about TV or Radio. These are both censored mediums, yet somehow we still manage to have a free society. You want hard core porno or KKK marches? Go somewhere else. Hell, movies have some pretty nasty shit in them too, they're rated, which a lot of /. people equate with censored. None of it is on TV or Radio, but it's not illegal either. It might not be in my face every day, but it's still out there. Someone is selling it, someone is buying it. It is possible to have a free society and show some responsible restraint when it comes to something that is exposed to the entire populace.

    Personally I dont think the government will ever directly censor anything, because people like the ACLU and EFF and assorted other organizations will fight for our free speech. What the Government will do is encourage ratings, that way the industries can take responsibility. It's not the best solution, but it's a decent compromise.

  • by Anonymous Coward
    Internic won't allow offensive domain names to be registered. I think nigger is far more offensive a term than fuck. If I beat someone to death while yelling "Die fucker!", I'm booked for murder. If I beat someone to death while yelling "Die nigger!", that's murder AND a hate crime (which makes the penalty more severe). I guess internic thinks nigger is not an offensive term since it blocked, but let be registered.
  • My question is what do Nazi's have to do with domain names?
    Domain names are a form of communication - they can be a statement in and of themselves, and they act as an index to the site's content. Do you not think that the Nazis would have banned ""?
    lets talk about TV or Radio. These are both censored mediums, yet somehow we still manage to have a free society.
    You contradict yourself.

    We (USAmericans) do not in fact live in a free society. Censorship is alive and well, as you point out; certain types of political speech are branded "conspiracy" and criminalized; many states have laws against consensual sex acts; there are even laws that laws that tell you what chemicals you can put into your own body. And it's a sad commentary on the human condition that all this still leaves us freer than most other nations.

  • One cornerstone of intelligence is the ability to take one situation and apply the concepts to another. I'm not convinced you have that ability, judging from your dismissal of that quote.

    Here's another quote for you: "Give him an inch, and he'll take a mile."

    It is a lot easier to continue to take freedoms from a population if the population has already had many freedoms removed. Each little tiny step taken seems "not so bad" at the time. Generally the process is slow enough that not enough people get angry about it at any given time. Today it's "somebody else's" toes getting stepped on and you don't care. Next year, your toes may be the target, but what if "somebody" doesn't care enough to complain about it when it doesn't affect them?

    A good example of progressive-growth rights removal is the federal income tax. It started out extremely small when the idea was first introduced (it hasn't been around forever, you know). Now, an exorbitant amount of money is removed from my paycheck. It wasn't an overnight change. It was never enough of a singular increase to piss enough people off.

  • I think I'd prefer to see NSI hold the names and refuse to register them, than to see the government seize them.

    What happens next? Will be offered to the first bozo who tried to register it? Or is the government bound to sell it to the highest bidder? My guess is the latter. Either way, somebody stands to make a windfall that they don;t deserve.

    As I pointed out in another post this week, there is censorship in the US, there always has been censorship, and there will always be censorship. There's not very much of it, and as a nation we're pretty vigilant about letting it extend itself (e.g. this discussion). So, you know, I'd rather not see those domains registered than to see them auctioned off and promoted commercially. Seven words. Period. And you know, the list will not grow; any other words that may become "obscene" in the future are probably already registered. belongs to the NAACP. That's a perfect private solution to the problem. I'd rather let the other seven words go than to see the government get involved in seizng domain names.

    And you never know, maybe NSI will need the 35 bucks someday, and the whole censorship thing will become moot.
  • I'm not sure if this has been mentioned before, but this is why the court owns the name: NSI does not want to get sued. It is the policy of NSI (and their policies change all of the time) to hand a domain name over to the courts at the first sign of a dispute. This way NSI (who has been named in a LOT of lawsuits) can step away from the dispute without being at fault.

    Here is an excerpt (with a relevant section bolded by me) from NSI's Dispute Policy []:

    10. Litigation. Independent of the provisions of Section 9 of the Policy, in the
    event that:

    (a) The registrant files a civil action related to the registration and use of
    the domain name against the complainant in a court of competent
    jurisdiction, and provides Network Solutions with a copy of the
    file-stamped complaint, Network Solutions will maintain the status quo
    ante of the domain name record pending a temporary or final decision
    of the court. For example, if the domain name is not on "Hold," it will
    not be placed on "Hold;" if the domain name is already on "Hold," it will
    remain on "Hold." In such cases, Network Solutions will deposit
    control of the domain name into the registry of the court by supplying
    the registrant with the registry certificate for deposit. While the domain
    name is in the registry of the court, Network Solutions will not make
    any changes to the domain name record unless ordered by the court.

    The registrant also shall promptly provide copies of any and all
    pleadings filed in the action to Network Solutions upon Network
    Solutions' request.

  • You can register those types of domains through (I see someone has already registered .. so it is NSI preventing it. I don't think the NSF is even involved in DNS anymore.
  • Perhaps another oft quoted line "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." is more appropriate. The problem here is that the american judicial system is heavily based on legal precedent, and avoiding that slippery slope fallacy as best I can, each freedom we lose makes it harder to defend our rights.
    Sure, we've got the ACLU and the EFF, but their resources only last so far, they can't handle every case in every jurisdiction. Our rights are our responsibility. Hoping somebody else will fight for them is not the answer.
    As for ratings, many movie theatres in this country have agreements with the cities they are in stating that they will not show NC-17 rated movies. I'm not sure whether these involve tax breaks or bending the zoning ordinances, but in the name of community standards, these things do happen. When you factor in the faceless and unaccountable MPAA, we see ourselves ending up with a mess...The first few submissions of Clerks, NC-17 due to language, the first few submissions of South Park, NC-17 for just about every reason under the sun. Are you advocating a similar system for websites? Will you be upset when server-based filtering software becomes the norm with ISPs instead of the exception?

    You want to know what the Nazi's have to do with domain names? Let me give you another quote "Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

    Those are dirty words in a language other than English, yet I bet they are not taken...kind of makes you stop and think.
    Scott Jones
    Newscast Director / WKPT-TV 19
    Game Show Fan / C64 Coder

  • Wow...

    I just mean "wow." You just don't get it at all do you? I mean really guys... these are domain names that are international, have to conform to international rules and international standards.

    When I went to apply for my vanity license plates for my automobile, I had to choose one "in good taste and decency."

    Go try to register something offensive in another country's TLD. I bet that you can't.. Are you going to go to the Country of Niue and complain to them? I doubt it. Are you yelling "censorship" to them? No? Why not?

    Face it, you're blaming the US government because it's convenient. I'm taking odds you live here. You're under 25, no kids, not married and are pretty pissed off that you can't do whatever you please. Well cry me a river. I've had enough of you people picketing on the streets when I'm trying to get to my job for some lame-ass cause that doesn't exist. Go to work for a change.

    Just because you can't register "" doesn't mean you can't put it on your front page of your website of "" Now that's the way to get your message out.

    Instead of, register Instead of, register

    Please people, use YOUR intelligence and ingenuity to get your supposed "important" message out.

    Now get crackin'! I wanna see results.

  • (Who moderated that as "informative"?)

    The NSF shut down the NSFNET backbone in April of 1995. At that time the various functions were distributed among several organizations and commercial entities, effectively ending the government-funded internet.

    From then until this year, Network Solutions was the sole entity responsible for domain name policies, creation, management, and so on.

    It was only belatedly, as the commercial promise of the web crystallized, that the government created the ICANN to oversee the domain name system, formalize the process for creating new TLDs, and decentralize the registration process.

    Your "friend" is spouting half-truths he read long ago. Don't trust him. (Besides, there is no "seven dirty words" list, there never was; there are only broad FCC guidelines for indecency.)
    Lake Effect [], a weblog
  • I agree totally, but they aren't a monopoly so lets let the market decide.
  • As far as the plates are concerned, maybe not in your state (course, I don't know where you are from), but here in Arizona - call this a slip up by the state:

    I have a neighbor who has the following license plate: 666*DVL (where the "*" is the cactus between the numbers).

    This is a state issued license - and it could offend a very moral/religious right person, if they happened to see it (of course, I found it so funny I nearly pulled the poor woman over to offer $100 for the plate!)...

    Here we have a case of something that could be offensive to one person, and not to another (me).

    I have to agree with your statements about basically "attracting flys with honey" - however, this could get into the area of site misrepresentation and other things that have been bandied about here on /.

  • Well, it's possible more than one person said it and differently.

    Not that I'm not wrong, I'm only going by memory.

    Later . . .
  • by Anonymous Coward
    NSI is under no obligation to do business with an organisation they disapprove of. A shop is not obliged to sell a baseball bat to kkk members, if they think it might be used for hurting people rather than for playing baseball. NSI is not obliged to sell the service of registering '' to kkk members who might want to use it to hurt people.
  • When you can see sex and murder on TV, how important is it to ban the word "piss"?

    Excellent point.

    A couple of days ago, the USA Network here in the States was running "The Godfather Saga", which is a combined version of Francis Ford Copolla's first two Godfather films, re-edited so that all of the material is in chronological order. There's a classic scene where Al Pacino goes to have dinner with an enemy of the family, ostensibly to make peace with him. In reality, the family plants a pistol in the bathroom of the Italian place that they're eating at; the plan is that Pacino is to excuse himself to go to the bathroom, retrieve the gun, and blow the guy away.

    In the setup scene, James Caan urges his associate (Clemenza) to take extra care when planting the gun. "I don't want my brother coming out of that bathroom with just his dick in his hands," he comments. Now, for the USA Network showing, that line of dialogue was edited. In its place, the line "I don't want my brother coming out of that bathroom with just his *stick* in his hands." The replacement was unbelievably cheesy; the sound was all wrong, and it was a strange mixture of funny and insulting all at the same time.

    However, when it comes time for Pacino to pull the trigger, the USA Network showing was virtually unedited. In graphic detail, Pacino's unsuspecting victims get a bullet hole through their forehead, with streams of blood flowing out. They drop to the floor, Pacino drops the gun, and runs out.

    Moral of the story? It's all right to show a couple of guys take bullets between the eyebrows, but the word "dick" is unacceptable, and must be replaced with the word "stick." Such hypocrisy is staggering.

    (For the record, I'm not at all opposed to violence in films. I for one think that the graphic violence in The Godfather was mandatory; without it, the portrayal of the brutality, inhumanity, and lack of respect for human life in the Mob would not have been believable. I am, however, opposed to hypocrisy.)
  • Try visiting [] it is the website of a very large food production company whose brands are household names in the UK.
  • I am not an American nor am I a member of any well-known minority, but allow me some thoughts on that:
    All this starts way down deeper than domain names. Look at our kids. Before they leave school they see zillions of killings in TV (including scenes where proud army #1 whacks down villages in country #2, thereby 'introducing our new TX 7000 with twice the firepower of a WW2 Liberator, whoa!'). Otoh, when someone I knew there (KY) played a Hansel and Gretel guignol scene for kids, she was sued for 'violence' (ya know, the witch and the oven). Understand that?
    But hell breaks loose if a bare b*tt (I sure hope that's none of the words on the index) is shown on TV or in a newspaper, or if a radio person used f-words in a show.

    What's the result? The opinion that (clean)violence is good and that (dirty) love is bad. Mom and dad think nothing when they see thir kids running around with toy weapons, pulverizing each other, but cancel TV comedies for a week if they catch their 12-year-old with a P*-Magazine.

    Don't get me wrong: I think it is fundamentally wrong to use racial, sexist and whatever slurs against other people. But banning them from 'public' places doesn't make them vanish nor will it change people's minds. Else this would mean to start browsing thru the whole world literature (and music), including The Holy Book, and clean out all the filthy stuff (who determines what's dirty and what not?). One step further, and we'd burn all the whose contents we'd not agree upon. We had that sixty years ago, so don't repeat/copy it.

    My advice? People using domain names like these will disqualify themselves. Banning would mean more and undeserved publicity for them. If I had a domain like 'dirty-ni***', what would you think of me? I probably wouldn't visit a site called '' unless I'd be curious enough to find out what the h*ck that m*ron has to say there.

    In a nutshell: political correctness is bulls*** and bare hypocrisy as long as it only happens in the heads and not the hearts.

  • /me sets mode #idiots +bk anonymous_coward SAYANORA

    Cool New Shit... I sincerely hope that was sarcasm their.

    Anyways back to the ranch:

    Just what is the purpose with all these domain name rants? Slashdot used to be so cool once upon a time, but now it seems like What happened to the stuph that matter(s(ed)) && $news?

    echo "sh4m3 0n r0bm4ld4 for selling out\n";

  • international standards? oh, yeah, I can see that one:

    "'Fuck'? Was ist 'fuck'?"

    international standards, my butt. There is no universal code of being offensive. Try pointing with one finger in some cultures.

    fwiw, I wasn't disagreeing with the guy because I really, really wanted to go register something like, I just don't believe that the answer is burying our heads in the sand.

    euphemisms or complete misinformation aren't the answer either...there's more to it than just trying to defend the offensive names.


    (and yes, I plan on jumping out in front of your car while you're on your way to work and have to see me and my lame-ass cause.)
  • Of course you can turn off your radio if you dont like what you hear. I mean that you are a captive audience once you are tuned into a station in the respect that you do not have control of the content.

    My point was that on the internet YOU are the primary factor in what you choose to see.


    Yeah yeah, the thread is long dead. I still felt compelled to respond. :)
  • "in the respect that you do not have control of the content."

    I understand, but what I said still stands. You have a choice, to be offended or not to be. You can choose to hear selectively, which is something I do when I, say, listen to Howard Stern or some rap . . .

    "Yeah yeah, the thread is long dead. I still felt compelled to respond. :)"

    That's cool. I wonder how long these things stay active . . .

  • Whoa! I said an AOLuser wrote me and spouted that crap, then claimed they were an NSI employee. Please don't call that twit my "friend"!!!!


"If it's not loud, it doesn't work!" -- Blank Reg, from "Max Headroom"