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.

---

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.
 

---

Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
 
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?
 

---

Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
 
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)
 

---

Posted by ludosti (Member # 1772) on :
 
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).
 

---

Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
 

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?
 

---

Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
 
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.)
 

---

Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
 
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?
 

---

Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
 
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*
 

---

Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 

quote:

---

Personally, I think everybody should be FOR it.

---

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?
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
 

quote:

---

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?

---

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...
 

---

Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
 
I know. I was just mentioning them. In a Memorial Day sort of way
 

---

Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
 
A-Ha! Only one person actually said in this thread that using the .xxx domain should be forced. I need to pay more attention to usernames.

Jim-Me, you're clearly wrong.

Now the rest of us can move on, yes?
 

---

Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
 
*pokes head in to harass Katarain*

I think it would be great if they were forced to use .xxx. Now, practical is another issue. But that could be worked out.
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
Personally I wish the whole system had started out with the only tlds being by country.
 

---

Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
 
Woo! Someone to fight with!

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.
 

---

Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
 
*hands out lollipops and continues to live in her world of good sense, politeness, and rainbows*
 

---

Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
 
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.

[ August 25, 2005, 03:23 PM: Message edited by: Jim-Me ]
 

---

Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
 
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.

---

quote:

---

But if I write erotic stories and have no wish to charge for them, what domain extension should I use?

---

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".
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
Oh, and a few things:

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.
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
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!
 

---

Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by dean (Member # 167) on :
 
After loading Puppy's link on my computer, I was very surprised it wasn't blocked. But it wasn't, and it was interesting.
 

---

Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
 
I clicked on it and closed it after like 10 seconds. It's not exactly work safe.
 

---

Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
 
Edit: This post is largely in response to Fugu's comments.

Neither is it the government's responsibility to provide access to anything that a community considers objectionable.

It is neither censorship nor in any way inappropriate for public libraries to monitor and/or restrict the internet and book access they provide at the community's expense.

It is absolutely appropriate, for example, for a public library to not allow children access to books containing nudity according to the standards of the community.

Also, I'm wondering how many times I will have to repeat that no one is advocating a law forcing anyone to do anything regarding the .xxx or any other domain, to my knowledge. I came closest and all I said was it would not restrict free speech, but would preserve a space for it, if it could be done.
 

---

Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
 
WHAT? Was there something on that site that I missed? The article is ABOUT porn, and it discusses it using comedically colorful language, but I didn't think of it as being not work-safe. If you guys find it offensive, I can remove the link. I REALLY didn't mean for it to be a problem.
 

---

Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
 
Porno sites aren't exactly hiding on the web. They want customers with credit cards. It would serve them to be more easily identified. Those that would block them won't make good customers anyway.
 

---

Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
 
No, you don't have to take it down. The content is fine--it's the fact that people might walk by my desk and see "questionable" pictures--even if those pictures are technically fine. Or catch the great big PORN word on my screen.

I'll check out the link when I get home, so I'd appreciate it if you DIDN'T remove it!
 

---

Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
 
At my library growing up, no sites were blocked, but children under 18 had to have parental consent (and a sticker on their library card proving it) to go online.
 

---

Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
 
Don't censor anything in a public library?

Okay. Why aren't there more subscriptions to Playboy and Hustler and other even more explicit magazines in public libraries? There is clearly a demand for them. How many people wouldn't enjoy getting to "read" such material for free, right along with a copy of Time or Newsweek?
 

---

Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
 
Brettly, a Library doesn't *have* to do anything.

By your standard, libraries are censoring every book and magazine they do not carry.

It would be utterly ridiculous, not to mention irresponsible, for the library to unilaterally decide to make Hustler availible to youths who cannot legally buy it in a store, or begin stocking X-rated movies and allowing youths to check them out.

In point of fact, no library I know does this. Are all of them guilty of censorship? If not, why must they provide access to milfhunter.com? (and yes, there is a reason why that isn't a link... definitely not safe for work).
 

---

Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
The problem with library net censoring, of course, is that every censor software has its own problems. Too many non-adult sites are blocked, too many adult sites sail right through. There's not an easy answer no matter what you do.

I have no problem with restrictions blocking children from stumbling across sites that parents would prefer to block. I have big problems with anything that restricts an adult from accessing whatever he or she likes. Hitting that balance is extremely difficult to do.
 

---

Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
 
Again, refusing to promote and distribute something is not censorship. Not giving the public free access to paid or unpaid works of any kind is not censorship.

As Chris and I have said, a library is built by a local community and their funds, and as such is, and should be, subject to that community's standards and purposes in creating the library.

How do you feel, Brettly, about the Ten Commandments monument flap in Alabama? That was art, and donated, does the government have an obligation to display it? are they censoring the artist if they refuse to?
 

---

Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
 
Um, so then if someone donates a religious book that doesn't get put into circulation, is that censorship by your standards?
 

---

Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
 
Brettly, in your example of the donated Mapplethorpe:

1) who is being censored?
2) how, exactly, is this person's ability to express their ideas being impaired?
 

---

Posted by human_2.0 (Member # 6006) on :
 
Rambling thoughts on this topic:

I don't think there is a place for porn in the Dewey Decimal system. It would probably be listed as art.

The only sites that want to remain hidden are illegal sites, dealing with underage porn. The other sites want as much exposure (haha) as they can get which is why if you google for female celebrities you get porn sites in the list (if safe search is off). I've done some searches and ended up with stupid webpages with a white background and the bottom of the page is full of a white text dictionary, just so they can get linked to even though their page has nothing to do with what you searched for. Annoying as hell.

Bob Parsons, CEO of GoDaddy.com, a Domain Registrar service, talked a lot about the .xxx name

He got so much feedback that he had to go and invite a porn star to his radio show, radiogodaddy.com. Search for the 6/22/2005 show.
 

---

Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 

quote:

---

As Chris and I have said, a library is built by a local community and their funds, and as such is, and should be, subject to that community's standards and purposes in creating the library.

---

I'd just like to mention that I wasn't necessarily advocating this position, just trying to state it more clearly as Brettly10's version seemed contradictory.
 

---

Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
 
Sorry Chris, didn't mean to put words in your mouth...
 

---

Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
No worries. I'm not at all adverse to talking about ways to make the library more friendly and beneficial to everyone, and I believe that compromises need to be made. Just don't know, exactly, where they will ultimately land, and I suspect it'll be different for many libraries.
 

---

Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
 
I work in a library. But it's a university library. So we don't really worry about all that. Or maybe they do. But I work in the back.

/pointless comment
 

---

Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
 
Tom, what happens when a personal site becomes a basis for a profitable site... Like slashdot.org?

-Bok
 

---

Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
 
I personally think a reserved xxx domain would be excellent. But only for the Vin Diesel sites; that new one with Ice Cube was lame.
 

---

Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
 

 

---

Posted by Kent (Member # 7850) on :
 
I can't believe everyone is talking about this. xxx will never be safe for kids. There is a group called Clean Port 80 that is promoting legislative action that is perfect in my opinion. Below is from their web site.

quote:

---

CP80 is not a content filter, nor is it another .xxx-domain-name solution.

CP80 is an Internet Channel Initiative that uses existing technology to re-categorize all content on the Web into two Internet channels: one for general-public content and the other for adult content (pornography).

By creating two Internet channels, consumers now have a choice—something that does not exist today on the Internet. Concerned parents and employers can protect their children and businesses from pornography—while consenting adults have unrestricted access to legal adult content.

With CP80 everyone’s freedom of speech is protected.

---