Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Senators Renew Call for .XXX Domain

Zonk posted more than 8 years ago | from the subject-they're-familiar-with dept.

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. "

cancel ×

489 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

pron.awesome (4, Insightful)

deft (253558) | more than 8 years ago | (#14946481)

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.

Re:pron.awesome (1)

Meagermanx (768421) | more than 8 years ago | (#14946542)

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!.

Re:pron.awesome (5, Funny)

jrockway (229604) | more than 8 years ago | (#14946587)

??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 (2, Funny)

rodgster (671476) | more than 8 years ago | (#14946561)

But that would break all my bookmarks/favorites!

porn.com.xxx, porn.net.xxx (4, Insightful)

XanC (644172) | more than 8 years ago | (#14946565)

Whoever registers .com.xxx and .net.xxx first wins!

Re:pron.awesome (2, Insightful)

fkamogee (619579) | more than 8 years ago | (#14946574)

And I hate when people mod the first post "Redundant".
Unless they were referring to "mindless politicians" as being redundant.

Re:pron.awesome (1)

jibjibjib (889679) | more than 8 years ago | (#14946627)

porn.net should find a new name. IMHO, .net should be used for its intended purpose, for network providers, and shouldn't have porn sites in it.

Another possible solution would be to create com.xxx, org.xxx and net.xxx, and give every porn.* site a porn.*.xxx domain.

OK, I knew they were pervs.... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#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...)

Domain Name Squatters (2, Insightful)

The Real Nem (793299) | more than 8 years ago | (#14946485)

If that isn't a Domain Name Squatter's wet dream I don't know what is...

Re:Domain Name Squatters (2, Funny)

Khashishi (775369) | more than 8 years ago | (#14946511)

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

This applies everywhere? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14946491)

Failure to comply with those requirements would result in civil penalties....

Which means big freaking whup for internationally hosted sites?

Re:This applies everywhere? (1)

earthlingpink (884677) | more than 8 years ago | (#14946537)

Quite. I'd be curious to see how the Commerce Department would intend collecting on the civil penalties it imposed on sites not based in the United States...

Re:This applies everywhere? (3, Funny)

GrumblyStuff (870046) | more than 8 years ago | (#14946550)

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

Oh, No, To war we will we go for the .XXX (5, Insightful)

lostngone (855272) | more than 8 years ago | (#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?

Re:Oh, No, To war we will we go for the .XXX (3, Insightful)

Spy der Mann (805235) | more than 8 years ago | (#14946557)

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

They recently blocked overseas gambling, why not block overseas porn?

Re:Oh, No, To war we will we go for the .XXX (1)

Lehk228 (705449) | more than 8 years ago | (#14946660)

block != ban

Re:Oh, No, To war we will we go for the .XXX (1)

evil agent (918566) | more than 8 years ago | (#14946573)

I suppose that if we do this and we show that it works, then other countries will follow suit. Big 'if' though.

inconstitutional? WTF? (1)

Spy der Mann (805235) | more than 8 years ago | (#14946493)

Can anyone explain me why tagging a website as "porn" (in the domain) could be declared inconstitutional?

Re:inconstitutional? WTF? (2, Informative)

mindtriggerz (914619) | more than 8 years ago | (#14946510)

It's not the tagging, it's the requirement that ALL porn move to .xxx or whatever.

Re:inconstitutional? WTF? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14946516)

It would appear that you would be required to use an .XXX TLD if you dispense "harmful material", which is what I guess is being considered unconstitutional.

Re:inconstitutional? WTF? (2, Interesting)

Bob The Cowboy (308954) | more than 8 years ago | (#14946524)

"What is pornography?"

is photographing a naked person porn? two people making love?

Re:inconstitutional? WTF? (2, Funny)

Meagermanx (768421) | more than 8 years ago | (#14946551)

"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:inconstitutional? WTF? (4, Insightful)

bmo (77928) | more than 8 years ago | (#14946599)

"The difference between pornography and erotica is lighting"
-Gloria Leonard

--
BMO

Re:inconstitutional? WTF? (1)

daspriest (904701) | more than 8 years ago | (#14946650)

"What is pornography?"

"I know it when I see it"

Re:inconstitutional? WTF? (5, Insightful)

aiken_d (127097) | more than 8 years ago | (#14946535)

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

Re:inconstitutional? WTF? (2, Funny)

Directrix1 (157787) | more than 8 years ago | (#14946583)

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

Re:inconstitutional? WTF? (2, Interesting)

interiot (50685) | more than 8 years ago | (#14946608)

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 for serving porn?

Re:inconstitutional? WTF? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14946623)

Wow, I didn't know that. Guess my new pr0n site is wikipedia!

Re:inconstitutional? WTF? (2, Informative)

Rob T Firefly (844560) | more than 8 years ago | (#14946596)

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.

Re:inconstitutional? WTF? (2, Interesting)

eMartin (210973) | more than 8 years ago | (#14946643)

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.

Re:inconstitutional? WTF? (3, Informative)

ozmanjusri (601766) | more than 8 years ago | (#14946656)

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...

Re:inconstitutional? WTF? (1)

1u3hr (530656) | more than 8 years ago | (#14946665)

As soon as you explain what "inconstitutional" means I'll be happy to.

Harmful to Minors (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14946495)

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 only helps porn industry (1, Insightful)

quokkapox (847798) | more than 8 years ago | (#14946499)

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.

Re:This only helps porn industry (1)

NitsujTPU (19263) | more than 8 years ago | (#14946680)

Aren't all of the top level DNS servers in the US?

Time to register (4, Funny)

BigBuckHunter (722855) | more than 8 years ago | (#14946500)

Time to register "BringBackPorn.com"

BBH

unconstitutional? (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14946501)

This is about as unconstitutional as forcing processed food vendors to label the ingredients. Now people can quickly know which food has ingredients they want to avoid. Why would this idea be bad when applied to websites?

Re:unconstitutional? (4, Insightful)

genrader (563784) | more than 8 years ago | (#14946514)

liberty >>>>> safety

Re:unconstitutional? (1)

earthlingpink (884677) | more than 8 years ago | (#14946585)

And also because it wouldn't work, for two reasons:

i) it wouldn't apply to porn sites originating outside of the US;
ii) how do you define "porn"? Who gets to write that definition?

Re:unconstitutional? (1)

Jason Earl (1894) | more than 8 years ago | (#14946626)

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? (1)

rhavenn (97211) | more than 8 years ago | (#14946669)

Is this the hidden reason for the US / ICANN to keep all the nameservers internal to the US? I have a better idea. Why don't all the churchy, right-wing dipshits go suck it and try and educate their children that yeah, that's porn. It's a naked woman / man / donkey and some people enjoy looking at that stuff. Junior might talk about it at school the next day, but it isn't going to scar him for life. Of course, taking personal responsibility is just too hard.

Re:unconstitutional? (1)

jibjibjib (889679) | more than 8 years ago | (#14946687)

I count 7 in the US, 1 outside, and 5 distributed. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Root_nameserver [wikipedia.org] ) While 7 does technically count as "most," there is still enough infrastructure outside the US to keep the system going.

Unfortunately, they're all still under ICANN's control, though. And the major top-level domain registries are in the US.

This doesn't really matter though, because there is no way for the US to shut down specific domains in other countries' domains. For example, they couldn't take down a .cx site without shutting down the .cx domain entirely, so they will never be able to move all internet porn into .xxx

Re:unconstitutional? (2, Interesting)

etymxris (121288) | more than 8 years ago | (#14946588)

Because peanuts can kill those with allergies. I don't think stumbling across a pornographic website can have quite the same effect.

Re:unconstitutional? (1)

EnsilZah (575600) | more than 8 years ago | (#14946631)

I for one would not mind all porn sites being under .xxx, but the people who run them might.
And since it's only valid in the US, only sites based in the states are going to have to follow it.

Also, how do you classify porn?
If you have only two naked pictures on the website, is it still a porn site?
How about artistic nudes?

Re:unconstitutional? (2, Insightful)

MacDork (560499) | more than 8 years ago | (#14946633)

Because there isn't really any argument about what constitutes peanuts. One man's porn is another man's art. [msnbc.com]

Re:unconstitutional? (1)

1u3hr (530656) | more than 8 years ago | (#14946681)

Now people can quickly know which food has ingredients they want to avoid. Why would this idea be bad when applied to websites?

While chemists can analyse food, how do you analyse a website? How do you resolve disputes? Do you relegate an entire domain to .xxx the moment they have one photo with a nipple? How many millions of domains are ther in the world?

There are plenty of nanny filters you can install if you want to filter your own or your kids' access.

Come again? (0, Redundant)

evil agent (918566) | more than 8 years ago | (#14946503)

material that is harmful to minors

Could that be any more vague? Are we going to see amazon.xxx?

Re:Come again? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14946525)

material that is harmful to minors

Based on that vague wording, and his education policies, I'm pretty sure the President will be required to move his website over to .xxx soon.

Re:Come again? (1)

Fulcrum of Evil (560260) | more than 8 years ago | (#14946533)

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? (1)

Directrix1 (157787) | more than 8 years ago | (#14946552)

I hope so :-P. On a more serious note though, this would turn all .mil to .mil.xxx, as our military is the most harmful thing most minors around the world have to contend with.

They better get cracking. (1)

El Cubano (631386) | more than 8 years ago | (#14946504)

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. (1)

mfago (514801) | more than 8 years ago | (#14946582)

Dibs on WhiteHouse.xxx

Way to go, Congressmen! (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14946508)

Allow me to be the first to point out that along with this, the U.S. Senate also voted to raise the national debt limit to $9,000,000,000,000 (9 trillion), rather than even making an attempt to curb spending.

For the baby born today, congratulations, you already owe $30,000 to China. I'm glad the senate is worrying about my ability to quickly locate porn.

Re:Way to go, Congressmen! (2, Insightful)

Spy der Mann (805235) | more than 8 years ago | (#14946624)

I'm glad the senate is worrying about my ability to quickly locate porn.

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 against another.

Fifth, searching for porn would be a LOT EASIER with the .xxx domains (have you thought about how many different domains one single porn site has?). Classification is one of the factors that make searches more effective. It also prevents you from dealing with scam sites that require you to use a long distance dialer and all that crap. Also, filtering "*.xxx" is much easier than filtering (insert very complex regex with lots of nasty words on it).

Sixth, do you realize how much money is spent in porn? If young children find porn, they might like it and later spend your precious american dollars in (either national or overseas) crap, instead of using it for better stuff like cleaning up the planet?

Seventh, the senators are NOT proposing this to limit your ability to search for porn, they're doing it so nobody searches for one thing and ends up with porn on his web searches. Don't children matter? I know it's a cliché saying "think of the children", but let me tell you, if a parent is having trouble with SPAM, do you think he'll be able to block his kid from accessing porn from his computer?

Eigth, there's a lot of porn SPAM arriving to our e-mails daily. Don't you think that forcing porn sites to have a .xxx domain would help at least a bit against the spam which we all dread?

Finally, if you don't agree with what a senator says / does, why don't you vote (or tell your parents to vote) against him?

WTFXXX? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14946509)

In a day and age when the European Union is threatening to break away from the US-controlled root DNS servers, this article begs the question--Senators, are you trying to damage the Internet on purpose, OR ARE YOU JUST PLAIN FUCKING DUMB?

Man, I love reelections.

It could be struck down beacuse... (5, Insightful)

NevarMore (248971) | more than 8 years ago | (#14946513)

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.

Re:It could be struck down beacuse... (1)

Namronorman (901664) | more than 8 years ago | (#14946562)

What next, the world is round? Blasphemy! Now if you'll excuse me, I have a public execution to attend.

Re:It could be struck down beacuse... (1)

EnsilZah (575600) | more than 8 years ago | (#14946649)

Well, if those damned Canadians insist on currupting our youth, we're going to have to liberate their oil rich^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H asses.

Harmful to minors? Is it tubgirl? (2, Insightful)

Screaming Harlot (942308) | more than 8 years ago | (#14946515)

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.

Define "harmful to minors" (1)

ScottCooperDotNet (929575) | more than 8 years ago | (#14946518)

What is "harmful to minors" mean, exactly? Is a naked breast harmful in comparison to professional wrestling? Or a murder mystery television show?

Re:Define "harmful to minors" (3, Insightful)

Siffy (929793) | more than 8 years ago | (#14946677)

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 of 2003
http://www.house.gov/baca/hotissues/video_factshee t.htm [house.gov]

useful change (4, Insightful)

DreadSpoon (653424) | more than 8 years ago | (#14946519)

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.)

Re:useful change (1, Insightful)

aussersterne (212916) | more than 8 years ago | (#14946615)

You have hit on the problem precisely. Given the conservative climate in the U.S., when you or a public library filter out .xxx, will you also be filering out the following that used to reside at .com, .net, .org, or .edu, but were forced to move?

buybikinisonline.xxx
womenshealth.xxx
beachvolleyball.xxx
babiesandbreastmilk.xxx
breastcancer.xxx
birthcontrol.xxx
wikipedia.xxx

It could happen if the Republicans get their way.

Re:useful change (2, Insightful)

TheFlyingGoat (161967) | more than 8 years ago | (#14946662)

That's a bunch of BS. The quote specifically says a site that "has as its principal or primary business the making available of material that is harmful to minors" would be forced to change. Although I think that's still too vague, it shows that they don't want educational or commercial sales sites included (although I expect adult toy sites would be included). Even though some Republicans are against certain forms of birth control, and although they may find pictures of women in swimsuits offensive somehow, very few would be stupid enough to try grouping those sites with pornography sites. Doing so would alienate many of their voters.

Just as strip clubs and adult toystores have specific rules set up for what they can and cannot allow, as well as the classifications for what constitutes such establishments, rules can be set up to classify adult websites. It would make filtering much easier, while allowing the sites that really do have educational content. That's something that the current filters have a tough time with. I actually think such laws would help resolve far more issues than they would create.

Re:useful change (1)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 8 years ago | (#14946622)

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 give up a domain name they have a legit claim to.

Would it really matter if SexySlashdotGirls.com redirects to SexySlashdotGirls.xxx ?

Re:useful change (1)

HairyCanary (688865) | more than 8 years ago | (#14946628)

Thank you for so eloquently explaining why government should have direct control over the Internet.

Re:useful change (1)

Wannabe Code Monkey (638617) | more than 8 years ago | (#14946640)

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 following tests:

  • Whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest,
  • Whether the work depicts/describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable state law,
  • Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

From the wikipedia article: For legal scholars, several issues are important. One is that the test allows for community standards rather than a national standard. What offends the average person in Tulsa, Oklahoma may differ from what offends the average person in San Francisco. The relevant community, however, is not defined. So I don't see how you could possibly force even US porn sites to classify themselves as .xxx when they're regulated by local community standards not federal standards.

Plus, knowing the internet... there are gonna be ways around it anyway.

Re:useful change (1)

colinrichardday (768814) | more than 8 years ago | (#14946682)

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

and about bloody time too! (2, Insightful)

benite (905268) | more than 8 years ago | (#14946521)

Yes, I agree that's exactly what they should do.
and jail everyone they can that does not conform.

[and I don't give a damn about moderators scoring either! Just make it -1 as usual]

127.0.0.1 *.*.xxx (2, Informative)

Siffy (929793) | more than 8 years ago | (#14946532)

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)?

dear lord. (2, Funny)

sheaman (826235) | more than 8 years ago | (#14946538)

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? (5, Insightful)

NilObject (522433) | more than 8 years ago | (#14946540)

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? (2, Insightful)

tlynch001 (917597) | more than 8 years ago | (#14946605)

The fact that someone thinks 'making love' and pornography are the same thing is evidence of how screwed up society has become from overexposure to images of gratuitous sex.

Re:Harmful? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14946641)

heh. I don't think it matters if the two people enaged in sexual activity are in love or not, any images of such acts are considered pornography.

Dad: Hey watch this video me and your mom made!

Son: OMG is that a porno of you and mom?!

Dad: No! How dare you? We love each other!

Once upon a time... (5, Insightful)

The Warlock (701535) | more than 8 years ago | (#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."

Senate.gov (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14946544)

One of the first to move? Certainly harmful to minors.

Try, try, and than try again. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14946546)

Don't you think it's funny that when the "little guy" asks for something it can be voted-away just once (and is never heard of again), but when something "important" gets voted away it just sticks it's head up again, and again, and *swat* .... Again and *blammoo!* .... Again and *heavy nuke !!!* ......... Again, and ... untill it gets "accepted by the voters" ?

Somehow I don't understand why something that gets voted away can be, with minor changes to the wording, but mostly *not* the meaning, be entered again and ...

I'm all for .xxx, but... (0, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14946554)

making it mandatory? That's just insanely stupid.

Other domain names need apply (1)

SEWilco (27983) | more than 8 years ago | (#14946564)

The bill suggests, but does not require, that .xxx serve as the domain name ending

Because there is no obvious relationship between the number thirty and this type of material.

Re:Other domain names need apply (1)

lynxpardinus (939498) | more than 8 years ago | (#14946617)

>The bill suggests, but does not require, that .xxx serve as the domain name ending

From the article:

[...]Failure to comply with those requirements would result in civil penalties as determined by the Commerce Department.[...]

Oh yeah.... and that is a suggestion... :)

Re:Other domain names need apply (1)

Maserati (8679) | more than 8 years ago | (#14946621)

Not to state the obvious, but .XVIII would work nicely.

Well, it is a little long...

Sure would be handy (1)

Farrside (78711) | more than 8 years ago | (#14946568)

Like most /.ers, I find I waste a lot of time looking for porn. It would be nice to have all the potential 'sites roped into one basic corral!

A little sanity here folks (2, Insightful)

TexNex (513254) | more than 8 years ago | (#14946592)

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.

Sounded great at first... (-1, Redundant)

xiphoris (839465) | more than 8 years ago | (#14946594)

Senators are once again pushing for a .XXX top-level domain to 'corral pornography'.

Pornography has become such a part of the Internet that I think having a domain explicitly for it a great idea. Then I read the rest of the article summary:

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.

Whoah. Hold on. Who gets to decide whether something is "harmful to minors"? There are too many legitimate businesses that sell adult-related things for this even to make sense. Congress, do you think an online store that sells vibrators and sex toys should move to .xx?

Oh, ok then.

In related news, the business formerly known as Amazon.com recently changed its logo to Amazon.xxx [amazon.com] . A spokesperson could not be reached for comment.

The fact that legislation like this goes far enough to make the news digusts me. The government is NOT a nanny!

/Votes in a bill to bring personal responsibility back to America

They must be confusing top level with xxx.us (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14946601)

Somebody please tell me that US politicians are not so ethnocentric that they still think that the Internet was created by Al Gore and that it is theirs to policy at their own whim.

And since you are at it, can you tell me how is the Department of Commerce going to enforce this on a foreign company with a foreign-hosted adult domain? What are they going to do? Block it? And that makes the US different from China in what way?

Why is this bad? (1)

Unsus (901072) | more than 8 years ago | (#14946602)

I don't see what's wrong with moving porn to .xxx; it just makes it easier to filter those websites from children and school/library computers. Most porn sites don't target people under 18 (I hope), so I don't think they have a problem if their websites are less accessible by children.

what a mistake (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14946607)

...i think ".cum" would be more logical.

"harmful to minors" (5, Funny)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 8 years ago | (#14946609)

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

Going about it all wrong (5, Interesting)

Spazmania (174582) | more than 8 years ago | (#14946610)

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.

It would fix the half-assed definition of porn (1)

SlappyBastard (961143) | more than 8 years ago | (#14946678)

Right now, the US has done nothing to provide a "this is and that isn't" definition of pornography because outside the internet it's easy to just make people hide indecent art, also, in a gallery. With the overt publicness of the internet, the US government will finally have to tell one website it has "art" and tell another that it has "porn". For once, the US government would be required to grow up and actually do some governing. Which means, the law dies in numerous rewrites in committee, but stays alive long enough that every Rep can run a line like "Representative Johnson Long fought to protect our kids from internet predators by supporting the Don't Let PCs Molest Kids Act of 2006" in all their commercials. The commercial will feature a kid with a hat sitting at a Tandy with his mom's arm over his shoulder. You will lose brain cells watching it. Besides, I'm sure Rick Santorum's secret male partner will get a laugh out of his supporting the bill.

visa.xxx (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14946611)

Credit cards are clearly harmful to minors, right?

Or... (1)

eno2001 (527078) | more than 8 years ago | (#14946612)

...it could be ignored by porn pirates off shore. All they'd do is take the cease-and-desist letters and post them on their website while making snide comments online about them. The kind of comments where they tell the U.S. Commerce Department to go sodomize themselves with a retractable baton. If ya know what I'm talking about... ;P (A wag of the stump to Swedish pirates out there)

Degrading standards of society... (2, Insightful)

Wes Janson (606363) | more than 8 years ago | (#14946614)

...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.

Probably constitutional (2)

Rydia (556444) | more than 8 years ago | (#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.

Re:Probably constitutional (1)

Spy der Mann (805235) | more than 8 years ago | (#14946657)

You people really need to get over the "first amendment + internet = whatever we want" thing.

Bravo! :D At last some sanity in this flame-filled story. Count me as your fan.

It's the kids, stupid. (1)

1u3hr (530656) | more than 8 years ago | (#14946630)

They're calling their bill the "Cyber Safety for Kids Act of 2006."

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

Hmm.. if this extended to cable television (4, Funny)

tinkertim (918832) | more than 8 years ago | (#14946644)

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?

Dirty old senators... (1)

Junior J. Junior III (192702) | more than 8 years ago | (#14946658)

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. (2, Insightful)

Geekenstein (199041) | more than 8 years ago | (#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?

Harmful to minors? (1)

Barabbas86 (947899) | more than 8 years ago | (#14946675)

"has as its principal or primary business the making available of material that is harmful to minors" The only thing harmful to minors are the attitudes taken by those who would define specific knowledge and experiences as harmful. It's unfortunate that we still debate whether any of these subjects are truly harmful, not the conditioning that our culture forces on us that causes us to have these unhealthy opinions and attitudes. In short, quit trying to legislate family values in my free country! Not that adding .xxx does this, but why would they list the above as motivation unless their hopes are to undermine pornography? The universally beneficial goal would be to open up new possibilities by adding the .xxx domain name ending.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?