Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Senators Renew Call for .XXX Domain 489

Posted by Zonk
from the subject-they're-familiar-with dept.
An anonymous reader writes "It's an election year again, and the usual PR causes are being picked up. Senators are once again pushing for a .XXX top-level domain to 'corral pornography'." From the article: "The bill suggests, but does not require, that .xxx serve as the domain name ending. Any commercial Internet site or online service that "has as its principal or primary business the making available of material that is harmful to minors" would be required to move its site to that domain. Failure to comply with those requirements would result in civil penalties as determined by the Commerce Department. It's unclear whether the measure will go very far. First of all, it could be struck down as unconstitutional, said Marv Johnson, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union. "
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Senators Renew Call for .XXX Domain

Comments Filter:
  • pron.awesome (Score:5, Insightful)

    by deft (253558) on Friday March 17, 2006 @10:23PM (#14946481) Homepage
    and when porn.com/net/org/everything else is told to move to as single .xxx, what then of mindless politicians with no understanding of the interwebnet superhighway?

    I hate grandstanding.
    • That's a great idea! All the porn on the internet would be required to move to "porn.xxx", and be combined into one webpage. It would have all these flying banners and movies and images and stuff, all on the same page! It'd be like a MySpace, but obscene!.
      • by jrockway (229604) * <jon-nospam@jrock.us> on Friday March 17, 2006 @10:49PM (#14946587) Homepage Journal
        ??It'd be like a MySpace, but obscene!.

        A true programmer. :) You use the ! so that it's scoped to the word "obscene" and thus (mentally) need the . to actually finish the sentence. I often write things like: `` He said, "This is a sentence.". '' with the `.".' construction -- the first period ends the quoted sentence and the second ends the complete unit. Grammar nazis dislike this, but it makes sense to people who think like programmers. Glad to see I'm not the only one :)
        • Re:pron.awesome (Score:5, Insightful)

          by ottothecow (600101) on Friday March 17, 2006 @11:52PM (#14946770) Homepage
          programming != english

          That's like complaining about being made fun of by spanish grammar nazis when you use english grammar with spanish words...you're still wrong.

          • Re:pron.awesome (Score:3, Insightful)

            by jrockway (229604) *
            > programming != english

            "!=" != a word ;)
      • Re:pron.awesome (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Directrix1 (157787) on Friday March 17, 2006 @11:32PM (#14946727)
        MySpace can be pretty obscene itself. On a side note, does it strike anyone else as ludicrous that the source of life and the source of nourishment for a young child are dubbed as "harmful to minors", when they were born of one and suckled on another as a baby?
        • Re:pron.awesome (Score:5, Insightful)

          That's what you get when you country is founded by puritans, I guess. But yeah, the American hangup/obsession with sex is just ridiculous.
          • Re:pron.awesome (Score:5, Insightful)

            by cyber-vandal (148830) on Saturday March 18, 2006 @02:06AM (#14947070) Homepage
            The Brits and to a lesser extent the Aussies have the same hangups. I don't understand where it came from, our ethnic cousins over on mainland Europe have no problem with sex, and we all share a pretty similar history in terms of social development.
            There was an advert a few years for shower gel that had been shown all around Europe without any problems but provoked major complaints in Britain. The reason? It showed a naked woman in the shower and you saw her erect nipple for all of 2 seconds. Sad. Time we all grew up and started treating sex as part of life, not some dirty secret to be embarrassed about.
    • by rodgster (671476) *
      But that would break all my bookmarks/favorites!
    • by XanC (644172) on Friday March 17, 2006 @10:45PM (#14946565)
      Whoever registers .com.xxx and .net.xxx first wins!
    • Re:pron.awesome (Score:2, Insightful)

      by fkamogee (619579)
      And I hate when people mod the first post "Redundant".
      Unless they were referring to "mindless politicians" as being redundant.
    • by aichpvee (631243) on Friday March 17, 2006 @11:32PM (#14946725) Journal
      Any commercial Internet site or online service that "has as its principal or primary business the making available of material that is harmful to minors" would be required to move its site to that domain.

      So focus on the family is going to move to family.xxx and the discovery institute is going to have to use discovery.xxx? Sounds like a plan!

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 17, 2006 @10:23PM (#14946483)
    But openly calling for porn?

    What will their wives say? (And you can leave Barney Frank out of that - his "friend" pimped a gay sex ring right out of the Senator's apartment...)
    • Free Porn (Score:5, Interesting)

      by yintercept (517362) on Friday March 17, 2006 @11:41PM (#14946752) Homepage Journal
      Personally, I don't mind the idea of moving porn to a .xxx extension. IMHO, the one thing we need to avoid is tossing up barriers to porn that people have to pay to get around. If porn is free, then the pornographers don't make money. Throwing up artificial barriers to porn creates income opportunities for the pornographers.

      For example, a few years back, there was the stupid suggestiong that giving a credit card numbers for age verification would prove a person was old enough to view porn. Getting the credit card number is the hardest part of making an online sale. This idea taught a generation of teenage boys how to steal credit card numbers. It also put a lot of money in the hands of pornographers.

      The .xxx extension might be good in that it would help people who want to avoid porn to filter it out. It might help those looking for porn to find free porn. It seems to me that if a .xxx extension created a path to free porn, it might undermine the income source for pornographers.
      • Re:Free Porn (Score:5, Insightful)

        by TheJorge (713680) on Saturday March 18, 2006 @02:28AM (#14947113)
        You're running a difficult line here if you support this move. A bill such as this would essentially grant the government the power to regulate some things it has no business regulating. Consider that all "porn" is moved to .xxx. Who decides what's porn and what isn't? Is a movie site for an R-rated movie relegated there? How about my 2TB archive of incredibly disturbing homemade movies I want to give away for free? According to a strict reading of the bill, the former must have an .xxx TLD while the latter can be powerrangres.com. And once we've partitioned up the internet, what's to say that ISPs can't decide to block all access to these sites for its customers? This may not be a big deal, but what happens when we propose another bill to create a .anti-us TLD for unamerican sites and .heathen for non-christians? And by this day and age, WalMartISP will of course block domains that don't support family values... So perhaps my tinfoil hat's showing a bit, but this doesn't seem far from some pretty serious censorship waiting to be applied "by choice".
  • If that isn't a Domain Name Squatter's wet dream I don't know what is...

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 17, 2006 @10:26PM (#14946491)
    Failure to comply with those requirements would result in civil penalties....

    Which means big freaking whup for internationally hosted sites?
  • by lostngone (855272) on Friday March 17, 2006 @10:26PM (#14946492)
    So what happens when Porn sites in other countries refuse to move to the .XXX domain? Would the U.S. Government then try and block non .XXX porn sites?
  • Can anyone explain me why tagging a website as "porn" (in the domain) could be declared inconstitutional?
    • "What is pornography?"

      is photographing a naked person porn? two people making love?
      • "What is pornography?"

        is photographing a naked person porn? two people making love? Is it two people and a donkey covered in Jell-O instant pudding, making love? With half-a-dozen vibrators and bondage tape and a gimp mask?

        Yes.
      • Pornography was originally the academic study of prostitution.
        The English, during the reign of Queen Victoria then started using the term for erotically arousing material.

        The English had regarded themselves as the civilized decendents of the classical Greeks and Romans, pure of thought and mind. The discovery at Pompey that a high proportion of Roman dwellings had sexually explicit paintings in them was a shock to the sensibilities. A particularly stunning statue of the god Pan making love to a goat which w
    • by aiken_d (127097) <brooks AT tangentry DOT com> on Friday March 17, 2006 @10:35PM (#14946535) Homepage
      That's not it at all. There are several issues:

      - "Harmful to minors" is in the eye of the beholder. It is unconstitutional for a law to be vague, since it means people can't know if they're breaking the law or not. Is a warez site "harmful to minors" since it corrupts their morals? How about frank discussions of wartime atrocities? Sites that debunk Santa Claus?

      - This particular proposed law would require, for instance, websites for crappy teenage hijinks movies (Dukes of Hazard, etc) to use the .xxx domain. Basically, anything sexual that has no artistic or social merit gets taggede

      - Laws like this impringe on adults' rights to free speech. Have a blog where you share your innermost thoughts? Hosted on a .com? Write about the hot sex you had last night, get fined (or go to jail).

      And, of course, in addition to the blatant unconstitutionality, there's the fact that it's pointless: .com is an international domain.

      The only solution for this kind of thing is a .kids type domain, where only content that meets certain criteria is allowed *in*. Trying to regulate the entire world's speech in the .com domain "for the children" is a bad idea, totally unconstitutional, and ultimately doomed to failure anyway, since .com is an internataionl domain.

      -b
      • That domain already exists, except its .cn not .kids .
      • So, would it require wikipedia.org split part of its content off into wikipedia.xxx [wikipedia.org]? Note that all of those are (ostensibly) there to be used for encyclopedia articles. Nonetheless, per the law, quite a number of them are "lewd exhibition of the genitals or post-pubescent female breast".

        And if Wikipedia doesn't have to split its content off, does that mean that full-on porn sites can simply copy some wikipedia content onto their site, and therefore claim that the site is not primarily/exclusively meant

    • The unconstitutional bit comes in when you tell the porn sites they are not allowed to use .com, .net, .org, or other US domain names.
    • Just recently, an art teacher was suspended and may be fired for *recommending* to his *high school* students that they *consider* attending life drawing classes outside of school.

      http://www.artrenewal.org/articles/2003/Best_of_AR C/best1.asp?msg=716&forumID=56 [artrenewal.org]

      So what would happen to an art-related site that has nudity, either in the form of art or reference for art? Should it be forced to use .xxx? I bet some people woud think so, but many of us would object.
    • by ozmanjusri (601766) <aussie_bob@hotmail.cOPENBSDom minus bsd> on Friday March 17, 2006 @11:10PM (#14946656) Journal
      Can anyone explain me why tagging a website as "porn" (in the domain) could be declared inconstitutional?

      Its a classic "divide and conquer" move from the religious fundies. The intent behind the .xxx tld is to be able to segregate the porn from the rest of the internet. Once you have achieved that, its a simple matter for fundamentalists to shut down all the pornography on the internets by blocking the domain.

      In theory, anyway...

    • As soon as you explain what "inconstitutional" means I'll be happy to.
    • .obscene is next (Score:3, Interesting)

      Someone route a group of bird flu infected flocking geese over washington. Make sure they're wired to shit on command. .osbscene is next kids.

      Get ready for it, its coming.

      What does this mean for newsgroup jackers?

      What does it mean for an individual that wants to post nude pictures of themselves online?

      This is not only impossible to do, its completely fucking illegal. The government should not be involved in censoring speech on the internet just to get votes.

      Just because they want the angry mother that wont
    • by JambisJubilee (784493) on Saturday March 18, 2006 @12:40AM (#14946894)
      Inconstitutional? That's unpossible!
  • by Anonymous Coward
    Would http://www.michaeljackson.com/ [michaeljackson.com] and http://www.r-kelly.com/ [r-kelly.com] be forced to move too? Say it ain't so.
  • This just adds another TLD for the porn industry to use. There's no way the U.S. can prevent existing foreign porn sites from remaining at their existing .com/.net/.org/.info/.whatever locations.

    Must be election year. Folks, try to vote for people that at least demonstrate a vague understanding of the Internet.

  • by BigBuckHunter (722855) on Friday March 17, 2006 @10:27PM (#14946500)
    Time to register "BringBackPorn.com"

    BBH
  • Any commercial Internet site or online service that "has as its principal or primary business the making available of material that is harmful to minors" would be required to move its site to that domain.

    Well then, they better get cracking and register rnc.xxx and dnc.xxx. Lord knows that my years as a youth of listening to political drivel from both sides has completely messed me up.

    Also, what about the tobacco companies? Alcohol distillers? Have I missed any?

  • by NevarMore (248971) on Friday March 17, 2006 @10:30PM (#14946513) Homepage Journal
    looking at this map: http://moat.nlanr.net/International/images/collab_ world_map.gif [nlanr.net]

    There are a lot of places that, surprisingly, are NOT The United States of America. I hear that those places are prone to ignoring laws passed by the United States. I cannot fathom why those things that are not America would not follow our laws, but I do believe it would make it hard to use a United States law to get them to move thier titties and cockies to a different server.
    • What next, the world is round? Blasphemy! Now if you'll excuse me, I have a public execution to attend.
    • by product byproduct (628318) on Friday March 17, 2006 @11:32PM (#14946724)
      Ironically you're the one with a narrow view of things.

      You can't get the whole world to switch at the same time. AGREED. But
      you can try to achieve it over a longer timespan: You show the example by switching in your own country. Other countries will look at you, and if they think that it's a good idea they will follow.

      Pretty much the same happened with Copyright Law. Some countries started it. Year after year more followed because they thought it made sense for them too. Eventually so many countries had a copyright law that they felt the need to standardize (Berne convention). Nowadays almost everyone has it and it is considered "uncivilized" to not have a copyright law, which puts pressure on the few who don't have it.

      The same thing could work for this .XXX idea.
      • Someone else can follow up with details, but as I recall, a lot of countries have the IP (copyright and patent) laws that they do only because they wanted to join an international organization like the WTO, and were required to "match" laws in order to join. We export our laws overseas by requiring other countries to match them in order to trade with us, something they're not willing to do without.
        The same goes with countries fighting drugs at home -- those were profitable businesses that local governments probably didn't care about, until we told them they needed to care if they wanted funding from us.
        Yes, it's their choice every time, but let's not pretend it's always about us having bright ideas nobody can resist. We have the market, deep pockets, and military power they can't resist, which is different.
  • If the definition requires that a site "has as its principal or primary business the making available of material that is harmful to minors," many (myself included) might argue that most pr0n sites should be held exempt. I refuse to believe that viewing naked bodies (solo or action) is inherently 'harmful to minors,' especially when 'minors' includes such pr0n-consuming demographics as 17-year-old boys.
  • What is "harmful to minors" mean, exactly? Is a naked breast harmful in comparison to professional wrestling? Or a murder mystery television show?
    • Finally after 30 minutes of looking for a description of it. Here's a Congresscritter's words on "Harmful to Minors". As defined by him/his committee/his intern in 2003.

      • "Harmful to minors" is defined as content that:
        • appeals to minors' morbid interest in violent or sex
        • is patently offensive to prevailing standards in the adult community, and
        • lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors.

      Fact Sheet on H.R. 669: Protect Children From Video Game Sex & Violence Act o

  • useful change (Score:5, Insightful)

    by DreadSpoon (653424) on Friday March 17, 2006 @10:32PM (#14946519) Journal
    Despite the huge technical and social problems with this kind of change...

    *If* it could happen, it would be great for many of us who want to block it out. Which is the purpose of the bill, of course.

    Any mail that references an .xxx site can be blocked, browsers can be configured to refuse to load any resource from an .xxx site, search engines can refuse to search/list pages in .xxx domains, etc.

    It's also possible for this to happen, I believe, to an extent; at the very least, due to the wonderful recently-showcased fact that the US controls the Internet naming infrastructure. Even foreign sites can be forced to comply by simply removing them from the top-level domains, and threatening to remove sites from top-level domains that host adult content.

    One thing I'd worry about though is how one defines what is pornography and what isn't. Is a site that talks about STDs and safe-sex going to be labelled as adults-only by the religious right? Is a nudist colony site pornographic or simply counter-culture? Is a site that has "bad words" an adult site?

    I would want to see a very clear, objective, strict, narrow definition of adult/pornographic content for this bill. i.e., "Images displaying sexual intercourse." (That is slightly too narrow, I'd think, but the intent should be clear.)
    • I would want to see a very clear, objective, strict, narrow definition of adult/pornographic content for this bill.

      There are going to be three basic lines of thought with regards to this bill:

      1. People who support a very specific definition of "harmful to minors"
      2. People who fight the idea
      3. People who support a very broad definition of "harmful to minors"

      People with wildly different motivations may end up supporting the same position. Personally, I don't see the point. You can't really force anyone to giv

    • Thank you for so eloquently explaining why government should have direct control over the Internet.
    • One thing I'd worry about though is how one defines what is pornography and what isn't.

      That's exactly it right there. Not only won't other countries have to care about this, but it's likely that this law would be unconstitutional in the US. There's something called the Miller Test [wikipedia.org] which regulates what can be deemed "obscene" (in terms of US laws: obscene==sex). The only speech or expressions which can be deemed obscene (and therefore not protected by the first ammendment) are those which fail all of the

  • 127.0.0.1 *.*.xxx (Score:2, Informative)

    by Siffy (929793)
    That would be the next entry into my local DNS hosts file. They say filtering is a less intrusive means to this, so then make that filtering easier for the average person to do I say. I really don't see how adding context restricts free speech. There's a place and time for any speech, but what about a person's right not to have to listen to such speech (ie, porn pop ups/general porn advertisements, crappy results from google)?
    • by 1u3hr (530656)
      That would be the next entry into my local DNS hosts file.

      And that's exactly why the worst, sleaziest porn sites will never move there. The relatively sedate Playboy site will move to .xxx; FarmSex.com, SluttyLolitas.com, AnalMasochist,com... will not and will keep popping up in your browser.

  • dear lord. (Score:2, Funny)

    by sheaman (826235)
    OH! I get it now! It all depends on the extension! So sexyhotpixxx.com is fine, but when you get sexyhotpix.xxx, WOAH THERE! Also, "has as its principal or primary business the making available of material that is harmful to minors" RAWR I HATE YUO! A kid who knows that "xxx" is bad would be much less likely to head over to .xxx than .com.
  • Harmful? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by NilObject (522433) on Friday March 17, 2006 @10:36PM (#14946540) Homepage
    material that is harmful to minors


    How the hell is porn harmful? That's the worst part of this American culture. Killing people is glorified but OH CHRIST DON'T LET ANYONE BE SEEN MAKING LOVE!
    • Re:Harmful? (Score:4, Informative)

      by 1in10 (250285) on Saturday March 18, 2006 @12:37AM (#14946885)
      It's harmful to both minors and adults. [blogspot.com]

      Exposure to porn makes people more likely to believe that rape is acceptable. Exposure to porn makes people more likely to believe domestic violence is acceptable. Exposure to porn makes people more likely to be opposed to women's rights. Exposure to porn makes people believe fringe sexual activities like beastiality are more common than they really are. Exposure to porn makes people less happy with their own sexual partners and their sex lives.

      And that's not even getting into the harm it does to the women actually appearing in pornography. That's just the users.

      I used to think porn was harmless too, but there's a whole heap of research that shows it is anything but.
    • Re:Harmful? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by hyfe (641811) on Saturday March 18, 2006 @10:10AM (#14948042)
      Killing people is glorified but OH CHRIST DON'T LET ANYONE BE SEEN MAKING LOVE!

      Well, in all fairness, I'm actually for banning American porn.

      The bang! bang! 'enjoy what I'm giving ya!'-mentality that seem so amazingly permeant throughout it is fucking degrading and has bloody nothing to do with real life. It teaches people to view women as objects and not as actual persons, which really, really is a dangerous line of thought. Impersonalisation of sex is a bad, bad thing.

      My own experiences with young Americans and their views on sex has basically lead me to believe that majority of you are semi-psychopathic, ie unable to empathise and recognize that other people are actual people with feelings. This is scary.

  • by The Warlock (701535) on Friday March 17, 2006 @10:37PM (#14946543)
    Once upon a time, Frog was taking a look at Toad's garden. Toad had separate plots out marked "carrots" "tomatoes" and "peppers". He also had one plot marked "weeds", which was unkempt and full of weeds. "Toad," asked Frog, "why the hell do you have a separate plot for weeds?!" "Well, Frog, it's so that they stay in that plot and don't go in any of the others."
    • by Anonymous Coward
      Unfortunately, Toad lived in the land of the free where growing weed violates the Controlled Substances Act. The resulting DEA sting was not pretty. Toad is currently serving multiple life sentences alongside murderers and rapists for manufacturing a plant.

      God (Judeo-Christian only, please) Bless America.
    • by LeonGeeste (917243) on Saturday March 18, 2006 @12:06AM (#14946814) Journal
      believe it or not. There's a concept called a "deadweight loss" in economics. And basically, it's any kind of harm (something someone dislikes for whatever reason) which has no corresponding *benefit* for anyone. If I take a dollar from you, that's not a deadweight loss, because your loss was my gain. But if I burn your dollar, you lost, and no one gained. (That's a simplification, but you get the general idea.) And obviously, deadweight losses are bad.

      Now imagine a town that has a problem with thieves breaking windows so they can get into stores and houses to steal TV's. Here is ranking of the TV owners' preferences:

      1) No TV's be stolen or windows broken.
      2) Windows broken, but no TV's stolen.
      3) TV's stolen, but no windows broken.
      4) TV's stolen, and window's broken.

      Here is the typical thief's order of preference:

      1) Get TV's, but not have to break windows.
      2) Get TV's and have to break windows.
      3) Not get TV's and not have to break windows.
      4) Break windows for no reason.

      Currently, option number 4) on the TV owners' list, and option 2) on the theives' list are prevailing -- TV owners lose TV's and windows. Thieves get TV's but have to break windows.

      Now here's the kicker:

      For some economists, an "efficient" move would be to give the thieves free TV's! Why? Well, the thieves are better off -- they get TV's, but no longer have to break windows. The owners are better off because, while they still lose some TV's, at least their windows aren't broken! Everyone wins! Yay!

      Except, as anyone with a functioning brain knows, all that would accomplish is that the thieves would get TV's, and then some of them (or newcomers to the thievery profession) would still steal more TV's. The problem, like with the "separate plot for weeds" that you bring up, is that you can't corral thieves by giving them free stuff. Give weeds a place, they'll demand more. Give thieves TV's, and thieves will take more.

      It amazes me how the average person sees this, but some economists don't.
  • Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't this whole "xxx" TLD issue started when a porn mogul requested a specific domain for all porn so that he and the rest of the industry could avoid legal issues?
    I see nothing wrong with this so long as its not the "religious" right deciding the definition of porn.
  • by larry bagina (561269) on Friday March 17, 2006 @10:59PM (#14946609) Journal
    In accordance with megan's law, CmdrTaco.net has been renamed to CmdrTaco.xxx
  • by Spazmania (174582) on Friday March 17, 2006 @10:59PM (#14946610) Homepage
    They're going about it all wrong. If they want .xxx to fly, they should require the ICANN to create one and pass a law affirming that if a web site is only accessible via its .xxx name then the site operator is deemed to have taken adequate care to prevent access by minors.

    Then let the individual site operators decide whether they want the liability shield. Guess what? They want it. And if that means they elementary schools will have an easy time blocking access I guarantee they won't shed a tear.
  • by Wes Janson (606363) on Friday March 17, 2006 @11:00PM (#14946614) Journal
    ...once upon a time, stupidity of this magnitude from public officials would not have been tolerated, let alone encouraged by any significant percentage of the public. If they thought the public would like it, our senators and representatives would rush to create and pass a bill titled "Resolution To Make Bad Things Go Away". It's frightening how close we seem to be to that level of problem solving and critical thinking in the legislative branch of our government.
  • by Rydia (556444) on Friday March 17, 2006 @11:01PM (#14946620)
    In the same way that controls on pornography are constitutional. They're protected speech, but not as protected as most, so legislatures can make laws telling them where they can be, what they can do, who they can admit, etc. As long as there's money in it for someone, congress can have a ball.

    You people really need to get over the "first amendment + internet = whatever we want" thing.
  • They're calling their bill the "Cyber Safety for Kids Act of 2006."

    Is this from the Onion? Does anyone take these twats seriously?

  • by tinkertim (918832) * on Friday March 17, 2006 @11:08PM (#14946644) Homepage
    Ok, let see what's on channel 169, hmm how about 269 ... wait, try 369 ... nah see what's on 469 .. I didn't mention channel 69 because that's now msnxxxbc.

    There are far more greater dangers our children are exposed to on a daily basis than internet porn. I have a 4 month old and quite frankly my fear that she'll have clean air to breathe is more startling to me than what she might or might not be able to access on the internet. But .. I kind of like to watch my kid and see what she gets into, novel concept.

    This is the result of lazy parents who want their p4 to babysit their children safely, without much attention from them.

    Much like our lawmakers, parent's need to understand technology before exposing their children (or their legal pads) to it. I think congressmen should have to display a CCIE / CCIP along with that spiffy Harvard degree if they wish to legislate the portion of the internet US entities serve.

    But in the spirit of cooperation and being a good citizen, I'll take ta.xxx please.

    Could someone much smarter than I am please calculate the amount of oxygen that has been processed (and wasted) on this effort?

  • The sentate wants its pr0n, ICANN! Hurry up and tell them how to use Google before they force this .xxx nonsense down everyone's throat!
  • Smart Move. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Geekenstein (199041) on Friday March 17, 2006 @11:15PM (#14946670)
    So, a bunch of senators were sitting around a table and said to themselves "Hey, how can we lose the tax revenue and jobs of a highly profitable industry and push it out of America to make us look better, while doing nothing to make it less prevalent? Oh yeah, let's go after porn!"

    And not we have this bill.

    Seriously, do these pompous old men believe that they can actually control the internet in this fashion?
  • by Antony-Kyre (807195) on Saturday March 18, 2006 @12:08AM (#14946821)
    One, they cannot force foreign countries to comply.
    Two, it's deliberate censorship.
  • by NetSettler (460623) <kent-slashdot@nhplace.com> on Saturday March 18, 2006 @12:18AM (#14946838) Homepage Journal
    A .xxx domain can't work to do what I think people want of it. At least not by itself. No matter how hard you try, there will be some things that don't make it into .xxx that someone will complain about. The non-.xxx domain can never be clean enough. Plus, putting someone in .xxx will condemn them to additional costs for no other reason than that some people who don't use them think that they should bear additional costs. I think it's great to have a .xxx space for those who think it's a virtue, but treating it like the presence of .xxx means you can then proceed to overregulate .com is bad.

    By contrast, a .kids domain would be something that people should aspire to be a member of (to attract that fussy audience that wants it), and that you can be exiled from if you don't adhere. Plus, the cost would be on the people who think it's needed.

    There will always be a clash between people who think that "public space" is "unregulated" space and that people who want "regulated" space should get a private area and people who think that "private space" should not be regulated and that people who want regulation should keep it to the "public areas". Society simply does not agree. That points to the notion that there must always be two kinds of public space, and it should not be thought of as all of one kind. So let there be .xxx, and let it be unregulated. And let there be .kids and let it be hyper-regulated. And leave the middle ground to those more Libertarian among us who think we don't have to hide out in one or the other space in order to get along just fine.
  • Harmful?" (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Transcendent (204992) on Saturday March 18, 2006 @12:36AM (#14946883)
    has as its principal or primary business the making available of material that is harmful to minors

    What if I think it's educational, or artistic? Are we going to make bomb making sites have .xxx domains? What about religious sites? Some may find that harmful, even detrimental.

    Now I'm not a bleeding heart liberal or anything, but you cannot go around imposing *your* view on the rest of the world. Parents are supposed to guide their children, not the government.

    And while these politicians (who have no touch on anything computer related) think it's ok, they're also effecting the rest of the world.
  • by Nice2Cats (557310) on Saturday March 18, 2006 @12:38AM (#14946887)
    Any commercial Internet site or online service that "has as its principal or primary business the making available of material that is harmful to minors" would be required to move its site to that domain.

    You know, I have a whole list of stuff that I think is "harmful to minors". I think it is harmful to minors to not give them access to real, serious sex education, resulting in the teenage pregnancy and STD rates the U.S. is justly infamous for. I think it is harmful to minors to tell them to turn off their brain and just believe God does everything instead. I think it is harmful to minors to pretend that drug abuse is a problem of supply, not of demand, that can be solved by bombing coca plantations in Columbia. It's a pretty long list, actually.

    I think what I am going to do is take a look at that bill and see if my senator is somehow involved. And if yes, I am going try my best as a citizen of the United States to get his or her stupid ass kicked back out on the street where it belongs. My friends and countrymen are getting slaughtered in a senseless war in Iraq, North Korea has the bomb and Iran is going to get it, and here Congress is, trying to get around the First Amendment again. Just what is it with these people?

The sooner all the animals are extinct, the sooner we'll find their money. - Ed Bluestone

Working...