Senators Pushing For .xxx, The Sequel
from the it's-baaaaaaaaaaack dept
For years there's been an ongoing argument over whether or not there should be an additional designated "red light" district for the internet, usually suggested to be under the .xxx domain. After years of debate, it was a bit surprising that ICANN actually allowed the domain. Very quickly, two different groups started fighting it. One was the group who fights every random extension of the top level domain system as being unnecessary and only designed to force companies to pay more for domains they absolutely don't need or want (which makes sense). However the other group fighting it, surprisingly, were a group of "family values" types who felt that somehow setting up a red light district online legitimized online porn. This seems like some strange thinking, as early on, many similarly minded people supported such a domain in an effort to block out online smut. However, whatever lobbying campaign they cooked up worked, and discussions over the .xxx domain were put on hold... until now. Apparently two senators are trying to get Congress to force through an online redlight district, even though we always thought it was ICANN's job (no matter how badly they might handle things). What's odd here, though, is that the Senators are saying such a top level domain would "confine adult sites to one location," and "prevent hapless Internet users from inadvertently stumbling onto sexually-explicit websites." That, of course, only makes sense if they were planning to force all adult content sites into this new domain -- something that just about everyone who's looked at the issue has decided is a bad idea. However, looking through some other articles, it appears that's exactly what the new bill is proposing. All adult sites would be required to move into this new domain. This opens up a ton of difficult questions. How would they fairly compensate sites with good .com domain names that they were forced to abandon? Much more importantly, how would they possibly define what qualifies as having to go behind the fence? Given the recent controversy over BoingBoing being blocked in many countries due to a widely used filtering program calling it out for "nudity," you have to wonder who gets to decide what has to go over to the .xxx side.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
they just want to be able to...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Go for it!
Hey, even catholic churches have different areas that priest use for such events.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Go for it!
And while Canada does indeed have a widely used .ca domain, we also heavily use the .com domain. American congress doesn't have the right to tell everyone else in the world that their site belongs behind the .xxx fence just because the Americans don't find the content kosher.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Go for it!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Porn Sites
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
how about a .spam TLD
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: how about a .spam TLD
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Compensated?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Compensated?
So what if we need to add more to help filter or find or block out.
Transfering doesn't seem like that big a deal, unless it is greed oriented.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Compensated?
What happens when the kid types in the IP address of his favorite porn site? Or when he finds links on the internet that link to the IP rather than the qualified domain name?
Law makers thinking that changing the top level domain will some how seperate the sites is simply an ignorance of the technology.
Although I don't see a problem with having .xxx, more than likely all sites will begin to use it voluntarily, they have no interest in children visiting their site, nor do they mind that schools are blocking them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
and the risk with that is will the business they have now find them, sure its not really any nassle for them but as a business would u want to risk losing them
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wrong way to rate
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wrong way to rate
Try it yourself in your browser and watch what happens. On IE, go to Tools / Internet Options / Content / Content Advisor / Enable, then choose your rating.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Wrong way to rate
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wrong way to rate
With the technology available on the net, you can type part of an url and usually get there...there's domain forwarding, domain pointing, etc...
If the sites are getting hits they will still get hits...it makes life easier for those who have a true need to block porn sites (ie schools...or wives with porn-addicted husbands that they're too stupid to get rid of,speaking from past experience lol) and it shouldn't realy cause a problem for the businesses, just a minor inconvenience.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wrong way to rate
The Internet, being as young as it is in the grand scheme of things is still in it's formative years: no browser is 100% standards compliant yet, content is hard to find even when it's good, my aunt STILL sends emails full of animated emoticons in blast emails to the whole family.
The web is too disorganized to think that the current domain naming system can keep it all making sense. I mean, come on, .org can be used for for-profit sites; .net can be used for things unrelated to the 'Net; .com is used all the time for things unrelated to commerce. It therefore stands to reason I could buy a name in the .xxx TLD just to be "cool." it surely would attract lots of traffic. Right-wing groups could set up triple-x domains just for counter-porn-propaganda. If any TLD is going to work toward organizing information by compartmentalizing it, then ICANN or whoever-CAN needs to enforce and audit all sites applying for and using a particular domain. None of the TLDs today even HINT at the content you'll be presented with--except for .mil ...
It would be difficult to clean up the disorganization, but a worthy notion, I think. After the re-org. I'm not sure about the more recent ones like .firm. Seems to me that makes sense, but what's firm? Can I as a private citizen get one of those if the name I want is taken in all the other TLDs? Or would I even want one that's the same name as 4 or 5 other sites (except for the .whatever)?
I don't know what the best solution is, but I feel that more TLDs don't hurt. But they could help, if they actually MEAN something.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wrong way to rate
The government needs to understand they have no jurisdiction over the internet. And the day they do decide they have some will be the day people move in masses to a new network.
It's a very simplistic and non-global view... For starters most of these sites are run from countries other than the U.S. Why should people in these countries abide by our laws for ratings and domain usage? Second, what qualifies as indecent is awfully different in most parts of the world relative to the United States. In most european countries basic nudity (soft core porn) is a part of every day life, and is seen everywhere. Who gets to make a decision on this?
What if I am an artists that does only nude pictures/paintings? Must I use the .xxx domain? What if my work is pictures of sexual activity? www.photos.com is used as a major photo bank for selling professional pictures, and there are plenty of nude pictures there, must that company now resort to being a .xxx porn site?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
first post shoulda been...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No way this will work
First, who gets the .xxx? The current myporn.com, myporn.net, myporn.us, etc? How to determine who gets the .xxx? And what about myporn.co.uk, and other countries sites? Don't they get a fair chance to register the domain too? And since there is no way they cannot all get the domain, then how do you force the ones who don't get it over?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No way this will work
Ummmmm - how about this:
myporn.com = myporn.xxx
myport.net = myport.net.xxx
myporn.us = myporn.us.xxx
myporn.co.uk = myporn.uk.xxx
myporn.ru = myporn.ru.xxx
myporn.ch = myporn.ch.xxx
...I think you get the drift...there's way to make it work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That's not the problem... Re: No way this will wor
Alternately, there could be com.xxx, net.xxx, org.xxx etc., and they could each get myporn.com.xxx and so forth.
The real problem is getting them out of the regular domains and policing it. If we could find a way to make that possible, then this could work.... but I'm not holding my breath.
Maybe it could be made legal to DDOS porn sites that are in the wrong TLD, but since many of these sites are run by the sort of thugs who'll come after you and break your kneecaps, that might be risky. Of course after some kneecaps get broken maybe the gov. will bomb the bastards as terrorists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Prohibition does not work...
We have the .ORG domain for organisations, .COM for commercial enterprises. .XXX would go a long way to the porn industry proving a claim that it has only given lip-service to; that they are doing everything possible to prevent those who should not access, while making it easy for those who want to do so.
As for those sites that won't get on board, I see nothing wrong with ISPs blocking them until they move to the correct domain. I am not a big fan of censorship, but this is not censorship, it is zoning. What we would do if someone built an adult bookstore in a residential area?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Prohibition does not work...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Those that run pay porn sites should be pissed. A good number of them have invested a large chunk of time and money to ensure a decent spot in SE listings. What they're being asked is to simply swallow the cost and start over. Frankly, I'd be a tad bit upset too.
A far better solution would be site ratings. It would also include sites that show/display gore & the like. If they target just the sex industry then I'd say they're completely contradicting the intent of TV/movie ratings. It's bad if they watch it on the tube/big screen, but it's ok if it's found on the internet.
You may disagree, but ratings would be a more workable solution than telling already established sites "too bad, so sad" & packing up half the internet and moving it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: .xxx domain's
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
XXX is BS
Another control brought to you by your over opressive government do-gooders. Don't they have better things to do? Like cutting taxes or giving us less government for our money?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Late but...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
PORN is everywhere... PORN is even under your clothes.
If you are surfing the internet and come across a PORN site by accident, just simply click away from it... and instantly the PORN is gone.
I think the real problem here are the MOMMIES who are telling everyone everyone what should and should not be done... Common METRO-SEXUAL (whipped males) people - Admit it. You all know it's true.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No way out
Ever found yourself playing whack-a-mole with porn popups?
Meh.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mark Porn in Message Headers
BTW, This is undoutedly not a new idea, but please don't do a google search for "porn bit". Unless want to see more crappy softcore spam sites.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thats your frikin solution.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Zeroth404
I'm a "mommy" and I educate and monitor my "kiddies"...
porn has and will always exist, I have 2 small boys (and a girl) and I know they will look at it...its normal. But I would prefer they not "stumble across" it when they're 7 or 8...seems a bit young to me.
If everyone could come up with an easy way to give online porn its own little community for those of you so obsessed with it, it would be nice...but until then (if ever) thats why they sell filters.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
where to draw the line
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Compensation - Not required
This is similar to all the out-side-of-the-usa-domains such as www.something.co.uk where the "co" is equiv to "com" and "uk" is equiv to xxxx.
This way sites automatcally get grandfathered without any squabling.
Then if the porno guy wants to purchase www.porn.xxx, that becomes a bidding war that can raise money for the powers that be, sort of like the FCC et al auctioning off spectrum.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The solution to problems like this is realizing that age has nothing to do with maturity. any person 13 or older knows damn well what porn is, and exploring that region of human sexuality is completely healthy. Call me an idiot -- I know you want to.
When things like this make people change entire systems, when mommies fear of losing their childs morality becomes an issue that affects people world-wide, the issue is no longer porn, but an issue of the mentality of "attack freedom so I can be a lazy parent". A Lazy parent is a bad parent. Take into account paragraph 2 of this post.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Ok...idiot, yes thanks for permoission, I have wanted to...
exploring human sexuality is completely normal, but some things on some online porn sites are not normal. I'm straightforward with my kids and have already started sex ed with my 6 yr old son...
Parents are not wrong for desiring extra protection for their kids and no one's forcing you to not look at porn...why is it such a big deal for parents to not want naked girls popping up evertime their child tries to go online?
No body said "Get rid of porn" , just regulate things that would embarass some adults the way other porn is regulated
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
...so be this "new" definition of what PORN is to be classified as, will these support websites now be forced to the .xxx TLD ??? or will they now be blocked from search engines because they offer up some PORN next to their wealth of information that is non-PORN related ???
Heck, they had a WORK-WARNING (WW) notice put on the pages preceding entry into those sections ... as long as you entered those pages through the portal's page and not through a search engine or external link.
Gawd forbid that a single mother of 4 daughters (3 of which are actually boys) should take them to the zoo and find a few animals "getting it on" and doing it like it's done on the discovery channel... just think of the law-suites that could be placed against that zoo!
Oh and for that mother with the kids - how the heck do you think the those kids were created? Possibly because you spread your legs and let a man have his ways with you... Nawwww - that's just too simple... heck, that's almost too close to be PORN. But then again, you wouldn't have anything to do with PORN, now would you. You're just a nice quiet bible thumpers, arent'cha!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Redirect
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
she-males, beastiality, scat, etc
Wow! What websites have you been visiting? I dont even know about those things and I have been using the internet for many years now!! Just wow!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What internet have you been using anom Coward? On my internet, if I type "beastiality" in google, I get all kinds of sites...I din't realize there was another internet without that stuff. Can you tell me where to find it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The US can inforce it by filtering any explicit sites that are not using .xxx. The filtering can be done at the teir 1 provider.
Great idea, go for it!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And I won't argue that.
"If everyone could come up with an easy way to give online porn its own little community"
You're suggestiong segregation. are you racist, too?
"keep the pervs off the internet"
Pornography is not perversion.
"why is it such a big deal for parents to not want naked girls popping up evertime their child tries to go online?"
If its that big of an issue, why is it so important that your child be online?
"Just regulate things that would embarass some adults the way other porn is regulated"
The internet is a place of freedom, to exchange ANY kind of information. I'm not arguing that you're not right, I just don't want to see that change.
"if I type "beastiality" in google"
You have to know what beastiality is before you can learn to spell the damn thing, let along search for it. There are other taboos, than just sexual ones.
The porn online you see is commercial porn, and technically just business -- and I'm all for getting rid of business on the internet if thats the direction you want to take.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I don't remember seeing any dildos the last time I went in KMart, you usually have to go to an "adult store" for those...unless you count those funny looking massagers...
Some pornograpphy is perversion. I don't plan to teach my kids that its normal to have sex with 3 or 4 guys at the same time.
I'm not asking for a change in online freedom, or for an end to come to the online porn industry, some people choose to make their money this way, they have that right.
I just don't see the xxx domain as a BAD idea. And I don't think it calls for saying no parent does a good job and all parents are lazy...thats not an issue here.
And, yeah, typing beastiality in google is not something I'm really concerned about, it was just a point that it is there and readily available, I'm sure anon coward knows what beastiality is.
I am a small business owner and I'm all for individuals and their rights to a business, even if that includes porn.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
your all missing the point...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Good Idea?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Good Idea?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
PORN?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: PORN?
"Now the bush administration is looking to make few bucks from porn, sad day for america."
The government makes money from any legal industry...if you go to the local adult store and buy your daily mag, you pay sales tax on it, don't you? Who do you think recieves that money? Not the GOVERNMENT???
The government makes a few bucks for any legal industry...porn is legal and has been...nothing new.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
About the same could be said for alcohol (that thing also know as "BOOZE"). They tried to ban that, calling it "BAD". But we all remember what happened then.
Now that it's legal to drink for persons 21/up (and 18 if you're in Canada), There really isn't such a problem with it anymore.
But there is no way that alcohol and porn can be related to each other... The church accepts booze & they despise all porn... well, mostly they do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I personally think it's a great plan.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Filter in good instead of filtering out bad sites
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Filter in good instead of filtering out bad sites
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Filter in good instead of filtering out bad si
It is funny that to buy it, you have to go to a special section of a store, or ask for it from behind a counter, but when those same restrictions are put on a web site, "Oh hell no, you won't do that to me, your violating my rights" comes up.
Your porn will still be there geniuses, just, this is for you Zeroth404, segregated. Just like it is in the real world.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Filter in good instead of filtering out ba
>
You mean get the good sites to put the good flag in? I would think those sites would be the responsible ones and this would not be a problem for them. I would think the bad sites are more likely to not care and do nothing. What I'm talking about would automatically set the bad sites to be filtered by the child filters in my system. The kids would never see any site that does not have the kids flag in place. An adult site would have to go out of their way and intentionally do something, that be putting in the kids flag, to get kids to come to their adult site. That would make them easy to go after legally. It's like a kid stumbling into the porn section in a store as opposed to the owner actually bringing them into the porn section. I'm just eliminating the arguments like "I forgot to put my porn flag in" or "I didn't know my site belonged in the xxx domain" or "I don't live in your country so what do I care about your xxx laws" part of the equation. On the other hand, if the good site forgets to set the flag then no kids come to that site and that's it. Nothing bad happens either way in that case.
The biggest problem of the XXX domain is who decides what goes in there. One persons porn is another persons art and vice versa. It's easier to flag a kids site than an adult site.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Filter in good instead of filtering out ba
>
You mean get the good sites to put the good flag in? I would think those sites would be the responsible ones and this would not be a problem for them. I would think the bad sites are more likely to not care and do nothing. What I'm talking about would automatically set the bad sites to be filtered by the child filters in my system. The kids would never see any site that does not have the kids flag in place. An adult site would have to go out of their way and intentionally do something, that be putting in the kids flag, to get kids to come to their adult site. That would make them easy to go after legally. It's like a kid stumbling into the porn section in a store as opposed to the owner actually bringing them into the porn section. I'm just eliminating the arguments like "I forgot to put my porn flag in" or "I didn't know my site belonged in the xxx domain" or "I don't live in your country so what do I care about your xxx laws" part of the equation. On the other hand, if the good site forgets to set the flag then no kids come to that site and that's it. Nothing bad happens either way in that case.
The biggest problem of the XXX domain is who decides what goes in there. One persons porn is another persons art and vice versa. It's easier to flag a kids site than an adult site.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Whats the point?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Be careful with that. peversion is like beauty: its in the eye of the beholder.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: perversion
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Consider this, if you will...
No one can legislate morality and ethics, which is the real problem here, and even with spammers. The problem isn't with people accidentally stumbling across porn, it's about porn and spam being forced on us through techniques such as pop-ups, etc.
Every good parent wants to protect their children. It seems to me the solution is to use the same methods used in the brick and mortar world. Does a good parent let their child go anywhere without being told where they are going? And do children always listen? A good parent does not need or want it's government to do the parenting because they are too lazy.
But, this would be wishful thinking in today's age of laziness. When's the last time you didn't use the remote control to change the channel or turn off the TV? When's the last time you used a corded phone requiring you to get up and go to it to answer it? So, let's continue the trend of laziness and let the government raise our children.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Consider this, if you will...
Using a remote is not laziness, it's an energy saver in the form of a TOOL. Am I lazy because I choose to rip an 8-foot sheet of plywood on a table saw instead of using my hand saw? No. Who uses a rock to pound in a nail? Just the person who is too LAZY or poor to go to the store and buy a hammer. It's all about choice.
Parental controls implemented on my home network might keep my kid safe from all kinds of unsavory material on the WORLD wide web, but when my kid visits a friends house and surfs from the pirated Wireless LAN signal the friend's parent(s) use with no firewall or anything, I have no control over what my kid sees. Only good proactive parenting will give a child the wherewithall to avoid such stuff on his own.
There needs to be a balance. The government imposes legislation to protect kids from the problems of smoking cigs by making it illegal to sell smokes to anyone under 18. If a kid really wants to smoke he can still do it, just like people who toke can do so relatively easy, despite the fact that MJ is on the A list of contrabands. The only protection for such an individual is the values instilled in that person by his or her figures of authority--parents, clergy, cool Aunt Betty. Parents who don't take the time to EDUCATE kids about all the crap they'll see or have thrust upon them unexpectedly, can't expect the gov't to take over the responsibility of providing a Best Practices guide to wayward kids.
"Hey kids, even if your mommie and daddy don't tell you it's bad, porn IS bad for you (until you're 18), and you should stay away from it, even if you think it's fun." Like that will work.
Legal controls to prevent underage consumption of smut or chemicals, combined with responsible parenting, will go furthest to keep the fringe markets on the fringe. The responsibility can and should be shared. Of course, no solution can cover all the exteme cases. Speeding is illegal and parents always tell their 16-year olds to drive safely and not speed, but there will always be speeding kids out there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
a 13 year old should know damn well what a pedophile is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Your denial is beneath you. "Yeah, lets let the government control our lives"
Listen dipshit: WE ARE the government. The people govern themselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Zeroth404
If a 40 year old man pleasures himself to a 13 year old, regardless of why the man has access to the naked teen, and thinks its normal and not perverted, he has issues.
I'm sure there are some things I would find perverted that others may not see as such, but some things are truly perverted.
What rights would be violated by moving online porn to its own "section", just like in the real world?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oddly enough.
Just my two cents.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
remember when you were a kid?
the easiest method would be a rating system that is put in place by the site admins, maybe a meta tag... of course, to make the government happy with the promise of money, false ratings can be punishable with fines.
again, regardless of the method, it will all be a facade to make you believe your kids are safe from satan and venomous vaginas...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
and some children are raised to believe that having an open mind is the world of Satan. I'm equally disgusted.
What's wrong with prostitution? IF I want to sell my body for half an hour, who has the right to tell me I dont? its MY choice, no-one elses. Raising your child to be a piece of meat, however, is a COMPLETEY different story.
"If a 40 year old man pleasures himself to a 13 year old, regardless of why the man has access to the naked teen, and thinks its normal and not perverted, he has issues."
THough I agree with you, I feel that you're speaking more from your out of emotion than logic. In serious discussions, its important to put personal feelings aside.
"I'm sure there are some things I would find perverted that others may not see as such, but some things are truly perverted."
And then I'll have to ask you why perversion is such a terrible thing. if nobody gets hurt, mentally or physically, than nothing.
"What rights would be violated by moving online porn to its own "section", just like in the real world?"
Its not that rights are being violated, its that this is just a superficial fix to a permenant and unavoidable problem. The only way to fix an unfixable problem is to ignore it, or accept it. Go ignore it with net-nanny or the like.
Even if this passed in America, there woudl still be foreign porn sites, which are more 'extreme' than american ones because American and State laws are very strict. This is not something America can do on its own.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
* comp.*: computer-related discussions (comp.software, comp.sys.amiga)
* misc.*: Miscellaneous topics (misc.education, misc.forsale, misc.kids)
* news.*: Discussions and announcements about news (meaning Usenet, not current events) (news.groups, news.admin)
* rec.*: Recreation and entertainment (rec.music, rec.arts.movies)
* sci.*: Science related discussions (sci.psychology, sci.research)
* soc.*: Social discussions (soc.college.org, soc.culture.african)
* talk.*: Talk about various controversial topics (talk.religion, talk.politics)
* humanities.*: Fine arts, literature, and philosophy (humanities.classics, humanities.design.misc)
To segregate a single topic would be silly. if you're going to categorize the entire internet, then I don't see why that would be a bad idea.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They wouldn't need to give up the domains
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"To segregate a single topic would be silly"
Yet, its ok to segregate "computer related" (which seems just as single as a topic as "porn") or science (which also seems to be as single a topic as porn).....?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"This is not something America can do on its own."
If the government would pass a law stating that it had to change, and the ISP's had to do it, they would have to do it. And if it meant a technological change, I'm sure the CISCO's of the world could make it happen.
Simply put, if the legislation is in place, it would be this way in America. It might be different in a different country. But this is the way things would happen here.
I think it will happen. And it will be a good thing.
Sometimes censorship is simply labeling the product. This product needs to be labeled properly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"You're suggestiong segregation. are you racist, too? "
There is no contradiction there.
You're still using your feelings more than your logic. I know this because you're trying to refute my integrity, not the integrity of my opinions -- which is pointless.
"any argument is usually fueled by personal feelings"
Don't FUEL your opinions! That only leads to stubbornness. Leave your feelings out of it and use your head.
All I ask is for you to question your own beliefs for the sake of your own validity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rock On.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Zeroth404
The word "segragation" has nothing to do with your contradiction...I refute "your OPINION" of what things are considered to be "topics"...
Like I said, all arguments are driven by feeling and personal opinion or there would be no disagreement.
The only people reading with enough sense to hold a good debate are on my side today. Oh well, maybe next time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pull your head out of your ass.
"The word "segragation" has nothing to do with your contradiction...I refute "your OPINION" of what things are considered to be "topics"... "
classifying *everything* could be a good idea.
"Like I said, all arguments are driven by feeling and personal opinion or there would be no disagreement."
Logic can be interpreted in many ways without involving emotion. Example: You may be opposed to seat belt laws, because logically you should have a choice with no legal consequences. Or, logically, you are FOR seat belt laws, becuase it saves lives.
No emotion involved.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"because logically you should have a choice with no legal consequences."
...you FEEL you should live your life free of legal consequences for your actions...this is your OPINION...not fact or logic.
Therefore, you too are no better than this "paranoid, closed-minded mommy"...you too are a human who allows your feelings, opinions, and experiences to become involved in your arguments.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Why is it so hard to understand that I logically believe that I should live a life with choices? If I had no emotion, put me on prozium for shitsake, I'd still want choices.
"regardless of the spelling...type it in google, you get porn..."
Who is going to type in "Beastiality" in google if they ARENT looking for porn?
"you can't educate a society that thinks they already know it all."
They only think they know it all if they feel strongly about what they believe. They only feel strongly because they aren't using their head as much as their hearts.
There was a recent study on this where people were put on brainsensors or whatever you'll call that, which concluded that people who have strong opinions have more brain activity in their emotive parts of the brain, rather than the logical ones. They form an opinion, and then cater to it with emotions. If I could find the link I'd send it to you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
xxx
Unless the industry trys to police itself, an outsider wont successfully police it.
I like the idea of not accidentaly walking into a online porn site. Just like I don't accidentally walk into a starbucks and get *Star Bucks*.
But how many times has that happened to me online? Probably less than 5, and I'm online everyday for hours doing research or just general reading.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dictionary anyone????
I do what I can to educate, but it's an uphill battle. LMAO!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dictionary anyone????
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dictionary anyone????
* Zoophilia (from the Greek Zoon, "animal", and Philia, "friendship or love") is a paraphilia, defined as an affinity or sexual attraction by a human to non-human animals. Such individuals are called zoophiles. The more recent terms zoosexual and zoosexuality also describe the full spectrum of human/animal attraction. A separate term, bestiality (more common in mainstream usage), refers to human/animal sexual activity. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beastiality
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
feelings or not..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No. You must be using Internet Explorer. get a real browser like Opera or Firefox. Explorer is a spyware/popup leper. Inarguable.
"most parent's wouldn't want their 13yo child (be it a girl or a boy) to see a porn video with a 40yo man and a girl as old as their child."
the only place you'll find that kind of porn is on uncencored file sharing networks, not browsing web. Like I said, get Net-Nanny.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
let me rephrase myself
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
When I was 14, I liked 13 year old girls.
When I was 15, I liked 13 year old girls.
When I was 16, I liked 13 year old girls.
When I was 17, I liked 13 year old girls.
When I was 18, I liked 13 year old girls.
When I was 19, I liked 13 year old girls.
When I was 20, I liked 13 year old girls.
When I was 21, I liked 13 year old girls.
...
When I'm 80, I' like 13 year old girls.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Parents dont want their kids watching porn. It doesn't matte what kind of porn, Role-Playing, Bestiality, Pedophilia, Bang-a-tree, whatever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Like
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Theres a major difference between having sex with a minor, and raping one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Zeroth404
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Zeroth404
Including entries in Source Forge with skills listed in a multitude of computer programming languages and application related stuff. But nowhere in any link returned did it mention English. So give the guy a break, because we all make spelling errors now and then. Just because he can not convey a message in proper english grammar, he IS entitled to his opinion, EVEN if he is a DICK.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
dani
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: dani
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
and I mean mature as in physically.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Zeroth404
I've got quite a reputation :-)
I was formerly known as LabRat404.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What you talkin foo? I done sweet in English in skoo.
"he IS entitled to his opinion, EVEN if he is a DICK."
I try not to piss anyone off ;-)
No really, I try not to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
For pedophile
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Think for yourself.
question authority.
Throughout human history, as our species has faced the frightening, terrorizing fact that we do not know who we are, or where we are going in this ocean of chaos, it has been the authorities, the political, the religious, the educational authorities who attempted to comfort us by giving us order, rules, regulations, informing, forming in our minds their view of reality.
To think for yourself you must question authority and learn how to put yourself in a state of vulnerable, open-mindedness; chaotic, confused, vulnerability to inform yourself.
Think for yourself.
Question authority.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: dani
Tag! Now YOU'RE the DICK!
;-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: dani
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
OMG
Perhaps you will stop generalizing things, and say whether you think it is ok for someone (say 25yo person) to have sex with a 13yo girl. Now, think before you say anything, and imagine that your daughter (when she becomes 13) chooses to willingly do so with her male teacher. Would you be "hmm.. i don't care about laws, and she has a mind of her own, so she can have sex with that 'perv', whatever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"I THINK FOR MYSELF"
I dont doubt that. Laws should have nothing to do with what you believe in, and thats all I meant. And how am I supposed to know? I don't know you. I can only caution.
"EVERY PERSON OLDER THAN 19 SHOULD BE HANGED BY HIS BALLS FOR HAVING SEX WITH A GIRL AGED 13, REGARDLESS OF HOW PHYSICALLY MATURE SHE IS"
Tell me you're not putting a lot of emotion into that. I dare you. Such a lack of compassion, as well.
"whether you think it is ok for someone (say 25yo person) to have sex with a 13yo girl"
I personally find it quite disturbing. Disgusting? No, but I am truely unsettled by it.
"imagine that your daughter ..."
The world has enough people in it, I don't want to put anymore in it. That is one empathy I can't share.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
and how many times do you go over a post before submitting? Now, how many times do you go over a post that mocks someone elses spelling? More, I'm sure of it.
Tell me, have you ever heard of Skitt's Law?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skitt%27s_law
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
huh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
dani?
And as much as laws may be disturbing @ times, without laws, the world would a lot more chaotic than it is now. One example would be the one I said a few posts ago: being illegal to have sex with an individual under 16.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Agreed.
"One example would be the one I said a few posts ago: being illegal to have sex with an individual under 16."
I waws 15 when I lost my virginity -- To a 16 year old. should the 16 year old go to jail?
According to Law, yes. Retarted.
Anyhoo, you can't say this wasnt a fun debate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
WHO has the right to tell me I can't smoke weed?
WHO has the right to take away ANY _PERSONAL_ Freedom that I may have?
NO ONE. But it happens.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The government has those rights. You give the government those rights in order to protect your ass. Otherwise you'd have anarchy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We ARE the government.
We elect officials to ratify and repeal laws to reflect our collective opinions and views.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
80% Solution -> Financial Pressure
A few ideas; not a 100% solution, but a step toward the goal. Your thoughts/arguments are welcome:
- Someone mentioned the .mil domain, which reminds me that content and provider validation CAN be required at some level, not to mention efficiently filtered from "unsuspecting users" -- that's who this bill is trying to protect, right?
- *Legitimate* online porn sites (i.e. those that are explicitly running a business) would likely WANT to to register under .xxx if there were a financial incentive to do so.
- Every *legitimate* business that opts to accept [American] credits cards, PayPal or direct bank transactions can be made subject to review and regulation, and therefore content declaration and tagging.
- In fact, any legitimate business can be made subject to regulation, in the same way it is subject to taxation.
- Most legitimate businesses won't mind being .xxx "segregated," as they're not earning money from the "stumble-upons" anyway. Who "accidentally" seeks out and pays for porn?
- Those businesses that want to continue accepting [American] credit could be required to appropriately tag or rate content, even if it's as simple as an "adult" tag. Don't tell me there's no federal thumb on American banks and credit card companies.
- If the government or the ICANN is really concerned about getting content tagged and filter-able, it's got to put financial pressure on the providers. "No content tagging = No dollars through the American financial system" would act as a pretty strong incentive for the legitimate business sites out there -- the ones that are actually making real money off of porn.
- Research and art sites hosting nudity rarely ask for your VISA and $24.95 per month.
- International porn providers can't be "regulated," bottom line. But a lot of them do want American VISA dollars.
- Independent content providers can hardly be regulated either; so be it, they don't have access to my VISA money.
In other words, porn will always be "available by accident" -- there's no way around that. No one can stop me from posting my webcam session to my personal, public site. But I can guess that if the multi-billion dollar porn "industry" is asked to play by the rules (or lose access to my VISA), it will gladly abide.
With these considerations, no one is "segregating" content except the providers themselves. The vast majority of *accidental* porn hits will dry up quickly.
Make the .xxx domain. Offer financial incentive (pressure) to use it. Don't bother *demanding* because it's pointless, and there's no fair, objective way to categorize.
Again, not a 100% solution. I think it could effectively reduce the unintended "impact on our children" by reducing the prevalence of money-driven porn in the public space that parents/schools choose to filter, with a minimal impact on legitimate providers.
Alright, I'm spent -- now I'm gonna go surf some porn.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And collectively, we want the government to look out for our best interests. Things like car, food, and health safety. In doing that, we give up certain 'freedoms' in order to eat a hamburger that isn't 50% sawdust in a smoke-free restaurant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sorry about the
tags
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
has anyone considered?
Personally, I don't think most people using the internet should. Like those that can't attach files to emails, try to use Excel to open a Word document, etc.... Thanks a lot Mr. Berners-Lee
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
rights
By the way, it's strange how we have not choise but to give those rights away. I mean unlike most things (a heated debate about not using Windows yesterday), you don't have a choice, because there is no place on Earth that has no rules whatsoever. It would be fun to see what happenes if a country gives up some land.. to no one, so that the land has no rules. Everyone could enter/leave the piece of land. And everyone can do anything, grow weed, drink, even kill... It'll be good to see how many people opposing laws would dare to enter there.
This is way off topic tho, so I'm done with this thread :).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That's not the problem... Re: No w....
BTW I think the discussion of implementation of this .xxx scheme is way more off-topic than discussing the internet rights issue being discussed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The internet is open (and again, global), that is the way it should be, if you do not like it then don't make everyone else move, simply setup your own area that you like and accommodates your needs... could be a business model.
Just an idea.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
>
This is the basic idea I have with the kid html tag. The only problem with a kid domain is all the sites that are kid friendly will need to move over to that kid domain and that's the same mess as moving all the porn sites. But I agree that filtering the kid sites in is better then filtering out the adult sites.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
>
This is the basic idea I have with the kid html tag. The only problem with a kid domain is all the sites that are kid friendly will need to move over to that kid domain and that's the same mess as moving all the porn sites. But I agree that filtering the kid sites in is better then filtering out the adult sites.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Double Posts
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I could be wrong, but...
The problem with this is that porn sites want kids to see it. Its hard to stop a curious kid. They will find a way to see what they want to see. A portion of their profits comes from these kids.
So the answer to this problem is to leave it the way it is and parents should keep a better eye on their children and quit making excuses for their neglect.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If I start an argument, I don't hide...
I actually have a life, a husband, 3 kids, and I co-own a business. I've been busy with my life and this is the first time I've been back since that last comment .
I think its quite hilarious that I'm not the only one that sees through those loosely thrown "big words" to the immature pointlessness of your posts!
And, no you may not get anything when you google search "dani" but if you'd search my business name, our website would be the first listing.
Anonymous Coward needs to disagree with me, at least they can hold a real debate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dani.com
Type "dani.com" in your address bar....u get PORN...the world's sexiest models waiting to please you...that shouldn't be "nothing" to you now should it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
you can disagree with me all you want but what is the difference in this and you walking down the street with your child and someone comming up stripping and having sex in front of you and your child. Now you wouldnt like THAT would you. And if that would not bother you, YOU have a very serious problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ok
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
www.xrealtube.com
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hardcore Sasha Grey
[ link to this | view in chronology ]