Senators Renew Call for .XXX Domain 489
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. "
pron.awesome (Score:5, Insightful)
I hate grandstanding.
Re:pron.awesome (Score:2)
Re:pron.awesome (Score:5, Funny)
A true programmer.
Re:pron.awesome (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
"!=" != a word
Re:pron.awesome (Score:5, Funny)
I wish it too. I heard a news item a few years back that said, verbatim,
"Scott Peterson told Amber Frey that his wife Laci had died at a party in an attempt to solicit sex."
I almost crashed my car, laughing. For those of you whose first language isn't English, the actual statement should have been:
"In an attempt to solicit sex at a party, Scott Peterson told Amber Frey that his wife Laci had died."
Damn those clause modifiers.
Solomon Chang
Re:pron.awesome (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:pron.awesome (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:pron.awesome (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:pron.awesome (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Hmmm, I seem to recall a (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not so much a matter of "the Bible says X, so we believe in X" as it is "we want Y, let's find support in the Bible".
Re:pron.awesome (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, freedom of speech does mean unlimited distribution. That's what the word "freedom" means - that no one tries to stop you. As for the material distributed being "sleazy", that is an appeal to emotion as well as ad hominem attack. Sleaze is in the eye of the beholder - the exact same pic could appear in a porn site or a breast cancer information site.
I didn't know that there was a law about the correct use of ".org" domain. Nor does it matter, since it is a lot easier to make appeals to emotion (like you did) for censoring the xxx domain, while it is a lot harder to use "save the children" -arguments to get rid of the org domain webpages.
False argument. New York Times is a privately owned newspaper, and no one has argued that it should be forced to carry your writings. No, the argument for the XXX domain is analogous to making it illegal to distribute your flyer except in a government-guarded building (the xxx domain), where anyone who enters is logged by traffick analysis and the most politically active groups - such as university students living on campuses - are prevented from entering at all.
Another analogue are the Free Speech Zones - the government doesn't need to silence its critics as long as it can simply move them where no one can hear them. That works as well and pays lip service to the law.
Re:pron.awesome (Score:3, Funny)
porn.com.xxx, porn.net.xxx (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:pron.awesome (Score:2, Insightful)
Unless they were referring to "mindless politicians" as being redundant.
Re:pron.awesome (Score:5, Funny)
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!
OK, I knew they were pervs.... (Score:5, Funny)
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)
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
Re:Free Porn (Score:5, Insightful)
Domain Name Squatters (Score:2, Insightful)
If that isn't a Domain Name Squatter's wet dream I don't know what is...
Re:Domain Name Squatters (Score:3, Funny)
This applies everywhere? (Score:5, Insightful)
Which means big freaking whup for internationally hosted sites?
Re:This applies everywhere? (Score:3, Funny)
Oh, No, To war we will we go for the .XXX (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Oh, No, To war we will we go for the .XXX (Score:4, Insightful)
They recently blocked overseas gambling, why not block overseas porn?
Re:Oh, No, To war we will we go for the .XXX (Score:2)
Re:Oh, No, To war we will we go for the .XXX (Score:2)
Re:Oh, No, To war we will we go for the .XXX (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Oh, No, To war we will we go for the .XXX (Score:3, Insightful)
Who defines what "porn" is?
If i run a BBS and someone posts a pornographic image.. do i suddenly have to give up my
Do i have to remove the image?
This is way ambiguous..
inconstitutional? WTF? (Score:2)
Re:inconstitutional? WTF? (Score:2, Interesting)
is photographing a naked person porn? two people making love?
Re:inconstitutional? WTF? (Score:3, Funny)
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.
Re:inconstitutional? WTF? (Score:5, Insightful)
-Gloria Leonard
--
BMO
Re:inconstitutional? WTF? (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm often surprised by how true this is - there's a surprising number of people out there whose sexuality would be considered "deviant" at best by mainstream society, and who will still berate you for being a sick pervert because you have some fetishes they don't have. Talk about cognitive dissonance...
Re:inconstitutional? WTF? (Score:3, Interesting)
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
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:inconstitutional? WTF? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:inconstitutional? WTF? (Score:3, Interesting)
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
Re:inconstitutional? WTF? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:inconstitutional? WTF? (Score:3, Interesting)
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
Re:inconstitutional? WTF? (Score:4, Informative)
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...
Re:inconstitutional? WTF? (Score:2)
.obscene is next (Score:3, Interesting)
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
Re:inconstitutional? WTF? (Score:5, Funny)
Harmful to Minors (Score:2, Funny)
This only helps porn industry (Score:2, Insightful)
Must be election year. Folks, try to vote for people that at least demonstrate a vague understanding of the Internet.
Re:This only helps porn industry (Score:2)
No. (Score:3, Informative)
Time to register (Score:5, Funny)
BBH
They better get cracking. (Score:2)
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?
Re:They better get cracking. (Score:2)
It could be struck down beacuse... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:It could be struck down beacuse... (Score:2)
Re:It could be struck down beacuse... (Score:5, Insightful)
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
Re:It could be struck down beacuse... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Harmful to minors? Is it tubgirl? (Score:2, Insightful)
Define "harmful to minors" (Score:2)
Re:Define "harmful to minors" (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Fact Sheet on H.R. 669: Protect Children From Video Game Sex & Violence Act o
useful change (Score:5, Insightful)
*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
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.)
Re:useful change (Score:2)
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
Re:useful change (Score:2)
Re:useful change (Score:2)
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
Re:useful change (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:useful change (Score:3, Insightful)
Huh? Has it ever been shown that porn is harmful for minors?
And how did they check? Almost all people have seen porn as minors...
Re:useful change (Score:5, Insightful)
And by "Republicans", you mean "Democrats":
I know this is a difficult concept for Slashdotters to grasp, but neither party has a monopoly on stupid ideas. Vent your anger at the people doing the harm, not at whichever party is the one you don't happen to affiliate with.
If you're a Democrat, write your senator and tell them that you don't approve of these actions. I, a Republican, have done exactly that several times lately. Maybe if we all do that enough, someone will finally get the idea.
Re:useful change (Score:3, Insightful)
Is there a bias on my part for calling those sites tasteless? Probably. Go and care if you want. It perturbs me not.
Re:useful change (Score:3, Insightful)
I truly, honestly disagree that there's a difference. Name a given subject, and you'll find both Republicans and Democrats that would wish to censor it. Both of them seem to
127.0.0.1 *.*.xxx (Score:2, Informative)
Re:127.0.0.1 *.*.xxx (Score:3, Insightful)
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)
Harmful? (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
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)
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.
Once upon a time... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Once upon a time... (Score:3, Funny)
God (Judeo-Christian only, please) Bless America.
There are economist who think like that (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
A little sanity here folks (Score:2, Insightful)
I see nothing wrong with this so long as its not the "religious" right deciding the definition of porn.
"harmful to minors" (Score:5, Funny)
Going about it all wrong (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Degrading standards of society... (Score:3, Insightful)
Probably constitutional (Score:3)
You people really need to get over the "first amendment + internet = whatever we want" thing.
Re:Probably constitutional (Score:2)
Bravo!
It's the kids, stupid. (Score:2)
Is this from the Onion? Does anyone take these twats seriously?
Hmm.. if this extended to cable television (Score:5, Funny)
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
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?
Dirty old senators... (Score:2)
Smart Move. (Score:3, Insightful)
And not we have this bill.
Seriously, do these pompous old men believe that they can actually control the internet in this fashion?
Absolutely stupid legislation (Score:3, Insightful)
Two, it's deliberate censorship.
Maybe a .kids domain? (Score:5, Insightful)
By contrast, a
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
Harmful?" (Score:3, Insightful)
What if I think it's educational, or artistic? Are we going to make bomb making sites have
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.
What I think is harmful to minors (Score:3, Insightful)
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?
Re:unconstitutional? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:unconstitutional? (Score:2)
Actually, most of the DNS infrastructure *is* in the U.S. It wouldn't really matter if the hosts were up if the root nameservers said that the domain didn't exist.
Re:unconstitutional? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:unconstitutional? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Come again? (Score:2)
Could that be any more vague? Are we going to see amazon.xxx?
More to the point, who thinks backdoorsluts.com has anything for little johnny?
Re:Come again? (Score:2)
Re:Come again? (Score:5, Insightful)
They wont pass national healthcare, so millions of children do not have healthcare.
They do not properly fund education, thus hurting millions of children
They allow corperations to dictate our country and outsource jobs at an alarming rate, thus putting the parents of children out of work, thus taking away any healthcare they had. (if they had any)
They send the children of parents off to die in an illegal war, started by the criminals that run our country. Bush, Cheney, Wolfiwitz, Rove, Powell, Delay, Abramof, Frist, Santorem, hatch, Leiberman, Kerry, and countless others... AND the ones that survive... come back seriously injurred and need special care their entire lives... which the government fails to provide.
They most certainly do hurt far more children than all the pedophiles on the planet combined.
Re:Other domain names need apply (Score:2)
Well, it is a little long...
Re:Way to go, Congressmen! (Score:2, Insightful)
This is one of the most filled-with-BS comments i've ever heard in my life.
First of all, this proposal was made by TWO SPECIFIC SENATORS.
Second, if these senators didn't propose this, would the debt disminish? No, it's a COMPLETELY UNRELATED thing.
Third, you don't know these particular senators' stance on the debt.
Fourth, the congress discusses laws and votes in favor or against. Voting for an initiative doesn't make congressmen vote ag
Re:Mod me down! (Score:3, Insightful)
You do have the right to monitor what they do. That's your job. Not the government's.
You have the right to earn their respect such that they'll consider porn lame because they know you consider it lame. That too is your job as a parent.
I don't care if every little thing on the net with a mention of a body part is relegated to