×

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!

Adult .IE Domain Names Banned As Immoral

kdawson posted more than 7 years ago | from the naughty-naughty dept.

509

An anonymous reader writes, "The Irish domain prefix, .ie, is controlled by an organization called the IE Domain Registry. In their terms and conditions they state, 'The proposed domain name must not be offensive or contrary to public policy or generally accepted principles of morality.' But this policy is only applied to sex words as this adult webmaster has discovered. Murder.ie is acceptable, Porn.ie is not. Can a word be immoral? And in this day and age, should a government-chosen domain registry be allowed to enforce their own moral code on the public?"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

509 comments

juden-raus.ie (5, Insightful)

P(0)(!P(k)+P(k+1)) (1012109) | more than 7 years ago | (#16442183)

From TFS:

And in this day and age, should a government-chosen domain registry be allowed to enforce their own moral code on the public?
porn.ie is a poor example, since pornography has been a strict superset of free speech since the 1960's; how about: juden-raus.ie?

juden-raus.ie, I suspect, would convert many here into willing censors.

Re:juden-raus.ie (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16442191)

juden-raus.ie

Umm, who or what is a juden-raus?

Re:juden-raus.ie (1)

Descalzo (898339) | more than 7 years ago | (#16442203)

Apparently it was a board game that glorified the out-ing of the Jews in the same way Monopoly glorifies making money.

Or am I oversimplifying?

Re:juden-raus.ie (5, Informative)

NewToNix (668737) | more than 7 years ago | (#16442217)

juden-raus == Jews Out! From the Nazi era, and also a board game - of equal value.

Re:juden-raus.ie (1)

Barnoid (263111) | more than 7 years ago | (#16442225)

Umm, who or what is a juden-raus?

it's German, "Jews, get out [of our country]"

Re:juden-raus.ie (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16442415)

I always thought it was "Jews, out!", in the context of work camps or death trains etc etc.

Often accompanied by "Schnell!".

Godwin's Law (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16442253)

First post and it's already Godwin time! Is this a record?

Re:Godwin's Law (1, Troll)

rednip (186217) | more than 7 years ago | (#16442383)

First post and it's already Godwin time! Is this a record?
I doubt it would be a record, if it applied. Godwin's Law [killfile.org] is about comparing something/someone to Nazism/Hitler. The post was an example of offensive speech the should banned before the word 'porn'.

Re:Godwin's Law (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16442551)

'=\=>   <- joke + historical reference

  ?
(O.o)   <- your head

Re:Godwin's Law (-1, Troll)

rednip (186217) | more than 7 years ago | (#16442635)

Of course it was a joke, nearly all AC posts are jokes, most, like yours, isn't funny. Misusing Godwin's law is rarely 'funny', and never 'informative' (as it was when I posted) that post was no exception.

Re:Godwin's Law (1)

Hogwash McFly (678207) | more than 7 years ago | (#16442649)

Ahh, I see.

If you get something wrong and somebody calls you on it, you can just label it a joke that went over their head. That's a handy catch-all, isn't it?

Next time I fuck up a story in the pub and someone points out my flaw, I'm gonna get a beermat and scrawl some unfunny doodle with someone's head and an airplane and everyone will think I'm so cool!

Thanks!

Re:Godwin's Law (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16442463)

Don't cite what you don't understand.

Re:Godwin's Law (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16442485)

you should have said, "Don't cite [or mod] what you don't understand.".

Re:juden-raus.ie (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16442297)

Not at all. If people want to create hate sites of any nature, they will create them.

What's more, Google will index them, so they can be found. It really doesn't matter if the site has objectionable words in its URL or just as content on its homepage.

Censorship of the net doesn't work, and frankly causes more problems than it attempts to solve.

Re:juden-raus.ie (4, Insightful)

donscarletti (569232) | more than 7 years ago | (#16442321)

If pornography was a superset of free speech, strict or otherwise then all free speech would be porn. What you mean is that porn is not a subset of free speech. But I think in Ireland which is fairly conservative IIRC, it might actually be a disjoint set to free speech.

Re:juden-raus.ie (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16442471)

Sounds like an excellent domain name. I want an email there, say, muslims_and_christians_can_get_fucked_too@juden-ra us.ie?

Re:juden-raus.ie (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16442589)

pornography has been a strict superset of free speech since the 1960

Huh? How could whether porn is free speech change at some point in time? Is this a universal state of affairs or are you referring to some principle of Irish law (or politics)?

Re:juden-raus.ie (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16442605)

If that was juden-raus-from-palestine.ie or yankees-raus-from-iraq+afghanistan.ie I would welcome it.

Re:juden-raus.ie (3, Insightful)

lixee (863589) | more than 7 years ago | (#16442687)

juden-raus.ie, I suspect, would convert many here into willing censors.
torture-and-kill-arabs.ie, I suspect, would not raise an eyebrow here.

Yes? So.... (5, Interesting)

jawtheshark (198669) | more than 7 years ago | (#16442201)

Isn't this standard procedure for most country TLDs? I just checked for my country:

From their webpage: [www.dns.lu]

DEMANDES D'ENREGISTREMENT REJETÉES

...

(c) noms de domaine manifestement contraires à l'ordre public ou aux bonnes moeurs.

Translation: The proposed domain name must not be offensive or contrary to public policy or generally accepted principles of morality

Thus, identical to the Ireland registry provisions. The real question here is, why someone would consider "murder" falling into that provision? I clearly don't. You see, this could be a website about prevening murder, or a forum for people seeking help that had a relative murdered. I don't know.
Also keep in mind that pretty much all "normal" sex-related words should be registrable just because of *that* reason. tits.com used to be about birds (the real, flying kind). Now, I do not know what the porn guy exactly tried to register (just checked the article: it was porn.ie). It would be hard to defend "bondagegirls.ie", but a case for "sex.ie" might be acceptable, if the content clearly is non-sexual. (Well, the applicant was a p0rn peddler, so good luck to that)

Oh, and I see he owns sex.ie... Now really, it's not as if sex.ie is registrable, so should be murder.ie.... He is complaining about nothing *at all*.

What I think that happens: the registration process is completely automated and the words just pass through an automated filter which, incidentially, just contains sex-related words. He should try "t1ts.ie" ;-)

Religious fundamentalists (-1, Troll)

lisaparratt (752068) | more than 7 years ago | (#16442209)

What? Did you think countries of religious fundamentalism were restricted to poor 3rd world countries?

In a country where you can be killed for simply being the wrong flavour of Christian, is it really surprising that the ymight be a bit uptight about saucy words?

Re:Religious fundamentalists (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16442295)

That country would have been the United Kingdom (specifically, Northern Ireland), not the Republic of Ireland. And even there, they stopped a while ago. You're wrong in both time and space.

Re:Religious fundamentalists (0, Flamebait)

lisaparratt (752068) | more than 7 years ago | (#16442329)

No, it just got brushed under the carpet when a foe with a darker skin popped their head up. Makes far better political capital. You listen to Irish republicans, and they still consider Northern Ireland to be part of their country held by a foreign invader.

Plus, the US really wanted everyone to forget, what with them being responsible for most of the funding for Irish terrorism.

Re:Religious fundamentalists (1, Informative)

Timesprout (579035) | more than 7 years ago | (#16442403)

Northern Ireland is a part of Ireland taken by force and still held by a foreign power and most of the IRA's activites were funded by robbing banks in the South.

Re:Religious fundamentalists (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16442397)

well, If what you actually meant was, "where you can be killed for being the wrong flavor of christian and still being in the 1980's," then, yes.
Otherwise, maybe have a bit of awareness of current events.
Or, since I notice you're spelling "flavor" with an "ou" maybe what you really need is a little less English Hypocrisy about the purity of the faith and a little more realization that Christians have always had a severe problem sharing space and time with competing Christian sects. The Calvinists? Cromwell? The Restoration? Obvioussly not even England can have the lockdown on Christians killing their bretheren in sectarian fervor, but shit, you'd think you'd have learned your lesson enough not to try to place the blame on the Irish, whom, I believe, you converted to Christianity in the first place, you Crusade-Launching fucks. But that wasnt good enough, was it? You then had to give the entirety of the island to various English nobles (well, except Galway, but then who the fuck wants Galway, its just a bunch of fucking rocks) so that they could bleed the peasantry dry, cause thats what you're best at, isnt it? Slowly both Anglicizing and Genociding Celtic peoples out of existence.
Well, I guess given the current state of Irish vs. Engilsh mean national income, the joke's on you, fuckers!
That'll show you for having the least intresting cuisine in the whole of Europe. "I say, here's a novel food item."
"BOIL IT!!! BOIL IT!!!!!!" Fucking limeys.

And yes, This is flamebait. But I really dont mean any of it. Its past last call, and I'm hammered on strong belgian ale. Hope y'all enjoyed my drunken rantings.

Re:Religious fundamentalists (1)

ShakaUVM (157947) | more than 7 years ago | (#16442555)

Actually, Christians realized this problem and by and large have moderated away the interdenominational killings. This was a significant part of the Enlightment.

Re:Religious fundamentalists (3, Insightful)

evilandi (2800) | more than 7 years ago | (#16442411)

Did you think countries of religious fundamentalism were restricted to poor 3rd world countries?

No, we just thought they were restricted to America [guardian.co.uk] .

Boom-cha! Thank-you, I'll be here all night.

on anonet ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16442487)

On anonet [anonet.org] you can use what ever name you want.

Murder or Porn (0)

Descalzo (898339) | more than 7 years ago | (#16442219)

Well, whether or not words can be immoral, actions certainly can. A site about murder is far less likely to inspire murderous actions than a porn site is to incite pornographic actions. Perhaps that is why porn is regulated more than violence in situations like this.

Re:Murder or Porn (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16442239)

did you try registering goatse?

Re:Murder or Porn (1)

jawtheshark (198669) | more than 7 years ago | (#16442255)

That doesn't make sense. "goatse" only works with the .cx domain, because of the pronunciation of "goatse.cx" as a whole sounds like "Goat Sex". Frankly, "goatse.be", "goatse.ch", "goatse.lu", "goatse.us" or even "goatse.kz" don't have a that nice ring. (Though I picked goatse.kz, because it might just work fine phonetically...)

Re:Murder or Porn (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16442405)

How about horsefuck.er? Or if they don't allow that horsefsck.er?

Re:Murder or Porn (1)

jawtheshark (198669) | more than 7 years ago | (#16442461)

You can try if you find where to register domains for Eritrea.

The thing with goatse.cx is that it doensn't look suspicious to the casual surfer. Something with "fuck" in it, most certainly does. I personally got hit by goatse.cx when at work, and I was damned lucky nobody was looking.

Re:Murder or Porn (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16442503)

How about horse.fsck.ie, also giving goat.fsck.ie, pussy.fsck.ie and i.wanna.fsck.ie.fsck.ie? I don't think any domain registry could justify banning the the name of a file system check program.

Re:Murder or Porn (4, Insightful)

ozmanjusri (601766) | more than 7 years ago | (#16442261)

A site about murder is far less likely to inspire murderous actions than a porn site is to incite pornographic actions.

You're still implying there's something wrong with pornographic actions, and that it's the role of the government to regulate them.

I'd suggest that whatever sexual activity takes place between consenting adults (or solo, given that this is Slashdot) is their own business.

Re:Murder or Porn (1)

WgT2 (591074) | more than 7 years ago | (#16442407)

I'd suggest that whatever sexual activity takes place between consenting adults (or solo, given that this is Slashdot) is their own business.

Exactly, but you seem to be supporting pornography which is not being kept private; the 'consenting adults' are making it other people's business also.

So, please take a side or clarify yourself.

Re:Murder or Porn (2, Insightful)

ozmanjusri (601766) | more than 7 years ago | (#16442449)

So, please take a side or clarify yourself.

Posting sexual pictures of yourself on a site called www.porn.ie, for example, is making a decision to participate in a sexual activity (exhibitionism).
Going to a site called www.porn.ie is a decision to participate in a sexual activity (voyeurism).

If people choose to do either, they are consenting to make the sexual activity their own business.

Re:Murder or Porn (1)

Mathinker (909784) | more than 7 years ago | (#16442437)

A site about murder is far less likely to inspire murderous actions than a porn site is to incite pornographic actions.

Probably true, if what you meant was "sexual actions". However, since the controversy is about not being able to have the domain name porn.ie, not about what kind of content the web site can have or what actions the content of the web site might inspire, I find your comment totally off-topic.

There must be ooodles of .ie web sites with pornography. Also, I rather doubt you'd have a lot of luck registering killcatholics.ie (or other variations with Protestants, Jews, etc.), either. So your argument would seem to have nothing to do with this.

The registrar's TOS are designed for CYA --- so it can arbitrarily pull offensive domain names to not get sued. The controversy is that many people don't feel that porn.ie would be a big liability exposure to them, so they appear to be overstepping their authority into sexual censorship.

Re:Murder or Porn (1)

Teun (17872) | more than 7 years ago | (#16442511)

What an incredible (stupid) claim!

I hope that after some healthy reflection you're now wishing for an edit function on /.

Re:Murder or Porn (1)

Hogwash McFly (678207) | more than 7 years ago | (#16442561)

A site about murder is far less likely to inspire murderous actions than a porn site is to incite pornographic actions.

Yeah, well, murderous actions are generally against the law and harmful to one or more persons. 'Pornographic actions' generally aren't.

Stronger sense of morality there (2, Insightful)

Corbets (169101) | more than 7 years ago | (#16442231)

As much as I love the country, remember that you're talking about a nation that banned the sale of condoms to minors for a long time. They're simply more conservative over there; I don't believe that makes them wrong (or right, for that matter).

Re:Stronger sense of morality there (4, Informative)

fuzzix (700457) | more than 7 years ago | (#16442515)

As much as I love the country, remember that you're talking about a nation that banned the sale of condoms to minors for a long time. They're simply more conservative over there; I don't believe that makes them wrong (or right, for that matter).

I believe it makes them wrong but then I live here. Things have improved of late. I've noticed around the college I'm studying at now that safe sex is promoted heavily - even more than last year. I think there's been a realisation that promoting safe sex isn't promoting casual sex. I know when I'm looking at that chlamidya poster in the toilets I don't care if I never get laid again (althought that soon passes) ;).

As for the .ie domain? Who cares? They priced themselves out of the market [wikipedia.org] a long time ago - only larger businesses can afford them anyway. The current management of the .ie domain seems to run contrary to the overriding trend of making communications infrastructure more accessible - it took serious government pressure to make affordable broadband available in even the most densely populated areas. It was laughable when Ireland was dubbed by the government as the "e-hub of Europe" [google.ie] when most of the population who wanted to connect to the outside world were paying per minute for flakey dialup.

In summary, is Ireland a conservative, moralistic hellhole? Yes, but it's getting better. We no longer export pregnant teens and force them to surrender their children for adoption!

No exception (1)

LCookie (685814) | more than 7 years ago | (#16442235)

Same here in Luxembourg. The .lu domain authority RESTENA does the same kind of thing.
Ain't it cool to be holier than the pope?

killing good, orgasms evil? (2, Insightful)

Anthony Boyd (242971) | more than 7 years ago | (#16442243)

Murder.ie is acceptable, Porn.ie is not.

That is disgusting. If true, I feel that IE Domain Registry is revealing their own sickness by enforcing such as bizarre standard.

ICANN (1)

Zantetsuken (935350) | more than 7 years ago | (#16442425)

maybe that will make people curious about ICANN and such things as how they don't give a damn about domain name squatters - ahh, well we can dream people will anyway, right?

Dibs! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16442245)

If I had money to waste I would so register nook.ie and fill it info on the ideal breakfast nook.

Ireland has got a history of that sort aof thing (4, Informative)

Mariani (700617) | more than 7 years ago | (#16442271)

We are talking about the country where reading Playboy was illegal only a few years ago, check out the wikipedia page for the whole censoring frenzy [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Ireland has got a history of that sort aof thin (1)

Rideak (180158) | more than 7 years ago | (#16442539)

yes but what they say and what they enforce are two different things. they make the laws out of catholic guilt. they can always look at playboy because they will be forgiven for it anyway.

A rose by any other name... (0, Flamebait)

tod_miller (792541) | more than 7 years ago | (#16442287)

To be honest, I do not think it is censorship at all. The rules are set, they are not being imposed by a third party, they are self governing rules for everyone to abide by.

And you know what, the majority would agree. You don't like it? Go live in fundamentalist/survivalist camp and then decide who is the kooky one.

There is nothing wrong with keeping society prim, proper, polite and personable on the surface. If you want a domain that allows 'fuck-a-donkey.tld' then go and get one, but don't force those who adminsiter and check these to suffer your personal tastes, and don't cry foul by their decisions. That is what pisses me off.

Meet Bob, he had the same rights as everyone. One day he fucked a watermelon, and loved it. Now he felt that he didn't have the same rights as everyone else and started a campaign for 'equal rights' and 'tolerance'.

Re:A rose by any other name... (4, Interesting)

freeweed (309734) | more than 7 years ago | (#16442509)

There is nothing wrong with keeping society prim, proper, polite and personable on the surface.

Except for, you know, the idea that we should be free to do whatever the hell we want, so long as we're not harming others. I know freedom (and liberalism) in general is out of favour these days, but still...

don't force those who adminsiter and check these to suffer your personal tastes, and don't cry foul by their decisions. That is what pisses me off.

So we should all suffer YOUR personal tastes? Or should we go with "majority rules" here, and fuck anyone who disagrees with the majority?

Meet Bob, he had the same rights as everyone. One day he fucked a watermelon, and loved it. Now he felt that he didn't have the same rights as everyone else and started a campaign for 'equal rights' and 'tolerance'

And so long as Bob isn't harming a soul while fucking watermelons, what precisely is the problem? If he's prevented by law from doing that, he damned well SHOULD campaign for equal rights and tolerance.

I think your poorly-veiled allusion to gay rights, plus your use of quotation marks around 'equal rights' and 'tolerance' speaks volumes about your position, though. You do realize that without 'equal rights', it's just as easy for someone to find something about you that is slightly different than the majority, and get after you about it?

Re:A rose by any other name... (1, Insightful)

Tim C (15259) | more than 7 years ago | (#16442531)

Except for, you know, the idea that we should be free to do whatever the hell we want, so long as we're not harming others. I know freedom (and liberalism) in general is out of favour these days, but still...

You're still free, as an Irish citizen, to register donkey-fuckers.com, donkey-fuckers.co.uk, etc. You just can't register donkey-fuckers.ie. So what? What about the freedom of the registrar to decide what data they will and will not allow to reside on their servers?

I really don't see how any rights are being infringed here; if nothing else, owning a domain is hardly a right.

Re:A rose by any other name... (2, Interesting)

strider44 (650833) | more than 7 years ago | (#16442521)

And you know what, the majority would agree. You don't like it? Go live in fundamentalist/survivalist camp and then decide who is the kooky one.

Personally, I think that the one who is the kooky one is the one who thinks that disagreeing with censorship is equivalent to being a fundamentalist. That's just my opinion though...

Here's a decent definition of censorship: The practice of suppressing a text or part of a text that is considered objectionable according to certain standards.

This is censorship. They aren't self-governing rules - they are striking specific sites simply because they find the name morally objectionable. This is a government, not a simple administrator. This is governmental censorship. Look at the argument. You can now form your opinion and feel free to disagree or agree, but definitions of words are definitions of words.

While we're getting to the definition of words, I didn't know that the majority would agree. I'm not sure you know either - you should probably write "guess".

Now I'm still not sure what the fuck having sex with a watermelon has to do with this issue...

Re:A rose by any other name... (2, Interesting)

DrFaustos25 (788264) | more than 7 years ago | (#16442527)

Censorship isn't censorship when it's "self governing"? What? And how is this self-governing? It's being enforced by a private company, not by the people.

"Of course the rule can't be wrong, simply because it isn't quite as strict as a the rules in an arbitrarily chosen survival camp!" A truly masterful point. Arg, how did you come up with this?

Oh, and there's nothing wrong with keeping society prim, proper, polite and personable. So if you want to drop the "f word" in a post, then feel free, but don't cry foul when I mod you down for it, and don't force those who administer you to suffer your personal tastes.

Re:A rose by any other name... (1)

Hogwash McFly (678207) | more than 7 years ago | (#16442545)

And you know what, the majority would agree.

If that's true, I've guessed we've made much less progress than I thought.

You don't like it? Go live in fundamentalist/survivalist camp and then decide who is the kooky one.

Since when has this been any fucking kind of an argument? You see it all the time in discussions about the United States, where any criticism regarding loss of rights or liberties brings out the knee-jerk response, 'Well you go to North Korea and see what rights you have there!!!!!' Bub, we're not talking about North Korea or a fundamentalist/survivalist camp, and the fact that you're so quick to say 'We're still better than them!!!' is a very sad state of affairs.

There is nothing wrong with keeping society prim, proper, polite and personable on the surface.

Uhuh. And what exactly is 'prim' and 'proper'? Define these words in the context of modern society.

Re:A rose by any other name... (1)

Teun (17872) | more than 7 years ago | (#16442571)

To be honest, I do not think it is censorship at all. The rules are set, they are not being imposed by a third party, they are self governing rules for everyone to abide by.

This is censorship, the .ie registry is a monopoly put in place by a democratically elected government.

The Irish government does presently not outlaw pornography so where the hell do these civil servants think they do have this authority in their own little(?) corner of Irish society??

There is nothing wrong with keeping society prim, proper, polite and personable on the surface.

Oh come on, you're one hell of a superficial shit, so as long as it's done (you can do it) in dark corners you're OK!
Besides, the example given of alowing murder.ie invalidates your silly reasoning rather exquisitly...

Re:A rose by any other name... (1)

troll -1 (956834) | more than 7 years ago | (#16442623)

Respectfully disagree:

1. It is censorship. Third parties can practice censorship as much as the government.

2. Aren't domain registrars everywhere controlled by their governments? The effect being that this *is* government censorship.

3. The majority would agree? Is that wishful thinking or agumentum ad populum?

4. You assume that by allowing pornie.ie society would not be prim, proper, polite and personable. What you state is merely your opinion passed off as fact.

Public policy (2, Insightful)

valkoinen (81260) | more than 7 years ago | (#16442299)

Slavery, apartheid, imprisoning and executing unwanted people. These have all been public policy at one time or another. If we base our decisions on "public policy" instead of freedom of expression and liberty we are on the way to totalitarianism.

Americans (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16442301)

You have to love 'em.

They even look as far as Ireland to distract themselves from their own problems.

that's their job (1)

petes_PoV (912422) | more than 7 years ago | (#16442313)

should a government-chosen domain registry be allowed to enforce their own moral code on the public?"

The Irish broadcast regulator stop certain typs of programme from being aired. The advertising regulators prevent distasteful ads. from being published.

Your position is no different. They're enforcing public policy or generally accepted principles of morality. If you don't like that, well, you can appeal or run for public office and then change the rules to whatever you can persuade people to accept.

Finally, don't you think that if this domain name was registrable, someone would have got there before you? The only reason it's "available" is because others have run into the regulations before you.

Re:that's their job (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16442575)

I hate people that justify others' actions because "it's their job." Those are like words spoken from an inmate saying that he can't escape because there are bars and cages all around him. I can imagine a Nazi concentration camp guard saying that he's not responsible--hes only doing his job! As if morals are like whispers in the wind, changing like the day's fashion. As if running for office will make you the knower of all things worldly. The unmoven mover of all things that can be moved. As if that will somehow make the accepted more acceptable, or less regrettable. I can hear the rumbles of anarchy, the shackles of insecurity. The movers are spinning the web, ever more closely, ever more tightly. But the harder the whip, the deeper the scar. You will take it because it is your job.

goats.ie (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16442315)

yes, that's right people - I am laying claim to that domain name!

Murder is an immoral word (1)

bossk421 (856100) | more than 7 years ago | (#16442351)

If words weren't moral, then there would be a positive word for "murder".

Re:Murder is an immoral word (1)

cyber-vandal (148830) | more than 7 years ago | (#16442517)

There are a few terms considered positive in some circles: collateral damage, acceptable losses, patriotism, war on terror, jihad, doing God's will etc.

You miss the point ... (2, Interesting)

DJFelix (468187) | more than 7 years ago | (#16442381)

The fact of the matter is that you are purchasing a service, and as the providers of the service they are allowed to set the rules. If they wanted to set the rules such that every domain must start with the letters "ie" they could, and I don't see any reason they shouldn't. It is their service, and they should be allowed to set the terms. Period.

The truth of the matter is that if enough people didn't like it, they wouldn't sell enough domains to stay profitable, and they would be forced to change.

I'm sure this concept will be completely foreign to the socialist minions here on Slashdot, but that's how capitalism works. Your business, your terms. Government run or not, that's the way it is. If you don't like it, go buy a domain name somewhere else, and stop whining. Nobody is trying to oppress you, they just don't want their registry polluted with filth.

Re:You miss the point ... (5, Insightful)

DrFaustos25 (788264) | more than 7 years ago | (#16442493)

The countries domain is a service provided for the country; privatized or not, it's supposed to be run in the interests of the people. If enough people of Ireland feel that their countries service isn't what they want then they have every right to demand that the government improve that service, again, privatized or not. They shouldn't have to use another countries domain name when their own government is supposed to be providing their citizens with a service that the majority of them like.

Would you argue the same about other privatized services? Water? Transport? "If you don't like it, use someone else?" In a lot of countries there is no viable competitor, and in this case, if Irish people want an Irish domain (surprise!) then they have no other service to go to.

Maybe the majority of them want the restrictions, and that's their choice. But you don't get to shut down the argument over whether or not this is a good choice by simply spouting some inanity about the market deciding blah blah blah. If the citizens want their own countries domain rules to change, they should.

No, YOU miss the point ... (1)

asb (1909) | more than 7 years ago | (#16442689)

The truth of the matter is that if enough people didn't like it, they wouldn't sell enough domains to stay profitable, and they would be forced to change.

If I was a part of an ethnic, moral, sexual or religious minority and the majority of people (including the government in a democratic country) thought like you do, I would be in serious trouble. Who gives a fuck about the minorities as long as the majority votes for us?!

All this for the wrong reasons (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16442401)

I'm sure he's only pissed about this happening because he can't squat on the domain and sell it to the highest bidder. If he does fight it, it'd be nice if the reason behind it was genuine concern and not financial gain.

similar to greek dns authority (1)

arcanumas (646807) | more than 7 years ago | (#16442417)

In greece, when you register a .gr domain , although it is activated right away for you to use, it awaits approval from the EETT regulating authority. Their policy is to not approve anything that they find 'offending' or 'immoral'.

For example there was a website called bourdela.gr (bourdela is 'whorehouses' in greek) that had a directory of all whorehouses in Greece. They operated for a few months and then EETT decided it should not approve this domain and the website had to go to a com domain.

This is one of the many reasons people choose .com/.org etc domains instead of .gr domains. With .gr domains you may very well get fucked months later (after you've spent money to make people remember your domain)

btw, i am not in any way affiliated with the bourdela site. I just like to read it because i find it fun how people go into flamewars over whores.

Re:similar to greek dns authority (1)

ColaMan (37550) | more than 7 years ago | (#16442595)

With .gr domains you may very well get fucked months later (after you've spent money to make people remember your domain)

With the case of the bourdela domain that you cited, is that not its purpose?
Months later is a bit of stretch though. Unless you wrote down a few addresses in your little black book or something. :-)

.US Bans Names Too, such as FuckCensorship.US (3, Informative)

Ron Bennett (14590) | more than 7 years ago | (#16442441)

.US bans various domains too for similar reasons, such as FuckCensorship.US

For the timebeing, along with others, it's in perpetual limbo:

http://www.whois.us/whois.cgi?TLD=us&dn=fuckcensor ship.us&TYPE=DOMAIN [whois.us]

Ron

Re:.US Bans Names Too, such as FuckCensorship.US (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16442491)

Maybe you should try notocensorship.us instead..

Religious dogma and uneducatated populace (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16442453)

What does anybody expect from a rural country that lacked education? I always imagine Cletus-dweller, southern US states to be like Ireland.

I suggest registering inoffensive 2nd level TLDs and using subs and domain hacks to annoy these self righteous morons.

This is Ireland (1, Troll)

Bertie (87778) | more than 7 years ago | (#16442455)

They've come a long way in the last decade or so, but when it comes to matters of morality, Ireland's been lagging behind much of the rest of the Western world. It might call itself a republic, but in effect it was run like a Catholic theocracy till not too long ago, with the government taking its lead from the Church, and the Church doing pretty much whatever it pleased, until people started to see them for the bullies, racketeers and paedophiles they all-too-often were and they lost some of their grip on the public consciousness. They only legalised divorce in 1996, and abortion's still not on the cards unless there's a serious risk of the mother dying. The state-owned TV still carries the Angelus call to prayer at 6PM every night. So it doesn't really surprise me that this sort of stuffiness persists.

Re:This is Ireland (1)

Timesprout (579035) | more than 7 years ago | (#16442525)

It might call itself a republic, but in effect it was run like a Catholic theocracy till not too long ago, with the government taking its lead from the Church

Unlike the US where apparently George has a God hotline so he can get it from the source when he needs to decide policy.

that top-level domain belongs to that goverment (2, Insightful)

OrangeTide (124937) | more than 7 years ago | (#16442459)

"should a government-chosen domain registry be allowed to enforce their own moral code on the public?"

yes.

your right to free speech does not:
1. extend to other countries
2. usually does not extend to material unsuitable for minors, depending on the situation and audience.
(like creepy domainnames for porn site)
3. does not extend to other things, like slander, libel, false advertising, misrepresentation, etc.

mostly your right to free speech is there to criticize the government(your own government), it's not there so you can download child porn.

If you want to get upset, having a nazi.xx domain is illegal in most European countries. but as far as I know it is legal in the US. WHOIS for: nazi.com [dnsstuff.com] , nazi.org [dnsstuff.com]

I personally find domains like IHR.ORG and VHO.ORG far more offensive, they belong to Holocaust denial groups. Relastically we should ban those domains before we ban BIGJUICYSLUTS.COM (is that a real domain? I bet it is)

Re:that top-level domain belongs to that goverment (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16442567)

mostly your right to free speech is there to criticize the government(your own government), it's not there so you can download child porn.

Child abuse isn't something to be waved in the air every time you need to support an agenda. Seek professional help!

opensores.ie (1)

Timesprout (579035) | more than 7 years ago | (#16442467)

An MS funded site to warn to Irish companies of the insidious and subversive nature of Open Source Software. I'm sure no one here has a problem with that.

Re:opensores.ie (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16442643)

An MS funded site to warn to Irish companies of the insidious and subversive nature of Open Source Software. I'm sure no one here has a problem with that.

Microsoft are big investors in Ireland, the government tempt tech companies with a zero tax fiscal policy and pro software patent EU commisioners. So there would be a raft of allegations if Microsoft were behind that domain, there's no problem with the domain name itself.


 

Domain prefix?!? (2, Funny)

noidentity (188756) | more than 7 years ago | (#16442481)

The Irish domain prefix, .ie, is controlled by an organization called the IE Domain Registry

No wonder I've never come across an Irish website! I'll have to use -A flag in the future.

government must define terms (1)

GhodMode (587557) | more than 7 years ago | (#16442573)

Can a word be immoral?
Well, if you really want to pick nits, you could argue that a word cannot be any concept. It's a word... nothing more and nothing less. However, even a single word can represent an immoral concept.

... should a government-chosen domain registry be allowed to enforce their own moral code on the public.
A government should create a policy which clearly defines what is morally acceptible for it's people. How to do this is far beyond me. If individuals at the ".ie omain Registry" are coming up with their own definitions of what is acceptible, in the absence of clear policy, I would say that they are wrong. However, the blame falls on the government for creating a set of rules without a definition of terms. In the US, the principle of "separation of church and state" forces our moral baseline to be very basic... in spite of our glorious leader [toostupidt...sident.com] 's perceived religious bias [informatio...house.info] .

I am a Catholic American living in a country with an Islamic government (Malaysia). I suppose that gives me a unique perspective. I see examples of a similar problem in censorship of the media. It is common knowledge that words that are contrary to public policy or morally unacceptible will not be allowed in any media. The problem is the same: Neither the public policy, nor what the government deems morally unacceptible is clearly defined. As a result, I suppose it's left up to the people in charge of the TV/radio station, newspaper, magazine, etc... Because there are no clear rules, every offensive word makes it through occasionally. Also because of the lack of clear rules, many words that are clearly not offensive and a few that are just confusing are censored. Occasionally, the name Jesus is also censored. I suppose this is the religious bias of the person employed to censor the media.

Malaysia _claims_ to have freedom of religion. Their constitution even guarantees it, though there are some problems [worldnetdaily.com] .

For the record, I disagree with _government_ censorship in almost every form.

By the way, I've just learned that the domain "porn.us" is available... "Offer $5 000 000.00 or more and your offer will be accepted."... quite a bargain, dontcha think :)

-- Ghodmode

alternatives? (1)

m0llusk (789903) | more than 7 years ago | (#16442579)

How about porn.murder.ie?

Yes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16442657)

The registry finds rape.and.murder.ie less objectionable than porn.ie

Can we stop.beating.this.dead.hors.ie

Different languages (1)

drseuk (824707) | more than 7 years ago | (#16442583)

A word perceived by some to be rude or offensive in one language may be entirely innocuous in another language. For example sex.ie might be registered by a Swede living in Ireland ("sex" is the Swedish word for "six"). Similarly, a Swedish word for a Sami tent also means "horny", "Fart" means fast in many germanic languages etc. The authorities / state should have no place in censoring like this. Think I'll register nook.ie for my site about the nooks and crannies of censorship policy ;-)

Ahhh .. the good old days ... (0, Offtopic)

johndubh (1005977) | more than 7 years ago | (#16442601)

Back in the good old days when the leprachauns were running the Irish Domain Registry we still could'nt use those immoral words for fear of not getting our share of the pot of gold. But the leprachauns have abandoned the Irish Domain Registry and are now the elected Government of Ireland. They are still buying our happiness with pots and pots of gold. Sure why would you be wanting to use those immoral words anyway?

Nope (1)

LuciferosX (987569) | more than 7 years ago | (#16442675)

No government or government-chosen anything should have a place to decide what is moral or immoral in society or web domains, books, etc. Freedom of speech, freedom of government interference and all that. Unless you're creating a website devoted to planned killing of someone/group of people they should have no power to dictate. Because morality, really, only comes down to opinion anyway. One person's morals might clash with another's (religions). So how do you decide who is right? You can't because everyone's "right."
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...