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!

.xxx registry sues US government

CmdrTaco posted more than 7 years ago | from the start-your-moaning dept.

Censorship 225

An anonymous reader writes in to say that "ICM Registry LLC, the company behind the proposed .xxx internet porn domain, is to sue two departments of the US government for access to documents it claims show the US pressured ICANN into rejecting the domain. The Florida-based startup will sue the Department of Commerce and the Department of State to get them to release documents that they redacted when they responded to a Freedom Of Information Act request that ICM filed last year."

cancel ×

225 comments

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

IN SOVIET RUSSIA... (5, Funny)

yobjob (942868) | more than 7 years ago | (#15375502)

...xxx screws YOU!

In the end... (4, Insightful)

taskforce (866056) | more than 7 years ago | (#15375542)

In the end I think that the domain was rejected becuase it recieved little support from either political disposition.

Libertarians rejected the domain beucase it would make porn easier to block, and Christian Moralist groups rejected the idea because it would in some way sanction the appearance of porn on the net and make it integral it's structure or backbone. That and they couldn't figure out that it would make it easier to block porn.

In many ways it has the same advantages for all sides as Net Neutrality does, except without bussiness interests causing corporate lobbyists to stick their neck around the door.

Re:In the end... (4, Insightful)

Dasch (832632) | more than 7 years ago | (#15375601)

"In the end I think that the domain was rejected becuase it recieved little support from either political disposition."

What right does American politicians to decide whether or not there should be an XXX TLD? It's because of things like this that other countries want an international organization to control the TLD's.

The only reason I'm skeptical of such thing is that several countries would without doubt use their influence to restrict the freedom of the 'net (*cough* China!)

Re:In the end... (1)

taskforce (866056) | more than 7 years ago | (#15375646)

None... I was merely explaining the rationale behind the rejection, not saying that I agreed with the US Government intervention. I would much prefer a competant, apolitical organisation instead of ICANN making decisions becuase it wouldn't force us to rely on a nation state for the internet.

Re:In the end... (1)

timeOday (582209) | more than 7 years ago | (#15375675)

What right does American politicians to decide whether or not there should be an XXX TLD?
I'd say they have more right than anybody else to represent the people under them, because they are elected (or report to elected officials). Are the ICANNN beaurocrats supposed to exercise their own will in a bubble with no input from the rest of the world?

I support open access to documents used in making public policy decisions, but the plaintiff is only trying to prove something I would assume anyways - that the US government took a side. I think representing US interests in international disputes is the proper role of the government - who else is in a position to do so? And I would equally assume that all other governments did the same.

The only problem is when the democratic process is subverted, so the politicians don't actually represent the will of the people. But the lawsuit isn't even trying to prove that. Besides, making up some new process outside of government won't make it somehow immune to subversion; more likely the opposite.

Re:In the end... (1)

Andrew Kismet (955764) | more than 7 years ago | (#15375736)

I'd say they have more right than anybody else to represent the people under them And while that may represent a significant portion of internet users, I doubt that they have any right to represent me or my country (England & UK). The only problem is when the democratic process is subverted, so the politicians don't actually represent the will of the people. Agreed. The US government should be sued in this case, especially if they did influence ICANN to the extent suggested, to the point that other influences (pro .xxx) were ignored.

Re:In the end... (1)

timeOday (582209) | more than 7 years ago | (#15375839)

And while that may represent a significant portion of internet users, I doubt that they have any right to represent me or my country (England & UK).
That's why I specifically said they have the right to represent the people under them. And that I would equally assume that all other governments did the same. Surely the UK govt. turned out to represent the will of people there?
The US government should be sued in this case, especially if they did influence ICANN to the extent suggested, to the point that other influences (pro .xxx) were ignored.
If most Americans didnt' want .xxx, then I would expect our government to lobby against it. I would think it strange if every country showed up and argued both for and against.

Re:In the end... (1)

LordNimon (85072) | more than 7 years ago | (#15375783)

Libertarians rejected the domain beucase it would make porn easier to block

I'm a Libertarian, and I can't see why Libertarians would oppose .xxx. Sure, it's easier to block, but who does the blocking? Private businesses and individuals, and Libertarians are very keen on these two groups more power.

I don't think anyone seriously expects the government to block .xxx. The Bush administration is a big fan of censorship, so since they oppose .xxx, obviously they don't believe they can block it from people.

Re:In the end... (1)

taskforce (866056) | more than 7 years ago | (#15375822)

Countries like Saudi Arabia and China which block "questionable content" can just as easily use it to block content as a private individual... I broadly consider myself a Libertarian and that is why I would oppose the creation of of the TLD. It would argubly of far more use to somebody trying to block content for other people, than somebody trying to censor content for themselves.

Re:IN SOVIET RUSSIA... (1)

DarthChris (960471) | more than 7 years ago | (#15375651)

It has just made my day to see that modded 'insightful'.

SUE SUE SUE! (1)

alexandreracine (859693) | more than 7 years ago | (#15375834)

Let's sue everybody!

WTF? Redacted? (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15375505)

I thought the government was only allowed to redact documents obtained under the FOIA to preserve national security. Since when does letting people have a naughty domain name threaten national security?

FFS, kick the knee-jerking puritans out of office already.

Re:WTF? Redacted? (5, Interesting)

Daniel Dvorkin (106857) | more than 7 years ago | (#15375539)

It's the mentality of these people. Never tell the truth, or at least the whole truth, even if doing so would be the simplest course. Refuse to release information, withhold vital pieces of information, mislead, or outright lie -- but never just tell people what's going on. Honestly, I think there are an awful lot of people in government who do it, basically, for the little-kid thrill of saying "I know something you do-on't, nyaah nyaah!" It's an attitude which I saw way too much of in the military, and one which, in the *cough* post-9/11 era, has pretty much taken over every level of government from the White House to your local city council.

Re:WTF? Redacted? (4, Interesting)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 7 years ago | (#15375580)

Don't ask me why it was top secret, or even restricted; our government has gotten the habit of classifying anything as secret which the all-wise statesmen and bureaucrats decide we are not big enough girls and boys to know, a Mother-Knows-Best-Dear policy. I've read that there used to be a time when a taxpayer could demand the facts on anything and get them. I don't know; it sounds Utopian.

- Robert A. Heinlein, The Puppet Masters (1951)

Re:WTF? Redacted? (5, Informative)

six11 (579) | more than 7 years ago | (#15375629)

I completely agree that these people (government types) play this childish "nyaaa-nyaaah I know something you don't know!" game. I don't know if things are more likely to be redacted now than before 9/11, but it's been crazy for a long time. A long time.

Yesterday, I was just curious what one had to do in order for the FBI to start a file on you (something that I aspire to have at some point), so I googled for "How do I get an FBI file?"

The second hit is the John Lennon FBI Files [lennonfbifiles.com] , which is hilarious and frightening at the same time. In particular: The Parrot Story [lennonfbifiles.com] was at first given to a researcher in a completely redacted form. Only after going through a court battle over this and other redacted documents did the true, criminally horrifying nature of the Parrot Story become clear. John Lennon had been harboring "Linda", who owned a parrot:

THE PARROT STORY

The informer's report written by Julie Maynard about her trip from Madison to New York in March 1972 continues with a story about "a girl there named Linda" who has a parrot that "interjects 'Right On' whenever the conversation gets rousing" (NY-88 page 5). That story was featured in news reports on the settlement as an example of the trivial information the FBI had been collecting in 1972, information to which the FBI devoted substantial resources to keep secret through ensuing decades. This page includes a variety of other movement gossip and information, none of which describes plans for criminal activity. This page was withheld in its entirety for fourteen years as confidential and then released as part of the 1997 settlement.

Remember, that ENTIRE STORY had been redacted, and remained so until after a court forced the FBI to reveal what the page contained. Not only did the federal government spend American tax dollars collecting the story, they spent money, time, and legal resources depending their goal of keeping it secret.

I suspect the reason the government does this is similar to the reason that the RIAA or commercial software publishers might corrupt peer-to-peer networks with corrupted versions of files. In both the redaction and peer-to-peer cases, The Man is introducing noise into the medium and frustrates efforts of users to get at the content they are looking for.

Maybe the sequel to the Freedom of Information Act should be the Freedom from Redactions act.

Re:WTF? Redacted? (1)

Daniel Dvorkin (106857) | more than 7 years ago | (#15375660)

Yeah. That's the kind of thing I'm talking about.

And I do think it's worse now. Remember a while back, there was a /. story on reclassification of a bunch of documents that had been accessible to the public? Some of these were CIA documents going back to the Korean War. There is absolutely no justification for this, except we know this stuff and we don't want you to.

The other justification... (0, Offtopic)

hackwrench (573697) | more than 7 years ago | (#15375907)

We don't want to incur the costs involved in figuring out whether we don't want you to know something, so just to be safe we'll just prevent you from knowing, because once someone knows something they can't unknow it, but the reverse is not true.

Re:WTF? Redacted? (1)

mpe (36238) | more than 7 years ago | (#15375932)

And I do think it's worse now.

The "War on (some) Terror" provides a good excuse.

Remember a while back, there was a /. story on reclassification of a bunch of documents that had been accessible to the public? Some of these were CIA documents going back to the Korean War. There is absolutely no justification for this, except we know this stuff and we don't want you to.

There's the possibility of embarrasment for people still involved in government. In some ways it's a bit like extending copyright terms on works which already exist.

Re:WTF? Redacted? (2, Funny)

timeOday (582209) | more than 7 years ago | (#15375863)

The Man is introducing noise into the medium and frustrates efforts of users to get at the content they are looking for.
Right On!

...Macawwww!

Re:WTF? Redacted? (1)

mpe (36238) | more than 7 years ago | (#15375908)

Remember, that ENTIRE STORY had been redacted, and remained so until after a court forced the FBI to reveal what the page contained. Not only did the federal government spend American tax dollars collecting the story, they spent money, time, and legal resources depending their goal of keeping it secret.

Which also makes you wonder what else they might be up to, instead of doing their actual job.

Re:WTF? Redacted? (2, Interesting)

Hercules Peanut (540188) | more than 7 years ago | (#15375680)

It's an attitude which I saw way too much of in the military, and one which, in the *cough* post-9/11 era, has pretty much taken over every level of government from the White House to your local city council.

I tend to agree and hope the rest of the /. community (and America realizes) what I have come to sincerely believe. This isn't a Bush thing, it isn't a Republican thing, it's a government thing and we, the people, are losing control. I'm not really sure how to get it back but my approach right now is to vote against any incumbent regardless of party to make a statement that this is unacceptable.

So, who will our third party candidate be this year?

political gangs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15375830)

The D and R parties should be mass sued under RICO provisions. They have conspired and colluded to completely hijack government and to perpetuate themselves handsomely at the public trough and with enjoying the power over people that "government leadership" gives them in an arbitrary and malicious dictatorial manner. They have quite literally become our political overlords. It has become so onerous that the bulk of the US population labors under the false assumption that we somehow have a codified "two party system" when nowhere is that part of any actual law or document. They, along with the MSM toadies, even have the gall to promote the "national debates" which are restricted to only their members on the podium, which was such a blatantly obvious power consilidation move that the League of Women Voters, who had sponsored the debates for decades completely withdrew sponsorship.

When people finally realise that there's little practical difference between criminal gangs, perhaps then we can get true political reform.

And in my opinion, by far the most dangerous aspect to this is when so called intelligent and aware politically active people insist and recommend that you don't "waste your vote" and stick to one of the political gangs. Voting for one of those two political parties/gangs is the most destructive and wasteful vote possible!

Let us revisit history a little

1960s, a dangerously destructive and very long running war based on false presumptions and outright lies from the political insiders, combined with massive corruption, cronyism and bribery/kickbacks being the norm in government. The military industrial complex profits mightily. Domestically we had illegal police snooping, intimidation of people and a lot of suspicious activity with unexplained and serious happenings, such as with rather peculiar assassinations, promoted violence by "undercover" police agents, etc, etc, with the executive branch and both houses of congress controlled by the D party. Main stream media, owned and controlled at the top levels by a handful of very rich insiders who are also politically active and major contributors to "the party" helps to perpetuate the lies and obfuscations to a great extent, always seemingly being months or years behind with factual and accurate reporting. Some dissent in the reporting ranks occurs, but is minimised and called "conspiracy theories". People are outright encouraged by top political leadership on down to label government questioners as "unpatriotic" and "for the enemy", they use psychological code names freely to lable all dissent, "filthy commie lover", etc. etc in an obvious demonization attempt. The "enemy" overseas is commonly called anything BUT human, they are "filthy slopes","gooks", etc..

Flash forward now to 2006, replace just the capital letter D in the above detailed description with the letter R,exchange a few of the descriptions and nouns to modern situational equivalents "ragheads" "Camel jockeys" "filthy arabs" and dissenters as being "with the terrorists", etc. And "we can't pull out now, it will cause a domino effect", although they don't use the word domino any more, they just say it "will encourage the 'terrorists' and show them they have won".

    Now, does anyone see any significant difference between when it was mass D leadership or now mass R leadership?

The only change I see from the 60s to now is that we have more high tech toys for government D and R criminals to use and the advertising/brainwashing/indoctrination through media manipulation and what is pushed in the public schools is MUCH more sophisticated and extensive, because they have had decades more practice to refine their techniques on what works and what doesn't.

Re:WTF? Redacted? (1)

automandc (196618) | more than 7 years ago | (#15375622)

There are a number of exemptions to FOIA, of which national security is only one. I have not seen the responses given in this case, but I would speculate that they included the (b)(4) exemption (Trade secrets, commerical or financial info) and (b)(5) (privileged inter- & intra-agency memoranda and letters), which are probably the two most frequently used exemptions. A full list of the exemptions can be easily found through a Google search. E.g., http://www.corporateservices.noaa.gov/~foia/foiaex .html [noaa.gov] .

Times have changed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15375703)

When I was a kid, nixon was in trouble for covering up a break-in. The amount of lieing was really quite small. Yet, nearly ever american that I knew hated the president for being a liar WRT to the country. You were allowed to lie about your personal life, but to be honest, the press stayed out of it. All in all, as long as you were somewhat honest WRT to the policies of the USA, then you were OK.

But since then, the far right has redefined honor and integrity. Reagan was allowed to lie at will and they accepted his policies and deficts. Likewise, we poked our nose into Clinton's personal affairs and then put him on trial. Finally, when little bush commits real treason (outing a spy), he has lied about it, and offered up his underlings hopful that they would lie to cover his butt (coward), the right does not care. In fact, they try to re-define what is a spy ignoring the lies and cowardess parts; That is a person (not a man) who should be executed or simply given life in prison.

Times have changed and the far right is allowing it all in the hopes of getting a country that the control. Sadly, this is exactly how Nazi german started.

Re:WTF? Redacted? (1)

hotspotbloc (767418) | more than 7 years ago | (#15375836)

I thought the government was only allowed to redact documents obtained under the FOIA to preserve national security.

I once saw a page that had every word redacted including the preprinted form descriptions. The only thing visable were the preprinted lines of the form (and I don't think I should've even seen that). =)

2nd post yay! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15375507)

why they no like .xxx? how about .kok .pus .dik .sex? 5 bucks baby!

Why?! This .xxx registry is a big waste of space (-1, Flamebait)

Tatsh (893946) | more than 7 years ago | (#15375510)

3rd post.

First of all, who cares if the US pressured them into rejecting the domain.

Secondly, if .xxx sites get registered it'll make it even EASIER for kids to find porn now. Why would parents want to make it easier? EVERY kid knows what XXX means, and there's tons of free porn that would be hosted on these sites. A lot of kids have a fun time looking at previews of pay sites as well.

I agree with the rejection of .xxx, nor would I really care if it got approved.

Re:Why?! This .xxx registry is a big waste of spac (1)

achesterase (918544) | more than 7 years ago | (#15375526)

I am pretty indifferent to whether .xxx gets approval or not, but the argument that it will make it easier for kids to find porn they shouldn't be looking at is absurd, in my opinion. Nearly every half-computer-litterate kid on the planet knows how to use Google and would be able to find whatever they may be looking for much more precisely and quickly than a new domain extension would ever let them.

If you want to combat pornography and restrict children's access to it, you need to start elsewhere.

Re:Why?! This .xxx registry is a big waste of spac (2, Interesting)

Tatsh (893946) | more than 7 years ago | (#15375546)

I'm not concerned so much about that (I would search porn all the time when I was under 18). But I think plenty of parents would agree to .xxx be approved and strict regulations that EVERY porn site gets put on that domain. It's easier to block this way. If they know anything about computers, *.xxx would work fine as a filter on any server or software (even Adblock on Firefox could do this). Any "easy-to-use" "dumbass" filter software could just have a tickbox saying "Block adult sites" meaning to apply *.xxx to the filter list. AOL would of course do this.

The issue I think is that so many sites on .com's and such would have to be moved if they are actually porn sites. It brings in more government regulation on pornography which is something obviously they don't want. I don't think any customers would like this either. So many sites shut down after 2257 was revised, and this just adds on to that.

Here's the problem (1)

rben (542324) | more than 7 years ago | (#15375978)

What about sites that are art sites that include nudity? Should they be placed under the XXX domain? That would greatly restrict their potential traffic, since people might feel uncomfortable about visiting a .XXX site.

Exactly how are you going to define a porn site? Some of the non-nude sites are pretty racy, while some of the art sites with full nudes are very tastefully done. Does picture of a woman a wet clingy t-shirt justify forcing a site into a .xxx domain? What if it's a picture of a famine victim in Africa dancing in the first rain in a decade?

I think most legitimate adult sites would prefer to be under a .xxx domain, but I'm concerned that a lot of other sites that deal with mature subjects might be pushed into the .xxx domain against their will. It will become a convenient ghetto that the conservatives can use to limit access to anything they don't like.

Once the .xxx domain is set up, expect to see legislation forcing some sites to move. Shortly after that, expect to see a "sin" tax imposed on the registration fees for .xxx sites.

I suspect the .xxx domain will eventually be set up. I also suspect that in twenty years, .xxx will be associated with a lot more than just porn. It will be associated with anything the government doesn't like.

Why?! This .xxx registry is a big blockage. (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15375531)

"Secondly, if .xxx sites get registered it'll make it even EASIER for kids to find porn now. "

It ALSO makes it easier to block. No more wack-a-mole with porn sites.*

Unless that your kind of thing. Nothing wrong with that.

Re:Why?! This .xxx registry is a big waste of spac (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15375533)

A lot of kids have a fun time looking at previews of pay sites as well.

They only need an older brother/friend that points them to this [thehun.com] . All the pr0n you need...

Re:Why?! This .xxx registry is a big waste of spac (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15375536)

As time goes by, I think that we need less top level domains, not more.

Since most large companies simply get their name in all namespaces, and the namespaces don't match up to trademark classifications, having multiple top level domains is rather pointless.

I'd have it set up as: .com - businesses, including internet businesses and network providers .org - non profit organisations

With possibly: .charity - verified registered charities. .bank - verified banking institutions. Would help stop phishing a little. .xxx or .adult - porn and similar, it's easy to block at the firewall or ISPs could offer it as a service for subscribers with children/wayward husbands.

Also national TLDs should be emphasised more for non-international companies, although it's so easy with the internet for even a small company to sell internationally these days...

Of course, we would still end up with things like http://vin-diesel-is.xxx/ [vin-diesel-is.xxx] and all that.

I'm sure there's plenty of holes in the above setup too, but hey, just my personal opinion.

Re:Why?! This .xxx registry is a big waste of spac (1)

jawtheshark (198669) | more than 7 years ago | (#15375571)

Also national TLDs should be emphasised more for non-international companies

Look, I completely agree with that. There is but one problem: depending on the country you are in, the prices for these might be horrendous. I live in .lu and frankly, a domain costs 40€ per year. (It used to be a lot more, back when my dad registered our family name, it was about 100€ initialisation fee and, IIRC 45€ per year) Compare that to 12€ for a .com at Gandi [gandi.net] . For businesses that might be acceptable, but me standalone-geek, I have to look at least a bit at my (frivolous) depenses.
So, often national TLDs are simply not competitive with the generic and most people prefer the generic anyway. (It was called the dot-com boom for something, and not the dot-US boom.)

.co.us for Colorado only (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 7 years ago | (#15375901)

(It was called the dot-com boom for something, and not the dot-US boom.)

Until recently, each domain directly in the .us TLD was allocated to a U.S. state. Any other entity had to be located in Colorado to get a domain in .co.us, in Nebraska for .ne.us, or in Oregon for .or.us. Compare to .com, .net, and .org, which allowed domain holders nationwide (even worldwide).

Re:Why?! This .xxx registry is a big waste of spac (1)

XXIstCenturyBoy (617054) | more than 7 years ago | (#15375573)

Unfortunatly, sex website operator are unscrupulous.

We'd end up having microsoft.xxx, slashdot.xxx, digg.xxx. It would be ridiculous. .xxx domain are only a good idea if existing registered domain holder can get the .xxx version locked to them for free and for life.

Of course one could easily block .xxx domain. But how long will it be before 60 minutes and friend 'expose' the scandal of known company name being used as sex portal, and pointing everyone to it like they are doing for MySpace? Or that some christians fundies boycott Walt Disney over disney.xxx?

Re:Why?! This .xxx registry is a big waste of spac (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15375579)

I think you're wrong. We need all the TLDs we can get, precisely because nowadays companies try to register the same name under all TLDs. The only way to stop this silly practice is to increase the number of TLDs by leaps and bounds. Besides, only if every conceivable TLD becomes available will users learn that the TLD is an important part of the domain, not just an always-there ".com". In every discussion about DNS, someone proposes that we get rid of TLDs entirely. It's an entirely logical conclusion when you look at the way domains are registered and used today, but what are the consequences? Would you really want all domains to be in the hand of one domain registry? How are you going to determine prices without competition? No, the only way to go is to enable as many TLDs as you can find businesses willing to be the registries.

Re:Why?! This .xxx registry is a big waste of spac (2, Interesting)

MidnightBrewer (97195) | more than 7 years ago | (#15375541)

It couldn't be much easier than it is now; you hardly need a .xxx domain to find porn. Theoretically, it would make it easier to keep kids out because you simply tell your web browser to block everything ending in .xxx, thus segregating those sites. There are much better reasons why the .xxx domain is a bad idea. For one, there's nothing forcing the porn industry into investing in the registry, and nothing forcing them to drop their current domains. It'd be little more than a financial nuisance for those companies who felt it necessary to register their names in both. There is no clear-cut, determining factor as to what is porn and what isn't, which also makes the registry kind of useless.

Re:Why?! This .xxx registry is a big waste of spac (1)

jacksonj04 (800021) | more than 7 years ago | (#15375618)

I think a lot would move, since (think about this) those who would have .xxx filtered out are most likely to be under 18, and therefore unable to purchase a subscription. Porn sites would be effectively signing up to limit their audience to those who are capable of paying, and are therefore not wasting bandwidth on kids with strange fetishes who are never gonna pay.

Parents win, porn sites win, filter companies have more time to spend doing useful stuff (Perhaps then winehq.org won't be classed as Drugs/Alcohol), and 12 year olds get a nice clean(er) internet. What more could be wanted?

Re:Why?! This .xxx registry is a big waste of spac (1)

Thing 1 (178996) | more than 7 years ago | (#15375681)

Actually, I think the whole concept of TLDs makes no sense. Why not be able to register any string of characters? (Yes, I know, an RFC will be necessary, but it would resolve the issues once and for all.)

And I also know the reason it hasn't been done yet: money. There's a lot of value (for the seller) to be able to sell the same thing, over and over and over again, for no additional expense. "New .food domains! New .travel domains! New .name domains! New .fuck domains! Purchase your name in the new space before someone else does!"

Re:Why?! This .xxx registry is a big waste of spac (3, Insightful)

simonjp (970013) | more than 7 years ago | (#15375545)

Why would it make it easier to find pr0n? You can type just about anything into google or similar to get something pornographic. It's *already* (too?) easy to find porn online. whatever the tld ending, it wouldnt matter from someone searching as i doubt they rarely check the url and concentrate on the "content".

However, if a large majority of sites ended .xxx, then if you were say with AOL etc, the filtering of such a site would be very easy and could be done on an account level set by the parents. This surely is a good thing ? Indeed, you might still get the same results from google, but once clicking the link it would just get blocked (so that free previews couldn't get viewed either). If you werent on AOL then perhaps the ISPs could offer it at a different way. Filters based on content of pages being viewed sometimes give false positives but with .xxx i'm sure most filters could get it right.

Sure there would be sites which wont do .xxx or try to get around it, but at least this would have been a start.

Oh, and in response to "Who cares if the US pressured them into rejecting the domain" its people like me who believe that the US should not be allowed to dictate what it wants to the world. But thats a different story...

Re:Why?! This .xxx registry is a big waste of spac (1)

remembertomorrow (959064) | more than 7 years ago | (#15375674)

Blocking a few .xxx sites and leaving the hundreds of millions of .com|.net|.org|.whatever sites isn't really effective... but it will probably allow AOL to advertise "NEW CHILD PROTECTION FEATURES, PORN SITE BLOCKING!".

Re:Why?! This .xxx registry is a big waste of spac (1)

simonjp (970013) | more than 7 years ago | (#15375740)

But it a few more blocked than before. Sure, allowing .xxx is not the "be all and end all" of the situation, but you got to start somewhere :) Combined with a possibility of having to have all new adult domains registered .xxx or requiring a transfer off .com (etc) would obviously increase the usefulness.

And yes, AOL can do what you said, and I bet they would have done!

Re:Why?! This .xxx registry is a big waste of spac (4, Funny)

Chatmag (646500) | more than 7 years ago | (#15375729)

I gave it a try, and googled just about anything [google.com]

The third result is the porn site, how to bang just about anything around the home.

Re:Why?! This .xxx registry is a big waste of spac (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15375739)

"you were say with AOL etc, the filtering of such a site would be very easy and could be done on an account level set by the parents."

The internet is somewhat of an abstraction - in other words, a part of our imagination, our fantasies.

Nobody has ever controlled what is in my head, not my government nor my parents at any age. They want to, and very soon they will be capable using implants and brain scans to make sure your son isn't too "violent", or too "sexual" for their liking. (Prescriptions and therapy are already used for this, but those aren't always reliable you see....)

Anyway, nobody has a right to filter our fantasies. Unfortunately, this is damn near a reality.

Re:Why?! This .xxx registry is a big waste of spac (5, Insightful)

vertinox (846076) | more than 7 years ago | (#15375550)

Secondly, if .xxx sites get registered it'll make it even EASIER for kids to find porn now.

And easier for parents to block.

Well... If they so choose to educate themselves on the matter in order out how to set their router firewall to block all *.xxx connections.

Not that kids have been looking at their parents porn mags and adult video tapes for the past 20 years. Truth be told... Porn never hurt any kids. Uncaring parents too disinterested in the welfare of their kids have.

Teach your kids to be sexual healthy and not sexually repressed.

Otherwise they are going to learn the hard way... You know... Teen pregnancy and STDs.

Insightful (1)

Teun (17872) | more than 7 years ago | (#15375648)

Well spoken vertinox!

The more liberated people are regarding one of the most beautiful things God gave them the less likely they'd spend time and money on what most porn usually is; fake sexuality.

Kids today have it too easy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15375748)

Otherwise they are going to learn the hard way... You know... Teen pregnancy and STDs.

Hard? HARD?!? In my day "the hard way" meant a shotgun marriage and a lifetime of alcoholism. And we lumped it!

Re:Why?! This .xxx registry is a big waste of spac (1)

Achromatic1978 (916097) | more than 7 years ago | (#15375603)

EVERY kid knows what XXX means

A really shitty film "starring" Vin Diesel? Or is that a case-sensitive xXx?

Re:Why?! This .xxx registry is a big waste of spac (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15375611)

Sigh.

You just don't get it. Pron is not difficult to find now. What's a lot more difficult (relatively) is filtering it out. If you take all of the existing pron sites and force them to move to .xxx domain, then all you need is one simple rule and your job is done. No constant updating of filters, nothing slipping through the cracks - you're done. That's it - that's all.

Re:Why?! This .xxx registry is a big waste of spac (1)

Tatsh (893946) | more than 7 years ago | (#15375688)

Probably what the .xxx registry wants. And it's not a terrible idea I guess, for "responsible parents".

I kinda see myself as an example. The "every kid" who got away with looking at porn online throughout my under-18 years (meanwhile some of my friends got caught, being stupid). Do I want my kids to look at porn? I think that up to age 9 they'll think it's gross, and they'll probably think erected penises and penetration is gross until another point shortly after. If they came across it online at that age, they would probably close it out right away. Kids at age 9 are online?

When I was 11 I started to look every once in a while, and then went on from there. I think to be a so-called responsible parent, you should probably block. But I don't think pornography has really had an effect on me, and I've seen tons, of many genres. Who hasn't?

It is an easy way to block .xxx. But is Interpol gonna go nuts on anyone who has porn on a .com, or .org? I don't think so. Neither will any government agency. Also, what's porn? Is this [wikipedia.org] ? Or this [wikipedia.org] ? I think some may think they are and need warnings on the pages. There is never ever going to be a definition of porn. This is what's so bad about filters.

Re:Why?! This .xxx registry is a big waste of spac (1)

EzInKy (115248) | more than 7 years ago | (#15375813)


You just don't get it. Pron is not difficult to find now. What's a lot more difficult (relatively) is filtering it out. If you take all of the existing pron sites and force them to move to .xxx domain, then all you need is one simple rule and your job is done. No constant updating of filters, nothing slipping through the cracks - you're done. That's it - that's all.


Bullshit. The only way you could achieve that kind of filtering is to create a ".safe" domain and prohibit access to everything else.

Re:Why?! This .xxx registry is a big waste of spac (1)

Ogive17 (691899) | more than 7 years ago | (#15375858)

You apparently don't get it, the .xxx move would be voluntary. The new .xxx domain would not clean up the .com domain, bascially leaving us in a worse position (depends on your viewpoint I guess). So .xxx could be blocked, but the already existing porn pages would still be out there.

How many would move to .xxx domains knowing how easy it would be for their site to be blocked? .xxx is worthless.

Re:Why?! This .xxx registry is a big waste of spac (1)

donscarletti (569232) | more than 7 years ago | (#15375891)

You just don't get it. Pron is not difficult to find now. What's a lot more difficult (relatively) is filtering it out. If you take all of the existing pron sites and force them to move to .xxx domain, then all you need is one simple rule and your job is done. No constant updating of filters, nothing slipping through the cracks - you're done. That's it - that's all.

We could have used you as a general at Verdun in WWI. We could have won that battle in a day if we had simply taken all the German soldiers and forced them to move to the open ground, then we could have simply shot them. No year long trench battle, no 700 000 casualties, no eventual stalemate. We win - that is all.

Re:Why?! This .xxx registry is a big waste of spac (1)

donscarletti (569232) | more than 7 years ago | (#15375909)

By the way, when I say "We" I'm not French, I'm just thinking about the Entente in general.

Re:Why?! This .xxx registry is a big waste of spac (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15375657)

Offering an optional domain suffix registry is the first step in corraling the porn industry. As with tobacco, liquor, etc it will not go away ever. There is just too much friggin' money being made from such.
If it was to come to fruition then it would be even EASIER to BLOCK such filth. It would be a red light district of the digital age. If you choose not to drive your browser there or block out your browser from accessing *******.XXX sites then you would be blocking out the majority of porn. I enjoy porn....but I do not believe children should be exposed to or have easy access to it.

www.jeffellisconstruction.com

Re:Why?! This .xxx registry is a big waste of spac (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15375763)

"Secondly, if .xxx sites get registered it'll make it even EASIER for kids to find porn now."

So what? Why should "the internet", or society in general, be responsibile for hiding from the kiddies the reality that adults like to watch other adults screwing each other? If you don't want your kid watching porn, that's your responsiblity, not mine or anyone else's. YOU take the time to make sure YOUR kids aren't doing/watching things YOU don't want them to do/watch. Don't rely on laws, society, or anything else to raise your kid for you. Parents CAN restrict their kids' access to the internet/tv/media in general. It's called Parenting. If you don't have kids, then don't worry about it.

Those internal documents (5, Informative)

zerojoker (812874) | more than 7 years ago | (#15375518)

[http://www.internetgovernance.org/pdf/xxx-foiapag e.pdf] are a very interesting read and show how the US Government changed its mind from neutrality to influencing the decision. Probably due to pressure from conservative family-oriented politicans...

From Bush (5, Funny)

styryx (952942) | more than 7 years ago | (#15375523)

BUSH: "Ya see, that's what the pr0n terr'ists want! They'd love us to just release this information. Can't you see people will get hurt! National security (of the children) is at stake here."

Suing the U.S. Government? Fair play, you got some balls and/or a lot of naivety. Good luck.

Also, if we don't want a .xxx domain then we should probably take the magazines down from the top shelves and put them with the rest.

Just a thought

Re:From Bush (1)

Helios1182 (629010) | more than 7 years ago | (#15375558)

I know at least one person who has sued the government and won; and his case was a bit more important than the .xxx domain. Dan Bernstein [wikipedia.org] helped get encryption legalized and covered by the 1st amendment.

Re:From Bush (1)

styryx (952942) | more than 7 years ago | (#15375962)

The Bernstein [wikipedia.org] reference you speak of shows that after he won the case the government modified the previous changes, substantially loosening them. When he challenged this again in 2003 his case was thrown out.

The victory was temporary. He may have won a battle but certainly not the war.

Re:From Bush (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15375560)

Also, if we don't want a .xxx domain then we should probably take the magazines down from the top shelves and put them with the rest.


Yeah... stop the discrimination against small people

Re:From Bush (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15375809)

You're on crack if you think that only the Conservatives have a stance against this. Go call your Liberal Senator and tell them you want them to pressure ICANN to allow the .xxx domain. Go ahead, I'll wait. Oh.. they laughed in your face? ...as if you didn't expect that to happen. No politician in their right mind is going to come out publicly over wanting to give porn websites "a TLD of their own".

Serously, what makes that commercial industry so special that they deserve their own TLD? ...and they they get their own, why can't every other commerial industry? It's a question of inches and fairness: If you do for one, you'll have to do for others.

MICHELLE MALKIN (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15375547)

I'm think it's obvious that the government's attack on the .xxx domain is a conspiracy to prevent me from registering michellemalkinnakedandpetrified.xxx. The entire world deserves hi-resolution pictures of Michelle Malkin naked and petrified in various poses. Also the site will use ajax which will have drop down menus of how you want to see MM naked and petrified.

Who cares? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15375548)

I care. I don't care about the .xxx TLD. I think it wouldn't hurt, but it won't help either. But I do care how the decision was made: I want to know if it was independent or if ICANN just executed what the US government demanded. In discussions about control over DNS and the root servers, the US constantly reiterate that ICANN is independent, and even though it is on US soil, it acts without interference from the US government. If there is evidence that the US government pressured ICANN into making a decision that it would have made differently on its own, then it is high time for the rest of the world to establish independent DNS roots.

From the start-your-moaning dept. (4, Interesting)

19thNervousBreakdown (768619) | more than 7 years ago | (#15375553)

I'm not really sure how to take that tagline...

Anyway, why shouldn't there be a xxx domain? Not mandatory, but if a particular site wants to say right up front, "Hey, I'm porn," what's wrong with that? Maybe it seems a little much to give a whole domain to a single topic, but if you don't want to accidentally see porn it gives you a decent way to greatly reduce the amount you see, and it's one of those universal things in our (and by our I mean the whole world's) society, there's some people that want to see porn and some that don't, and at most a very very small percentage that don't care one way or the other. Give the way TLDs are used these days it seems a hell of a lot more useful than any of the others beside .gov and .edu. Doesn't hurt anyone either, anyone that wants to find porn can find it in as long as it takes to type "porn [google.com] " in the Google search box.

Don't get me wrong, it's not a "strong" in the computer science meaning of the word filter, but it's decent and it helps out people on both sides of the fence. I don't see why this is being fought. Is disallowing this TLD going to stop porn on the Internet? Am I missing something here?

The fundamentalists fear it will encourage porn. (2, Insightful)

FatSean (18753) | more than 7 years ago | (#15375572)

You know, out of sight out of mind. The people who fear porn and their own sexuality often stand by these trite axioms. They don't want condom use being taught in school because it will increase teenage sexual activity. They don't want female nipples seen on television because it will encourge children to have sex. They don't want an XXX domain because it will make it easier for children to find porn, which will irreperably damage them somehow.

Also, they don't want their government supporting porn in any way. There is no grey area for these simplistic people. They got their marching orders from the corpse of a long-dead civilization and they are sticking with it.

Re:The fundamentalists fear it will encourage porn (2, Interesting)

Thing 1 (178996) | more than 7 years ago | (#15375700)

They don't want condom use being taught in school because it will increase teenage sexual activity. They don't want female nipples seen on television because it will encourge children to have sex. They don't want an XXX domain because it will make it easier for children to find porn, which will irreperably damage them somehow.

In addition, they don't want [go.com] a new vaccine that prevents early stage cervical cancer and cancer lesions caused by HPV infection, because this may encourage teenagers to be more sexually promiscuous.

To restate: they would rather watch teenagers die a horrible death through cancer, than allow teens to bump and grind a little.

Re:The fundamentalists fear it will encourage porn (1)

Photon Ghoul (14932) | more than 7 years ago | (#15375761)

And the saddest aspect is that teenagers always have and always will be having sex. Denial of information about sex only causes pregnancies and the spread of STDs - and now cancer!

Re:From the start-your-moaning dept. (1, Redundant)

Haeleth (414428) | more than 7 years ago | (#15375585)

Anyway, why shouldn't there be a xxx domain?

For all the usual reasons that there shouldn't be any other new domains. When was the last time you saw a legitimate business with a .biz domain? Or a legitimate anything with a .info domain? They're not needed and are used almost exclusively for scams.

All it would mean would be that everyone would have to buy the .xxx version of their domain as well. For some reason I don't think Coca-Cola wants a porn site at www.cocacola.xxx.

Not mandatory, but if a particular site wants to say right up front, "Hey, I'm porn," what's wrong with that?

Um, exactly what is not upfront about "www.hot-lesbian-porn-pictures.com"? I don't see them panicking that people might not realise what their site is about, just because it doesn't have an ".xxx" on the end.

Maybe it seems a little much to give a whole domain to a single topic, but if you don't want to accidentally see porn it gives you a decent way to greatly reduce the amount you see

How? It will be of precisely ZERO VALUE for filtering out porn unless it's mandatory. And any attempt to make it mandatory would be unenforcable.

Look, if you don't want to accidentally see porn, all you have to do is install filtering software, which you'd have to do anyway to avoid being redirected from a .com to a .xxx domain, and which works perfectly well today without needing any special domains at all. See? Capitalism has already provided the answer by making available products that meet a consumer demand. There is no need whatsoever for any legislative solution.

Fallacy alert (1)

djeca (670911) | more than 7 years ago | (#15375923)

...if you don't want to accidentally see porn [the .xxx TLD] gives you a decent way to greatly reduce the amount you see...

Bzzt! You're assuming that because some porn is in .xxx, there's less porn in .com. It won't work out that way; any porn site with a .xxx domain will offer exactly the same content from a .com address, precisely to be able to service customers with the .xxx filter in place.

Your other assumption is that "there's some people that want to see porn and some that don't". That should read "there's some people that want to see porn, some people that don't want other people to see porn, and some people that don't want other people to know that they want to see porn". No-one is interested in censorship for themselves; it's always to protect the children, or to maintain public morals.

Look at the .xxx TLD pragmatically: the most that will happen is that whitehouse.com is obliged to buy whitehouse.xxx to protect their "brand" - but they're sure as hell not going to let go of whitehouse.com and lose all those customers surfing from work (pr0n is not a business-related activity), school (protect the children!), home (if you're in a loving relationship, why would you need to unblock porn?), church (heh...)

.xxx is not a filter. It won't help people searching for or filtering out porn. It's a money grab, pure and simple.

A stack of links (2, Informative)

jginspace (678908) | more than 7 years ago | (#15375555)

I went a searchin' for alternative sources - that cbronline article has problems in Opera for one thing - http://bigblog.com/search.cgi?id=535484929 [bigblog.com]

This is just stupid.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15375564)

I don't know why .xxx got rejected. Like someone said, maybe it will be easier to find, but it will ALSO be easier to block. Second, it would help porn sites by giving them a new array of domain names (NOT that I approve them in the first place).

And third, of course kids will find ways around, we can't stop EVERYTHING! This will just discourage their access to kids, but what can we really do about the others?

Geeze, quit searching for a perfect solution, you cant prevent skin cancer by BLOCKING THE SUN WITH A GIANT EARTH-SIZED UMBRELLA!

Hopefully the domain registry company loses... (5, Funny)

Zweideutig (900045) | more than 7 years ago | (#15375565)

Many people (including myself) resent this disgusting smut. I would rather it didn't become legitimized by having its own top level domain. These "adult entertainment" companies should all cease and desist for the morality of the U.S.

Re:Hopefully the domain registry company loses... (1, Insightful)

M1FCJ (586251) | more than 7 years ago | (#15375599)

You are free to not to visit any porn site. Why do you want to ruin my internet experience with your moral values? If you think your moral values are superior to mine, what is your moral basis in this? A fictitious book? I don't think you have the right to assert your own beliefs to others.

It could be argued ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15375940)

That your experience affects other people in society, and if the effect was negative enough, then it would make sense to not make this thing legitimate.

If those who viewed porn were more likely to objectify or in any other way be less kind to women ( a signification portion of the population :P ) that would be a good argument by itself to disallow porn. To my knowledge, this hasn't been proven, but it hasn't been disproven either.

All the moral rules from fictionous books, as I'm assuming your referring to religious texts, are meant to be followed first of all for the individuals' good, and secondly in many cases for the good of society.

We shouldn't force people to follow these rules for their own sake, ( forcing them is missing the point, among other things ) but if we figure something could be harmful to society, we certainly shouldn't legitimize it.

Re:Hopefully the domain registry company loses... (1)

peektwice (726616) | more than 7 years ago | (#15375613)

And the morality police should be allowed to scan your hard disk for smut. And the safety police should be allowed to make you wear a helmet in your car.

Since the dawn of the commercialization of the Internet, porn has been making it tick. Yes, the internet is great for online shopping, free information exchange, online collaboration, and more. But porn makes it tick. I say, make ALL porn sites reside in the .xxx domain, and that way the smut filters are bullet proof. Any domain serving porn that is not in the .xxx domain, gets shut down at the root servers.

Re:Hopefully the domain registry company loses... (1)

masterpenguin (878744) | more than 7 years ago | (#15375655)

And the morality police should be allowed to scan your hard disk for smut. And the safety police should be allowed to make you wear a helmet in your car.


The saftey police DO make me wair a seatbelt in my car...

Re:Hopefully the domain registry company loses... (1)

Knuckles (8964) | more than 7 years ago | (#15375707)

I say, make ALL porn sites reside in the .xxx domain

Who gets to say what is porn? The morality police?

Re:Hopefully the domain registry company loses... (1)

Tatsh (893946) | more than 7 years ago | (#15375708)

(tests for sarcasm)

Re:Hopefully the domain registry company loses... (1)

kanweg (771128) | more than 7 years ago | (#15375902)

Well, just a quick look at the situation in Iraq already told me that the "Make love, not war" isn't too popular anymore.

It is sad that people want to determine other people how to live. Or die.

Can't they just show some confidence in their belief that God is almighty and that he'll punish bad people when they're dead? So, the justice department only has to be involved in people who do bad to other people.

Bert
Who lives in a country where gay people can mary and teens rarely get pregnant.

There was no technical justification for .xxx (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15375575)

This is some company trying to get rich and ignoring the fact that most people thought the .xxx domain was a stupid idea from the outset. I hope these morons end up covering the governments costs!

And the point is....? (1)

nbannerman (974715) | more than 7 years ago | (#15375578)

Regardless of whether or not you agree with the decision, surely I can't be the only person that doesn't believe anyone has a 'right' to get a domain set up?

Re:And the point is....? (3, Insightful)

Daniel Dvorkin (106857) | more than 7 years ago | (#15375642)

Regardless of whether or not you agree with the decision, surely I can't be the only person that doesn't believe anyone has a 'right' to get a domain set up?

Well, it's an interesting question; if you consider the web to be a vital tool of speech, which these days it can certainly be considered to be, then any government interference with domain registration can be construed as government interference with freedom of speech. And I'm pretty sure there is something about that right in some government document ... hmmm, I know I left that goddamn piece of paper around here somewhere ...

Really, though, this isn't (or shouldn't be) about porn, or TLD's, or anything that specific. It is about our unquestionable, self-evident right to have a government which goes about its business in a way that is as transparent as possible to us, the citizens of the country it governs. The FOIA is one of the strongest tools ever created for enforcement of that right (yeah, I know, rights shouldn't have to be enforced, but of course they do) and we should fight vigorously, on every front, against every attempt to gut it.

Re:And the point is....? (1)

nbannerman (974715) | more than 7 years ago | (#15375668)

we should fight vigorously, on every front, against every attempt to gut it.

Agreed. Definately.

I don't have a problem with these guys using every legal means to get the information they required. However, I do disagree with the idea that just because they want something, they should get it. Of course, if there have been under-hand dealings that have prevented them for getting the domain, then I do question whether or not there needs to be a much clearer seperation of ICANN from the US Goverment.

Re:And the point is....? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15375941)

But you do have a right to have organizations deal with you in accordance with their own rules, charters, etc. It's not difficult to see a court extending this to a right to find out how you were dealt with (otherwise the former right becomes unenforceable).

This is true in the UK anyway, but I'd expect it to be true in any civilised society.

US Govt to CM Registry LLC (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15375605)

US Govt to CM Registry LLC: "Suck it".

I wonder what would happen if.. (5, Interesting)

Plunky (929104) | more than 7 years ago | (#15375643)

I wonder what would happen if this company ICM just went out and bought some bandwidth (guess they already got some of that), and set up a DNS server that would handle requests from the .xxx domain, and started selling subdomains of it to people who wanted name resolutions there. Although ICANN are 'the domain authority' they have refused to handle this TLD so surely its up for grabs? ICM could advertise their services and its up to the DNS admins of all the DNS servers around the world if they want to add it as an authoritative server, surely? If some porn sites decide to get on board and offer free porn to all comers (heh) then the end customer demand might be high enough that ISPs the world over add it. I freely admit, I am no DNS admin and I dont know how it works.

Re:I wonder what would happen if.. (1)

JPriest (547211) | more than 7 years ago | (#15375812)

This would likely have to be hard coded into bind, few ISP's would be interested in taking such measures especially considering it may open them up to law suits. This would _definitely_ be overstepping their bounds.

Re:I wonder what would happen if.. (1)

kasperd (592156) | more than 7 years ago | (#15375818)

It would be possible, but an unofficial tld just won't get as much attention. I don't think many companies would want to buy a domain which the majority of the users don't know how to access, and they couldn't even be sure to get the official domain if xxx ever becomes an official tld.

If one company actually manages to make money from an unofficial xxx tld, I guess others will follow. Now we could have a handfull of companies selling the same domain, and anybody who wanted to be sure, would have to buy it from all of them. And even that wouldn't guarantee, that they would be able to get it under the official xxx tld, if that is ever going to happen.

Probably some of the alternative DNS roots are going to pick it up. Maybe some of them already have their own xxx tld. This is just going to add even more to the confusion.

Re:I wonder what would happen if.. (1)

rekoil (168689) | more than 7 years ago | (#15375826)

That's all well and good, right up until the moment that some other company tries to do the same thing with the same .xxx TLD (and don't think that no one will try...) You will use the global uniqueness of domain names that makes the net work - www.sex.xxx will go to one website for one user, and another for a different user whose ISP is pointing their .xxx resolution to a different registrar. And of course, it will go nowhere if your ISP hasn't added an NS record for the domain at all.

My issues with .xxx aren't moral, but practical. Who in their right mind would use a .xxx exclusively knowing how easy it is for providers to block? And how do you force all the sites currently using .com/.net/etc to switch? ICANN should not be in the business of policing content. If they did, slashdot wouldn't be a .org. :)

Re:I wonder what would happen if.. (1)

ConfusedVorlon (657247) | more than 7 years ago | (#15375952)

I don't see your issue.
You say many people wouldn't use it. Do you object of some do?

My guess is that it would be popular, and would mostly not be blocked. After all - there is a lot of demand for porm on the internet....

Making .xxx work (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15375704)

To really make the .xxx TLD effective, you need to outlaw pornographic content on all other TLDs, and get as many countries as possible to enact relevant legislation. Then you can either go to the search engines and ask them politely to stop indexing pornographic content on non-xxx TLDs or just pass legislation that makes it an offence to be complicit in the distribution of pornographic content on non-xxx TLDs.

This will obviously not stop pornography existing on non-xxx TLDs, nor will it stop children coming across pornography. But the key point is that it will increase the ability of parents/schools etc to prevent children from easily accessing pornography.

The problem with the .xxx plan as it now stands is that there are simply no measures planned to reduce the amount/accessibility of pornography on non-xxx TLDs. Without such measures, introducing an xxx TLD would simply increase the amount of pornographic websites on the internet.

Using TLDs For Filtering Harmful (5, Informative)

EzInKy (115248) | more than 7 years ago | (#15375754)

There is a W3C article, Why Using TLDs for Filtering is Ineffective, Harmful, and Unnecessary [w3.org] , that points out all the downfalls of creating a .xxx domain. This excerpt sums up why I am personally opposed to the idea:

"7. The definition of what is offensive obviously differs greatly from country to country, from year to year, and from person to person. If bare ankles are considered obscene in some cultures, but are permitted in photos of Web sites in France selling sandals, then individuals wishing to keep photos of bare ankles out of their home using filtering on ".xxx" are unlikely to succeed. How will sites about safe sex or AIDS be treated? Who will establish what is art and what is pornography?"

Also, having read these documents [internetgovernance.org] it appears to me that this whole thing is nothing but a land grab by ICM.

Silly startup (1)

eargang (935892) | more than 7 years ago | (#15375781)

They should know that based on previous decisions, ICANN doesn't need no stinking government agencies to make stupid, badly thought out decisions. I mean, really. psah.

US Gov't Response (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15375787)

Due to the highly sensitive nature of the information involved in this lawsuit (namely George Bush's nightly visits to www.wifeysworld.com [wifeysworld.com] and the fact that he doesn't know how to change the bookmark address in IE), we're not going to grant you the necessary security level for which to challenge our authority. Lawsuit dismissed!

Would need to outlaw porn on .com to work (1)

JPriest (547211) | more than 7 years ago | (#15375829)

The only way for this to make "porn easier to block" is if hoving porn on all the other domains was outlawed requiring it be moved to .xxx. What kind of slashdot user would be FOR banning porn on the internet?

.xxx (-1, Flamebait)

kanzels (975208) | more than 7 years ago | (#15375849)

I think they should allow .xxx and disallow porn in other tlds. In this way there will be a better control over porn on internet. I mean child porn and other disgusting things.

ICM should dick someone else around... (1)

CrypticSpawn (719164) | more than 7 years ago | (#15375879)

ICM wanted the Adult industry to take it upon itself to register their .com domains under the .xxx extension; to go from paying 8-14 dollars a domain a year to 60 dollars a domain a year. The scheme by ICM was to get it approved as voluntary, and lobby the governments to pass legislation to make it mandatory.

As far as this law suit is concerned, I don't see how the government pressured ICANN at all. If ICM was on the ball, they could have gotten the word out to have people show their support for .xxx. Since they were caught sleeping on the job, (being sore losers) they want to sue because the other side was deligent in making their views heard. Besides, ICANN can vote however they see fit, if they let the views of others sway them against what they know is morally right, then those weak minds need to be replaced. But then, that statement could also be made about alot of our politicians who are swayed by the lobbyist of big businesses.

Nathaniel Hawthorne (1)

smwoflson (905752) | more than 7 years ago | (#15375979)

It seems to me that the .xxx distinction would be a little like a scarlet letter to slap on a porn site so the whole world will be told a)that the people who run it are perverts and b)that who ever visits the site is a pervert without even having to find out what the site is. .xxx = bad. Who knows how long after that then .xxx start being banned by ISPs. And then what, give Deomcrat and Republican websites disctinctions of .dem and .rep. And then how long after that might an ISP block access to one or the other because of the political leanings of the owner. And since it is far to easy to track a person's movement on the net, how fast will a catalog of users who visit .xxx (or .dem or .rep) sites be developed and exploited. Any regulation of the net scares me. Any attempt to ostrasize and/or single out on class scares me. Especially when it has to do with out freedom of speech, something which must be protected.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>