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!

ICANN Finally Rejects .xxx Domain

Zonk posted more than 8 years ago | from the at-least-it's-over dept.

Censorship 245

stalebread writes "Faced with opposition from conservative groups and some pornography Web sites, the Internet's key oversight agency voted Wednesday to reject a proposal to create a red-light district on the Internet." From the article: "In a split 9-5 board decision, the organisation acted ruthlessly, against its own previous position, in order to put an end to an increasingly difficult and controversial issue - the approval of a .xxx top-level domain. The .xxx registry application has been the focus of enormous political pressure on ICANN for the past six months and was used at one point as a political football in a wider tussle for power within the internet."

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

Good! (-1, Flamebait)

Pig Hogger (10379) | more than 8 years ago | (#15307876)

We, elsewhere in the world, will still be able to startle the stupid yankees with pr0n posted on unsuspecting sites, each time sending the stupid yankee prudes in a fit.

Re:Good! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15307983)

Can you...ummm...send me a list of those unsuspecting websites?

Re:Good! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15308124)

Sure...here you go [slashdot.org] .

Well, done, fundies, well done. (4, Insightful)

TripMaster Monkey (862126) | more than 8 years ago | (#15307885)


By managing to force ICANN to kill this initiative, you've made certain smut remains where it belongs...out of sight and out of mind (your sight and your mind, anyway).

Never mind that by stopping the .xxx domain you've neatly made it impossible to protect minors from exposure to pornography (your ostensible goal)...after all, the style is more important than the substance, and 'heroically making a stand against the legitimization of pornography on the Internet' sounds quite stylish, doesn't it?.

Never mind that porn is as old as the human species, and will continue to be present on the Internet just as it has been present in every other media in human history.

Never mind that your rejection of an accepted place for it to be located just insures that it will remain in unacceptable places.

Nope...it's much more important (not to mention easier) to address the hot-button issue of the legitimization of adult content, while conveniently ignoring the reality: that porn isn't going anywhere, no matter how much the fundies shout..

So porn on the Internet will remain where it belongs...all-pervasive and impossible to effectively block...but at least you made your 'stand'. Well done.

Re:Well, done, fundies, well done. (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15307915)

Or, ICANN protected free speech by refusing to restrict so-called obscene content to certain, easily-blocked, corners of the internet.

Re:Well, done, fundies, well done. (5, Insightful)

Whiney Mac Fanboy (963289) | more than 8 years ago | (#15307961)

Never mind that by stopping the .xxx domain you've neatly made it impossible to protect minors from exposure to pornography

Allowing a .xxx domain would've done nothing to protect minors from exposure to pornography.

I can't imagine why you think it possibly would. The .xxx domain was just another way to make money from a TLD domain rush (quite a good one I suspect, looking at how much sex.com ended up being worth).

Re:Well, done, fundies, well done. (1)

F_Scentura (250214) | more than 8 years ago | (#15308167)

"I can't imagine why you think it possibly would."

Naïveté, really. Do-gooders that really have no conceptual skills to realize the logistics of compliance and how badly these initiatives failed in the past.

Re:Well, done, fundies, well done. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15307974)

Porn is as old as the human species? How long do you think the girls had to stand still for the guy to chisel her likeness onto the cave wall?

Here's to exaggeration! *clink*

Re:Well, done, fundies, well done. (1)

headroll (816435) | more than 8 years ago | (#15308466)

So, you don't think that there was a concept of 'live sex shows' in the caveman days. Replace pRon with personal sexual exploitation and the comment stands. -Roll

Re:Well, done, fundies, well done. (5, Insightful)

Just Some Guy (3352) | more than 8 years ago | (#15307987)

Never mind that by stopping the .xxx domain you've neatly made it impossible to protect minors from exposure to pornography (your ostensible goal)...

I normally agree with you, but I think you're completely off-base here. I was against .xxx because it was a bad idea. There were two main possibilities: 1) usage was voluntary, or 2) usage was compulsory. The former was silly; I don't recall anyone ever saying that they actually looked forward to using .xxx. The latter was scary; who decides what goes in there? What countries are affected? What's the penalty for deciding to publish a nude photo under .com and being ratted out by an over-zealous watchdog group?

No, I can't think of a single change from this proposal (other than compelling 90% of the population to add .xxx to a TLD blacklist in their browser - if you don't want to look at porn, you won't mind blacklisting it, ja?). No one wanted it, it couldn't have worked, and it would have caused more problems than it ever could have solved.

Re:Well, done, fundies, well done. (5, Interesting)

TripMaster Monkey (862126) | more than 8 years ago | (#15308071)


I think you're misinterpreting me here...I myself am in no way in favor of the .xxx domain proposal, but I'm just pointing out that by opposing it for their own myopic reasons, the fundies shot themselves in the foot.

I'm actually very grateful the initiative is dead, because of the slippery-slope argument. Sure, we can all agree that the hardcore stuff can be legitimately classified as 'porn', but what about the nude photo you mentioned above? What about nudes in art? What about nudes in medical texts?

No, the .xxx domain is better off dead, but the reasons against it I cited are not the reasons it was killed. It was killed because the fundies were upset that its creation would legitimize smut, seemingly not aware that it was the killing of said initiative that really did the legitimization.

Re:Well, done, fundies, well done. (2, Insightful)

goldspider (445116) | more than 8 years ago | (#15308482)

I know it's fun and easy to blame so many things on "the fundies", but would you mind referencing ANY influential Christian group that was lobbying ICANN over the .xxx TLD? And just because The Register says so, that doesn't make it true.

Re:Well, done, fundies, well done. (1)

Oldsmobile (930596) | more than 8 years ago | (#15308106)

Well, it seems that there is no solid ground for most arguments for or against. Actually, what we should do here is not look at the domain ending itself, instead we should consider the implications of conservaties being able to make it into contreversial issue.

Porn (except the kind that is involuntary on the part of the participants) should not be a controversial issue. The fact that it has been made into one I think is worrisome and tells of the power of the conservative movement in the US to meddle in the very private affairs of everyone.

They're not fundamentalists. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15308008)

If you look at the people who typically support these initiatives in public, it becomes quite obvious that they're not fundamentalists in any sense of the word.

Such people are basically greedy. Nothing more, and nothing less. They only rally against pornography because it brings them political power and money. They don't have any fundamental belief against pornography, thus they are not 'fundamentalists'. If it were more profitable for them to support pornography on the Internet, they would likely be doing that instead.

Even then, those who are swayed towards politicians who argue against Internet pornography, video game violence, and so forth, likely just do it as part of the social dance. Each person is publically against it because they expect everyone else to be. And that goes for each individual.

So in the end, it's something that most people as individuals do or support, but everyone in turn also publically denies and condemns. Few have the guts or the smarts to publically point out the fact that everyone supports it or does it privately, but all are against it in public. 'Fundamentalism' has very little to do with this situation.

But they are American (1)

Numen (244707) | more than 8 years ago | (#15308154)

They may or may not be fundamentalists, but they are American.

Wrong solution to the right problem (4, Interesting)

KlaymenDK (713149) | more than 8 years ago | (#15308024)

Tripmaster, I often agree with you, but not this time. I would, but for this one thing:

Creating a 'red light district' would be a fine idea IF that could limit the 'red light' business to that district. But of course it doesn't -- Joe Boobmaster will have one more domain to register, but will keep right on doing business in the existing TLDs -- so this can't be used to protect minors from exposure (one might even argue an extra (obvious) domain would INCREASE exposure).

If you can come up with a way to effectively force 'red light business' to stay within their designated TLD, I'd be all for it. Really.

Re:Wrong solution to the right problem (1)

panthro (552708) | more than 8 years ago | (#15308200)

If you can come up with a way to effectively force 'red light business' to stay within their designated TLD, I'd be all for it. Really.

Really? And who would decide what exactly constitutes a 'red light business'? Who would do the effective forcing?

Re:Wrong solution to the right problem (2, Funny)

Dining Philanderer (899400) | more than 8 years ago | (#15308320)

Is there really a Joe Boobmaster? Website please, I need to research so I can tell everyone not to go there...

Re:Well, done, fundies, well done. (1)

slashflood (697891) | more than 8 years ago | (#15308244)

How do you want to block a top level domain? At the end, you'll find out that those sites will be accessed via the IP address.

Unacceptable? (2, Insightful)

ObsessiveMathsFreak (773371) | more than 8 years ago | (#15308286)

Never mind that your rejection of an accepted place for it to be located just insures that it will remain in unacceptable places.

What's so unacceptable about pornographic sites residing in .com, .org, .net , etc domains?

People in western countries, and in the United States in paticular, have, for reasons inexplicable, a huge problem with sex. It's still seen as wrong, dirty, nasty, etc, etc. Unfit for public exposure. Unacceptable.

Tough shit. People are interested in sex. People want to know about sex. In fact, people need to know about sex. Just because certain wretches find anything to do with sex perturbing does not mean that the rets of us have to kowtow to their demands.

Of course, most contemporary pornography is pretty grotesque. This is of course, a result of the mass censorship and taboos placed on it, not because sex is inherantly predisposed to concoct such images.

Todays fun fact: In the 1930's, the Irish Free State Government commissioned a report into the sexual behaviour of the strongly Catholic, highly conservative irish population. What did they find? Rampant deviancy. Incest, Beastiality, pedophilia, rape, extra-marital affairs, sado-masochism, etc were all extremely common. Why? Because of the censorship and vilification of normal healthy sexual relationships. The report was vigourously supressed, and is largely unspoken of to this day. Now I understand where all those jokes about farmers and sheep came from when I was growing up.

My own opinion is that the Bible Belt territory of the United States is probably in a similar state, thank' to years of repression. Whenever I see images of crowds of "moral crusaders", I'm of the opinion that a large number of them are very depraved in private. I think statistics would back me up if anyone had the gall to do some surveys on the matter. I suspect that these are the people buying all this twisted porn.

So screw them. And screw the opinion that the rest of us should have to censor ourselves because of their dirty minds. People should grow up knowing what a clitoris is and what it's for. If some poor girl grows up never knowing because her idiot parents or pastor felt it was better that she didn't, that's unacceptable.

Re:Well, done, fundies, well done. (1)

Mainusch (20215) | more than 8 years ago | (#15308316)

.xxx was an interesting thought in figuring how to deal with the problem.

Even a moment's thought shows that it is not a good idea at all.

If I'm a purveyor of smut, I don't want to be behind a blanket firewall. I want people to be able to sneak over to my site at will. I would never use the .xxx TLD... unless forced to do so (even then I would try to weasel my way out of that corral).

If the .xxx TLD initiative had passed, porn on the Internet would remain where it doesn't belong...all-pervasive and impossible to effectively block, because it would never be used...but at least they would have made their 'stand'. Well done.

Re:Well, done, fundies, well done. (1)

bobwoodard (92257) | more than 8 years ago | (#15308498)

What makes you think that .xxx would have done anything to clean up the internet? All it would have done is make some registrars some $$$, but that's about all.

BTW, what constitutes pornography? Would it be the American idea? The French idea? The Iranian idea? Maybe the Nigerian idea?

Oh... and would decide the global definition of porn? How would you determine who finally gets hotteenbabes.xxx domain? Is it the hotteenbabes.com or hotteenbabes.org or the hotteenbabes.net guys?

Good (4, Funny)

captainclever (568610) | more than 8 years ago | (#15307893)

1) establish .xxx domain
2) pass law forcing all questionable content to use .xxx domains only
3) block all .xxx domains.

Although it would have been fun to own goatse.xxx..

Re:Good (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15308021)

"1) establish .xxx domain
2) pass law forcing all questionable content to use .xxx domains only
3) block all .xxx domains."
4) Now that the .xxx domain is useless all porn is moved back to the normal domains (outside US,just like taxes)
5) Create a timemachine go back to the earlier stages of the domain suggestion and cancel it.
6) MORE PORN!=)

Re:Good (1)

Ritchie70 (860516) | more than 8 years ago | (#15308042)

As someone said in another Slashdot article about this same topic, step 2 isn't needed.

Instead, do two things:

  1. Pass a law that says that, by serving your porn from a .xxx domain, you have met any and all requirements regarding keeping the content from minors. This indemnification should be attractive to most pornographers.
  2. Give the corresponding .xxx domain to every registered .com domain.

Problem solved.

Re:Good (3, Informative)

panthro (552708) | more than 8 years ago | (#15308242)

1. Pass a law...

Internet != United States of America

Problem != Solved

Re:Good (2, Insightful)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | more than 8 years ago | (#15308052)

What makes .xxx a farce is that you would never be able to enforce step 2, and the meaning of 'questionable' is highly subjective. I think ICANN is right to reject the idea of the .xxx TLD, it is a ludicrous idea.

Re:Good (1)

Burb (620144) | more than 8 years ago | (#15308145)

Absolutely right. After all, the .xxx domain is all about DNS and IP address lookup, isn't it? There is no mechanism to stop you having pron.com and pron.xxx pointing at the same web server. And, crucially, there's no way of forcing out the pr0n-based services out of the .com or .co.uk domains.

Why don't we propose a .arg domain for sites depicting violence?

Or .bom for terrorists?

Re:Good (3, Interesting)

dreamt (14798) | more than 8 years ago | (#15308208)

My question is this. Why wouldn't a company who knowingly agrees that they are selling adult content NOT want to store their adult content in a .xxx domain. Have some sort of front end-page at their current site, then have that link to .xxx (which parental filtering software would trivially block)?

As it is, their sites have an enterance page which asks if you are 18 or older, so they acknowledge that they have adult content. This way, it would be easier to filter out the people that they want filtered out. I would imagine that their lives would be easier if they didn't have to worry as much about filtering, just for easier credit-card processing and less worry about people complaining about their children making purchases which they should not have made.

Re:Good (1)

panthro (552708) | more than 8 years ago | (#15308283)

  1. Extra work for the webmaster to set that up, with questionable benefit.
  2. Potential loss of business due to enhanced blocking of site.

Not all sites have age checking. Why would they volunteer to place their site into a less accessible place?

Re:Good (1)

dreamt (14798) | more than 8 years ago | (#15308361)

As I said, I am sure that there are sites out there that want to keep children from obtaining their material, either for their own ideals, or from a business point of view where children obtaining their material costs them money, either in credit-card fees (or refuted charges), or fines (I mean, sites that have must be 18 to enter, not sites with educational/medical/whatever material).

Remember, this issue isn't as clear as the religious 'right' (now there is an absurd combination of words) or as the everything must be freely available people make it out to be.

There are times when parents have the right to regulate what their children see, while adults have every right to see what they want.

Re:Good (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15308267)

1) establish .xxx domain

Alternatives: .cum (or .come ), .orgy, .naughty

United at last! (5, Funny)

OpenSourced (323149) | more than 8 years ago | (#15307899)

Faced with opposition from conservative groups and some pornography Web sites

I guess that if those two can be united against a measure, it's probably a really iditotic measure.

Re:United at last! (1)

lgw (121541) | more than 8 years ago | (#15308135)

Still, it's good to see social conservatives and pornographers united like this. Who knows where this alliance could go?

Re:United at last! (1)

DaveV1.0 (203135) | more than 8 years ago | (#15308411)

Two wrongs don't make a right.

'bout time! (0, Troll)

Just Some Guy (3352) | more than 8 years ago | (#15307901)

Good! This was a bad idea from the very beginning, and I'm glad it finally got put to rest. It never filled any real demand. Instead, the only purpose it served was to make certain pro-censorship groups feel like Something Was Being Done without actually doing anything useful.

Good riddance to .xxx. And please take .museum and .jobs with it, would you?

Re:'bout time! (1)

yousifnet (974170) | more than 8 years ago | (#15308269)

Good riddance to .xxx. And please take .museum and .jobs with it

And don't forget to take .com, .net and .org as well. Aren't they just as redundant as the rest?

Oh no! (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15307902)

Where else will I find porn on the internet now?

Re:Oh no! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15308116)

Ever heard of google.com ? :)

Football? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15307905)

I'm a nerd. Please fill me in.

Utter stupidity... (4, Insightful)

drakaan (688386) | more than 8 years ago | (#15307907)

Well, I suppose that if you ignore the reality that internet porn will continue to exist, then it's a good thing to not have it segregated to a particular TLD.

I really don't get why "conservative" groups would *not* want it...it would make filtering (for sites following the rules) so trivial it'd be ridiculous.

For that matter, why are some of the porn outfits against the idea? Aside from worrying about a squatter getting your domain name, what's the downside? It's not like a .xxx domain is going to have some stigma that customers would avoid.

I just don't get it.

Re:Utter stupidity... (1)

MindStalker (22827) | more than 8 years ago | (#15307952)

I'm guessing their fear is that entire cities or coutries may block .xxx

Re:Utter stupidity... (-1, Offtopic)

MindStalker (22827) | more than 8 years ago | (#15308068)

coutrie? wtf is a coutrie..

Re:Utter stupidity... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15308293)

I dunno but it sounds French ..

Re:Utter stupidity... (1)

Just Some Guy (3352) | more than 8 years ago | (#15308015)

it would make filtering (for sites following the rules) so trivial it'd be ridiculous.

For that matter, why are some of the porn outfits against the idea?

Asked and answered.

Re:Utter stupidity... (1)

Moby Cock (771358) | more than 8 years ago | (#15308255)

Technically, answered and asked =P

Re:Utter stupidity... (1)

tyresyas (826753) | more than 8 years ago | (#15308029)

Well, I don't know why conservatives are against but. But we know the .xxx forces porn sites to live there, and that blocking the entire .xxx TLD would be easy. But where do you draw the line for porn? What about art featuring naked people (or photographs of naked people that are not sex?).

What about photographs for anatomical purposes? The point is that it not only tells you where porn has to be, it means decided what porn IS for EVERYONE on the internet, and potentially blocks material that would on the line for some people, but over it for more conservative groups. It's an indirect way of telling you what you can publish on sites that aren't labelled .xxx, too.

Re:Utter stupidity... (1)

Bogtha (906264) | more than 8 years ago | (#15308152)

But we know the .xxx forces porn sites to live there

Do we? I've seen a lot of people kneejerk against this, saying "what if the government forces this?", but I haven't seen anybody actually propose it. It just seems to be a straw man people are getting hysterical about.

I'm sure there is a minority that would like this to happen, of course, but there's a world of difference between a minority wanting something to be banned and it actually being banned, especially when there are no concrete plans on the table to do so.

I really don't seen the harm .xxx is supposed to cause. The logic is supposed to be:

  1. Introduce .xxx
  2. Force people to use .xxx
  3. Oh noes!

I would have thought that it would be blindingly obvious that the bad thing would be #2 here, but apparently plenty of people are using the fear of #2 to argue against #1, which is just stupid. If #2 is wrong, then argue against #2.

Re:Utter stupidity... (1)

tyresyas (826753) | more than 8 years ago | (#15308191)

I can see the point there. But if you take that objection away, I still just don't see the point, except creating a larger namespace for our pr0n sites, but also making pornography want to use anything BUT .xxx because it'll be harder to block.

Re:Utter stupidity... (1)

Bogtha (906264) | more than 8 years ago | (#15308295)

I still just don't see the point

Even if it is pointless, so what? Just let them have it. It's not like there's finite space on the Internet that .xxx will use up.

making pornography want to use anything BUT .xxx because it'll be harder to block.

I don't understand the reasoning here. Remember that pornographers are doing this to get paid. Who is going to be surfing for porn, have a credit card, but be behind a filter? Not kids, they don't have credit cards. Not adults at home, they won't have filters. Not adults with children, they can disable the filters after the kids go to bed. I don't think many people surf for porn in libraries. People at work? Is that the lucrative market that pornographers are hoping to capture by avoiding filters? Do lots of people spend money on porn while they are at work?

Unless you are paying them, you are nothing but a waste of bandwidth to pornographers. If you get blocked by a filter, that just means that their bandwidth costs are reduced. That's a good thing. The only downside is when a paying customer gets blocked by a filter, and I can't see how that could represent a significant amount of people.

Re:Utter stupidity... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15308340)

I don't think many people surf for porn in libraries.

Oh boy. You need to spend some time looking after some public-use workstations.

Yes, people surf for porn in libraries if they can get away with it.

The filters are worthless, too. They just look at some porn that hasn't been filtered. The only thing that works to keep the smut at controllable levels (hey, these are for public use, and other people want to use them for non-porn activities) is constant supervision and a policy of a permanent ban on the second offence.

Re:Utter stupidity... (1)

tyresyas (826753) | more than 8 years ago | (#15308349)

The point is that in certain countries/counties/locale of choice people may not have a choice about filtering. It seems to me (warning: conjecture) that because it would be so easy to filter out just .xxx (which is "just porn," anyway) then filtering would become a widespread practice.

Re:Utter stupidity... (1)

swv3752 (187722) | more than 8 years ago | (#15308462)

Utah has tried to pass state laws requiring ISPs to filter porn. I think Penn. tried something similiar.

Re:Utter stupidity... (1)

drakaan (688386) | more than 8 years ago | (#15308228)

Hmm...interesting questions.

We already have pictures of naked people that aren't sex, and (other than pictures for anatomical purposes), they're typically classified as pornography. Pictures of naked people for people to look at just because they're naked are porn...seems a fair definition.

I suppose that there would be some edge cases that would cause a lot of discussion classification-wise, but I don't see the definition being too terribly difficult to come to some broad concensus on.

I imagine that most of the opposition came from the porn industry because they don't want to have to deal with the ease-of-filtering issue (as was pointed out in the post prior to yours), but that seems excessive to me. Other than at work or school (or public libraries, maybe), I can't see a sufficient profit motive for blocking access. If you live somewhere that Playboy can't be sold in a store, then you might have to worry about some kind of local law, but that's the type of thing you address with your local government, and since it's the community that decides, I wouldn't think such blocking would be unreasonable at the community level.

It's a bit of a potential slippery slope, if decisions regarding blocking access creep upward to state and federal government (at least in the US) but it also makes porn sites easier to find and easier to block, which is a positive for people on both sides of the question of "do you enjoy looking at porn?"

Re:Utter stupidity... (2, Insightful)

tyresyas (826753) | more than 8 years ago | (#15308404)

Pictures of naked people for people to look at just because they're naked are porn...seems a fair definition.

A lot of artists and photographers would probably take issue with that comment. The line is far from clear-cut and this is not the first argument over what is classified art vs pornographic material. And not just visual/audio information is a problem. What if people blog about something inappropriate (sexual experiences, whatever), are then, all Livejournal/Blogger/etc. sites required to move to .xxx or at least a subset of journals thereof? I don't consider that pornography, although probably not something I'd want my young child to read. But I don't think it should be moved to the red-light district of the internet.

Mod parent up, give parent hug (1)

Rob T Firefly (844560) | more than 8 years ago | (#15308240)

That's it in a nutshell. If I post some renaissance artwork featuring ancient european boobies, tell a dick joke on my blog, or say "fuck" in a podcast, how easy would it be to force me to move my entire site to .xxx to "protect the children?" For that matter, would they have to move Slashdot to .xxx because I did this -> (.)(.)?

Re:Utter stupidity... (1)

DaHat (247651) | more than 8 years ago | (#15308115)

One of the reasons that many conservative groups opposed the TLD was the thought that giving the adult industry a place to do their... sinful business also gave them some measure of... legitimacy. Instead of being able to be firm in saying "we disapprove of what you are doing so please stop" they are forced into an alternative position of position of "we disapprove of what you are doing and if you won't stop... at least do it over there."

Then again this is in many ways similar to the hold up in the release of the HPV vaccine which could save millions of lives... only some are concerned that because it will effectively remove warts from the list of possible STD's that it would encourage young people to have more unprotected sex.

There is some logic to the argument... however in both cases the fear of what would happen with the change is minor compared to the benefits... assuming in the case of the .xxx TLD that it could be enforced.

Re:Utter stupidity... (1)

PriceIke (751512) | more than 8 years ago | (#15308342)

Why don't all these "conservative groups" move to just shut down Las Vegas? Isn't that pretty much the .xxx for the country?

Re:Utter stupidity... (1)

d!rtyboy (969507) | more than 8 years ago | (#15308346)

I think conservatives don't like it because it legitimizes porn. And anything short of total and complete deletion of anything sinful from the internet isn't within their agenda.

I think pron people don't want it because it makes it too easy to filter. No longer could they utilise spam or other means to promote their websites because none would get through a *.xxx filter.

Won't somebody PLEASE think of the children? (-1, Redundant)

Manip (656104) | more than 8 years ago | (#15307934)

If I wanted this pushed though I would use the olde' children argument... If all of your 'bad' sites are under one TLD it is far easier to block and or filter them out so young eyes don't see them.

Sucks that the Internet is under the control of these religious fundermentalists...

Re:Won't somebody PLEASE think of the children? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15308246)

who and what were to force all the sites with porn to register as a .xxx domain?

The whole .xxx concept only stands if all online porn site creators are honest enough to say, oh hey, i'm porn i better register as such while knowing full well that .xxx is going to be blocked at so many points. this only would have ever stopped children from seeing someting like playboy or hustler, any short lived site with spam as advertising would more than likely have continued using .com.

I'm curious, did anyone actually believe or still does believe that the really bad porn sites or even those pedo sites were going to raise their hand and register?
 
some of these sites are already engaging in shady activities like installing porn dialers and backdoors, asking them nicely or making it a law isn't going to faze them, it may bring about fits of laughter but that's probably all. the whole concept involves a massive amount of honesty that i don't believe the target audience has.
 
or better yet, you are honest, register as a .xxx and than register your non-porn front end as a .com, oh oops, who installed that proxy software on the front end, gosh now you can see the .xxx behind your filter. I'm sure there are many other ways around it as well, this is just what was off the top of my head. if you want porn away from the children (and i do myself) than you have to do something about there browsing habits like (bad word time) parenting. installing some flimsy technical device and than assuming the children are safe is the outter range of foolish. this will give kids more access to porn because the real filter, the parents, are going to think they don't need to be concerned anymore.

Re:Won't somebody PLEASE think of the children? (1)

TheDreadSlashdotterD (966361) | more than 8 years ago | (#15308393)

Oh yes, I was disturbed beyond repair as a child by seeing a pair of boobs. I think we have greater concerns than worrying about what children see on the internet. What we should be doing is teaching them how to process that information. Much of that material sends mixed messages, leading children to emulate bad behavior. Banning it does nothing but put a glorious halo on it that children will be drawn to look. Instead of glorifying it, maybe you should put it on display and make your feelings PUBLICLY known. That way they can learn by YOUR example. And those breasts I refered to earlier, I was breastfed as a child.

So... (1)

aadvancedGIR (959466) | more than 8 years ago | (#15307958)

They want to force a visible indication of adult content on web pages and pas tons of laws "to protect the children" but refuse an easy way responsible adult content providers (there must exist a few ones) could be filtered. I say let's play as dumb as the average congressman and put them to jail for willingly helping children get access to adult content.

Problems (1)

sinfree (859988) | more than 8 years ago | (#15307959)

As much as a liked the idea, I think there were two fundamental problems: 1) What exactly defines pr0n? Complete nudity? Partial nudity? The line between swimsuit editions and pr0n can get pretty blurry. 2) How would you keep pr0n from appearing on .com websites? Screen every image as it is uploaded? That would be very hard to monitor.

Not to worry (5, Funny)

Toreo asesino (951231) | more than 8 years ago | (#15307972)

This can only be good news for the Cook Islands - for all your pr0n domain-name needs, just get a .co.ck [google.co.ck] site instead!

http://www.big.co.ck/ [big.co.ck] is still available I believe; let the auctioning commence!

Re:Not to worry (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15308327)

uhm... yeah. That's exactly what I'm looking for when I want porn.

Too bad the Neutral Zone TLD is being phased out.

Re:Not to worry (1)

tehcyder (746570) | more than 8 years ago | (#15308353)

http://www.big.co.ck/ [big.co.ck]
Nothing to see here, move along.

Re:Not to worry (1)

z0idberg (888892) | more than 8 years ago | (#15308356)

http://www.big.co.ck/ is still available I believe; let the auctioning commence!

If you think I am going to click that link from my work PC to see if it is still available then you are very much mistaken!

Re:Not to worry (1)

thelonestranger (915343) | more than 8 years ago | (#15308412)

I did. It is... Probably should have thought through the possible ramifications of that one before doing it though. Oops.

Who are they kidding? (4, Insightful)

Billosaur (927319) | more than 8 years ago | (#15307977)

A huge campaign against .xxx has seen ICANN's public comment board for the registry flooded in recent days by hundreds of posters with little or no understanding of the .xxx bid, but all stating their opposition to its approval. The same campaign has been raging for months, with one ICANN Board member sent threatening letters due to an assumed bias for the registry.

Sounds like a typical day on Slashdot... but seriously, everyone's so concerned about the problem of pornography and had to limit access to it, and yet here is an attractive solution, with very little downside, and of course the fanatics are opposed. They want porn banned entirely, and aren't willing to even see a half-measure put in place to curb and control it. THey want to throw the baby out with the bath water, all because their "morality" is somehow superior to mine. Well, last time I checked, the Constitution of the United States gives me the right to decide for myself what I want to look at and see, and also allows me the right to do it without fear of persecution by the Government or my fellow citizens.

Not everyone believes what the fanatics believe and every individual is entitled to his/her own opinion. And while your opinion might be different than mine, I don't get to foist mine off on you and visa versa. So the fundamentalist s need to go home and play with their toys in private and leave me alone.

What happened behind the scenes was that the US administration told ICANN chairman Vint Cerf and head Paul Twomey that it did not approve of the domain, but due to the difficult political position that it would put both ICANN and the US government in were it to be seen to be directing internet policy (against its publicly stated "hands off" policy), there has been a carefully co-ordinated effort to kill the registry through delay.

Ok, who sees this for the FUD it is? Of course the US Government is directing things at ICANN; they've been basically getting ICANN to thumb its nose at the rest of the world's concerns for years. Why should now be any different? They undoubtedly made it clear that this wasn't going to happen, and Cerf and Twomey then had to find some way to kill the thing gracefully, rather than coming out and saying "the US made us do it" and face the wrath of Congress. And so the slow, lingering death.

ICANN gets less relevant every month it seems.

Re:Who are they kidding? (0, Flamebait)

Just Some Guy (3352) | more than 8 years ago | (#15308104)

but seriously, everyone's so concerned about the problem of pornography and had to limit access to it, and yet here is an attractive solution, with very little downside, and of course the fanatics are opposed.

Out of curiosity, how did you think this would solve the problem?

Let's try a little experiment: replace ".xxx" with ".abortion". A majority of Americans are against abortion, so it seems like a good idea to segregate information about it from the rest of the Internet. Now, who is more likely to be anti-.abortion - fundamentalists or pro-free-speech groups? Doesn't the second group have at least as much legitimate complaint against the idea as the first?

Since you wouldn't then paint all anti-.abortion people as fundamentalists, stop insisting that all anti-.xxx people are. Some conservatives were speaking out against the idea, sure, but I think it's despicable that more liberals weren't shouting it down as well.

Apples and Oranges (was Re:Who are they kidding?) (2, Insightful)

Billosaur (927319) | more than 8 years ago | (#15308379)

Let's try a little experiment: replace ".xxx" with ".abortion". A majority of Americans are against abortion, so it seems like a good idea to segregate information about it from the rest of the Internet. Now, who is more likely to be anti-.abortion - fundamentalists or pro-free-speech groups? Doesn't the second group have at least as much legitimate complaint against the idea as the first?

Ok, take the analogy to the next step: .whitesupremacy. I don't think a great majority of the planet likes the idea any more than I do, so let's segregate it as well.

This isn't a free speech issue. Anyone can sign up for a domain name and host a web site. You can have just about any combination of domain and TLD you can think of to represent your business, your ideas, your organization. And it's free for anyone to access (except in China [different topic for a different day]). Not only is it free to access, it's also possible for you to avoid content you don't like. The choice is yours -- it should not be up to any subgroup or splinter faction.

Now, I hate white supremacists, but they have the right to espouse their views just as I have when I post here. Do I go to their web sites? No. I avoid them. Real easy -- I don't search for them and don't follow links to them. If they wanted their own TLD (and ICANN decided [with US Government "assistance"] it was ok) that it was ok, fine by me. It makes it easier for me to find, true, but it also makes it easier for me to avoid. Don't go to sites with the TLD .whitesupremacy. Buy filtering software for my computer so my kids can't go there either.

In the end, this is not some heinous idea. It won't lead to the fall of civilization -- lying, backstabbing, graft, corruption and violence will take care of that. I see your point, but I don't think you've taken into consideration the scope of human belief. THe only way we're going to make things work in this world is to accept the premise that everyone is different, while at the same time those differences can be bridged by common, fundamental rights that all can enjoy without duress.

Re:Who are they kidding? (1)

EzInKy (115248) | more than 8 years ago | (#15308276)


Sounds like a typical day on Slashdot... but seriously, everyone's so concerned about the problem of pornography and had to limit access to it, and yet here is an attractive solution, with very little downside, and of course the fanatics are opposed.


Actually there are many of us who are more concerned about free speech and access to information than the "problem" of pornography who are opposed to the idea.

Re:Who are they kidding? (1)

Billosaur (927319) | more than 8 years ago | (#15308430)

Actually there are many of us who are more concerned about free speech and access to information than the "problem" of pornography who are opposed to the idea.

Why? How is this a denial of free speech? The .xxx domain allows the pornography to be easily found by those who want to find it, and avoided by those who don't want to see it. It doesn't make it illegal to display porn or have a pornographic web site; only local regulation can do that. Isn't this akin to the adult books at a bookstore being in their own section, available but only accessible to those who meet the age requirement? Where's the harm in that? The fact that this issue is so polarizing, like abortion, shows that the arguments are more driven by belief than actual cold, hard thought.

Conservatives vs. liberals? (4, Interesting)

jopet (538074) | more than 8 years ago | (#15308045)

In many discussions it seems that this is getting turned into a "conservatives vs. liberals" discussion or similar. I do not really see why.

It seems there are both good sides and bad sides to having a XXX domain, but many of them do not have to do anything with the question of whether one hates or not pornographic web sites.

My main reason for not finding the .xxx tld domain a good idea after all is that I cannot see how one would ever be able to come up with rules about what should or should not belong there, in a world with such diverse opinions about what is sexual/inappropriate/pronographic/etc and in a world with such diverse laws about pornography.

So remind me: what *good* was this TLD supposed to be again?

Re:Conservatives vs. liberals? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15308270)

So the lack of 100% buy-in is a reason not to do something? I work at a small private college, and we're pretty much guaranteed to NEVER get 100% buy-in, even from college employees. Our view is that if we even get SOME of the users doing something that makes our jobs easier, then that's just that many less people we have to expend extra energy on.

With the .xxx TLD available, if even a minority of the plethora of porn sites take down their .com sites and register on .xxx, there's that much less chance of someone who doesn't want to see that accidentally stumbling across it, especially if .xxx TLD blocking was in place.

As has been mentioned in other comments, self-regulation would be important in the pornography industry. But I have faith in at least some of the larger (porn) businesses acting in good faith to "legitimize" their business. If they take a .xxx domain for simply no other reason than to say, "We're doing our part to help protect the children," they'll gain at least a modicum of respect for the action.

Re:Conservatives vs. liberals? (1)

jopet (538074) | more than 8 years ago | (#15308382)

With the .xxx TLD available, if even a minority of the plethora of porn sites take down their .com sites and register on .xxx, there's that much less chance of someone who doesn't want to see that accidentally stumbling across it, especially if .xxx TLD blocking was in place

I just do not see why any porn site would want to do that unless all are forced to do it (which would bring us back to field 1: who should be forced). The fewer sites there are under XXX, the less the motivation to go there and just there.

I also do not see how having a minority of porn sites go there and the rest stay in .com could help "protect the children" (whatever that should mean and however you imagine it working) even just a tiny bit.

To sum up: http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=20050821 [userfriendly.org]

Re:Conservatives vs. liberals? (2, Insightful)

NutscrapeSucks (446616) | more than 8 years ago | (#15308365)

In many discussions it seems that this is getting turned into a "conservatives vs. liberals" discussion or similar. I do not really see why.

Why? Because the whole issue only exists because of a division in US Republican Party internal politics. And since the Republicans control the US Congress and White House, they have a certain amount of influance over ICANN and were pushing this issue one way or the other.

Bitch-slapped again (0, Flamebait)

Easy2RememberNick (179395) | more than 8 years ago | (#15308072)

Great, now everyone in the World that uses the Internet has to do what right-wing Christian US politicians say is right. Again.

  Keep in mind never confuse (people of the World's) silence with acceptance.

Re:Bitch-slapped again (1)

east coast (590680) | more than 8 years ago | (#15308304)

Great, now everyone in the World that uses the Internet has to do what right-wing Christian US politicians say is right. Again.

Yeah, because the pr0n isn't there today. [rolling of eyes]

I can not think of one instance where the "right wing Christian US politicians" have gotten anything removed from the net for reasons of obscenity. All the porn is still out there. Hell, these guys seem to be more liberal than the Chineese or the French for that matter.

If there was effective regulation I think it would help "concerned parents" monitor and controll their children's internet use but, as many others have said, effective regulation would be damn near impossible at this time.

This is like refusing to consider adult businesses (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15308073)

...in zoning regulations, and accidentally allowing them to pop up anywhere without restriction.

Damn! (5, Funny)

Rob T Firefly (844560) | more than 8 years ago | (#15308075)

I was all excited about buying an xxx domain and putting no porn on it, thereby breaking the system.

Re:Damn! (1)

Ghost Hedgehog (814914) | more than 8 years ago | (#15308253)

If everybody with the same plan would have registered, we probably would have end up with more non-porn than porn xxx domains.

In many ways the .xxx doman was bs (2, Insightful)

zappepcs (820751) | more than 8 years ago | (#15308108)

As stated, it is a foothold for censorship... of the worst kind, and that is because it will be totally ineffectual, cannot be enforced any better than any other pornography law. Worse, it would make some groups feel they are getting something done, and soon there would be other domains where this or that is supposed to be neatly filed away.

The ONLY real answer is sensible sex industry cooperation and self censorship. I don't mean they should take their websites down, but they should open their site with a uniform warning page allowing the site to be filtered thereafter, or other such methods. By following rules that make them nice netizens, they will effectively allow the law enforcement agencies to track those that are not playing nice... and it IS the ones that don't play nice that we all want hammered into dust. Pop-ups, spam, pop-unders, hijacking... all these things need to go away, and if legitimate porn sites played nice, it would soon become apparent how to attack the problem from a legal standpoint.

Not having the .xxx domain is the right thing to do as it would only allow the same result as above, and not achieve anything but allow ICAAN or others to make more money off of the porn industry... sigh

I'm a fundie and a social conservative (3, Insightful)

MikeRT (947531) | more than 8 years ago | (#15308149)

And I sure as hell support this domain [blindmindseye.com] . Why? It's the only way to let us conservative Christians block porn that won't get struck down by the courts.

I'm tired of the pornographers whining about the "ghettoization of their free speech." Why don't we just let them sell their goods in the kids' section of a book store? Pornography is not sexual speech. Should it be outlawed? No, each adult has to work on their own morality and forcing them won't make the right moral changes to fix society.

Let's call a spade a spade. Pornography is only art if you consider a picture of the virgin Mary painted in elephant dung to be art. I consider Playboy's photos to be low class art. A typical porn site is not even remotely art or expressive except in the lowest, most attavistic sense. There are two good reasons for not banning porn: we don't want judges and legislators legally defining what is and isn't art and it's a private moral issue that cannot be stopped by the stroke of a pen.

Re:I'm a fundie and a social conservative (1)

ObsessiveMathsFreak (773371) | more than 8 years ago | (#15308339)

Pornography is only art if you consider a picture of the virgin Mary painted in elephant dung to be art.

Some people do [guardian.co.uk] .

You're actually a liberal. (2, Interesting)

Lendrick (314723) | more than 8 years ago | (#15308481)

No, each adult has to work on their own morality and forcing them won't make the right moral changes to fix society.

That says it all. The hallmark of liberalism isn't that we lack moral values, it's that we just don't feel right about shoving them down everyone's throat.

Re:I'm a fundie and a social conservative (1)

dedeman (726830) | more than 8 years ago | (#15308544)

I'm tired of the pornographers whining about the "ghettoization of their free speech." Why don't we just let them sell their goods in the kids' section of a book store?

Wrong question/analogy. The kid's section of a bookstore is for children. The internet is for everyone, no matter what you're particular interest is.

Don't abridge my rights for your children. There is no moral conformity on the internet.

Let's see.... (4, Insightful)

Churla (936633) | more than 8 years ago | (#15308198)

The conservatives don't want an easy to access way to find lots of porn. They want to keep it tucked out of sight.

The porn industry doesn't want to be partially forced into one little cubbyhole where they can be easily targeted and persecuted for the services and products they provide. They want to stay out of the limelight of persecution.

The geeks know that this is useless as it will be impossible to enforce (just like ONLY non profits being .org or only net based businesses being .net or only businesses in a certain country using that countries extension (i.e. .us and .uk for example))

Is there ANYBODY who actually has a good reason for this to exist?

This sucks... (1)

naken (132677) | more than 8 years ago | (#15308201)

Now where am I supposed to post naked pictures of myelf?

1 2 1 2 The Naken Crew

Unneeded (2, Funny)

buxrule (970805) | more than 8 years ago | (#15308202)

There's already a dedicated top level domain for porn: .com The ICANN should put a stop to all those wise asses trying to make legitimate, non-porn related .com sites that have popped up throughout the sea of quality sex media.

ICANN adopts more specific .FUK and .SUK (4, Funny)

SlappyBastard (961143) | more than 8 years ago | (#15308222)

ICANN today announced the introduction of two new TLDs: .FUK and .SUK.

The announcement coincides with ICANN's move to dismiss the introduction of .XXX.

An ICANN spokesman commented off the record, "In truth, we should be more honest. XXX indicates we're hiding something."

He added, "That can't be on the open and transparent internet. We feel that Dot-FUK and Dot-SUK represent what everone is looking for, just like all Dot-ORGs are not-for-profit groups, right? Know what I mean? Say no more."

ICANN also expressed interest in adding .GAY so "straight dudes and closet dudes needn't worry."

ICANN's next step coming in June is a decision on .PERV, whose supporters hope can be used to herd all the child molesters into one spot.

The move is opposed by the producers of Dateline: NBC, who say it could destroy their growing cottage industry of filming pedophiles being confronted.

ICANN is believed to be leaning toward adopting .PERV, as all things on the internet belong in nifty containers marked accurately.

Hmmm (2, Interesting)

Sv-Manowar (772313) | more than 8 years ago | (#15308278)

It's a shame that some of the biggest influences who were lobbying against it from inside the adult industry were domain owners who did not want to lose their most valuable .com assets. That's the problem with business being done over the internet, it seems as if there is no real loyalty to others in the same business as you, more of a dog-eat-dog and selfish attitude, which one day may well contribute to the downfall of the current widespread availability of porn on the net which makes so many people money.

Maybe this is a good thing... (2, Interesting)

Lazarian (906722) | more than 8 years ago | (#15308281)

Although an .xxx domain would help with the blocking of adult content to minors or the easily offended, would the creation of it eventually lead to even slightly provocative content banned to a wasteland awash with garish porn? For example, if one had a website with an image of a woman with a bared breast or fiction with a passage describing an erotic scene, would a complaint from a fundie group lead to the owner of that domain having to remove the content to a .xxx domain or perhaps having the .com one shut down? And depending on where, some places may outright decide to block all .xxx domains completely (for the children, of course). Although having porn so prevalent on the net can sometimes be annoying, it's trivial to avoid it. And I think it'd be awful to have my or someone elses website to be forced to use a .xxx domain just because it contained some content which may be mature in nature, just because some prude can't be forced to read a disclaimer or use filtering software. I'll take my internet with its imperfections, instead of something sanitized and scrubbed into nothingness by people who dont mind letting their kids see violence and degredation but scream bloody murder over a glimpse of a breast.

Link to ICANN article (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15308282)

If you read the actual ICANN news release [icann.org] , you will note at the bottom that the person to direct questions to is named Tanzanica King [icannwiki.org] and is totally hot.

Oversight Agency? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15308370)

the Internet's key oversight agency voted Wednesday

Ummmm... I thought they were supposed to be responsible for assigning names to numbers, not "overseeing" the internet. That seems a bit different.

yay! (1)

Killshot (724273) | more than 8 years ago | (#15308448)

This makes me happy.

Flood of emails (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15308511)

FTA: http://forum.icann.org/lists/xxx-tld-agreement/ind ex.html [icann.org]

Gives a link to the emails sent ICANN about the XXX domain. The majority of the ones I read were from the XXX industry complaining how this was an encrochment on their freedom of speech. I didn't read one Fundy saying anything against this on religious convictions. I personally think a lot of people are making Fundies into the new Boogie Man. Try doing some reasearch instead of believing every skewed politcally motivated bs article you read on the internet.

Understandable but still wrong (3, Insightful)

ajs318 (655362) | more than 8 years ago | (#15308515)

The problem is this. If you create a top-level domain specifically for porn, you are admitting that porn exists. And unfortunately, there are too many people who have a problem with that.

Easier to Access Easier to block (1)

John Gagon (974158) | more than 8 years ago | (#15308558)

I simply don't see a reason for it's existence except for more meme about the existence of porn. The existing websites function perfectly fine with the obscurity and warnings they already have. I really don't think those arguing for the .xxx domain are really interested in moving all existing porn sites there anyway/banning them out of the existing .com (etc) domains. That would after all be breaking the first amendment. What this is all about is added porn venue/convenience in meme.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?