Senators Pushing For .xxx, The Sequel

from the it's-baaaaaaaaaaack dept

Fri, Mar 17th 2006 2:24am — Mike Masnick

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

137 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 17 Mar 2006 @ 4:30am

they just want to be able to...
mash a url into their address bar, add ".xxx" and chances are get taken to a site where they can get themselves off - and damn the consequences with the IT dept
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Brad, 17 Mar 2006 @ 4:40am

Go for it!
Most video rental stores, around here anyways, have a different room adult videos. Books stores that sell adult content have separate areas for this kind of content. They all segregate to help people avoid getting them selves into an uncomfortable situation usually due to timing. Surfing on the internet shouldn't be much different then walking down the street, where public nudity is not allowed.

Hey, even catholic churches have different areas that priest use for such events.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dennis, 17 Mar 2006 @ 5:08am

Porn Sites
What`s the deal here? I don`t have a problem with porn. If I want porn I have to access, if I want news I have to access it, same with all the rest. Doesn`t have any thing to do with where it`s located, I have to pursue any site I want to access. There are also filters that block me from accessing erotic sites unless I remove them, my choice. Also have parental control for what can be accessed. Doesn`t matter if all porn is located way past the Z`ssss, it`s still my option to go there or not. Government has its fingers in too many pies as it is, leave me alone already.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
nonuser, 17 Mar 2006 @ 5:32am

how about a .spam TLD
If we could persuade all spammers to use that in their email return address, we could really start coming up with effective filters.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Scott, 17 Mar 2006 @ 5:42am

Compensated?
Why would they need to be compensated? Simply transfer them from the .com to the .xxx domains. There may be overlap from other domains, but I doubt that would be very common and could be settled separately. Having worked in a public high school, being able to shunt .xxx to 127.0.0.1 would be an amazing time saver. Rather than pay thousands for filters, that block out perfectly legit content on a regular basis, while manually blocking sites that don't get filtered, I could spend time working on important issues.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
cw, 17 Mar 2006 @ 5:42am

the problem is (as often) ppl forget there are websites outwith the US an UK (and othr countrys that would support this) and they wont want to move, its a fact of business your not just move stuff round the store u are telling people that they need to move store, to a completely diffrent part of town

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 thread ]
Elliot, 17 Mar 2006 @ 5:44am

Re: how about a .spam TLD
I think you may be on to something!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
nunya bidness, 17 Mar 2006 @ 5:52am

Re: Compensated?
I agree, dot whatever was designed to help organize things.
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 thread ]
what the f, 17 Mar 2006 @ 5:59am

Re:
Your geographic analogies are lame, all you have to do is type some different letters. And did you consider the fact that .xxx might actually bring more business to a site. I doubt there will ever be a shortage of porn customers. Argument for arguments sake is so tiring.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
BBB, 17 Mar 2006 @ 6:06am

Good luck enforcing this overseas.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
lime, 17 Mar 2006 @ 6:19am

Re:
Are you kidding me? If the customers are too mentally inenpt that they are thrown off by a change from .com to .xxx then I think they have greater issues than their porn not popping up in time.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ian, 17 Mar 2006 @ 6:22am

Wrong way to rate
If the intent is to rate content so that children cannot get to it, then do it they same way every other type of media is rated...with a ratings system. If we're going to impose this on business, then let's do it in the simplest and most logical way. Just have them embed a "ratings" file on the site that the browser can look at and then you can set the ratings allowed from within the browser. The same way you can do with the V-chip for television. Forcing companies to move their domains is ridiculous. How would you feel if next they say all tech sites have to be moved to a .tech domain...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Sparky, 17 Mar 2006 @ 6:24am

first post shoulda been...
PORN!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Mar 2006 @ 6:32am

No way this will work
There's 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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Mar 2006 @ 6:35am

Re: Wrong way to rate
This technology has been available for a long time. The problem is, all websites need to include the rating. Since over 90% of legitimate web sites do not include it, then you would block over 90% of the internet when using the ratings filter.

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 thread ]
Wizard Prang, 17 Mar 2006 @ 6:36am

Prohibition does not work...
...but containment does. Most of us have stumbled into porno-typosquatters; you mistype a innocuous URL and next thing you know the porno-rama-popup generator is running on your PC.

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 thread ]
JustMe, 17 Mar 2006 @ 6:38am

Re: Wrong way to rate
"Forcing companies to move their domains is ridiculous. How would you feel if next they say all tech sites have to be moved to a .tech domain..."

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 thread ]
VPR, 17 Mar 2006 @ 6:40am

Although I agree with the intent of this, I think to change it now would be more of an uphill battle than anything.

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 thread ]
Wiley, 17 Mar 2006 @ 6:44am

XXX is BS
Maybe they she just force all porn sites to use raw IP addressing. How many people will remember 25 seperate IP addresses instead of www.givemeheadorgivemedeath.xxx?
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 thread ]
Mike, 17 Mar 2006 @ 6:56am

Late but...
Porn!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Mar 2006 @ 7:05am

Why is everyone so afraid of PORN?

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 thread ]
EdB, 17 Mar 2006 @ 7:05am

Re: Prohibition does not work...
What we would do if someone built an adult bookstore in a residential area?
I'd be able to walk to the bookstore :)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Michael, 17 Mar 2006 @ 7:10am

Uhmm... PORN!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
giafly, 17 Mar 2006 @ 7:11am

Mark Porn in Message Headers
The requirement that malware sets the so-called evil bit in its packets seems to be working fine - judging from the lack of cricitism - so let's just have a "porn bit" beside it.

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 thread ]
Zeroth404, 17 Mar 2006 @ 7:12am

keep mommies and kiddies off the internet.

Thats your frikin solution.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
fencesitter, 17 Mar 2006 @ 7:17am

where to draw the line
The biggest problem with this idea is where to draw the line on what is porn. Sure, there are a ton of sights that the gov. could be justified in forcing to adopt the change, but where do you draw the line between porn and art, or porn and education? Any time you force people in a grey area to chose black or white you're going to end up with a fight. Does that mean if I post pic of some nude chick on my blog that I have to change my domain? And who's going to pay the team of "specialist" to draw said line? Not to mention how this would work with site outside of the USA.This will never work
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rob, 17 Mar 2006 @ 7:20am

Compensation - Not required
How about appending the .xxx domain to the domain names of the porn sites... for example, www.porn.com becomes www.porn.com.xxx and www.porn.org becomes www.porn.org.xxx.

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 thread ]
Titan, 17 Mar 2006 @ 7:21am

Re: .xxx domain's
Its not that big of a deal because the fact is every year or two these people have to renew the lease on their .com's, .org's, and everyother domain name. So when the time comes to re do the name they simply change the .com to a .xxx you still have to pay the money for the name no matter what.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Zeroth404, 17 Mar 2006 @ 7:22am

The problem here is not porn on the internet, the problem is fascism mixed with bad parenting.

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 thread ]
dani, 17 Mar 2006 @ 7:26am

Re: Zeroth404
keep the pervs off the internet...thats a better freakin' solution.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Mar 2006 @ 7:31am

Gawd forbid that anyone should visit the OFF-TOPIC section of any discussion forum - whether is be for cars, video games, music or even computers... those things are FILLED with all sorts of PORN.

...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 thread ]
Webman, 17 Mar 2006 @ 7:31am

Re: Re: Wrong way to rate
So then what do we do about those browsers that don't have the content advisor i.e. Firefox?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
dani, 17 Mar 2006 @ 7:34am

Re:
"and exploring that region of human sexuality is completely healthy. Call me an idiot -- I know you want to. "

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Mar 2006 @ 7:38am

no sex is good. it's all bad... stile project.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Webman, 17 Mar 2006 @ 7:42am

Redirect
Why can't the hosting companies, ISP's, or domain owners simply put up a redirect for x amount of time to the new domain. We have all seen sites where we end up with a page that says something like: You will be redirected in 5 seconds to our new site *****.XXX. Seems to me that this would solve everything since the customer does not have to hunt for the new URL of their favorite porin site and the site owner would not have to worry about customers finding the new site.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
James D'Amico, 17 Mar 2006 @ 7:43am

Re:
I think you're being a little rough on the mom, she brought up some good points. I'm sick of hearing "lazy-parenting" thrown around so quickly. Look, you like porn. Fine. But there is a BIG difference between PORN and SEX. Sex is a real thing. Whether it's shared between a married couple or whatever. Porn is not reality. It's escapism. It's like saying that the girls in a strip joint really do like you. Bull, they want the money. Porn sites want the money. So they show all sorts of perverted stuff to shock people into entering. And as our society becomes increasingly more numb, the shock value goes up. But why is any of the online stuff solely the parents responsibility? Teaching our kids about correct morality, sex, etc. is definitely a parents job. But teaching them about she-males, beastiality, scat, etc. at 7-8 years old, imo, IS NOT. Restrict the domain to .xxx
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Mar 2006 @ 7:47am

Re: by James D'Amico on Mar 17th, 2006 @ 7:43am
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 thread ]
dani, 17 Mar 2006 @ 7:51am

Re:
"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!!"

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 thread ]
Brad, 17 Mar 2006 @ 7:54am

The goal isn't to stop porn or reduce the ammounts of it. The goal is to allow network admins like me self to control filtering a little better and to make people aware of the site content before the see the content.

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 thread ]
Zeroth404, 17 Mar 2006 @ 7:54am

"But I would prefer they not "stumble across" it when they're 7 or 8"

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 thread ]
Zeroth404, 17 Mar 2006 @ 7:56am

Parents: Quit trying to change the world, get Net-Nanny: http://www.netnanny.com/
[ link to this | view in thread ]
benmcnelly, 17 Mar 2006 @ 7:58am

your all missing the point...
The point is, for this to work we would have to legislate what qualifies as "porn" thuss starting down a trail of censorship. We have the right to free speech, the right to whatever religion we choose. If we legislate what is porn, the next thing you know we will be legislating and sanctioning religion and free speech....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
dani, 17 Mar 2006 @ 8:07am

Re:
I'm no more racist than the rest of the world, but thats an entirely different topic. If I'm suggesting "segragation", the rest of the porn industry is already "segragted".

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 thread ]
Joe Snuffy, 17 Mar 2006 @ 8:13am

Good Idea?
I think that it is a good idea....in theory. One domain for all porn? Easy to keep the kids from. Actually getting the job done, not going to happen.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Joe Snuffy, 17 Mar 2006 @ 8:14am

Good Idea?
I think that it is a good idea....in theory. One domain for all porn? Easy to keep the kids from. Actually getting the job done, not going to happen.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Pimptology Professor, 17 Mar 2006 @ 8:14am

PORN?
Now the bush administration is looking to make few bucks from porn, sad day for america.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
dani, 17 Mar 2006 @ 8:20am

Re: PORN?
You guys may know a lot about technology, but a lot of the readers here seem clueless when it comes to business, economy, etc.

"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 thread ]
TriZz, 17 Mar 2006 @ 8:22am

Re: 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?"

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Mar 2006 @ 8:22am

Back in the day, they said the same thing about "MAD MAGAZINE"... that it was bad and should be banned. Now it has become a television series, AKA "MAD TV".

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 thread ]
Andrew Strasser, 17 Mar 2006 @ 8:23am

I personally think it's a great plan.
This is a way of doing none other than adding another option to your search engine. You can't hide from them. It's easy to implement and very easy to control the way our kids see the internet. This will get rid of all smut from regular browsing. You want smut you go get your smut.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Picardy, 17 Mar 2006 @ 8:24am

Filter in good instead of filtering out bad sites
There is a perfectly simple solution to this. You filter in good sites and don't waste time trying to filter out bad sites. If you want kids to visit your site, you put in a special tag in you html to invite all users of all ages. This can then be easily filtered at the ISP or at your home. This way no ones cries about having their rights violated since it is a voluntary thing done by the responsible people of society. This way children could only see objectionable content if someone is stupid enough to go out of their way to grant access to them. If you don't want kids visiting your site, then you don't have to do anything. This is a much simple and easier system to implement.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Picardy, 17 Mar 2006 @ 8:24am

Filter in good instead of filtering out bad sites
There is a perfectly simple solution to this. You filter in good sites and don't waste time trying to filter out bad sites. If you want kids to visit your site, you put in a special tag in you html to invite all users of all ages. This can then be easily filtered at the ISP or at your home. This way no ones cries about having their rights violated since it is a voluntary thing done by the responsible people of society. This way children could only see objectionable content if someone is stupid enough to go out of their way to grant access to them. If you don't want kids visiting your site, then you don't have to do anything. This is a much simple and easier system to implement.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Netjocky, 17 Mar 2006 @ 8:31am

Whats the point?
I can see the idea behind this but I see no reason for it. A good example would be to take an obvious name like teensluts.com. That domain really has no purpose to be used for anything else but porn. Why should they be forced to change it to a .xxx domain. Obiously it would be easier to control as far as who can view it but I say let parental software take care of that. And it the government thinks that the software isn't sufficent enough then maybe they should put some funding into getting that type of software better developed.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Scott, 17 Mar 2006 @ 8:38am

Re: Filter in good instead of filtering out bad si
Right....because it would be so easy to get those site to put that flag in there wouldn't it? There are no violated rights here, you do not have the right to display porn anywhere you wish.

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 thread ]
Zeroth404, 17 Mar 2006 @ 8:48am

"Some pornograpphy is perversion"

Be careful with that. peversion is like beauty: its in the eye of the beholder.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
dani, 17 Mar 2006 @ 8:52am

Re: perversion
I'm sorry...if you see a 40 year old man pleasuring himself to a nude 13 year old child as anything besides perversion, you have some issues.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Zeroth404, 17 Mar 2006 @ 9:00am

Regardless of what I think, a 13 year old has a mind of his or her own. I'm not advocating anything other than the free will ALL people, if one is intelligent enough to do so.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Orcus, 17 Mar 2006 @ 9:12am

Consider this, if you will...
Just curious... A man suffering from erectile dysfunction searches out information. Does he find it hosted on .xxx? A woman is researching the latest in breast cancer. Is this located, too, on .xxx?

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 thread ]
Zeroth404, 17 Mar 2006 @ 9:13am

sufficient intelligence to will freely: the ability to comprehend a subject which is comprehensible by the majority population of its species.

a 13 year old should know damn well what a pedophile is.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Zeroth404, 17 Mar 2006 @ 9:16am

"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."

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 thread ]
Dani, 17 Mar 2006 @ 9:21am

Zeroth404
Dude...you missed the point...yes a 13 year old knows, unfortunately some children have been raised to think selling their bodies is acceptable...the point, however, was that some pornorgraphy is definitely perversion.

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 thread ]
Marshall, 17 Mar 2006 @ 9:23am

Oddly enough.
I'm a highschool student, on my laptop right now. Yeah, this is one of the few sites not blocked by the server, but oddly enough porn is allowed too... not all of it of course, but theres quite a few sites I can reach on this server. If the .xxx is passed and required, that would mean no matter what I cannot look at any of that (not saying i do ;-) ) and as was said in the article, it would stop people from accidently stumbling upon a site like that during class.

Just my two cents.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
anonymous super hero, 17 Mar 2006 @ 9:30am

remember when you were a kid?
if you really wanted something, like a cherry magazine or an equally adult video or beer or cigarettes, you would find a clever way to get it. go ahead and create these stupid editions to the system. whatever makes you sleep better at night. ladies and gents, this is the internet and these are computers, there will always be a way around the security fences you build.
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 thread ]
Jared, 17 Mar 2006 @ 9:31am

How can the goverment of anyone make a website use a specific domain? Honestly if the people a porn.com do not want to switch to porn.xxx is the goverment of someone just simply going to shut them down?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Zeroth404, 17 Mar 2006 @ 9:35am

"some children have been raised to think selling their bodies is acceptable"

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 thread ]
Bob, 17 Mar 2006 @ 9:39am

Re: Wrong way to rate
I think a .tech domain would be cool. I think the whole TLD system should be revamped or expanded to accomodate the varied uses of the Internet.

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 thread ]
Zeroth404, 17 Mar 2006 @ 9:45am

It may be a nice idea to organize the web much like the original Usenet was, such as so:

* 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 thread ]
Bill, 17 Mar 2006 @ 9:52am

They wouldn't need to give up the domains
They would have to redirect them to the .xxx. They would lose no brand equity and parents could far more easily screen. They cheat - they lose the domain.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
dani, 17 Mar 2006 @ 9:55am

Its sad that the only person who will debate anything with me is someone whp contradicts theirself...and doesn't realize any argument is usually fueled by "personal feelings"...if everything was so cut and dry with fact and logic, how could anyone disagree...its how we as individuals interpret the logic based on our personal experience and emotion.

"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 thread ]
SB, 17 Mar 2006 @ 10:03am

"This is not something America can do on its own."
Think I would have to disagree.

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 thread ]
Zeroth404, 17 Mar 2006 @ 10:12am

"To segregate a single topic would be silly"
"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 thread ]
KGordon, 17 Mar 2006 @ 10:13am

Re: Wrong way to rate
And what gives the U.S. Government the right to force sites to use rating information? They neither own the sites or have jurisdiction over them.

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 thread ]
Zeroth404, 17 Mar 2006 @ 10:16am

"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. "

Rock On.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
KGordon, 17 Mar 2006 @ 10:23am

Re: Compensated?

Having worked in a public high school, being able to shunt .xxx to 127.0.0.1 would be an amazing time saver

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 thread ]
dani, 17 Mar 2006 @ 10:26am

Re: Zeroth404
Take a reading comprehension class or something...you seem to be good at missing the point.

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 thread ]
Muse, 17 Mar 2006 @ 10:43am

Re: Go for it!
In Canada, we often don't segregate books with adult content. We also allow degrees of public nudity in certain provinces. I'm sure most European nations are similar to us, your more liberal neighbours to the north.

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 thread ]
Zeroth404, 17 Mar 2006 @ 10:43am

"The only people reading with enough sense to hold a good debate are on my side today. Oh well, maybe next time."

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 thread ]
txjump, 17 Mar 2006 @ 10:44am

xxx
The new domain is a nice idea. There are lots of good points for it. But in reality, will it work? I doubt it. Because as with anything that is governed, there is misgovernment.

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 thread ]
Zeroth404, 17 Mar 2006 @ 10:52am

I'm not sure how you people seem to so innocently and accidently browse to a porn site. What kind of things are you looking up?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Gi, 17 Mar 2006 @ 10:55am

Dictionary anyone????
For those discussing "beastiality", there is no such word. It's "bestiality". I would imagine that if you typed the former into a search engine you might get some porn as that particular area of business seems either to have inaccurate foreign-language translations or a simple lack of literacy. For the latter, reference a dictionary! For those of a biblical persuasion, you should already know this from your Bible.
I do what I can to educate, but it's an uphill battle. LMAO!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
dani, 17 Mar 2006 @ 10:59am

Re:
I promise this is the last time I waste my time doing this today...its just too much fun...

"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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Mar 2006 @ 10:59am

Re: Consider this, if you will...
"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?"

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 thread ]
dani, 17 Mar 2006 @ 11:01am

Re: Dictionary anyone????
regardless of the spelling...type it in google, you get porn...you can't educate a society that thinks they already know it all.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Zeroth404, 17 Mar 2006 @ 11:13am

Re: Re:
"you FEEL you should live your life free of legal consequences"

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 thread ]
Wizard Prang, 17 Mar 2006 @ 11:38am

No way out
>>> 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.
Ever found yourself playing whack-a-mole with porn popups?

Meh.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Mar 2006 @ 11:42am

feelings or not..
...It doesn't matter if the opinion is based on feelings or not. It's a fact that 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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Zeroth404, 17 Mar 2006 @ 11:50am

"Ever found yourself playing whack-a-mole with porn popups? "

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Mar 2006 @ 11:53am

let me rephrase myself
"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 (18yo) pretending to be as old as their child."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Pedophile, 17 Mar 2006 @ 11:55am

When I was 13, I liked 13 year old girls.
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 thread ]
Zeroth404, 17 Mar 2006 @ 11:58am

"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 (18yo) pretending to be as old as their child."

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Mar 2006 @ 12:01pm

Like
As long as you just like them, it's fine. Make sure you don't do anything about it tho, cause I'd be happy to see you get jailed (but hope it won't happen). A little reference for what happens when unfortunate individuals such as yourself do what they like, click here.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Zeroth404, 17 Mar 2006 @ 12:05pm

Someone told me once that there's a right and wrong.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Pedophile, 17 Mar 2006 @ 12:12pm

"As long as you just like them, it's fine. Make sure you don't do anything about it tho, cause I'd be happy to see you get jailed (but hope it won't happen). A little reference for what happens when unfortunate individuals such as yourself do what they like, click here."

Theres a major difference between having sex with a minor, and raping one.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
innocent bystander, 17 Mar 2006 @ 12:20pm

Zeroth404
I looked up Zeroth404 on google and dork came up.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Zeroth404, 17 Mar 2006 @ 12:20pm

I'll add that the definition of pedophilia is sexual attraction to sexually immature persons. There are a lot of very matured 13 year olds in the world. A Great example is that japaneese girl with something like double-D breasts.

and I mean mature as in physically.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Zeroth404, 17 Mar 2006 @ 12:21pm

Re: Zeroth404
"I looked up Zeroth404 on google and dork came up."

I've got quite a reputation :-)

I was formerly known as LabRat404.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Webster, 17 Mar 2006 @ 12:30pm

Re: Dictionary anyone????
Definitions of beastiality on the Web:

* 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 thread ]
Yo Mama, 17 Mar 2006 @ 12:31pm

Re: Zeroth404
I actually looked up Zeroth404 on Google and five pages came up.
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 thread ]
Zeroth404, 17 Mar 2006 @ 12:32pm

dani
Funny. I googled "dani" and didn't come up with a damn thing :-)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Zeoth404, 17 Mar 2006 @ 12:35pm

"Just because he can not convey a message in proper english grammar"

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Mar 2006 @ 12:44pm

For pedophile
Anywhere in NA it is illegal to have sex with a person younger than (I believe 16) a ceratin age. So rape or not, that's how one will end up.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Yo Mama, 17 Mar 2006 @ 12:47pm

Re: dani
Maybe you spelled it wrong.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Zeroth404, 17 Mar 2006 @ 12:48pm

Don't base your opinions on Laws.

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 thread ]
Zerothy404, 17 Mar 2006 @ 12:49pm

Re: Re: dani
"Maybe you spelled it wrong."

Tag! Now YOU'RE the DICK!

;-)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Mar 2006 @ 12:54pm

OMG
I don't believe the stuff comming out of you. Do you read what you are saying, or are you just trying to disagree with everyone's comment here? I THINK FOR MYSELF, AND I THINK THAT 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. However, there are laws that don't do that, they handle it in another way.
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 thread ]
Yo Mama, 17 Mar 2006 @ 1:03pm

Re: Re: Re: dani
Nothing spelled wrong here, now put your toys away and deflate your girlfriend, it's getting late!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Zeroth404, 17 Mar 2006 @ 1:11pm

Well, dani, here is my response. by the way, you can stop anonymously posting, I dont care that you promised you wouldn't post again.

"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 thread ]
Zeroth404, 17 Mar 2006 @ 1:14pm

"Nothing spelled wrong here, now put your toys away and deflate your girlfriend, it's getting late!"

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 thread ]
bbay, 17 Mar 2006 @ 1:17pm

Man, I *SO* told you this would happen.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Zeroth404, 17 Mar 2006 @ 1:19pm

"Man, I *SO* told you this would happen."

huh?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Mar 2006 @ 1:22pm

dani?
This isn't "dani". I wish Techdirt would post IPs, or require people to be registered to post. Anyways.

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 thread ]
Zeroth404, 17 Mar 2006 @ 1:31pm

"without laws, the world would a lot more chaotic than it is now."

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 thread ]
Zeroth404, 17 Mar 2006 @ 1:33pm

WHO has the right to tell me I can't consume alcohol if I'm ANY age?

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 thread ]
they have the right, 17 Mar 2006 @ 1:41pm

WHO has the right to tell me I can't consume alcohol if I'm ANY age?

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.

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 thread ]
Zeroth404, 17 Mar 2006 @ 1:48pm

"The government has those rights. You give the government those rights in order to protect your ass. Otherwise you'd have anarchy."

We ARE the government.

We elect officials to ratify and repeal laws to reflect our collective opinions and views.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
CoronaJoe, 17 Mar 2006 @ 1:53pm

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 thread ]
they have the right, 17 Mar 2006 @ 1:57pm

We elect officials to ratify and repeal laws to reflect our collective opinions and views

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 thread ]
CoronaJoe, 17 Mar 2006 @ 1:59pm

Sorry about the
tags
...didn't realize they would take up so much argument space...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
they have the right, 17 Mar 2006 @ 2:03pm

has anyone considered?
the beneficial part of NOT creating .xxx? i.e. the industry created by all the filter providers? After all, it's another tool they get to add to the bloated spyware-antivirus-firewall-'keep-your-computer-updated-and-secure' software packages they get to charge $49.99 for. Are they lobbying against .xxx?

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Mar 2006 @ 2:07pm

rights
So, if we are the government, and the government can takes those rights from us -- we take those rights from ourselves. I totally agree with #118.

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 thread ]
Brandon Zylstra, 17 Mar 2006 @ 2:09pm

That's not the problem... Re: No way this will wor
if there are myporn.com and .net and .org and .co.uk and so forth, just auction off the .xxx to those domain owners. The highest bidder wins, and the others have to find something else.

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 thread ]
they have the right, 17 Mar 2006 @ 2:17pm

That's not the problem... Re: No w....
#122, so in using an auction to decide who gets myporn.xxx, the winner immediately gets the monopoly on that name? That sounds way cheesy to me.

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 thread ]
Tre Roth, 17 Mar 2006 @ 3:30pm

The solution here is not to put porn sites onto a .xxx extension but to make a kids section of the web .kds (or whatever). You could not ever regulate porn on the internet (the internet is global... period.), but, you could easily add children safe sites to a specific domain extension. Nickelodeon, Disney... whatever. Then just limit kids browsers to display only .kds extensions. This would also solve the problems for search engines, a yahoo kids search site would be limited to only display .kds extensions, so every link that would be displayed would be an acceptable link for the kids... there would be no filters required (other than the primary filter that requires only .kds extensions). If a site comes online and wants to be for kids (.kds), then they petition to get on, someone checks it out, and your done (you could have them sign a contract stating they are responsible for content etc... Technically you could make some brutal punishment for violations, to keep it safe)). setup some general guidelines for everyone... so technically business sites could be listed on the extension (why of course would they, but the option would be there), the sites wouldn't be discriminating just guarnteed not to have whatever the guidelines would state (no nudity, no unsolicited e-mail, etc... for example).

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 thread ]
Chris, 17 Mar 2006 @ 4:49pm

Re: Go for it!
The difference here is that those rental stores and book stores are only retailers of products--reatailers can place merchandise anywhere in their store they want to. If a company's storefront had to be in a different area of town just because it sold adult content, that would be a little silly, don't you think? *That*'s a closer analogy to what is being proposed here, I think.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Mar 2006 @ 6:41pm

I have small children and read the bible alot. I think all forms of porn go against what Jesus wants and should be 100% outlawed. I certainly don't want my kids seeing this trash, plus it does NOTHING for the good of mankind, just get rid of it all already!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Picardy, 17 Mar 2006 @ 9:18pm

Re: Re: Filter in good instead of filtering out ba
>Right....because it would be so easy to get those site to put that flag in there wouldn't it? There are no violated rights here, you do not have the right to display porn anywhere you wish."
>

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 thread ]
Picardy, 17 Mar 2006 @ 9:18pm

Re: Re: Filter in good instead of filtering out ba
>Right....because it would be so easy to get those site to put that flag in there wouldn't it? There are no violated rights here, you do not have the right to display porn anywhere you wish."
>

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 thread ]
Picardy, 17 Mar 2006 @ 9:31pm

Re:
>The solution here is not to put porn sites onto a .xxx extension but to make a kids section of the web .kds (or whatever)
>

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 thread ]
Picardy, 17 Mar 2006 @ 9:31pm

Re:
>The solution here is not to put porn sites onto a .xxx extension but to make a kids section of the web .kds (or whatever)
>

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 thread ]
Picardy, 17 Mar 2006 @ 9:35pm

Double Posts
Sorry for the double posts. I just figured out what causes it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Greg, 17 Mar 2006 @ 10:23pm

I could be wrong, but...
By forcing all porn sites to use .xxx, the porn sites can be easily found by those who want to see it, and blocked by those who dont want to see it. The people win.

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 thread ]
dani, 19 Mar 2006 @ 8:14am

If I start an argument, I don't hide...
Sorry to bust your bubble, Zeroth404, if you happen to come back and read this, but I'm a quite honest person and not afraid to make statements as myself..

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 thread ]
dani, 19 Mar 2006 @ 8:33am

Dani.com
Heh, heh...it's time for me to really be a smartass Zeroth404...

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 thread ]
James, 8 May 2006 @ 12:55am

I have children and i think it's a shame when they can get online line trying to go to nick.com and accidently type in nicky.com and be introduced to things that young children just should not see.
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 thread ]
Karen, 3 May 2010 @ 5:16pm

ok
stream sex
[ link to this | view in thread ]
xrealtube, 26 Sep 2010 @ 12:55am

www.xrealtube.com
check out our NEW porn tube website with over 5000 free streaming videos and over 100 porn stars, you can choose from a large variety of full length videos
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hardcore Sasha Grey, 27 Sep 2010 @ 12:21pm

Hardcore Sasha Grey
watch sasha grey sucking dick , getting her ass licked and fucking hard at http://www.xrealtube.com
[ link to this | view in thread ]