You may have heard that there is a new domain that ends with .xxx. It is a domain that is reserved for pornography. I am surprised by conservative groups’ objection to such a domain.
quote: "The Department of Commerce has received nearly 6,000 letters and e-mails from individuals expressing concern about the impact of pornography on families and children,"
quote: After ICANN's vote to approve .xxx, conservative groups in the United States called on their supporters to ask the Commerce Department to block the new suffix. The Family Research Council, for instance, warned that "pornographers will be given even more opportunities to flood our homes, libraries and society with pornography through the .xxx domain."
quote:A government report from a few years ago hints that the Bush administration could choose unilaterally to block .xxx from being added to the Internet's master database of domains.
Considering that pornography already is easily accessible on any computer, I hardly see how this now domain can flood the internet. I don't think if someone builds a ditch to divert water from a flood, s/he is contributing to the flood.
Considering that
quote: Dot-sex domains have no restrictions on their content and can be accessed by anyone. Dot-xxx domains can only be accessed via DNS' Adult Verification Service (AVS), called AVSLIVE. Like other verification services such as Adult Check, AVSLIVE requires signing up via a credit card wit
and that it would be easier to block xxx domains from public places (an assumption of mine which might be false), I think the conservative right would jump at the opportunity for pornographic self regulation.
Surely the government doesn't think it is being effective in managing pornography in the public domain.
Posts: 2445 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree. It would seem that having a separate domain would make pornographic material much easier to manage and block... not to mention easier for the parents to monitor usage.
For example, I mistyped "chrysler" once while looking for cars. Turns out "chryslet.com" is (or used to be) a porn site. If I didn't know that and I was looking at the sites my children had been visiting, "chryslet.com" would not trigger any buttons for me.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thats the thing though, why would a porno site want to have the .xxx? It would make it super-easy for those sites to be blocked, and that would be bad for business. So why would they switch over?
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Once upon a time you had to be a .com to do any commercial business. It'd be reasonable to preserve free speech by requiring pornographic sites to have a .xxx extension, though I don't know who would have the authority to enforce these things.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I really don't understand the concern... If conservatives are pissed about it, they can pass a law that porn sites have to be .xxx then then can go after all the mistype porn domains legally. (the ones in the US anyway)
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I, too, am baffled by people's objections to the .xxx domain. It seems to me that it would be good for everyone. Good for people trying to avoid porn, because it would be very easy to recognize and block. Good for the porn industry in that they have an easilly recognizable domain where people can go (because hey, generally if you're gonna want to watch porn you're going to be actively looking at it, rather than kinda stumbling across it).
Posts: 5879 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's just it, you would think the goevernment proposed this idea and the porn industry would be fighting it tooth and nail.
It seems, however, that there is a push in the porn industry to use this domain, and the government will be fighting it tooth and nail.
I am so confused!
I think using the xxx domain would give a business more legitimacy. If I were to go "porn shopping," I would rather pay for it from a xxx site that was regulated by the porn industry--I would feel less worried about spyware, malicious codes, et cetera.
Posts: 2445 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:It'd be reasonable to preserve free speech by requiring pornographic sites to have a .xxx extension, though I don't know who would have the authority to enforce these things.
The problem here, is who determines what sites are "porno sites". Any site with a picture of a naked person? No, because then medical sites would apply. Any site with a picture of a naked person in a sexually suggestive pose? Well then would art sites with nudes be considered "porno sites"? What about erotic stories and cartoons, would those need to get a .xxx extension as well? Would a site which only has 50% of its contect pornographic need the .xxx? What if the pornographic content is only 10%? How about if its only one picture?
And who has to answer these questions?
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I support the use of .xxx as a domain. The porn industry opposes it because it does allow people to filter them out which they don't want. Parents should support it. The ACLU is opposed to it being required of all US porn sites because it is a "restriction" on Free Speech.
I for one think it should be required for anything deemed "sexually explicit". It's not restricting it IMHO, it's labelling it electronically as what it actually is (like .gov, .org, etc.)
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's like the definition of poetry. I might not be able to tell you what poetry is in words...but I know it when I see it.
Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
So then, who's job is it to look at thousands of sites and determine (using your very subjective definition) whether they are porn or not?
And then is there an appeals process? Would a judge, using his own "I know it when I see it" definition then rule on the case?
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Considering the .xxx domain is a positive thing for the porn industry, I would expect the .xxx domain to be self-regulated. The people who consider their own sites to be porn will want the .xxx domain. Most legitimate sites are interested in visitors who own a credit card and are willing to use it on their site--not children and conservative pornphobes. Those people who are willing to pay would know what domain to look in, and the people who want to block it have an easy domain address to block.
It would be ridiculous to try to enforce the use of a .xxx domain for all porn sites. Thus far, it has been wholly impossible to regulate the internet. So it's not like blocking the .xxx domain will solve ALL of your blocking problems...but it sure would help.
Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Xavier, don't you see it doesn't matter? It's not a matter of stopping the flow of information, but rather truth in advertising...
Of course, then there's nothing to prevent people from buying domains for the express purpose of auto-forwarding to porn sites. *shrug*
It seems to me the key objective here is what lem pointed out-- you have industry standard, industry regulated pornography and you are less likely to pick up nasty viruses and/or outright illegal material.
*smirks at the comparison to regulated prostitution*
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay.. based on previous comments, I was under the impression that the conservatives are AGAINST this, and the porn industry is FOR it. Which is it?
Personally, I think everybody should be FOR it.
And legitimizing porn on the internet? Like people who watch porn care if conservatives approve. They already know they don't. So what? It's legal--it's accessable--and people already buy it and view it.
Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oddly enough, I've heard a fair number of porn sites are in favor of this idea, and intend to move to the domain when it becomes available. These are also the sort of porn site that really do try to keep underage people away.
There are plenty of porn sites that want only of-age people who want to access them accessing them.
Its important to understand this wouldn't force pornographers to move to .xxx, just that it would be a place pornographers could move their sites to (or open new sites on) if they wanted to get easy adult verification and separate themselves from kids. Porn sites would still remain on the rest of the internet.
As for being able to force porn sites to register there, its not within the authority of Congress. It couldn't be enforced by any one organization, actually, as countries have control over their own tlds, and plenty of countries would be happy to allow porn sites to set up just like every other site under their tld.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: Personally, I think everybody should be FOR it.
I'm only for it if we actually start ENFORCING the domain rules. In other words, stop issuing .net domains to people who don't run an ISP, and stop issuing .com domains to non-commercial customers -- and require porn sites to use .xxx.
The only advantage to .xxx is the ease of filtration. But if they're just going to buy a .xxx version of their existing .com, there's really no point.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oddly enough, its been astonishingly hard to rule on that know-it-when-I-see it basis. Take a look at spencer tunick's work, sometime (if you don't mind artistic nudes) -- there are plenty of people who would call it pornography.
Furthermore, given there are no strictures people registering anything else for com, net, or org domains, its not truth in advertising, its segregation and de-facto censorship to try to force sites perceived as porn sites to use .xxx . That there are plenty of sites willing to undergo this level of censorship willingly while it is a voluntary option does not make it any less censorship.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yah, it would be impossible to enforce a law mandating that all porn on the net should have the .xxx extension. But I whole-heartedly support the idea of seperating porn this way - in a perfect world, all porn (sexually explicit material) would be kept in a system like this.
Posts: 353 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree with Tom about enforcing all domain names, though. Not through legislation...just by wanting to have a tidy Internet. That's not censorship...that's just compartmentalizing.
I just love to sort things into neat little piles. It would make me pleased as punch to have the Internet organized. Not censored...Organized!
Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Xavier, don't you see it doesn't matter? It's not a matter of stopping the flow of information, but rather truth in advertising...
I'm not sure what I am supposed to be seeing. You said we should require porn sites to switch to using the .xxx, and I posted what I think would be serious problems with enforcing such a switch.
Why don't these problems matter? Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
The censorship is of access to the type of domain, and it most certainly will exist. It is a perfectly reasonable sort of censorship while participation in the xxx tld is voluntary, though.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:My friends Scott and Daniel. They work for an internet filter company. They come home every day looking like shellshocked veterans.
But your friends don't have authority to contact those sites and tell them they need to switch to using .xxx. When they make a decision to block a site, it doesn't have the weight of the government behind it. Their decisions don't have to hold up to an appeals process, or judicial review...
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
I think it would be great if they were forced to use .xxx. Now, practical is another issue. But that could be worked out.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
Like I said... I like the idea of having an organized internet, and I think it would be really great if all porn sites had a .xxx domain. But to me, it's not a matter of censorship. It's a matter of good sense and enforcing the rules about no underage people viewing pornography. And it's about politeness... if I'm looking for information on breast pain, I shouldn't be inundated with sites for breast binding and all manner of scary stuff.
Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
*hands out lollipops and continues to live in her world of good sense, politeness, and rainbows*
Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry Xav, what I meant was that "it would still preserve free speech if..." I said in my original post that I don't know of an authority capable of it. I should have been clearer.
Edit: I'm still being unclear. What I'm saying is that labeling something as containing sexually explicit material, even if it's medically valuable or artistic or whatever, does not limit it's free distribution in any way... if someone had the authority to compel that.
posted
From what I understand of the issue, no one wants to FORCE anything. The conservatives are against it, and a growing collection of of people in the porn industry are for it. I think it is a great idea for the above reasons.
If it stays voluntary, then maybe market forces will help filter out the porn industry's influence on non-porn sites. As more people go there to view and shop, there will be a money making model other porn sites can emulate.
quote:the Bush administration could choose unilaterally to block .xxx from being added to the Internet's master database of domains.
Does Bush even have this type of power? How? I am still scratching my head why a conservative would be against it.
Posts: 2445 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
It seems kind of like an "explicit content" label on a CD to me. If that's something that conservatives are for, why wouldn't they be for this?
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's the inbetweeners that bother me. No adult content, no worries. Adult content intended for commercial adult ventures, no problem.
But if I write erotic stories and have no wish to charge for them, what domain extension should I use? What about photographers who do not specialize in nudes, but do include nudes in their galleries (as many, many professional photographers do)? What about photographers that do specialize in nudes but do not consider their work pornography (as mentioned Spencer Tunick is a good example of this)? Who decides?
I have no problem with the xxx domain, and I fully support any and all sites that voluntarily choose to use it. But before you start making it mandatory you'd better have some good definitions in place first.
Good luck. The courts have been trying to find some for years.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:But if I write erotic stories and have no wish to charge for them, what domain extension should I use?
.adt for ADULT would be alot better. I actually believe there should be .xxx as available for those who want to subscribe to it and .adt for anything that should be "OVER 18" or that is meant for adults only.
Some things aren't pornography, but are definately for adults only (such as erotica, nude photography, etc.)
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
And that would still allow parents to limit or block access to either or both kinds of content much more easily.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
and couldn't you almost define pornography better by the way it is used, rather than the content? National Geographic comes immediately to mind...
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
[link removed because apparently, it was more offensive to people than I anticipated ... sorry!]
[okay, it's been declared less offensive now, so it's back ... it's a half-serious comedy article about porn addiction that includes an awesome "definition" of the term]
[it's definitely intended for an adult audience, but in the same way that The Daily Show is ... not for any pornographic content]
posted
I think an .adt or .mat extension could be used universally as well. It would allow any country to define what is .mat or .adt in nature and simply by their windows configuration or browser configuration it could allow or block content.
As for National Geographic, it's not for kids (unless you subscribe to National Geographic for Kids) but I would say it's for Juveniles at least.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
But it would still be impossible to force those sites to use .adt or .mat. There will still be impossible to define gray areas. You'll have sites with lots of swearing, and South Park level humor which some would want put in a .adt or a .mat, but others would argue against them being put there. Sites with lots of girls in bikinis would also be borderline. The talk on sakeriver can get quite adult oriented, and so Mike might be told by the government to switch to a .mat.
To clarify my point: We cannot FORCE websites to use any of the extensions. It is just not practical. Inventing new extensions to cover the gray areas of .xxx just makes new gray areas.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:What about nude paintings? Adult, mature, or for all ages?
Definately not for "all ages" as that would open the door for ANY nude paintings. That should be parental consent only. Last thing I want is Geiger's paintings being shown to my Kindergartner for Art "show and tell".
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Chad: non-country tlds are not administered by countries, and could not be in the way you are describing.
Any country is free to create a adt or mat subdomain under their country tld -- .adt.us , for instance, and do whatever it likes with that domain under its own rules.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
1) trying to force strict divisions onto a fluid structure like the web is doomed to failure. One can make certain domains like "clubs" easily enough (such as .gov), but trying to classify everything would be an impossible task.
2) If the current DNS system started doing boneheaded things like trying to force sites to adhere to strict classifications, there's already the basic infrastructure of an alternate set of root DNS servers. People would switch to those. Not to mention there are sufficiently large commercial alliances which would be more than happy to set up their own DNS systems given public demand.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
And Chad, I await you leading the campaign against libraries and book stores to prevent them from having books with nudes in them generally available to the public, including kids.
It is the responsibility of the parent to supervise the child's access to potentially objectionable media, not that of a government or pseudo-governmental organization to attempt to enforce an arbitrary set of standards based largely on the personal mores of one country. There are plenty of countries out there that would consider how much violence we have readily available abhorrent -- better be prepared for all the US news sites to get put into the adult domain to adhere to their sensibilities!
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Of course... domain extensions are only a loose guide...
It doesn't take the place of parents actually supervising their children's internet use. I'm in favor of making it easier on them--up to a point. But really... pay attention to what your children get up to.
Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
After loading Puppy's link on my computer, I was very surprised it wasn't blocked. But it wasn't, and it was interesting.
Posts: 1751 | Registered: Jun 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Like people who watch porn care if conservatives approve. They already know they don't. So what? It's legal--it's accessable--and people already buy it and view it.
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
