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!

New Vote on .xxx Internet Address Nears

Zonk posted more than 7 years ago | from the we'll-just-put-you-over-here-then dept.

The Internet 214

Billosaur writes "ICANN is once more set to vote on the creation of the .xxx Internet address. Though the proposal has been voted down by ICANN's board twice before the group behind those previous proposals resubmitted after they 'agreed to hire independent organizations to monitor porn sites' compliance with the new rules, which would be developed by a separate body called the International Foundation for Online Responsibility.' Once more the proposal has led to pornographers and religious groups finding themselves on the same side of an issue, the porn industry worried that the domain would lead to government controls, the religious groups worried it would make access too easy and allow porn to expand even further onto the Internet."

cancel ×

214 comments

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

Why not? (5, Insightful)

ArcherB (796902) | more than 7 years ago | (#18465819)

I fail to understand why we DON'T have .xxx domain names. If we did, we could lump all the porn sites together, making them both easier to find and easier to block. No one would accidentally stumble upon a porn site while looking for something completely unrelated (remember whitehouse.com?). This also gives the added advantage of freeing up porn sites to do more of whatever it is they wish to do. Gone is the excuse of "What about the children?" because blocking it would be so easy, than even an ISP could do it. Imagine, all you have to do is call your ISP and say, "Please block all html-based porn. Thank you." All your ISP would need to do is simply block all .xxx domain names. Your children are safe and porn operators have that much more freedom!

I don't understand how this is NOT a win-win for everyone! (Except for those that either want to block porn altogether and those that want to make it that much easier to "stumble on." F*ck both those groups!)

I'll tell you why not. (4, Insightful)

uberjoe (726765) | more than 7 years ago | (#18465869)

The problem is that there is no way to define what IS and IS NOT porn.

Re:I'll tell you why not. (1)

ArcherB (796902) | more than 7 years ago | (#18466015)

The problem is that there is no way to define what IS and IS NOT porn.

I think it's a bit easier than "I'll know it when I see it."

How about "if it shows nudity for non-educational purposes." If there's any doubt, you could set up a board or something to decide disputes. It's really not that hard to figure out. (pun not intended!) Ron Jeremy movies were not rated G for a reason.

Re:I'll tell you why not. (3, Insightful)

mrchaotica (681592) | more than 7 years ago | (#18466081)

How about "if it shows nudity for non-educational purposes."

Is a family photo album site, which happens to contain pictures of a kid taking a bath, "educational?" Is artistic photography "educational?" I'd say "no" and "no." But neither of them are "porn," either!

Re:I'll tell you why not. (2, Interesting)

ArcherB (796902) | more than 7 years ago | (#18466347)

Is a family photo album site, which happens to contain pictures of a kid taking a bath, "educational?" Is artistic photography "educational?" I'd say "no" and "no." But neither of them are "porn," either!

Current laws define what porn is and yeah, it's subjective. Photo processing labs all over the country deal with this every day. Sometimes people get stupid and call the cops over a baby in the bathtub picture. Sometimes, people get stupid and take a picture of their child in the bathtub when the "child" is 12! So yeah, some of these are going to have to be handled on a case-by-case basis. And yes, those deciding will have to use common sense because it is subjective. Then again, so are murder laws and many other laws on the books. Are you suggesting that we throw out all laws that are not pure black and white? A baby in a bathtub is not porn. It lacks class in my opinion, but I wouldn't call it porn. Sites like Crush-photo, Met-Art, and even Playboy are done artistically, but I think they easily qualify as porn. I don't think you would find too many that would argue with that and deciding what is porn and what is not is not really that hard to do.

Re:I'll tell you why not. (4, Insightful)

Cid Highwind (9258) | more than 7 years ago | (#18466927)

Classifying any given email message as "spam" and "not spam" is fairly easy to do, too. Somehow I don't think that ICANN requiring all spam to be sent from mail servers in some newly-created .spam TLD would change anything at all to the stream of mortgage offers, penis pill ads, and stock scams that fill my inbox every day. My advice to the anti-porn crusaders^W^W .xxx TLD advocates: Have fun playing whack-a-mole with porn sites operated through the same type of tangled web of international ownership and hosting as spam and phishing sites. A decade of fighting with spammers teaches us that forcing a business that operates on the fringes of legality to comply with onerous new policies is very hard.

Re:I'll tell you why not. (0, Redundant)

jhfry (829244) | more than 7 years ago | (#18466385)

Simply require sites that are in the business of "sexual entertainment". Sure some porn sites would argue that they are educational, but I think that most would agree that it's pretty easy to determine motive.

Sites that use pornographic ads, must simply host those ads on a .xxx domain, so that they can be easily blocked from loading.

This is not a true fix, there are always loopholes, however it provides a way for a legit porn site to operate their business without fear of upsetting a group of wackos that complain about stumbling into pornadoes (love that word). If the sites are on .xxx the group can't accidentally stumble into them. Especially because browsers could easily block them.

Re:I'll tell you why not. (3, Insightful)

mdwh2 (535323) | more than 7 years ago | (#18466259)

How about "if it shows nudity for non-educational purposes."

What about non-nude pictures which have still been intended for sexual arousal? This is especially the case with less-vanilla stuff like BDSM material. And whilst you and I might count that as erotica rather than pornography, bear in mind that many people and Governments do not (e.g., the UK Government's definition of pornography in their plans to criminalise possession of simulated and consensual "extreme porn" [backlash-uk.org.uk] is any image which was produced for the purposes of arousal, whether or not it shows nudity or sex).

On the other hand, there could be nude pictures which aren't porn, but aren't educational either. I mean, would a topless woman count? Breastfeeding? What about nudists?

Another problem, even if we have a fixed definition of porn, is that it's not easily to split everything up into different websites. For example, what if someone wants to post an erotic picture on their LiveJournal? Suddenly we'd have to have LiveJournal.xxx, and split it across two domains.

Personally I think rather than trying to split off "porn", it would be better to split off a "for kiddies [and anyone offended by stuff they don't have to look at] only" domain, leaving an "adult" Internet for the rest of us.

Re:I'll tell you why not. (1)

ArcherB (796902) | more than 7 years ago | (#18466609)

What about non-nude pictures which have still been intended for sexual arousal? This is especially the case with less-vanilla stuff like BDSM material. And whilst you and I might count that as erotica rather than pornography, bear in mind that many people and Governments do not (e.g., the UK Government's definition of pornography in their plans to criminalise possession of simulated and consensual "extreme porn" is any image which was produced for the purposes of arousal, whether or not it shows nudity or sex).
Tough call, but there are porn laws on the books now. I don't see why ICANN just adopt some of the currently existing laws and use those. I get your point but I think something like foot-fetish sites would serve as a better example. It will be subjective, no doubt, but it is certainly doable.

On the other hand, there could be nude pictures which aren't porn, but aren't educational either. I mean, would a topless woman count? Breastfeeding? What about nudists?
Yes, probably no and yes.

Another problem, even if we have a fixed definition of porn, is that it's not easily to split everything up into different websites. For example, what if someone wants to post an erotic picture on their LiveJournal? Suddenly we'd have to have LiveJournal.xxx, and split it across two domains.
What about national geographic, Victoria's Secret or Sears & Roebuck's bra and panty section? I agree, it's subjective and some will be handled on a case-by-case basis.

Personally I think rather than trying to split off "porn", it would be better to split off a "for kiddies [and anyone offended by stuff they don't have to look at] only" domain, leaving an "adult" Internet for the rest of us.
Good point, but that's like doing away with traffic laws altogether except for "old people driving" lanes that are padded surrounded by blockades and have a speed-limit of 20!

Re:I'll tell you why not. (2, Interesting)

daeg (828071) | more than 7 years ago | (#18466433)

There's no reason for a .xxx TLD. If you are worried about your kids seeing porn, maybe you should examine your parenting, or why your children have unsupervised access to computers to begin with, or perhaps, you should learn to trust and let go. If you can't trust them, examine why.

Do not thrust your desire for someone else to do your baby sitting and force the creation of even more bureaucracy around the domain system, that, by definition, cannot work. Porn is on the Internet, you cannot regulate it away, no matter how hard you try.

Re:I'll tell you why not. (2, Interesting)

Arcane_Rhino (769339) | more than 7 years ago | (#18466751)

Actually, I think this is one of the few areas where capitalism really could resolve the matter since websites have turned into something of a commodity.

If a someone wants to make money from porn, their site should be .xxx. So, to use an example from later in this post, if a website called "grape" is a site that depicts naked women doing odd things with grapes, it should be grape.xxx. If "grape" is about the Napa valley it should be grape.com.

Here is how the capitalism/self policing works out: if the Napa valley people want the site grape.com but grape.com is full of naked women doing odd things with grapes, they take their case to ICANN and sue for the site name demonstrating that it is a porn site and therefore should have the .xxx domain not the .com domain. Similarly, if farmer Joe discovers that people with foot fetishes drink a lot of wine so buys grape.xxx, but all it really depicts is a bunch of naked feet in grapes, the site that has the kinky grape women can also come and point out that naked feet are not pornography in any country where the internet is not already banned and sue to get grape.xxx for themselves. Other than arbitrating, the government does not have to directly police anything. The market will dictate and force the appropriate domains.

Initially it will be all hell as everything gets sorted out but I do think it would work out rather quickly, and, more importantly, not result in any nonsensical Governmental control attempts.

Re:I'll tell you why not. (2, Insightful)

mdwh2 (535323) | more than 7 years ago | (#18466915)

Here is how the capitalism/self policing works out: if the Napa valley people want the site grape.com but grape.com is full of naked women doing odd things with grapes, they take their case to ICANN and sue for the site name demonstrating that it is a porn site and therefore should have the .xxx domain not the .com domain. Similarly, if farmer Joe discovers that people with foot fetishes drink a lot of wine so buys grape.xxx, but all it really depicts is a bunch of naked feet in grapes, the site that has the kinky grape women can also come and point out that naked feet are not pornography in any country where the internet is not already banned and sue to get grape.xxx for themselves. Other than arbitrating, the government does not have to directly police anything. The market will dictate and force the appropriate domains.

I'm not sure how a single organisation making the decisions, or people suing, has anything to do with capitalism and the market?

Leaving it to the market would mean giving to the one who pays the most, and then allowing them to trade.

Re:I'll tell you why not. (1)

bobcat7677 (561727) | more than 7 years ago | (#18466025)

Thats why standards were invented. There will of course have to be some sort of rules created to define what constitutes porn. Hopefully standards that are very rigid and simple to cut down on the bickering. No "full nudity is ok if it somehow falls in the domain of "art". As much as I see an arguement for that, it's too easy to just call it all "art" and then the whole thing is useless. Nay, it has to be very simple...like "if the nipple or any identifyable portion thereof is shown in any form and any context, then it needs to go .xxx". Sure lots of people will complain about that...but that is the only way it can be clear, workable and enforacable.

Re:I'll tell you why not. (2)

QuantumRiff (120817) | more than 7 years ago | (#18466089)

So, for sake of argument, lets say I setup a site with Girls in business suits but no shoes stomping on grapes. That is the subject of the entire site. Its just barefoot ladies, so it shouldn't be porn, right? What if its setup and marketed as a "fetish" site, does that make it porn? What if I also own a winery, and want to use the same site full of pictures for my .com, and .xxx, would this be allowed?

Re:I'll tell you why not. (1)

Joe U (443617) | more than 7 years ago | (#18466413)

like "if the nipple or any identifyable portion thereof is shown in any form and any context, then it needs to go .xxx".

Great, your task is to explain that rule to http://www.lalecheleague.org/ [lalecheleague.org] .

Re:I'll tell you why not. (1, Troll)

fyngyrz (762201) | more than 7 years ago | (#18466687)

Yeah, and the men's swimming sites as well. Nipples a-plenty. And sites that show animals suckling. Oh, and baby bottles. Yessir, nipples are bad! I never look at nipples, because I'm an honorable, upright citizen. Well, gotta go now, look at something healthy, like extremeviolence.com or shootinganimalsforheadtrophies.com, um-hmm. I can go with a clear concience, because I know it is a good thing that nasty, nasty SEX stuff will be in its own ghetto now! Man, that stuff is nasty. Did you know if you do it wrong, you can make a KID? Holy shit, you'll end up cleaning diapers, sending the little fucker to college, paying it a visit when it gets arrested for smoking pot. Phew. Sure am glad we're making a ghetto for sexuality, yes I am. Uh-huh. NASTY!

Now. Where's my gun?

Re:I'll tell you why not. (1)

heinousjay (683506) | more than 7 years ago | (#18467285)

Hyperbole serves no master

Re:Why not? (1)

spyrral (162842) | more than 7 years ago | (#18465943)

So who decides what goes in the .xxx domain? Who decides what is porn?

Re:Why not? (4, Insightful)

fyngyrz (762201) | more than 7 years ago | (#18466621)

So who decides what goes in the .xxx domain?

<SARCASM>

.xxx is for offensive material. Filth. Vice. You know, like Christian and Islamic websites. Surely we need to protect the children from this. They might grow up to be suicide bombers or abortion clinic bombers; get on television and lie to old people in a blatant attempt to extort money from them in return for "prayer." Or they might build on land in your town, claim they don't have to pay taxes, and saddle you and your neighbors with the portion of the tax burden they should be paying. Or they might encourage censorship, even online "ghettos" where material that doesn't fit into their ridiculous mythologies goes to be blocked by ISPs they control through PACs and other unsavory influences.

Yes, I think we need to move all religious content to a tld such as ".xxx" or ".lie" or ".myth" so we can easily block it. As for sex, no need for that. My kids know sex is perfectly OK, and lying about superstition is not — they're smart kids. No need to lean back towards the dark ages. I was happy for them when they had their first sexual experiences. I'm just as happy they've managed to avoid being conned by these superstitious dimwits, but you know, not all kids are as smart as mine. That is why we have to put religion in its own tld. It must be blocked because I don't like it!

</SARCASM>

Re:Why not? (1)

Khaed (544779) | more than 7 years ago | (#18465953)

Because -- who decides what constitutes porn?

What guarantees porn sites will move? Some of their .com, .net, .org addresses are well known. Why should they have to move?

In a perfect world, I'd agree. But as it stands, it just seems like it would cause a lot of fuss, and then we're just going to get a bunch of assholes arguing about what is and isn't pornographical. And trust me -- those people that would be making the decisions are going to be a bunch of assholes.

And people should start ignoring the "What about the children" people anyway, because almost all the time they're suggesting some nanny-state BS to quash someone else's freedom.

There's also the possibility that in areas without many ISP choices (think rural or countries with bitchy governments) the ISPs will be pushed into blocking all .xxx domains for every customer. This kind of thing is very possible.

Re:Why not? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18466361)

who decides what constitutes porn?

Who decides now?

What guarantees porn sites will move?

The Law.

we're just going to get a bunch of assholes arguing about what is and isn't pornographical.

You mean, it'll be the same as it is now?

Re:Why not? (1)

Khaed (544779) | more than 7 years ago | (#18466409)

What guarantees porn sites will move?

The Law.


What law? American Law? European? Chinese? The United Nations?

Re:Why not? (5, Insightful)

solafide (845228) | more than 7 years ago | (#18465961)

Because nobody will want only a .xxx domain. Let's say you're [pornsitehere].com and the xxx tld gets approved. You can't let [pornsitehere].xxx get snapped up by someone else and feed off the people expecting [pornsitehere].xxx to be the same as [pornsitehere].com. Thus the porn sites will now have 2 addresses: [pornsitehere].com and [pornsitehere].xxx.

Meanwhile the legitimate high-profile .com sites will also need a .xxx site: there will be misspellings, and imagine the bad rap that, say, Microsoft would get from microsoft.xxx being a porn site. So the legitimate .com site owners will have to buy up the .xxx domains too.

So now we have everyone buying a new .xxx domain name which points to their original site and keeping their own .com site. No porn site will move to being only .xxx because everyone is used to .coms, and no legitimate business will risk a domain-squatter in the .xxx domain. It's no easier to block porn as before, nor easier to find it. All this does is give the domain registrars more money and the DNS servers more headaches.

The only possible way of moving all porn to .xxx sites is by legislating it, and it's impossible to have a legislative solution that works, because people's definitions of porn vary. So porn will always be a presence on the internet, and you are still responsible for your own filtering.

Re:Why not? (1)

mackil (668039) | more than 7 years ago | (#18466297)

Actually a legitimate company wouldn't have to purchase the .xxx domain as long as they have the trademark. All they have to do is sue.

Not true unless it's unique (2, Informative)

davidwr (791652) | more than 7 years ago | (#18466363)

Invented-word trademarks are probably safe from alternate-tld cybersquatting, but a regular trademark is not, unless you can prove it's a sham.

If I run McDonald's Lawn Care Service, I can get any available McDonalds.* domain and the hamburger company can't do a thing about it except bribe me.

Now if you can show I started the lawn care company just so I can grab available McDonalds.* domain-names, then you may have a case.

Re:Why not? (1)

fredklein (532096) | more than 7 years ago | (#18466521)

Thus the porn sites will now have 2 addresses: [pornsitehere].com and [pornsitehere].xxx.

And the .com will redirect to .xxx. At which point it would be blocked by those who block .xxx sites.

What's the problem?

the bad rap that, say, Microsoft would get from microsoft.xxx being a porn site.

Image the lawsuit for using their name without their permission.

Re:Why not? (3, Funny)

powerpants (1030280) | more than 7 years ago | (#18466981)

I never realized until now that the name "Microsoft" is so very anti-sexy. That assumes, of course, that "Hugehard" is sexy. I think I got e-mail a while back saying something to that effect.

Re:Why not? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18467393)

I hope posting AC doesn't invalidate the mod I just did on my post.

I would just like to congratulate you... This has got to be one of the most insightful and intelligent posts I've seen on /. in a long time, if ever.

+1 Insightful.

Re:Why not? (1)

stratjakt (596332) | more than 7 years ago | (#18465971)

You cant force objectionable material onto a certain domain, because when it comes to define what porn is, nobody seems to know.

You could make it optional, it'd then serve as nothing more than a sort of marketing gimmick for porn sites. I don't see what the problem is there.

Re:Why not? (4, Insightful)

eln (21727) | more than 7 years ago | (#18465987)

You're trying to segregate objectionable content so you can block it. This just can't work, because everyone's definition of "objectionable" is different. If we decide to do this to porn, what's next? A special TLD for violent content? Or maybe politically objectionable/inconvenient content?

The only possibly sane way to do this would be to have something like a .kids TLD, and then have kid-friendly sites voluntarily join it. Then you could make a "kid-friendly" browser by allowing access only to stuff in the .kids TLD. Of course, that would mean someone would have to constantly monitor sites on that TLD to make sure no objectionable content shows up. So, that's not really a perfect solution either.

The bottom line is really that you're trying to mandate a subjective standard through technology, and that sort of thing just doesn't work. You can get rid of the obvious stuff with existing filtering technology, but at the end of the day you still have to actually watch your kids if you want to make sure they stay away from stuff you find objectionable.

Re:Why not? (4, Insightful)

Penguinisto (415985) | more than 7 years ago | (#18466009)

"I know it when I see it"
-US Supreme Court Justice Frankfurter, defining obscenity (IIRC)

Therein lies the problem - what's porn? Nekkid chicks? Nope - half the Smithsonian's art collection would qualify. Is it nekkid people doing the nasty? Umm, nope - plenty of porn sites specialize in costumes and full rubber body suits. Sexual depiction? Well, there goes every health site which does 2d and 3d clinical cut-away renderings showing how human reproduction occurs.

Also - let's look at a state like Utah... the place is hella restrictive on what it considers "porn"; I could see the Utah state legislature mandating that ALL ISP's who do business there block the entire .xxx TLD from its citizenry. Adults, kids, whomever... everybody looking for pr0n gets the firewall in the land of Deseret. I suspect that more than a few counties and towns/cities/etc in the Southern US would happily pass similar laws (see also alcohol and "Wet Counties" vs. "Dry Counties") Care to be a multi-state or multi-national ISP having to add that selective and patchwork firewall burden to your list of things to do?

Just looks to be more trouble than it's worth on a macro scale, IMHO.

/P

Re:Why not? (1)

ArcherB (796902) | more than 7 years ago | (#18466223)

Therein lies the problem - what's porn? Nekkid chicks? Nope - half the Smithsonian's art collection would qualify. Is it nekkid people doing the nasty? Umm, nope - plenty of porn sites specialize in costumes and full rubber body suits. Sexual depiction? Well, there goes every health site which does 2d and 3d clinical cut-away renderings showing how human reproduction occurs.

Difficult to define or enforce should not be a reason to avoid a law. What constitutes murder vs. manslaughter vs self defense? What is the difference between libel and parody? Should we ban all laws where the crime is not plainly defined? As for porn, it could be as simple as nudity for non-educational purposes. This would exclude "art", anatomy or whatever else people are afraid of being banned. Telling the difference between porn and art is not really that difficult but may be difficult to define. Phil-flash.com [phil-flash.com] is porn as far as I can tell, but there is no nudity there. That site may get the slip and stay with its .com name. So yeah, there is a gray area, but that can be worked out without too much grief.

Also - let's look at a state like Utah... the place is hella restrictive on what it considers "porn"; I could see the Utah state legislature mandating that ALL ISP's who do business there block the entire .xxx TLD from its citizenry. Adults, kids, whomever... everybody looking for pr0n gets the firewall in the land of Deseret. I suspect that more than a few counties and towns/cities/etc in the Southern US would happily pass similar laws (see also alcohol and "Wet Counties" vs. "Dry Counties") Care to be a multi-state or multi-national ISP having to add that selective and patchwork firewall burden to your list of things to do?

If that's what the good citizens of Utah want, then that is what they should be allowed to have. (This is why I don't live in Utah, btw!) As for the national ISP's that do business in Utah, I'm sure they have DNS servers set up locally in Utah. If not, it really isn't that big of deal to set them up. Otherwise, don't do business in Utah. What's the problem here? Hell, it would actually make it easier to do business in Utah as it would be easier to block the content that the legislature requires.

Just looks to be more trouble than it's worth on a macro scale, IMHO.
I agree that it is not perfect and there will be some valid complaints. Personally, I like my porn and I'm tired of people saying it's harmful to children and trying to restrict or eliminate it using that argument. Take away that argument and you take away the primary excuse for restrictions. It won't be easy, but it will be worth it!

Re:Why not? (1)

mdwh2 (535323) | more than 7 years ago | (#18466353)

Difficult to define or enforce should not be a reason to avoid a law. What constitutes murder vs. manslaughter vs self defense? What is the difference between libel and parody?

Yes but going through a criminal trial to assess every website is not practical.

And it's not clear how to handle the Internet being international - I suppose servers are still in one country, but it becomes difficult if every country has different requirements.

Personally, I like my porn and I'm tired of people saying it's harmful to children and trying to restrict or eliminate it using that argument. Take away that argument and you take away the primary excuse for restrictions. It won't be easy, but it will be worth it!

Well yes I agree with you here, but I'm tempted to go for a more broader "for adults / no children", so it doesn't have the same connotations of being just porn.

Re:Why not? (1)

ArcherB (796902) | more than 7 years ago | (#18466537)

Yes but going through a criminal trial to assess every website is not practical.

And it's not clear how to handle the Internet being international - I suppose servers are still in one country, but it becomes difficult if every country has different requirements.


Actually, wouldn't ICANN (or whoever is in charge of domain names) handle this? I don't see why you need to get the courts involved unless Phil Flash wants his stuff declared as art as opposed to porn and sues to keep his .com name since there's really no actual nudity on his site (as far as I know anyway. I don't pay for porn...especially when it may not even be porn!). I think he'd have a good case.

Well yes I agree with you here, but I'm tempted to go for a more broader "for adults / no children", so it doesn't have the same connotations of being just porn.

I agree that would be much better. If we could just have porn admins use proper tagging, this wouldn't be a problem. Unfortunately, there is absolutely no way that this could be enforced. I would certainly agree to a .adult tag as opposed to a .xxx one, but I don't see how this would not expand the debate we're currently seeing .xxx!

Re:Why not? (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 7 years ago | (#18466439)

"Should we ban all laws where the crime is not plainly defined? "
yes.

"As for porn, it could be as simple as nudity for non-educational purposes. "

no igt doesn't. SOme people might get off an a statue of David. Now it's porn? some people might just enjoy lokoing at it without any 'educational' value. Now it's porn?

So a picture of a women on a topless beach is now porn?
I culd go on and on with examples that wuold cause this to fail.

"If that's what the good citizens of Utah want, then that is what they should be allowed to have."

That would be nice, except the church does what it wants, citizens be damned.

?"I like my porn and I'm tired of people saying it's harmful to children "

early exposure to view sexual acts at too young an age does cause problems. It is well known, many studies have been done. No we shouldn't ban it, but lets be hionest here, m'kay?

Of course, how to you enforce this rule? If there was a practicle way to enforce this rule, then there would be a practicle way to block porn now. That is how the internet was intended and designed.

The internet is not a bunch of computer hooked to some grand central ISP.

There is no practicle solution. IF thre were a solution that allowed individual house holds to easily block porn, that would be great, but there isn't. So people are going to ned to wise up and relize two things:

1) Take steps to control your computer. There won't ba a one solution solves everything answer

2) RElize that your going to see some skin once and a while, deall with it.

Personally, I hope the internet helps the world get to a place where people aren't all nuts about about some boobies.

Re:Why not? (3, Insightful)

Penguinisto (415985) | more than 7 years ago | (#18466467)

"What constitutes murder vs. manslaughter vs self defense?"

Intent, as proven or disproven before a jury at trial. If the prosecutor screws up and mis-names it, he loses.

"What is the difference between libel and parody?"

Intent, as proven or disproven in civil tort at a lawsuit.

Notice the similarities? The examples you posted as per law require either a trial or lawsuit to hammer out. You, umm, really want to have that happen on a case-by-case basis with (at level best) tens of thousands out of a porn-site ownership pool numbering in the millions, if not tens of millions?

Notice the differences? The examples you posted involve action against individuals or highly definable entities for the most part (you sue a single entity for libel, you try a single person or at most a small group of persons for murder vs. manslaughter).

"As for porn, it could be as simple as nudity for non-educational purposes."

I have a coffee table book at home, called "Fille d' Joie: A History" (IIRC - I'd have to check @ home for the exact title). It contains a rich collection of stories, illustrations, photographs, personal accounts, insights, artifact images, and historical data - from prostitutes, madames, pimps, and historians throughout time. Many of the images in there are rather graphic, and there are probably more than a few sites who would dearly love to make money from displaying most of it - sites which feature pornography from a time when most folks' grandfathers probably spanked their collective monkey to 'em.

I bought it at the local bookstore, where it sat plain as day, for anyone with the funds and the means to carry it to the checkout stand. As a book, it's apparently just fine for sale in the Historical section where I found it. Online, it would likely get slapped with an ".xxx" TLD. It is after all educational, if one actually reads it. OTOH, anyone dying to get their jollies can prolly just flip through the pictures.

"Otherwise, don't do business in Utah. What's the problem here?"

So everyone there will automatically have the means to simply pack up and leave, right? (FWIW, I'd moved out of there a period of time ago). It's very similar to the anti-smoking laws that are soon to hit the state... easy enough to say "well if you want to smoke in a bar, do it in Nevada, or Wyoming, or just move elsewhere..." but for folks not able to simply do so, that's an awful big burden to place on them. I realize that we're just talking ab't pr0n here, but what happens when the subject gets more serious (e.g. anti-smoking laws getting too intrusive, etc)?

Sure, big ISP's will have local DNS servers in place (but not necessarily per-state). Now they would have to have one per state, or per county or town (in the case of selective county or municipality laws to such an effect, etc)... Do we get to the point where every single IP address user has it's own personal DNS server, and has to to correspond to a physical area just to comply? If so, we'll have to stock up on IPv6, 'cause IPv4 numbers will start getting tight much sooner than anticipated.

I'm just weighing the benefits vs. burdens, and apparently the burdens win out by a large margin IMHO.

/P

Re:Why not? (2, Insightful)

rrohbeck (944847) | more than 7 years ago | (#18466329)

> I could see the Utah state legislature mandating that ALL ISP's who do business there block the entire .xxx TLD from its citizenry.

Now what I'm wondering is how Utah is going to force all pr0n sites to change their domain name (and give up their old DNS name.) Especially the many sites outside the US. And let alone the many sites that have tame and XXX sections, and much in between. Like blogs, pic sites etc.

Just making pr0n sites register a .xxx DNS name is going to change nothing at all. Making pr0n content (whatever that may be) in non-xxx domains illegal, that's what it's all about.

Re:Why not? (5, Insightful)

vivaoporto (1064484) | more than 7 years ago | (#18466083)

If we did, we could lump all the porn sites together, making them both easier to find and easier to block.

1) Will it be voluntary or mandatory? If it is voluntary, it will not work on principle, because every porn operator out there knows that the so called "blocks" will not be implemented only for children, but for everyone that is under anti-porn zealots internet jurisdiction, even who wouldn't mind to access this kind of content. Just see what happens now, the whole bias the media already has (both ways, liberal and conservative). Imagine it being imposed ISP level too, if you have no choice of ISP and the owner is against porn, he can simply impose his view. Now, if it is mandatory, it could work, but ...

2) How will you define porn? Is it sensual posing? Partial nudity? Full frontal nudity? Simulated sexual intercourse (softcore)? Pixelated sexual intercourse? Uncensored sexual intercourse? Is it only for pictures? Movies? Radio podcasts? Will it include foreign porn? Are written stories going to be censored? If so, only the online version or the good old printed book too? How will the foreign ones be translated? And, the most important question: Who will define porn? Who will catalog every internet content and create the blacklist and the whitelist? Who decides what is an acceptable expression of art and what is filthy debauchery?

People have to understand that you cannot both regulate artistic expressions (whatever kind it is) and have free speech at the same time. The judge that stroke down the COPA [slashdot.org] understood that you cannot deprive the whole society of its liberties in order to protect the children, specially because they will grow and become adults someday, and they will be entitled to those freedoms too, unless we take it away from them. If you are concerned about your children browsing habits, there are already software available out there [wikipedia.org] . There is no reason to legislate everybody to suit to your personal needs.

Re:Why not? (2, Insightful)

Un pobre guey (593801) | more than 7 years ago | (#18466479)

You are making a classic mistake, the rational analysis of the benefits and liabilities to average citizens of a fundamentally political question, as well as the practicalities of actually making it work. This has nothing to do with whether this or that is better for society or for children, or whether pornographers will benefit or lose from it (porn will continue its current dynamics regardless), or who will decide what is porn and what is not (good luck to the poor bastards). It is a pure distillation of political bullshit, an equation which has more to do with maintaining the flow of political contributions and winning future elections than anything else. If you apply your rational analysis to that, you will get somewhere.

I suspect ICANN will once again nip it in the bud because politicians will merely shout hysterically and lecture piously and pass the hot potato on to someone else. ICANN does not even want to start figuring out the things you mention, and it is unclear who would. Therefore, bam! goes the gavel again: rejected!

Re:Why not? (1)

FritzTheCat1030 (758024) | more than 7 years ago | (#18466999)

I suspect ICANN will once again nip it in the bud because politicians will merely shout hysterically and lecture piously and pass the hot potato on to someone else. ICANN does not even want to start figuring out the things you mention, and it is unclear who would. Therefore, bam! goes the gavel again: rejected!
And the domain registrars, who are the ones pushing this because it would be a big cash cow for them, will just submit it again.

It will get rejected again, and they'll submit it again.

And again.
And again.
And again.
And again.
And again.
And again.
And again.
And again.
And again.
And again.

They only have to manage to get it approved ONCE and, sooner or later, they will.

Re:Why not? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18466091)

Do we also have the right to *force* other types of speech into specific domains? Should political speech also be listed under .politics domains so people don't have to be offended by political speech they don't like? Should sites with too many cuss words be forced into .obscene domains?

This is a slippery slope. Once we start forcing one type of speech into a place where it can easily be filtered we then allow all types to fall into that mold. And who decides what is porn or what is art? Who decides what is obscene or not? Hopefully not ICANN or some other bureaucracy. I don't feel that I have the right to tell someone else what they can or can not look at or read nor do I feel that I have the right to classify certain types of speech so that they can be more easily filtered. I do not comprehend why others feel the opposite.

Re:Why not? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18466155)

I run porn sites and mandatory .xxx would put me out of business. I own about one hundred domains but I'm relatively small tomatoes in the adult industry (most of those sites have a small amount of traffic and I bring in under $5k / month gross - just enough to feed myself and my family). All of my domains cost $10 / year. So it's safe to say I spend around $1,000 on domains / year. If I were forced to switch to .xxx not only would it be next to impossible for me to register the equivalent domain for every single .com and .net that I own (because of the competition), but even if I could get all of them switched to .xxx it would raise my costs to $6,000 / year because the .xxx will cost around $60 / year. That's 12% of my gross revenue.

This is forced censorship. Not choice. It would put a lot of people like me out of business (assuming we are REQUIRED to switch to .xxx).

 

Re:Why not? (1)

vakuona (788200) | more than 7 years ago | (#18466897)

Capitalism does not guarantee anyone's right to make a profit.

There are way that could be examined to transfer domains without people incurring the expenses. This is a red herring. If I was a parent, I would like a way to regulate what my young kids come across online until they are old enough to make understand some of these things. I don't know why .xxx is so difficult. It could actually make it easier to target the market for pr0n, and make it easier for those who want to block it as well.

This can be win win.

hard and soft segregation (1)

davidwr (791652) | more than 7 years ago | (#18466305)

Most domains are segregated voluntarily or for reasons other than content. Involuntary segregation based on content is a very sticky wicket.

There are some things that are clearly porn, some things that clearly aren't, and some things that are in that big grey area [cnn.com] .

If this goes through, will Sports Illustrated have to move its swimsuit issue to www.sportsillustrated.cnn.xxx just because some small town with sex-nazis for a city council takes them to court over it? Probably not, but they'll still have to show up in court to defend themselves. Replicate this for every soft-porn/maybe-porn/Daisy-Duke web site.

Re:Why not? (1)

Tim C (15259) | more than 7 years ago | (#18466507)

I fail to understand why we DON'T have .xxx domain names. If we did, we could lump all the porn sites together, making them both easier to find and easier to block.

All of them? Even the ones that aren't hosted in the US and don't use one of the international tlds? In short, what makes you think that anyone in any country other than the US is going to take a blind bit of notice of the .xxx domain?

The way I see it, it's a large amount of effort for little or no real benefit; the only ones who would benefit would be the registrars and the companies set up to monitor it all.

Re:Who decides (1)

Dipdngold (862915) | more than 7 years ago | (#18467063)

What if you have 3 domain names that have adult content?
example.com
example.net
example.org
Who decides the the allocations of the .xxx domain? Yes people may run out and buy a .xxx domain, but they aren't going to willingly give up their old and established domains.

Re:Why not? (1)

neonmonk (467567) | more than 7 years ago | (#18467107)

Why not have .POL for political sites too!? So that countries could block that as well. This is basically sneaky censorship with a typical 'thinkofthechildren' twist to it. Once these people get their way and start segmenting the internet into little chunks of what they think is right and wrong is when the internet will stop being such a bastion for free speech.

IFOR? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18465829)

Isn't that just leading to IFORNICATE?

This is Slashdot (1)

davidwr (791652) | more than 7 years ago | (#18466401)

Gotta have a girlfriend first.

Slashdot lie detector:

Ask a Slashdotter if he's ever had a girlfriend.

they're not that different. (5, Funny)

User 956 (568564) | more than 7 years ago | (#18465849)

Once more the proposal has led to pornographers and religious groups finding themselves on the same side of an issue

Yeah, they both use the phrase "oh god, oh god" on a daily basis.

Re:they're not that different. (2, Funny)

geekoid (135745) | more than 7 years ago | (#18466567)

As well as get down on their knees.

The similarities end there. After that religeon gets gross.

It would make it easy.. (3, Funny)

Cstryon (793006) | more than 7 years ago | (#18465863)

To avoid porn. I hate going to a .com and getting porn, all the time. A simple google search for Virginia will get you porn, all you have to do is make a typo. But with a .xxx it will make it easier to know which links NOT to click on.

Re:It would make it easy.. (1)

Penguinisto (415985) | more than 7 years ago | (#18466041)

But with a .xxx it will make it easier to know which links NOT to click on.

...so would checking the summary blurbs on Google's results for phrases like "the home of hot wet teen girl-on-girl action!", one would suppose...

/P

Yeah, right (0)

mrchaotica (681592) | more than 7 years ago | (#18466147)

It would make it easy to avoid porn.

Uh huh, I can totally see every porn site on the Internet, including those operating overseas, giving up their .com domain names. And the bureaucracy needed to enforce that kind of thing wouldn't be the least bit burdensome, no sirree! And violating civil rights? How positively ludicrous to think that might have a chance of happening!

Yep, blocking porn from .com (and all the associated baggage) is the best idea ever! How could those dumbasses at ICANN even think of voting it down, let alone doing so twice?!

A bad idea (1)

Elvis77 (633162) | more than 7 years ago | (#18465871)

This is a bad idea IMHO - anything that makes mum and dad ignorant think that the Internet is a safe environment and absolves them of responsablitly for supervising their children on the internet is a bad idea. Some aussie groups want ISPs responsible for the internet content - I think this is a bad idea for the same reason

Re:A bad idea (1)

ArcherB (796902) | more than 7 years ago | (#18465957)

This is a bad idea IMHO - anything that makes mum and dad ignorant think that the Internet is a safe environment and absolves them of responsablitly for supervising their children on the internet is a bad idea.

That's like saying anything that makes the sky blue... Most parents are already ignorant! You could also say that GUI's should be banned because they make the computer user ignorant... or that C++ should be banned because it makes programmers ignorant (as opposed to using straight assembly or even writing in true binary!). Should we ban cars because they make us fat?

I could go on and on here, but making something easy does not make people ignorant! It makes the ignorant able to do more!

Re:A bad idea (1)

Elvis77 (633162) | more than 7 years ago | (#18466247)

You miss my point entirely... but then I didn't really articulate it very well

A few years ago I taught beginner adult computer class

One of the mums in one of the courses was concerned about her 14 year old looking at porn on the net. I went through filtering software; how to monitor what he's wanting etc but I said the best way was to have the computer in a location that meant that he could be caught at any time (she had the pc in a downstairs basement). "Oh I don't want a messy looking computer in my living area". I suggested that her son would continue to look at porn then

My concern with a specific domain is that is simply will not give protection but Mr and Mrs Ignorant will think it does; it is the parent's responsablilty to monitor their children; not the ISP; not anyone else. So I certainly concede the point that people are already ignorant and that this won't make them more ignorant; maybe this will help but I just think it will make porn easier to find

Oh and what is wrong with coding in Assembler??? ;-)

Re:A bad idea (1)

ArcherB (796902) | more than 7 years ago | (#18466469)

My concern with a specific domain is that is simply will not give protection but Mr and Mrs Ignorant will think it does; it is the parent's responsablilty to monitor their children; not the ISP; not anyone else. So I certainly concede the point that people are already ignorant and that this won't make them more ignorant; maybe this will help but I just think it will make porn easier to find

Good point. I agree that it is the parent's responsibility to raise their own children (the village can go screw itself!). I'm sure that your experience with filtering software showed you how ineffective it can be, especially with ignorant parents. This could be a tool that makes it easier to do. I'm not suggesting that it is the responsibility of the ISP to block questionable content, especially since, right now, I doubt that they could do a very good job of it! .xxx domain names could make it so easy that even an ISP could do it. Granted, it's not a cure. Domain names have no effect on newsgroups, IRC, bit torrent or other methods of sharing, so, like you, I will still recommend keeping the computer in the family room! However, will prevent the teacher from accidentally (ignorantly) typing in whitehouse.com instead of whitehouse.gov.

Oh and what is wrong with coding in Assembler??? ;-)
About the same as writing letter to mum using a hammer, chisel and stone tablet as opposed to paper and pen. You end up with a much higher quality product, but it's hardly efficient :-)

Re:A bad idea (0, Flamebait)

WED Fan (911325) | more than 7 years ago | (#18466097)

So, now we've got to protect stupid people and their children from our other protection schemes? The reason why people are so weak and vulnerable now is because we've shielded them too much from the harsh world around them. I'm starting to think that maybe we should let kids play with clackers, lawn darts, explosives, chemicals, and boiling water. Maybe if we lose a few and thin out the herd, the Rabid Church of Man-Caused-Global-Warming will stop whining about the population, and we might actually let Darwin kill off the inbreds, French, and people who like to talk on cell phones in movie theaters.

I used to think the Australians were a pretty bright bunch, but, you sir, have changed my mind. You now rank below the French-Canadians, who are now 2nd to the bottom on the list of Useful Cultures of the World.

Re:A bad idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18466871)

Dude, no one is lower than a French-Canukian. And none more annoying.

expanding porn? (4, Informative)

PlusFiveTroll (754249) | more than 7 years ago | (#18465897)

...allow porn to expand even further onto the Internet.

Is that even possible... I mean unless Disney starts up an XXX line porn is pretty much everywhere already.

Well, (1)

Penguinisto (415985) | more than 7 years ago | (#18466061)

I haven't seen any at any site with a .mil extension...

(but then, certain there are certain firearms afficinadoes who would argue with me on that point...)

/P

Re:expanding porn? (1)

WED Fan (911325) | more than 7 years ago | (#18466153)

Expanded porn? Is that Al Gore in a speedo?

Seriously, more porn would be good. Maybe we can so totally piss off the fundamentalist groups that they all drink the cool-aid and go home to meet Jeebus early. The world would be a better place with more porn and less rabid Christian hypocrits who don't admit they luck screwing the wife.

Re:expanding porn? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18466913)

Al Gore - The Incredible Bloating Man.

Porn - Good, fun, and keeps otherwise unemployable women off the dole. And, we get to see their hoohahs.

Fundamentally Retards - (not sure if this is the term you meant to use when you wrote "Fundamentalists") A more repressed bunch you will never see. I think they feel guilty for liking porn, enjoying the site of their wives naked, and want to poker their mother-in-laws in the ol' pooper if they got the chance. And, I'm not sure that Jerry Falwell didn't let his Mother-in-Law poke him in the pooper.

Strange, but... (4, Insightful)

Penguinisto (415985) | more than 7 years ago | (#18465923)

...wouldn't open proxies (and even to an extent anonymizers, depending on setup) obviate the whole ISP blocking of ".xxx", or any blocking software that parents/preachers get put on to avoid making it too easy to access?

Besides, considering the outright abuse of .org, .com, and .net, what's to stop ".xxx" from being turned into a mush of sites which may have little or nothing to do with porn? After all, I can think of lots of groups that would love to have an .xxx extension, just for the cool factor (bloggers, artists, and not-so-intelligent l33t h4x0r sites just as a ferinstance). Unless they have some intensely strict rules w/ the registrars - more than what they propose for it (e.g. give 'em the rules required to get, say, a ".mil" extension), it won't be just for pr0n - at least not for very long, IMVHO.

Don't even get me started on the domain-squatting and name-grabbing/auctioning, either... it'd make the Oklahoma Land Rush of the 19th Century seem tame by comparison.

Considering all of that, ICANN can prolly say "nope" yet again and call it good, for all the good it'll do. Seems like a headache all-around; and when both porn industry and fundies BOTH get all ate-up about not having it, you know something's inherently wrong with the idea.

/P

a modest proposal (0, Troll)

fred fleenblat (463628) | more than 7 years ago | (#18465925)

there could be .x domain name for soft core
and .xx for hardcore porn
and .xxx would be for weird stuff like deceased gay donkeys or whatever
and .xxxx is for the republican party and neocons

Re:a modest proposal (1)

mrchaotica (681592) | more than 7 years ago | (#18466183)

Speaking of a "modest proposal," where would eating babies fall in? With the deceased gay donkeys, or with the neocons?

Re:a modest proposal (1)

anonicon (215837) | more than 7 years ago | (#18466295)

Neocons, duh.

Donkeys don't have the ability to first skin the babies.

Re:a modest proposal (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18466447)

and .Xx for childporn ? :p

Government Control (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18465939)

Some other things should have more government "control" to allow easier access ;)

What drives technology adoption? (2, Insightful)

Original Replica (908688) | more than 7 years ago | (#18465967)

allow porn to expand even further onto the Internet."

Is that really possible? In all seriousness,"Internet porn is a $2.84 bln market"http://www.itfacts.biz/index.php?id=P7960 [itfacts.biz] How much of paypal's success is tied up in that $2.8 bil? What about faster bandwith, or video compression, or antivirus software? Gaming certainly plays a significant part in the adoption of faster computers, I think porn might play a similar part in the relm of data transfer. We are more eager to get new toys than to work more efficiently.

Re:What drives technology adoption? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18466239)

How much of paypal's success is tied up in that $2.8 bil?

Historically, I have no idea. Presently, somewhere around $0.

Paypal has a strict policy against adult content. You can not use Paypal or Ebay to purchase adult material with the only exception being vintage/historical.

You can not even use Paypal to purchase services related to adult-anything (such as an adult site accepting paypal payments for advertising services on the site etc.)

A LOT of adult webmasters had their paypal accounts shut down a couple of years back when Paypal made those changes to their terms of use policy.

One really weird and extreme example: there's a software package called Arrow Trader [arrowscripts.com] that monitors traffic and maintains link trades for TGP sites. They can't even use paypal to accept payments anymore. Although the software is developed for a specific type of adult site, the software itself is certainly not "pornographic" in any way. The point being that Paypal is ridiculously strict about their 'adult content' policies.

Re:What drives technology adoption? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18466809)

Is that really possible? In all seriousness,"Internet porn is a $2.84 bln market"http://www.itfacts.biz/index.php?id=P7960 How much of paypal's success is tied up in that $2.8 bil? What about faster bandwith, or video compression, or antivirus software? Gaming certainly plays a significant part in the adoption of faster computers, I think porn might play a similar part in the relm of data transfer. We are more eager to get new toys than to work more efficiently

I'm sure some people might enjoy faster porn... 120fps 60 inch HDTV cum shots that cause whiplash.

I better post this anonymously.

No Compelling Reason (4, Insightful)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 7 years ago | (#18466011)

It's just a real estate grab that has little or no practical use in managing porn on the Interweb. It's not like all these sites will give up their .com / .net / .org names, and I'll bet within 24 hours (probably a lot less) of .xxx going "live", there will be no names worth buying left. Land grab, pure and simple, there is really no compelling reason to have the .xxx TLD.

Re:Yeah, but (1)

Lord Bitman (95493) | more than 7 years ago | (#18466493)

don't tell me you wouldn't be right there with everyone else with a perl script and a while loop trying to be the one to register se.xxx, sex.xxx, teen.xxx, teens.xxx, asian.xxx, asians.xxx, ...

Set for life. Let the morons who bid for it figure out that it's worthless next week

Re:Yeah, but (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18466973)

Let the morons who bid for it figure out that it's worthless next week

Ah, PlayStation3 capitalism. I love it!

One Compelling Reason (1)

Nymz (905908) | more than 7 years ago | (#18466955)

There is one reason to separate out a group,
so that in the future you can discriminate against that group.

Whether you want all citizens to register their firearms, only later to round them up for disposal.
Or whether you want all citizens of a particular type to wear an armband, only later to round them up for disposal.

Postscript Misunderstanding (1)

Nymz (905908) | more than 7 years ago | (#18467051)

I only realized after posting that my post may be misunderstood. Some might think I was impling that pictures of naked people was the target being threatened. Not so, the ideal being threatened here is free speech, of all types of speech.

An example would be the armbands again, they weren't just for jews, but also used for homosexuals, communists, social democrats, criminals, foreigners, work slackers, etc...

Stop the presses! (1)

Un pobre guey (593801) | more than 7 years ago | (#18466133)

"...the religious groups worried it would make access too easy and allow porn to expand even further onto the Internet."

Yow! There is a physically possible act that has not yet been carried out that can allow porn to expand even further onto the Internet! What can this mysterious act be? Does it involve high energy particles from some monstrous new accelerator? Have aliens finally arrived from a distant galaxy, ready to share their vast and incomprehensible technologies? Is there now a 5th dimension, aside from space and time, that we mere mortals will soon perceive as easily as we drink a glass of water or click on URLs with our mice? Is some sort of perverse rapture imminent, wherein we shall all ascend into some terrifying multidimensional pornographic spiritual plane?

No! It is the dire threat of yet another TLD for which spending countless man-hours and obscene sums of money making new porn sites will be clearly more compelling than merely forwarding web surfers to the same old sites available now. A possibility so horrendous, so heinous, so depraved that ICANN has rightly gaveled it away twice before. No sir, our world is not ready for another TLD, particularly one devoted to porn. Why, what if my teenage children are exposed to the use of sexual images for filthy lucre? Unthinkable. Damn them! Damn them all to Hell!

Separate the domain from the carrier decision (2, Interesting)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | more than 7 years ago | (#18466309)

The reality is that .xxx content is the most profitable Net carrying traffic segment, with the highest markup, so all common carriers will carry it, just at a premium.

Anyone who doesn't will lose 4/5ths of their revenue.

PLEASE!!! (1)

jhfry (829244) | more than 7 years ago | (#18466325)

I wrote a letter years back to my congressman recommending the .xxx domain, who later co-authored the first version of this bill, can't remember his name anymore. Anyway, to anyone who's the least bit technical, this appears to be the simplest method of segregating the pornography from the rest of the information on the net.

I don't feel that it should be required that all xxx material be hosted in the xxx domain, however I would imagine that most of the legit porn sites (feels funny saying that) would happily open XXX domains and forward traffic there for a while. Eventually, they could pass a law in the US forcing sites that specifically host content geared toward sexual entertainment be hosted on .xxx domains. But just having the TLD is the most important step in that direction.

I have no problem with the internet having it's "red light district", which is the greatest argument against this bill... it's far easier to avoid that area due to the red lights. The alternative is having the entire internet a sort of pinkish shade do to a nice even coat of porn.

Re:PLEASE!!! (3, Insightful)

jtn (6204) | more than 7 years ago | (#18466419)

Sorry. DNS is not a content-definition system. It is a system for translating IP addresses to human-readable (usually) names and the reverse. It is not for balkanizing the Internet into "districts".

It sets an ugly precedent for further dividing content into groups easily blockable by groups in control (governments, corporations, etc). Would you like to wake up some day to find that negative discussions regarding your government are deemed inappropriate, and subjugated to a TLD (by US law perhaps?) and then blocked by a majority of access providers?

Finally, uou nor anyone else are fit to define what content is available or grouped for everyone else. You are responsible for your OWN content viewing, and those you are legally considered guardian of, no one else.

Re:PLEASE!!! (0)

jhfry (829244) | more than 7 years ago | (#18466649)

Uhh.. since when.

DNS does indeed try to define content, not very successfully but it does. .edu = educational .com = commercial .mil = military .gov = governement .COUNTRY ACRONYM = ...

If I didn't want to visit sites hosted in .ru it would be trivial to block. In fact, I have done just that on machines I've managed as a small layer of security.

I never suggested that sites be blocked by ISP's or the Govt. Just the opposite. A system like this makes it trivial to block from the client side, it wouldn't be necessary to have the ISP or Govt. step in.

Finally, uou nor anyone else are fit to define what content is available or grouped for everyone else. You are responsible for your OWN content viewing, and those you are legally considered guardian of, no one else.


Exactly my point, the current 'system' prevents me from excercising my desire to not see such content and undermines my wishes. Organizing content into easily located and/or avoided locations is only sensible. That's why the DNS system is setup the way that it is, to help categorize information.

On a similar vein, I would love to see a bunch of new TLD's started and popular. If the information were organized properly into the correct TLD, and everyone knew that blogs were in .blog for example, they could determine what was on a site before they clicked a link. You could search for blogs about certain subjects by restricting the scope of your search. etc.

Re:PLEASE!!! (2, Informative)

Cid Highwind (9258) | more than 7 years ago | (#18467039)

DNS does indeed try to define content, not very successfully but it does. .edu = educational .com = commercial .mil = military .gov = governement .COUNTRY ACRONYM = ...

That's defining who owns the server, not what content is on it. Furthermore, it's not really enforced anywhere except .gov, .mil, and sometimes .edu. Any given large corporation has their name .org, .net, and every country code redirected to their .com site. Slashdot sells ads and charges subscription fees, but they still have a .org (nonprofit organization) domain name. Most owners of .tv, .am, or .fm domains have never even heard of Tuvalu, Armenia or the Federates States of Micronesia.

Re:PLEASE!!! (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 7 years ago | (#18466527)

IT's not a solvable problem. The internet is not TV.

It is a very large ditributed network.
That means you can not enforce it.
Here it is again:
You can NOT enforce a domain specific activity.

"however I would imagine that most of the legit porn sites "

Why does that feel funny? Pornography is a perfectly legal trade.
But you hit the problem, many site would not move there..they would set up there ALSO. You can't control the world.

OTOH, don't like it? don't go there.
Or evelop sopme thick skin and a sense of humor.

aslo, define sexual entertainment? Out front of one of the building, there is a statue of three naked people Diving' through water. Is that porn? to some people, yes it is.

No offense, but:
"Anyway, to anyone who's the least bit technical,"
yes it would, like amany techincal things, they aren't as solvable as they appear.

You can eaither trust me, or the experts in the field*, or educate yourself in this matter.

*not so called expert, or self proclaimed experts, I mean the people that built the internet and the World Wide Web.

Re:PLEASE!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18466635)

What's porn?

And why should you, or the congressman you wrote, get to decide?

It's awfully unlikely that my definition of "offensive content" is the same as that of a bunch of Bible-pounding fuckwits.

Re:PLEASE!!! (1)

Watson Ladd (955755) | more than 7 years ago | (#18466901)

You cannot control what DNS entries refer to you. Read one of the RFC's titled .sex considered harmful for a discussion of all the problems. Also, what is porn? My standards for obscenity can be very different from yours.

xxx (1)

grumpyman (849537) | more than 7 years ago | (#18466377)

I like you. I like sex, it's nice.

THE definition of porn is easy. (1)

jhfry (829244) | more than 7 years ago | (#18466545)

Convincing the extremists is hard.

Pornography, is sexually explicit content who's purpose is to entertain, stimulate, or pleasure. Nudity is not pornographic, sex is not pornographic, however videos/images of nude people engaging in sexual activities intended as a source of entertainment for adults is pornographic.

I agree that people try to move that line in both directions, but I think anyone rational will agree that the above is a fair definition.

Perhaps we need a new word, instead of pornography we can call it "sexual entertainment". It has no baggage, so it can be defined as we see fit. We can create additional definitions for sexual art, sexual education media, etc. and define those as well.

Once written into law, those definitions would be up to the courts to judge, but as long as they are written clearly it would be fair to assume that most sites could be easily assessed.

Hell, we do it with movies and music, we can do it with the internet. Just create an incentive to conform, perhaps free .xxx domain names, for life, for established sites.

Re:THE definition of porn is easy. (1)

mdwh2 (535323) | more than 7 years ago | (#18466623)

I agree that people try to move that line in both directions, but I think anyone rational -

And that is where the problem lies ;)

Re:THE definition of porn is easy. (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 7 years ago | (#18466643)

I engage is sex for the entertainment of adults. specifically my wife and myself.

bzzzt try again.

""sexual entertainment""
yes, it would be defined by religous groups to mean what ever they want it to mean.
Do you know there are people who consider a penis on a statue pornographic?

" but as long as they are written"
good luck with that. People have only been trying to do that for hundreds of years.

Why do I have to explain this on /. of all places:
"Hell, we do it with movies and music, we can do it with the internet.

The internet is not TV. It is NOT A movie house. If you could enforce these thing, don't you think it wuld ahve been done by the RIAA regarding file transferring?

You can't make people not trade music, and you can not use a domain to control content over all the other domains..and ftp, and telnet, and etc.etc.

The of course, what is an established site? what do you do

Re:THE definition of porn is easy. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18466941)

Pornography, is sexually explicit content who's purpose is to entertain, stimulate, or pleasure.

So every entertaining mainstream Hollywood movie that includes a sex scene is de jure pornography.

Cool. I'm so glad we have someone like you to draw these lines. Next year, you can have the whole box of crayons.

this is ridiculous... (1)

Sfing_ter (99478) | more than 7 years ago | (#18466617)

what the religious right (here to for known as rr - {rr = ddd}) does not want is to be found "visiting" the .xxx domains...
maybe we could file them both under the same domain .xxx or .666, or .rid for ridiculous or .dum or .stfu, but .ddd is probably the best for the rr; then i want one for the geeks, .aybabtu seems appropo. :)

So the rr (or ddd) has no idea how the inter-tubes dump-truck functions; that or they just don't want to be "kept" from seeing the sin!!! If I were to be praying and believing in an all omnipotent entitty,(:) I would hope it would provide unto me a clue, for doth not the faithful followers of an all powerful all knowing god deserve to have unto them posessed, a FUCKING CLUE!!!!!

I don't sound bitter do I?

Finally what everyone wants (1)

selex (551564) | more than 7 years ago | (#18466697)

"proposal has led to pornographers and religious groups finding themselves on the same side of an issue"

Finally religious porn. Its amusing and it teaches you good values. I'll leave the specifics up to your imagination.

Selex

Proposal sounds stupid (1)

hurfy (735314) | more than 7 years ago | (#18466755)

Actually it just sounds like a money grab by this ICM company.

They still insist it is voluntary, so it does nothing to help keep it out. Tempting to add just to spite the idiotic rightwing arguement that with .com AND .xxx there would now be twice as much porn tho :O So i guess i disagreement with both arguements against it and am still against it....

They think these sites will rate themselves and need to spend more than a current .com registration to ensure compliance ?!? WTF, Putting up a .xxx and then say in ratings you have no nudity would seem kinda suicidal for a site. Why does ICM need money to insure against child porn, why would someone under this new label suddenly be more likely to have it up and require a new private cop to find as opposed to it being hidden among the zillion or so .com and others?

My choice would be to simply make .xxx available like .com .net etc. but without the overinflated fees for this ICM

The Wrong Way (2, Interesting)

Bios_Hakr (68586) | more than 7 years ago | (#18466769)

The person who came up with .xxx should be slapped. I mean, what kind of fucking idiot is this person/are these people?

If you want to clear the internet of pr0n and make it safe for kids, create a .fam domain and then make the registrar a board consisting of the LDS Church, Christian Coalition, Southern Baptist Conference, and Catholic Church. Before any site is accepted, a scan will be done on their code to ensure *every* link on the page ends in .fam.

Create e-mail servers that require a name, address, SSN, and valid phone number to activate e-mail. Have monks (like they have anything better to do) call every person who registers and verify their information.

After that, sell software that only allows .fam domains to be processed. Nothing from an IP address outside the .fam will be accepted.

Users should be classified based on their ages. If you are between 8 and 18 and you e-mail someone more than 1 year older than you, the e-mail gets sent to LDS missionaries (give them something to to besides annoy me) for review. If the content is inappropriate, your e-mail is revoked. Make it work the same way for older people e-mailing younger people. Just give more leeway.

In about 30 days and with absolutely no resistance, you could create a family-safe internet.

Seriously, if you or someone you know came up with the idea of .xxx, please turn in your geek card and go work a help desk in India and leave the real thinking to much smarter people.

ok, i'm religious ... (1)

boxlight (928484) | more than 7 years ago | (#18467059)

the religious groups worried it would make access too easy and allow porn to expand even further onto the Internet

Er ... is that possible??

OK, I'm religious, but that's about the stupidest argument *against* a .xxx domain I can imagine.

An .xxx domain and the restriction of adult content to it would be the best thing to help parents filter porn from their kids. But it's a pie in the sky idea. There's no way to prevent people in other countries from putting porn on whatever URL they want.

boxlight

what?? again???? (1)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 7 years ago | (#18467085)

I hope this d*** thing DOES pass this time so I never have to hear another f****ing article about the pros and cons of the XXX domain. Seriously! Get it overwith!!!

Not as a 'Top' level domain... (1)

Kaenneth (82978) | more than 7 years ago | (#18467317)

Who then, will register Disney.XXX, Apple.XXX, Microsoft.XXX? Do those companies want to be associated with porn at all?, but do they want to risk letting someone else get their name? I offer a very simple solution to that particular problem: Notice how a lot (if not most) web sites on a domain have a specific prefix added to the front? WWW.example.com? Why not replace the WWW. portion with XXX.? A domain holder can choose to offer both a regular website, and an adult website, without a new TLD provider collecting millions, if not billion on registration fees. and filtering "XXX." would be just as easy as filtering ".XXX" from a URL Heck, you could even reserve a new specific port for XXX HTTP, so it can be filtered even if an IP adress is manually entered. Unfortunetly, port 69 is already reserved for TFTP.

Redundant? (1)

OddThinking (1078509) | more than 7 years ago | (#18467331)

Wouldn't this be redundant if it becomes illegal to have porn on port 80?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?