Senators Renew Call for .XXX Domain

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. "

OK, I knew they were pervs....

[Anonymous Coward]

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...)

Harmful to Minors

[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.

Time to register

[BigBuckHunter]

Time to register "BringBackPorn.com"

BBH

Re:Domain Name Squatters

[Khashishi]

I'll have to hurry to the registrar before www.goatse.cx.xxx gets taken!

dear lord.

[sheaman]

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.

Re:This applies everywhere?

[GrumblyStuff]

Well if The Pirate Bay is any example....

Re:inconstitutional? WTF?

[Meagermanx]

"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.

Re:pron.awesome

[rodgster]

But that would break all my bookmarks/favorites!

Re:inconstitutional? WTF?

[Directrix1]

That domain already exists, except its .cn not .kids .

Re:pron.awesome

[jrockway]

??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 :)

"harmful to minors"

[larry bagina]

In accordance with megan's law, CmdrTaco.net has been renamed to CmdrTaco.xxx

Hmm.. if this extended to cable television

[tinkertim]

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?

Re:Once upon a time...

[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.

Re:pron.awesome

[aichpvee]

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!

Re:Oh, No, To war we will we go for the .XXX

[chris_eineke]

Would the U.S. Government then try and block non .XXX porn sites?

You can pry porn FROM MY COLD DEAD HANDS!

Re:useful change

[Anonymous Coward]

But (as has been discussed here before) what if it references the numeric IP address, and not the domain name?

BLASPHEME!!!

How dare you even deign to speak of such a thing!? Some evil soul could hear you -- you would carry the guilt of corrupting the lives of our innocent teenagers, as they witness the carnal of pleasures human beings engaged in fits of physical pleasure, their hot sweaty loins thrust agai...um...WELL IT'S ALL VERY BAD AND IT COULD BE YOUR FAULT, OK!?

Hackers like you, working to develop these devilish underhanded schemes in your darkened basements, intent on driving the information superhighway in to a dystopic techno-futuristic dark alley, manipulating and twisting the obscure tools of electronic communications in manners undreamed of by more responsible scientists, only give aid and sympathy to those who desire to destroy our good Christian nation!!!

What other twisted ideas might lurk in the hearts of men who wish to subvert godly decency and corrupt the technologies of the interweb!?

Re:inconstitutional? WTF?

[JambisJubilee]

Inconstitutional? That's unpossible!

Re:Oh, No, To war we will we go for the .XXX

[larry bagina]

I don't think it's the porn that will need to be pried from your cold dead hands.

Re:pron.awesome

[Skevin]

> There are, however, instances where you dearly wish that you could put parentheses into English.

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

[middlemen]

actually if a "word" is defined as two bytes, then "!=" == two bytes which is a "word".