NSI challenged over "obscene" domains 128
drwiii writes "news.com has a news tidbit about NSI going to court because of their refusal to register domain names that they feel are "obscene".
" What's amusing to me is the steady flow of words
that I hear about that are rejected, considering the
relative naughtiness of many existing domains.
what 7 words? (Score:1)
Carlins seven dirty words Monologue (Score:1)
http://www.lclark.edu/~jbradley/carlin.html
Re:Just another bunch of scammer/pornographers? (Score:1)
Is this Anonymous Coward just another bunch of ethically challenged scammers and moralists who will look for any little legal window of opportunity? People like this will usually wrap themselves in the flags of morality or whatever, when their _real_ intention is just to get porn banned.
Re:what 7 words? (Score:1)
Check out http://georgecarlin.com
He has a whole section on the seven words.
From his page:
"The original seven words were, shit, piss, fuck, cunt, cocksucker, motherfucker, and tits."
A classic skit!!!
J. Brownowski puts it at 1 Million (Score:1)
In the "Imaginative Mind in Art", Jacob Bronowski wrote: "...That is, four thousand words is a fair vocabulary that a human being can get along with, if he is not going to spend too much time thinking. And the total store in a good dictionary is more than a hundred times larger again, for a good dictionary contains nearly a million words."
Re:Porn should be banned.. and here's why. (Score:1)
And as has happened before, it pushes technology, especially if it allows privacy (they say this is how the VCR really got its start). That extra bandwidth wouldn't *be there* if folks hadn't been maxing out.
Re:words-count (Score:1)
Meta-importance of the case (Score:3)
What I think is a more important aspect of this case is using legal means to disassemble the current little top down, nepotistic, insider trading, self-agrandizing little circle jerk that currenly has control.
Things went way wrong about 4 to 5 years ago and have been allowed to continue along that path for far too long. The InterNIC/NSI desire to disassociate itself from from the tar pit of legal action points to the best way to attack a corrupt, service poor monopoly (and anyone who thinks the latest decision to allow third party registars to feed the NSI machine will solve all the current problems created by NSI's monopoly is smoking crack).
Kasparoff, AlterNIC and everyone else has been pursing purly geek solutions. Well, the news is that the head geeks that thought the internet up have designed it so that it can't be re-asembled without their permission (using their tools, which now have the market's code/mindshare). But, geeks are geeks no matter what... and they always fail to expect (no, not the Spanish Inquisition) the legal remedies that are avalable to non-geeks when their closed little geek circle jerk starts to depart too far from known reality.
Hopefully this will be opening of the floodgate that causing SAIC to drop ownership of NSI and forces the current designers of the internet (v1, v2 and beyond) to develope a methods that respect decentralized competitive systems.
As much as I hate to make lawyers rich, I hope some street-fighting, class-action consumer oriented lawyers put SAIC/NSI's ass in a sling on this one.
Re:Broadcast bandwidth is limited (Score:1)
...phil
Huh? (Score:1)
I'm getting: "Use a dist". That's offensive?
Re:words (Score:2)
The thing that torques my nuts is that only English words are being victimized. In Spanish, for example, even the most obscene words are domain names. The internet is not English specific, so why should obscene English domains be picked on?
OED (Score:1)
Are dictionaries really this exciting to some people?
Dictionaries (Score:2)
The Oxford English Dictionary comes in twenty volumes. It costs about a thousand dollars. If you think your Dude's Handy Pocket Reference to English has every word in the language, such thoughts are gravely erroneous.
Re:Shitake Mushrooms (Score:1)
Re:Domains exist for us, not for them (Score:1)
This gets confusing (Score:3)
(a) the domain names don't physically EXIST in America
(b) there is no way for the plaintif to prove their computer exists in America, either
(c) the Internet is international, and the US constitution does not apply to international dealings, and
(d) the Internet is supposed to be an anarchy, so the law doesn't apply to them, anyway.
On the other, the whole thing is plainly stupid.
The problem is, the people registering the domain names the NSI are censoring are EXACTLY the same sorts of people who have exploited or claimed at least one of those four points, when it benefitted them to do so.
Therein lies the dilema. The Internet is ideally deregulated and free, but if you chase that ideal so that YOU can do anything you like, you need to remember - so can they. And if you don't like it, you can't do any more than they can, if they don't.
Re:This gets confusing (Score:1)
It's really shiitake (Score:1)
--
Timur Tabi
Remove "nospam_" from email address
Re:words (Score:1)
I'll try hunting down an MP3 of it. e-mail me if you want a copy (if I find one)
I live in Las Vegas, and Carlin is here nearly every other month for 2 weeks.. I should go see him live...
Re:words (Score:1)
Cock, Cunt, Piss, Shit, Motherfucker, *Thinks* I don't remember the other two.
I think he changed it to motherfucker from fuck so he could do his "there's a lot going on there" thing.
No Imagination. (Score:1)
Americans aparently lack creativity
Re:words (Score:1)
(You Usians are such pr*des.
Regards, Ralph.
Re:Broadcast bandwidth is limited (Score:1)
This country has been weaned for too long by censors and I feel we as a whole are not intelligent enough to handle free communication. With all the right wingers and religious nuts who survive through propogating fear of media and information, there would be a legal war.
Perhaps the internet will change all that.
like ? (Score:1)
Re:Radio (Score:1)
(Some of which have studios on the Detroit side of the river, and transmitters on the Canada side...)
Bandwidth, Liability and Censorship (Score:4)
The problem we face as proponents of online freedom is that existing legal precedent cannot be easily applied to the Internet. It is funded partly by public money and partly by private money. Its organisation stretches analogies to other media beyond reasonable applicability. For example, bandwidth is in a sense limited, but as a user/listener/viewer-controlled medium that traffic is allocated by consumers, not producers. Moreover bandwidth is not permanently fixed by the laws of physics, but rather can be added on demand. It is an international medium. Hence the clear public interest in regulation does not pertain.
There is also a fundamental contradiction in NSI insisting that they are a private enterprise not subject to the same First Amendment standard as a government body, and in acting as a regulator like the FCC. Worse, by establishing themselves as a regulatory body, they've violated any pretense at common-carrier privileges and could be held liable in any number of interesting ways for domain names that others find offensive. Oops.
One might argue that NSI should be compelled to divest control of the root database into a non-profit organisation tasked with minimising the administrative costs of root service. No single organisation (even a nonprofit and especially a bureacracy) will ever have the incentive to actually attain this minimum, and yet the difficulty of maintaining multiple databases for the same TLD appears to make a market solution impossible. Perhaps a nonprofit root service funded by for-profit domain registrars, who would have an incentive to force down root server costs, is the best we can hope for.
Domains exist for us, not for them (Score:1)
I reckon that the internet should be treated as an international entity and that if this is accepted as being the case then NSI can't really be taken to the US courts since, as has been pointed out, the US can't rule over international dealings.
Beyond this though i feel that NSI is looking at this thing the wrong way. It appears that selectively doling out domain names is NSI's way of telling us that to be given anything from them is a blessing. As NSI essentially has complete control over domain names they have an obligation to the internet as a whole not to judge, but merely to serve.
Where is the consistency in NSI's judgement? (Score:2)
Another reader posted a link to the George Carlin 7 deadly words transcript [lclark.edu] which points out, in its fashion, that many words are not dirty unless taken in context. NSI may take it upon itself to disallow registration of domains with "indecent" language but if the courts find that they are allowed to filter out certain words, what is to stop them from selectively banning registration and registration renewal of phrases that they may consider to be indecent?
A friend of mine owns Jesus-Sucks-Dick.com [jesus-sucks-dick.com] which, if NSI continues on its current path, is almost certain to die off when it comes up for renewal.
Going a step further, though i doubt this will happen, what is to stop NSI from denying registration renewal to those sites which have objectionable content. I sincerely doubt that this will happen, but then it is only one more leap in logic
Definitions not equal to words (Score:1)
Restraint of Trade lawsuits (Score:1)
NSI is lame (Score:1)
I don't check godhatesfags.com often for obvious reasons. No, I'm not making it up. Yes, it is real.
Re:What Carlin album is the 7 dirty words from? (Score:1)
-dave0
--
Re:American bigottery...*sigh* (Score:1)
Registrant:
ORDERED STATUS QUO ANTE (FUCK14-DOM)
US District Court, Central District of
California
Los Angeles, CA 90012
Domain Name: FUCK.COM
Administrative Contact, Technical Contact, Zone Contact:
Network Operations Center (NSOL-NOC) NOC@NETSOL.COM
703-742-4777
Billing Contact:
Accounts Payable (AP5173-ORG) ap@NETSOL.COM
703-742-0400
Record last updated on 27-Apr-99.
Record created on 26-Apr-99.
Database last updated on 3-May-99 14:41:53 EDT.
Domain servers in listed order:
NS5.NETCOMI.COM 204.58.155.20
NS6.NETCOMI.COM 204.58.155.21
Real Assets Limited (SHIT3-DOM)
P.O. Box 3321
Road Town, Tortola
VG
Domain Name: SHIT.COM
Administrative Contact, Technical Contact, Zone Contact:
Real Assets (RA402-ORG) ra@POWERCLICKS.COM
+1 310 362 8434
Fax- +1 310 362 8895
Billing Contact:
Real Assets (RA402-ORG) ra@POWERCLICKS.COM
+1 310 362 8434
Fax- +1 310 362 8895
Record last updated on 21-Feb-99.
Record created on 21-Feb-99.
Database last updated on 3-May-99 14:41:53 EDT.
Domain servers in listed order:
ALPHA.HOSTBOX.COM 165.90.27.130
NS2.HE.NET 207.33.1.3
Thank god... (Score:1)
Re:Inadvertantly offensive domain names (Score:1)
(no wait, that's a masochist).
This is not a domain name, but at the start of WWII, the US Navy have some problems with one of their acronyms. It is common to shorten Commander in Chief to CINC. Hence the CinC of the Pacific Fleet is CINCPAC; the Atlantic Fleet (Lant) becomes CINCLANT. But what about the Big Kahuna, the CinC of all the Navy.
CINCUS
They didn't think that this sounded so good.
It's shi-i-ta-ke (Score:1)
--
Re:Where is the consistency in NSI's judgement? (Score:1)
shit.com is registered -- go figure...
STEVE
-----------
Resume [iren.net]
Standardized American Censorship (Score:2)
It's constitutional, as far as the Supreme court is concerned, since NSI gets $$$ from the Government. Its just as much of a violation of freedom-of-speech as not being able to say fuck on the radio or on television.
But, it is a slippery slope that leads to more 'constitutional' censorship via the FCC. I wonder if fireinacrowdedtheater.com is taken. If not, get it soon, before its illegal.
In the eye of the beholder. (Score:2)
Besides, weren't there an article in Wired about this a way back? NSI refused names that were racist, but appearently the one above was ok.
Sigh. (Score:1)
I'm really beginning to miss The Good Old Days when politicians didn't even know the Internet existed, spam email was virtually unheard of, and InterNIC was not run by a bunch of assholes.
Those days are long over and are never coming back. *sigh* These days the Internet == $$$. What real, meaningful communication that is still going on is in danger of being drowned out in the flood that is the commercialization of the Internet.
But that is just me.
Re:American bigottery...*sigh* (Score:1)
(Except the smokers, of course, but nobody can understand their incessant coughing anyway.
Re:no it's not (Score:1)
Re:Inadvertantly offensive domain names (Score:1)
Hey, that's neat - a word that sounds rude in both English AND Japanese. If you pronounce it out loud, it sounds like the slang term for "smegma".
damn the man! (Score:1)
Cody-- http://www.howstrange.org [howstrange.org]
Re:no it's not (Score:1)
-lx
Re:It's really shiitake (Score:1)
-lx
Re:NSI could be replaced (Score:1)
This will really send the idjits a message. Anyone can run root server, and anyone can pick the resolution they want. Then slashdot can have it's own "geek cachet" servers, WIPO be damned.
Directory plurality, that's what we need!
the internet is not a baby sitter (Score:1)
Re:Dictionaries (Score:1)
45402
NSI is smoking WAY too much crack... (Score:1)
NSI rejected it on the grounds that "a leftie is slang for a joint". they told him this - it wasn't an automated reply...
At this point, I'm not sure if he's gotten his domain or not...
Re:Who made them the morale-police of the net?? (Score:1)
-Zeb
Re:Betty (Score:1)
hatred of cigarettes! The problem, clearly,
is partly due to cultural differences in word
meanings...
Re:no it's not (Score:2)
You may be thinking of Chinese, which is tonal (making things more difficult) and has 2 "standard" romanizations. One, for instance, would write Qing, while the other would write Ching. They would both be pronounced the same.
Re:words-count (Score:2)
Re:Broadcast bandwidth is limited (Score:1)
The FCC was created to regulate radio frequencies at the urging of the TV and radio industry, which reminds me of the story of the camel's nose.
Re:Just another bunch of scammer/pornographers? (Score:1)
Re:words (Score:1)
Shitake Mushrooms (Score:1)
I wonder how many people I've inadvertantly offended in my ignorance.
Are there any other "vulgar" foods I should be aware of?
so why not use alternative registrars? (Score:1)
Or, go another route, and spell the domain so that it sounds like what you want, a la "fuh-q.org"
Re:words (Score:1)
Yeah I know who George Carlin is (not quite before my time) but I'm not familiar with that bit? Somebody have a link that could help enlighten my youngass?
English Offensive/Expressive (Score:1)
This is a weird issue. I was taught that a word should not offend anyone. I think the words God and Church are extremly offensive, but a domain of god.com or church.com could be okay?
Well anyway, most four letter words are just expressive English, and a joint.com could be a medical site.
Hard for me to understand how someone can be offended by a word and/or concept. I mean like, I would defend the Human/Constitutional rights of a person who is gay (the word/concept does not offend me), but I am not gay. Also, sexual assult is an assult on Human Rights (I would be offended) hetro or homo. Then again an a-sexual act would be (I guess) masturbation, harm no one and be an acceptable relief. Well I'm glad I'm married all these directions are almost moot for me.
Re:words (Score:1)
One more slip down the slippery slope. (Score:4)
Who made them the morale-police of the net?? (Score:1)
It's not like noone's SEEN these words before...
Re:Non English Slang? (Score:1)
That's not the same spelling. The German spelling is bitte and not bite.
Whe, French people, can say that Nike when pronounced with the French accent is the same sound that a French slang word that mean to fuck (niquer), so www.nike.com should not be renewed
Re:words (Score:1)
60,000 words in the English language, 7 can't be said on TV, Man, those must be some $%*@#!$ bad words!
The stuff I like best are the borderline words that are okay in some contexts...
"its okay to prick your finger, but you better not finger your
Re:words-count (Score:1)
I was just going by the paperback american heritage dictionary I have here on my desk which has '60,000' definitions.
Re:words-count (Score:1)
Re:words-count (Score:1)
Oh, and the dictionary proclaims the number of definitions contained right on the cover, I didn't count them (duh).
(god i'm in a pissy mood today)
Re:words-count (Score:1)
Re:Non English Slang? (Score:1)
Re:Dictionaries (Score:1)
I wanted to pull a quote from memory about the Carlin skit where he says ' of words in the English language, and only 7 can't be said on TV. Man those must be some bad #^@%$@ words' or something to that effect. So, not wanting to come up with some arbitrary number, I look at the nearest source, my office edition dictionary, and see it has 60,000 definitions. That's enough research for me to make my point.
But noooo.... Somehow this turns into a pissing contest about how many words are actually conceibably (sp?) in a 20 volume dictionary, including compund permutations and crap like that.
Then this constructive quote:
"If you think your Dude's Handy Pocket Reference to English has every word in the language, such thoughts are gravely erroneous."
My response to that is "If you think that your observation is somehow relevant and contributory (sp?) to this discussion about censorship of internet domain names, such thoughts are gravely erroneous".
Re:words (Score:2)
http://www.aclu.org/court/pacifica.html#append
It now remember this, there was a court case where a radio station played this on the air and the ACLU went to court. The transcript of Carlin's bit is part of the legal record. Bet that made for an interesting day in court!
Re:What Carlin album is the 7 dirty words from? (Score:1)
end he has that picture of his dog trying to hump his cat
What happened to decentralization (Score:1)
Yes, comp.com is longer than
In short this tempest in a teapot is caused by people refusing to pull their heads from their posteriors and to take a look around for solutions that will satisfy everyone. Now, other than having to type a longer name, can anyone offer a reasonable objection to creating bodies from selling registrations within second level domains?
Re:American bigottery...*sigh* (Score:1)
Really, this isn't flame bait
NSI can refuse to RENEW domains!?!?!?!?!!? (Score:4)
Huddleston said that domain name was registered before the 1996 installation of the automated registration system. She said the name will be denied when it comes up for renewal.
So just how do they justify refusal to renew a domain that they have ALREADY registered. As the owner of several domains, I don't like the idea that NSI can pull the rug out from under them just because they *don't like them*.
I've been a domain admin for a few years (my InterNIC handle is just TDP... no numbers). I'm really beginning to miss The Good Old Days when politicians didn't even know the Internet existed, spam email was virtually unheard of, and InterNIC was not run by a bunch of assholes.
Thad
Inadvertantly offensive domain names (Score:1)
Re:Just another bunch of scammer/pornographers? (Score:2)
Welcome to America. Where speech is free, unless it might give you a boner.
Re:But God does hate fags (Score:1)
The lesson for today is..
Bible is a big book of 2000 year old hate that should not be taken seriously.
If you use religion to hate somebody, it's still hate, in most cases dumber hate.
If anybody finds such sites amusing I've made a list of religious inspired hate sites at
http://members.xoom.com/auatheist/links.html
enjoy
Re:words (Score:1)
Re:words-count (Score:1)
:)
Re:Non English Slang? (Score:1)
Re:NSI is lame (Score:1)
Hehehe I tried to register fuck.com... wish I still had a copy of their refusal letter. I do remember they felt it was inappropriate.
But with all those domains out there matching *teen*sex*, they sure are hypocritical. I thiink that those domains are inappropriate.
Re:what 7 words? (Score:1)
shit.com
piss.com
tits.com
Tits (Score:1)
Tits is a dirty word?
wow
glad I don't live in Scunthorpe
that's kinda funny (Score:1)
"it's a sad thing that in today's society this statement must be considered offencive just because it contains the word 'fuck'" --fortune
i wonder if they noticed that on the day of the events in colorado, some domain brokers registered trenchcoatmafia.com and trenchcoatmafia.org...
Hell Yeah! (Score:1)
American bigottery...*sigh* (Score:1)
Pussy.com is not
The forbidden words only applies to the english language. The are no problems registering dirty words in just about any other language as a
Anything goes -- as long as it's not written in english.
Betty (Score:2)
You can no longer register domains like fucker dot com [fucker.com], but you can register domains like godhatesfags [godhatesfags.com], etc.
common sense, thats what should be taught in schools.
yea.
Bye-Bye Disney... (Score:1)
No more cartoons, I guess... I guess, we are now officially left with guns and things...
;)
Re:Non English Slang? (Score:1)