Slashdot Mirror
New RFC Considers .sex TLD Dangerous
netcentric writes "A post on CircleID has reported about an RFC prepared by Donald E. Eastlake 3rd and Declan McCullagh, CNET News.com's Washington D.C. correspondent, analyzing proposals from various parties to mandate the use of special top level domain names (such as .sex or .xxx) or an IP address bit to flag 'adult' or 'unsafe' material or the like. The analysis explains why these ideas are dangerous and ill considered from legal, philosophical, and technical points of view. Here is the post to this report on CircleID along with some commentaries and link to the entire RFC 3675."
...to read why showing a nipple on US TV is immoral, while executing the said owner of the nipple and selling the nipple is a good deed.
Perhaps if there was a gradation similar to the one used by the ESRB, different locales with their different mores could set different thresholds.
"Please stay within the free speech zone so that we can use less tear gas to subdue you when Tipper Gore gives the signal."
Am I cynical, enlightened, disillusioned, or just fed up with being pushed around by Washington bureaucrats? If I want to look at pr0n then, by doggammit, I'm going to. If GW Bush doesn't want me to look at pr0n then perhaps he should donate one of his daughters to my harem. For cripes' sakes. I'm 28, in good physical condition, educated, I have a libido like any other man on this planet, and I have standards which say I'm not going to screw the town nasty-mattress just to get off.
If they don't want to deal with my spooge then figure out a way to hook me up with a woman who will. It's hardly my fault that I have to spend my life locked up at work just to pay taxes so that they can continue to propagate this kind of useless b_llsh_t which costs me money even though I voted against it.
If the police state that we live in is so doggone perfect then quit hassling me about not having a suitable mate.
+++ATHZ 99:5:80
Of course, *.xxx.us isn't really small enough, though, is it? Wouldn't you think that xxx.ky.us and xxx.nv.us would have different standards? And even then, there's places within each state where taking the lord's name in vain is obscene.
I think attempts to apply technological "solutions" to the "problem" of obscenity just helps mask what the concept of "obscenity" is. In the past, it's been a segment of society deciding what the whole of society can and cannot do IN PUBLIC (or, more accurately, at private businesses that are open to the public). Now, it's tipping dangerously toward deciding what society can do IN PRIVATE (that is, in front of your computer covered in hot grits).
I have thought about this a few times, and I actually think the benefits in terms of keeping pr0n away from people who do not want to see it outweigh the risks in terms of keeping pr0n away from people who do want to see it. After all, where there's a will(y), there's a way.
However, I also think it's unlikely to happen. The UK and US governments seem to think that there is something wrong with sex -- especially the non-procreative varieties -- but prefer to deal with it by pretending it doesn't exist. Creating a special domain for pornography and then taking action to ensure it is used properly would mean having to admit that people do enjoy sex.
And that's something I really can't imagine the authorities ever agreeing to, given the way the USA reacted to a lady's chest being shown on TV, and the fact that until recently, you weren't even allowed to depict a hard-on in Britain. The only way it would ever gain any sort of approval would be if someone else started it off. But in countries where sex is seen as just being something people do, they probably would not see the need for a separate place on the Internet.
I could be wrong. I'd like to be wrong. But it's going to require a pretty major attitude shift somewhere.
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
First, let me start by saying I don't have an answer to the problem of kids and porn on the net. Having said that, a few observations.
1. I don't think there is a kids and porn problem. Raise your hand if you viewed porn at one time when you were a kid. Now keep your hand up if you turned into a social deviant. Not many, eh! Speaking from personal experience, the people I knew growing up who turned into social misfits and freaks are the ones who were shielded all of their lives (see home schooled and religious fanatics).
2. Aside from border problems, HOW DO WE CATEGORIZE PORN?!!!!! Do art websites qualify? What if I model a naked woman in Maya and put that on the web? Or is it just 'real' photos and video we're concerned with. What about dirty letters? What if I run a site with pictures of a clitoris? Now what if I put info about women's health on that website? Whether or not I'm creating a site for commercial purposes is irrelevant to me. The fact is as someone who puts content on the web and views content, porn or whatever, I don't want censorship. If you don't like it, set the BIOS password on your computer and try PARENTING your child, instead of giving them the internet as a babysitter.
3. Does anyone realize how quickly content would be eliminated from the web if this were to go into effect? Do you think AOL or Earthlink will allow access to those sites when parents groups protest? This is not making it easier to identify this type of material, it's aimed at eliminating it.
That's my three bits. Take it with a grain of salt. Disclaimer-I run a website for profit (about $25 per month profit, but I just got it going). It has adult material on it. It's at http://www.aliengoods.com/ and I sell bondage furniture. And guess what? I have a disclaimer page that most content filters should catch and block. I don't care because I don't sell to children (let's not get into a public library filters debate - they anger me).
Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day. Teach him to fish and he'll wipe out the species.
Why the fuck should it be this way around?? there is no advantage. The solution is simple, you make a .safe domain and you enforce strict rules on that domain only, you leave the rest of the internet alone. Already we have domains that are restricted (AFAIK) you cant get a .gov address unless.. your with the government, and the same for .ac/.edu - the next logical step is to do the same for this, not the other way around.
Lastly, if a kid is too young to risk seeing anything dodgy, then they are probably too young to even gain anything from using the internet as a whole for education. Think about the (educational) things you use it for, do younger kids need that?
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.