Slashdot Mirror
Senators Renew Call for .XXX Domain
An anonymous reader writes "It's an election year again, and the usual PR causes are being picked up. Senators are once again pushing for a .XXX top-level domain to 'corral pornography'." From the article: "The bill suggests, but does not require, that .xxx serve as the domain name ending. Any commercial Internet site or online service that "has as its principal or primary business the making available of material that is harmful to minors" would be required to move its site to that domain. Failure to comply with those requirements would result in civil penalties as determined by the Commerce Department. It's unclear whether the measure will go very far. First of all, it could be struck down as unconstitutional, said Marv Johnson, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union. "
and when porn.com/net/org/everything else is told to move to as single .xxx, what then of mindless politicians with no understanding of the interwebnet superhighway?
I hate grandstanding.
There's nothing Intelligent about Intelligent Design.
But openly calling for porn?
What will their wives say? (And you can leave Barney Frank out of that - his "friend" pimped a gay sex ring right out of the Senator's apartment...)
If that isn't a Domain Name Squatter's wet dream I don't know what is...
Failure to comply with those requirements would result in civil penalties....
Which means big freaking whup for internationally hosted sites?
So what happens when Porn sites in other countries refuse to move to the .XXX domain? Would the U.S. Government then try and block non .XXX porn sites?
Can anyone explain me why tagging a website as "porn" (in the domain) could be declared inconstitutional?
Would http://www.michaeljackson.com/ and http://www.r-kelly.com/ be forced to move too? Say it ain't so.
Must be election year. Folks, try to vote for people that at least demonstrate a vague understanding of the Internet.
it's a blue bright blue Saturday hey hey
Time to register "BringBackPorn.com"
BBH
This is about as unconstitutional as forcing processed food vendors to label the ingredients. Now people can quickly know which food has ingredients they want to avoid. Why would this idea be bad when applied to websites?
Could that be any more vague? Are we going to see amazon.xxx?
End transmission.
Any commercial Internet site or online service that "has as its principal or primary business the making available of material that is harmful to minors" would be required to move its site to that domain.
Well then, they better get cracking and register rnc.xxx and dnc.xxx. Lord knows that my years as a youth of listening to political drivel from both sides has completely messed me up.
Also, what about the tobacco companies? Alcohol distillers? Have I missed any?
Allow me to be the first to point out that along with this, the U.S. Senate also voted to raise the national debt limit to $9,000,000,000,000 (9 trillion), rather than even making an attempt to curb spending.
For the baby born today, congratulations, you already owe $30,000 to China. I'm glad the senate is worrying about my ability to quickly locate porn.
In a day and age when the European Union is threatening to break away from the US-controlled root DNS servers, this article begs the question--Senators, are you trying to damage the Internet on purpose, OR ARE YOU JUST PLAIN FUCKING DUMB?
Man, I love reelections.
looking at this map: http://moat.nlanr.net/International/images/collab_ world_map.gif
There are a lot of places that, surprisingly, are NOT The United States of America. I hear that those places are prone to ignoring laws passed by the United States. I cannot fathom why those things that are not America would not follow our laws, but I do believe it would make it hard to use a United States law to get them to move thier titties and cockies to a different server.
If the definition requires that a site "has as its principal or primary business the making available of material that is harmful to minors," many (myself included) might argue that most pr0n sites should be held exempt. I refuse to believe that viewing naked bodies (solo or action) is inherently 'harmful to minors,' especially when 'minors' includes such pr0n-consuming demographics as 17-year-old boys.
What is "harmful to minors" mean, exactly? Is a naked breast harmful in comparison to professional wrestling? Or a murder mystery television show?
Despite the huge technical and social problems with this kind of change...
.xxx site can be blocked, browsers can be configured to refuse to load any resource from an .xxx site, search engines can refuse to search/list pages in .xxx domains, etc.
*If* it could happen, it would be great for many of us who want to block it out. Which is the purpose of the bill, of course.
Any mail that references an
It's also possible for this to happen, I believe, to an extent; at the very least, due to the wonderful recently-showcased fact that the US controls the Internet naming infrastructure. Even foreign sites can be forced to comply by simply removing them from the top-level domains, and threatening to remove sites from top-level domains that host adult content.
One thing I'd worry about though is how one defines what is pornography and what isn't. Is a site that talks about STDs and safe-sex going to be labelled as adults-only by the religious right? Is a nudist colony site pornographic or simply counter-culture? Is a site that has "bad words" an adult site?
I would want to see a very clear, objective, strict, narrow definition of adult/pornographic content for this bill. i.e., "Images displaying sexual intercourse." (That is slightly too narrow, I'd think, but the intent should be clear.)
Yes, I agree that's exactly what they should do.
and jail everyone they can that does not conform.
[and I don't give a damn about moderators scoring either! Just make it -1 as usual]
That would be the next entry into my local DNS hosts file. They say filtering is a less intrusive means to this, so then make that filtering easier for the average person to do I say. I really don't see how adding context restricts free speech. There's a place and time for any speech, but what about a person's right not to have to listen to such speech (ie, porn pop ups/general porn advertisements, crappy results from google)?
OH! I get it now! It all depends on the extension! So sexyhotpixxx.com is fine, but when you get sexyhotpix.xxx, WOAH THERE! Also, "has as its principal or primary business the making available of material that is harmful to minors" RAWR I HATE YUO! A kid who knows that "xxx" is bad would be much less likely to head over to .xxx than .com.
How the hell is porn harmful? That's the worst part of this American culture. Killing people is glorified but OH CHRIST DON'T LET ANYONE BE SEEN MAKING LOVE!
Once upon a time, Frog was taking a look at Toad's garden. Toad had separate plots out marked "carrots" "tomatoes" and "peppers". He also had one plot marked "weeds", which was unkempt and full of weeds. "Toad," asked Frog, "why the hell do you have a separate plot for weeds?!" "Well, Frog, it's so that they stay in that plot and don't go in any of the others."
I've upped my standards, so up yours.
One of the first to move? Certainly harmful to minors.
Don't you think it's funny that when the "little guy" asks for something it can be voted-away just once (and is never heard of again), but when something "important" gets voted away it just sticks it's head up again, and again, and *swat* .... Again and *blammoo!* .... Again and *heavy nuke !!!* ......... Again, and ... untill it gets "accepted by the voters" ?
...
Somehow I don't understand why something that gets voted away can be, with minor changes to the wording, but mostly *not* the meaning, be entered again and
making it mandatory? That's just insanely stupid.
Because there is no obvious relationship between the number thirty and this type of material.
Whoever registers .com.xxx and .net.xxx first wins!
Like most /.ers, I find I waste a lot of time looking for porn. It would be nice to have all the potential 'sites roped into one basic corral!
Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't this whole "xxx" TLD issue started when a porn mogul requested a specific domain for all porn so that he and the rest of the industry could avoid legal issues?
I see nothing wrong with this so long as its not the "religious" right deciding the definition of porn.
Somebody please tell me that US politicians are not so ethnocentric that they still think that the Internet was created by Al Gore and that it is theirs to policy at their own whim.
And since you are at it, can you tell me how is the Department of Commerce going to enforce this on a foreign company with a foreign-hosted adult domain? What are they going to do? Block it? And that makes the US different from China in what way?
I don't see what's wrong with moving porn to .xxx; it just makes it easier to filter those websites from children and school/library computers. Most porn sites don't target people under 18 (I hope), so I don't think they have a problem if their websites are less accessible by children.
...i think ".cum" would be more logical.
In accordance with megan's law, CmdrTaco.net has been renamed to CmdrTaco.xxx
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
They're going about it all wrong. If they want .xxx to fly, they should require the ICANN to create one and pass a law affirming that if a web site is only accessible via its .xxx name then the site operator is deemed to have taken adequate care to prevent access by minors.
Then let the individual site operators decide whether they want the liability shield. Guess what? They want it. And if that means they elementary schools will have an easy time blocking access I guarantee they won't shed a tear.
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
Credit cards are clearly harmful to minors, right?
...it could be ignored by porn pirates off shore. All they'd do is take the cease-and-desist letters and post them on their website while making snide comments online about them. The kind of comments where they tell the U.S. Commerce Department to go sodomize themselves with a retractable baton. If ya know what I'm talking about... ;P (A wag of the stump to Swedish pirates out there)
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
...once upon a time, stupidity of this magnitude from public officials would not have been tolerated, let alone encouraged by any significant percentage of the public. If they thought the public would like it, our senators and representatives would rush to create and pass a bill titled "Resolution To Make Bad Things Go Away". It's frightening how close we seem to be to that level of problem solving and critical thinking in the legislative branch of our government.
In the same way that controls on pornography are constitutional. They're protected speech, but not as protected as most, so legislatures can make laws telling them where they can be, what they can do, who they can admit, etc. As long as there's money in it for someone, congress can have a ball.
You people really need to get over the "first amendment + internet = whatever we want" thing.
Is this from the Onion? Does anyone take these twats seriously?
Ok, let see what's on channel 169, hmm how about 269 ... wait, try 369 ... nah see what's on 469 .. I didn't mention channel 69 because that's now msnxxxbc.
.. I kind of like to watch my kid and see what she gets into, novel concept.
There are far more greater dangers our children are exposed to on a daily basis than internet porn. I have a 4 month old and quite frankly my fear that she'll have clean air to breathe is more startling to me than what she might or might not be able to access on the internet. But
This is the result of lazy parents who want their p4 to babysit their children safely, without much attention from them.
Much like our lawmakers, parent's need to understand technology before exposing their children (or their legal pads) to it. I think congressmen should have to display a CCIE / CCIP along with that spiffy Harvard degree if they wish to legislate the portion of the internet US entities serve.
But in the spirit of cooperation and being a good citizen, I'll take ta.xxx please.
Could someone much smarter than I am please calculate the amount of oxygen that has been processed (and wasted) on this effort?
The sentate wants its pr0n, ICANN! Hurry up and tell them how to use Google before they force this .xxx nonsense down everyone's throat!
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
So, a bunch of senators were sitting around a table and said to themselves "Hey, how can we lose the tax revenue and jobs of a highly profitable industry and push it out of America to make us look better, while doing nothing to make it less prevalent? Oh yeah, let's go after porn!"
And not we have this bill.
Seriously, do these pompous old men believe that they can actually control the internet in this fashion?
"has as its principal or primary business the making available of material that is harmful to minors" The only thing harmful to minors are the attitudes taken by those who would define specific knowledge and experiences as harmful. It's unfortunate that we still debate whether any of these subjects are truly harmful, not the conditioning that our culture forces on us that causes us to have these unhealthy opinions and attitudes. In short, quit trying to legislate family values in my free country! Not that adding .xxx does this, but why would they list the above as motivation unless their hopes are to undermine pornography? The universally beneficial goal would be to open up new possibilities by adding the .xxx domain name ending.
Right now, the US has done nothing to provide a "this is and that isn't" definition of pornography because outside the internet it's easy to just make people hide indecent art, also, in a gallery. With the overt publicness of the internet, the US government will finally have to tell one website it has "art" and tell another that it has "porn". For once, the US government would be required to grow up and actually do some governing. Which means, the law dies in numerous rewrites in committee, but stays alive long enough that every Rep can run a line like "Representative Johnson Long fought to protect our kids from internet predators by supporting the Don't Let PCs Molest Kids Act of 2006" in all their commercials. The commercial will feature a kid with a hat sitting at a Tandy with his mom's arm over his shoulder. You will lose brain cells watching it. Besides, I'm sure Rick Santorum's secret male partner will get a laugh out of his supporting the bill.
I scream. You scream. I assume that means we're both acquainted with the problem. We proceed.
There's a place and time for any speech, but what about a person's right not to have to listen to such speech (ie, porn pop ups/general porn advertisements, crappy results from google)?
You don't have to use Google and pop up porn ads aren't on any reputable sites.
Your right not to hear it is valid. I won't go into your home and start having sex in front of you. You, can do your part by not supporting companies that include pornographic content on their websites. That's what your "right not to hear" it consists of, not pushing them into some ghetto.
Hey, I think that porn sites are a nuisance. They violate your right not to hear them when they spam you, however, not just by existing.
And that's exactly why the worst, sleaziest porn sites will never move there. The relatively sedate Playboy site will move to .xxx; FarmSex.com, SluttyLolitas.com, AnalMasochist,com... will not and will keep popping up in your browser.
The fact that someone thinks that society has been somehow screwed up by exposure to sexual imagery is evidence that that someone would like to force his or her religious morality on others. But I'd expect this from someone who clearly has no problem with the assault and battery of those who would teach that creationism has no supporting evidence. So tell me... How did "Thou shalt not kill" and "Be fruitful and multiply" become {violence:good, sex:bad} in your mind? You must have let someone else 'interpret' those two statements for you at an early age, no?
Look... They need an easier way to connect with their hobbies.
You're in luck! A party that advocates personal responsibilty has been in office for two terms already. Feel better now?
Does anyone have a link to the actual bill text, or at least the bill's number? I can't seem to find any mention of this on thoms.loc.gov.
The idea of an .xxx top domain is a good idea, but attempting to force people to use it is a problem.
Create it and then give tax breaks to any adult business that uses it.
Personally, I don't mind the idea of moving porn to a .xxx extension. IMHO, the one thing we need to avoid is tossing up barriers to porn that people have to pay to get around. If porn is free, then the pornographers don't make money. Throwing up artificial barriers to porn creates income opportunities for the pornographers.
.xxx extension might be good in that it would help people who want to avoid porn to filter it out. It might help those looking for porn to find free porn. It seems to me that if a .xxx extension created a path to free porn, it might undermine the income source for pornographers.
For example, a few years back, there was the stupid suggestiong that giving a credit card numbers for age verification would prove a person was old enough to view porn. Getting the credit card number is the hardest part of making an online sale. This idea taught a generation of teenage boys how to steal credit card numbers. It also put a lot of money in the hands of pornographers.
The
No.
it's a blue bright blue Saturday hey hey
There are simply too many worms in the .XXX can to open it. But why do we need that when you can use free, objective, open community, content advising systems. Check out siteadvisor.
From their webpage:
SiteAdvisor's safety ratings are based on automated safety tests of Web sites (including of our own site) and are enhanced with user feedback from our users and our own manual analysis.
We do not accept payment from sites to be rated, so we have no conflict of interest. We also document our safety tests for every site we analyze.
So John Doe can stumble upon a pornographic website, and if it isn't already rated, dutifully provide feedback so that future viewers can be warned. John Doe can continue to enjoy his porn and can help others avoid or find it. The great thing about this is it doesn't just work for porn, it also rates sites owned by Domain Squatters (labeling them as false information), scamming sites, and other sites with "not so safe" content. Again, the beauty of this is that it is open to the community so ratings can be reversed if some overly conservative person rates a medical site as "unsafe" and each site has its own history/explination of ratings and user feedbacks.
I've been enjoying it and have found it to generally improve my web-surfing experience.
Faith is a willingness to accept something w/o complete proof and to act on it. Reason allows you to correct that faith.
except for the fact the internet is longer confined to the United States, and there are pornographiers outside the U.S as well. Even though some would like to think the U.S rules the world, it doesn't (I am a U.S citizen btw). How we would go about punishing pornographiers in other countries for not complying is unclear. If the suggestion is that ICANN and those that control the .com and .net etc domains use their power to force the change globally, I can pretty much assure them it will come back to bite the U.S in the butt next time the subject of Internet Governance comes up in the UN. As they will have ensentially made the EU and company's case that the U.S is not above using it's positon to affect unilateral change on the internet. I am not a big fan of the idea of handing the internet of to an even bigger (and often more corrupt) bureaucracy than ICANN.
Both republicans AND democrats are pushing for this. No one is really on "freedom's" side but the libertarians. As a country, we need to have not only smarter representation, but smarter voters.
Do not downmod posts "overrated" simply because you disagree with them.
I call dibs on gwb.xxx and bush.xxx.
Unplug it, dumbass. You do not have a right to not be offended and this post is evidence of that very fact.
If you want to live in a bubble then go ahead and do it. Unplug your net connection, your tv and your radio. Read nothing but things that have been approved by whatever moral authority you deem appropriate. Speak only to people who agree with your point of view.
Will it be boring? Yes. Will it limit your experiences? Yes. Will it make things easier for you with regard to avoiding be offended? Yes.
On the plus side for everyone else, it will prevent those of us who don't want to live in a bubble from being forced into one. One decided upon by some stranger who may not have the same outlook as us and one who may force some other arbitrary rules on our morals, experiences, behavior and thoughts.
Mod parent up. That's not a troll. What the hell is with the moderation.
His point is valid. The blanket statement that pornography "is harmful to minors" is absurdly assumptive. Sure, some content *could* be harmful to minors, but it's ignorant of those with influence to suggest that erotic material is inherently "bad" or "dangerous" simply because our over-protective society has decided it should be based on a sad tendency to involve religious values in law.
Segregating pornography to a specific TLD is not the solution to your problems, people. Educating children is.
Install COX in your backend today!
The problem there is ... it isn't your internet. If I put up a porn site, nobody is forcing you to visit it. It's my site. I payed for the server, the pipe, and the pictures. The whole thing is perfectly legal and constitutionally protected. So what exactly is the problem here? What? Your kid saw it? Try parenting. Your wife caught you? Well that's your problem... you shouldn't have married a bible thumping prude. You feel dirty looking at it but can't help it? Maybe you should see a psychiatrist, you're definitely fucked up.
BTW, there are other countries outside the borders of America. They'll be happy to take your web hosting business from you. Not that that would be hard considering the pathetic excuse you guys have for 'broadband' anyway. Besides, you've tried this already. It was called CAN-SPAM. We all know that was real successful.
Their stories on sex, drugs, choking games, bombs, huffing, killing, assaults and robberies may cause minors to try these things. Sounds like CNN "has as its principal or primary business the making available of material that is harmful to minors."
I love the idea of .xxx domain. I'm sure lots of sites would use is voluntarily! I mean, if someone's looking for pr0n, what better place to begin the search? And I'd rather find nasty vids on .xxx then .com, but then I've said too much...
I do however STRONGLY disagree with "forcing" any site to use it. That borders on "free speech" violation, and is too dependent on the views of whoever is in power to "regulate" the internet.
I think the .xxx domain is a great idea!
Regulation is not what the internet needs, what the internet needs is more options. It's already too close to becoming a closed community.
Other people need to take more responsibility for their actions.
Thanks,
-The Republican Party
You already have the freedom (it's not a right) not to listen. And that freedom is not restricted to porn.
/. about eighty hojillion times that the .xxx domain is a bad idea. As a government, if you want to censor things by forcing them into .xxx, and you make the laws to follow up on that, you can shove any site into .xxx just because you don't like it. Drugs? Bad. Goes to .xxx. Alcohol? .xxx. Political dissent? Into the .xxx void it goes. Only .xxx is uncensored, and everyone blocks it anyway, so it becomes the dingy back alley of the Internet where all the shady deals go on, but everyone is (mostly) free.
/. that a better idea is the .kids domain, where ONLY .kids is censored, and everyone leaves the rest of the 'net alone. If you want to be guaranteed that you're only viewing "good" and "wholesome" webpages and such, then only allow access to .kids. It's like a sandbox with armed guards. Nobody's going to mess with the kiddies. All is safe and well. Someone is thinking of the children. The fainting whiny-bitch-lady can STFU.
Nobody's forcing you to:
- listen. To anything.
- turn your computer on.
- connect to the Internet.
- browse the web.
- check your email.
- open emails that have offensive content. (It could be said that Microsoft Outlook and OE force this, but you aren't forced to use them.)
- use any number of other services that people use to transfer "offensive" content.
Personally, I find porn to be one of the more immature and ignorant things in life. There was once a time when I didn't feel that way, and I wouldn't have that opinion of porn if I hadn't been able to see just how depraved it is. Exposure to porn didn't make me a worse person, but protection from that exposure just might have.
You shouldn't hide things from people. Show them and explain why things are "bad" if you think it's necessary. This goes for adults as well as children. If you have an opinion that you think other people should share, convince them. Don't beat people over the head with it like it's a stick. That makes people defensive and angry, and they find other reasonings with which to fight back.
It's only been mentioned on
It's also been mentioned at least forty hojillion times on
I didn't see any posts that said something like this, but forgive me if I missed one.
What if there was a site within each country that users could create an account on using some sort of national identifier (drivers license, ssn, *something*) that you then install a toolbar and meta flag sites you stumble across- one entry per account per site, but can be updated. Each country uses their own database. Browsers could then query the db and the number of entries for each flag type and make a decision based on it. Eg dont show a site if there are 100,000 entries marking a site as porn.
Im sure there are complications and what not, but thats just a general guideline.
Someone route a group of bird flu infected flocking geese over washington. Make sure they're wired to shit on command. .osbscene is next kids.
Get ready for it, its coming.
What does this mean for newsgroup jackers?
What does it mean for an individual that wants to post nude pictures of themselves online?
This is not only impossible to do, its completely fucking illegal. The government should not be involved in censoring speech on the internet just to get votes.
Just because they want the angry mother that wont fuck her husband, vote... doesnt mean they can take a giant shit on our freedom of speech and expression...
or does it?
This is the government we have folks. They chip away at freedom just to win votes. But hey, i guess we're a democracy, and if we all chose to no longer be a democracy... that is just democracy in action.
Good job America.
"127.0.0.1 *.*.xxx" is not a valid hosts file entry.
Saying Java is nice because it works on all OS's is like saying that anal sex is nice because it works on all genders.
believe it or not. There's a concept called a "deadweight loss" in economics. And basically, it's any kind of harm (something someone dislikes for whatever reason) which has no corresponding *benefit* for anyone. If I take a dollar from you, that's not a deadweight loss, because your loss was my gain. But if I burn your dollar, you lost, and no one gained. (That's a simplification, but you get the general idea.) And obviously, deadweight losses are bad.
Now imagine a town that has a problem with thieves breaking windows so they can get into stores and houses to steal TV's. Here is ranking of the TV owners' preferences:
1) No TV's be stolen or windows broken.
2) Windows broken, but no TV's stolen.
3) TV's stolen, but no windows broken.
4) TV's stolen, and window's broken.
Here is the typical thief's order of preference:
1) Get TV's, but not have to break windows.
2) Get TV's and have to break windows.
3) Not get TV's and not have to break windows.
4) Break windows for no reason.
Currently, option number 4) on the TV owners' list, and option 2) on the theives' list are prevailing -- TV owners lose TV's and windows. Thieves get TV's but have to break windows.
Now here's the kicker:
For some economists, an "efficient" move would be to give the thieves free TV's! Why? Well, the thieves are better off -- they get TV's, but no longer have to break windows. The owners are better off because, while they still lose some TV's, at least their windows aren't broken! Everyone wins! Yay!
Except, as anyone with a functioning brain knows, all that would accomplish is that the thieves would get TV's, and then some of them (or newcomers to the thievery profession) would still steal more TV's. The problem, like with the "separate plot for weeds" that you bring up, is that you can't corral thieves by giving them free stuff. Give weeds a place, they'll demand more. Give thieves TV's, and thieves will take more.
It amazes me how the average person sees this, but some economists don't.
Rank my idea: http://www.sinceslicedbread.com/node/531
While I in no way support this bill, the summary is quite wrong; neither of the senators (Max Baucus and Mark Pryor)who proposed this bill are up for reëlection this year...election-year grandstanding this is not.
typical slashdot.
One, they cannot force foreign countries to comply.
Two, it's deliberate censorship.
Another indication that the congressional Republicans and the Bush administration are no longer getting along.
> How the hell is porn harmful? That's the worst part of this American culture.
.com domains? Mod sibling up!
> Killing people is glorified but OH CHRIST DON'T LET ANYONE BE SEEN MAKING LOVE!
Porn isn't "making love". Making love means having an intimate and sexual relationship with someone you love. (Unless you refer to the romantically debunked "makin' luv" version of love otherwise just known as sex.) Supposedly, that's exactly what's wrong with porn: Kids confuse it with intimacy and even real sex, and adjust to the stereotypic images that are often their primary and only source of sexual education. Porn teaches kids that women get sexually aroused from getting cum all over themselves, and that the women also get orgasms from it. (How many times have you seen a porn where the woman whines just as much as the men when getting the cum over her?) While porn pushes the border of decency (like anal sex, dildos and so on), the majority of porn films fail in being realistic but win trying to look just like existing porns. How many porn films have you seen that have the exact same plot: 1) Cheezy intro muzak, 2) Woman pulls out cock, masturbates it and sucks it, 3) Man removes clothes and procedes to remove woman's clothes. 4) Man masturbates woman, 5) Common intercourse involving few sexual positions, 6) Man ejaculates on woman's (breasts | ass | belly) and goes "yeah!" while the woman is having an orgasm from all that jizz that just touched her skin! Common sexual practice?
I'm not saying porn is bad. Most porn just sucks because it's supposed to look like the existing majority of stereotypical porn that has little to do with the sex you might end up having involving more than one individual. Porn does not teach about feelings, and because men mostly watch it, it either distances young men's ideas about sex from young women's resulting in bad sexual experiences, or it forces young women to adjust to a banal version of sex. The fact that many women don't receive orgasms during intercourse leaves much to be desired for. Who wants a false moaner just because they're staged in the porn films?
Slightly off-topic. More importantly: Who decides what's not good for kids, and who decides what can and what can't be put on
Take off every 'ZIG' !!
Second, if these senators didn't propose this, would the debt disminish? No, it's a COMPLETELY UNRELATED thing.
Really? Would seem to me that senators only have 168 hours in their week just as I do. Most of that week is taken up with boring, unuseful but still necessary things. Sleeping, eating. Driving around. So, at the end of the week, they have a mostly fixed amount of time on their hands, let's say 20 hours, with which to get real legislative work done.
They're wasting that time doing this bullshit, rather than putting it to use. The debt isn't just some dumbasses' idea of what they should be doing, it is arguably the most important problem facing our nation today. Even those that wouldn't put it at spot #1 would still have to include it in the top 3.
This shows just what our senators priorities are. It shows they aren't capable of doing the job they're supposed to be doing. It shows they don't even understand the job they're trying to do and that they should keep their noses out of it.
When we have a looming national emergency that is the scale of the debt, I expect them to ignore all else until it's fucking fixed. Nothing else is tolerable.
A .xxx domain can't work to do what I think people want of it. At least not by itself. No matter how hard you try, there will be some things that don't make it into .xxx that someone will complain about. The non-.xxx domain can never be clean enough. Plus, putting someone in .xxx will condemn them to additional costs for no other reason than that some people who don't use them think that they should bear additional costs. I think it's great to have a .xxx space for those who think it's a virtue, but treating it like the presence of .xxx means you can then proceed to overregulate .com is bad.
.kids domain would be something that people should aspire to be a member of (to attract that fussy audience that wants it), and that you can be exiled from if you don't adhere. Plus, the cost would be on the people who think it's needed.
.xxx, and let it be unregulated. And let there be .kids and let it be hyper-regulated. And leave the middle ground to those more Libertarian among us who think we don't have to hide out in one or the other space in order to get along just fine.
By contrast, a
There will always be a clash between people who think that "public space" is "unregulated" space and that people who want "regulated" space should get a private area and people who think that "private space" should not be regulated and that people who want regulation should keep it to the "public areas". Society simply does not agree. That points to the notion that there must always be two kinds of public space, and it should not be thought of as all of one kind. So let there be
Kent M Pitman
Philosopher, Technologist, Writer
Why does all of this have to center around a presumptive thing like all porn sites will automatically go over to sex.xxx? What about torrent? What about subdomains? :) :) :P
Why can't ICANN or someone else simply manange the keywords they are able to use?
If the keyword thing was enforced by levying fines, then search engines could filter all those sites out with filters easily. Hell i might even use it.
But then again as a young man i always knew how and where to score a good penthouse.
Makes me wonder if more parents ought to be actually engaged in what their their children are doing.. but oh yeah, this America, parenting is so hard and all. (it is) Its such a chore to be engaged with your child, and to actively participate in their life and protect them at the same time.
Most folks just make em, and thats real sad folks.
Fools. Politicians should learn to read technical documents and the recommendations of technical experts.
http://outcampaign.org/
www.sonymusic.xxx
www.riaa.xxx
www.mpaa.xxx
www.playstation.xxx
www.jerryfalwell.xxx
www.microsoft.xxx
www.trustedcomputing.xxx
www.nation-of-islam.xxx
www.sco.xxx
www.britneyspears.xxx
www.blackeyedpeas.xxx
I am so happy that are senators spend time working on these kinds of bills. I would hate for them to do something good like say. . .fund schools. . .or law enforcment. . .or hold people accountable for messing up. . .
I know I'm going to get murdered for this on here, but what about my right to protect my child from pornography online? I'm not asking that it be eliminated from the net, or that my kids never see pornography, but I want to make sure that at least while they are young they don't get exposed to it. Yeah, I'm a geek and I have filters up with a transparent proxy and all that on a separate Linux box, so I feel pretty safe about it right now, but the average person doesn't have the knowledge to do that.
.XXX extension would make it as easy for me to block content for my kids as it would for you to find the content you are really after on the net. I think the real problem here is that most people here don't trust the government to not take the next step. I'm not sure I blame anyone for that - our government, both Democrats and Republicans, have given us little reason to trust them. Having said that, the .XXX extension in and of itself is not at all bad, and I think a happy medium would be to add the extension and encourage it from within the industry to make both sides of the playing field happier. The US Government is not going to be able to regulate foreign companies providing this stuff on domains other than .XXX, and I think it would be a huge waste of time and money to spend the effort attempting to regulate it within the US. Any attempt to do so would end in utter failure. I believe that the industry would self-regulation. I think it would benefit the average addict enough knowing that http://anything.xxx/ would get him porn, that he, and thus the industry, would stop wasting as much time on other tlds.
A
Ok, go ahead and mod me into oblivion.
has as its principal or primary business the making available of material that is harmful to minors
.xxx domains? What about religious sites? Some may find that harmful, even detrimental.
What if I think it's educational, or artistic? Are we going to make bomb making sites have
Now I'm not a bleeding heart liberal or anything, but you cannot go around imposing *your* view on the rest of the world. Parents are supposed to guide their children, not the government.
And while these politicians (who have no touch on anything computer related) think it's ok, they're also effecting the rest of the world.
You know, I have a whole list of stuff that I think is "harmful to minors". I think it is harmful to minors to not give them access to real, serious sex education, resulting in the teenage pregnancy and STD rates the U.S. is justly infamous for. I think it is harmful to minors to tell them to turn off their brain and just believe God does everything instead. I think it is harmful to minors to pretend that drug abuse is a problem of supply, not of demand, that can be solved by bombing coca plantations in Columbia. It's a pretty long list, actually.
I think what I am going to do is take a look at that bill and see if my senator is somehow involved. And if yes, I am going try my best as a citizen of the United States to get his or her stupid ass kicked back out on the street where it belongs. My friends and countrymen are getting slaughtered in a senseless war in Iraq, North Korea has the bomb and Iran is going to get it, and here Congress is, trying to get around the First Amendment again. Just what is it with these people?
It's a tough business. None of them makes enough money from their site to quit her day job. One has been visited by the FBI for an 18 USC 2257 records audit. (That's a scary experience, because record keeping errors are felonies, but it went OK.) Two of them enjoy the business and have fun with it. One is just doing it for extra cash until she can start school again, and one is getting tired of it.
So that's a sense of what it's like at the working levels.
(If you want to meet these people, they'll all be at the SF Fetish Ball Saturday night.)
But then how would you view slashdot.xxx?
Given that I just said Fuck, this site is clearly "harmful to minors" and thus must move to xxx as well.
italics used for sarcasm
It doesn't hurt to be nice.
I'll concede and let them pass this law so long as the domain is blocked on any and all computers in the House and Senate office buildings, with any violations by any legislator or their staffer being widely publicized to the voters.
>>>What the hell is with the moderation.
He's got tubgirl in the title. I wouldn't be suprised if someone modded it down on that alone. If you don't understand why, Google Image search "tubgirl" Make sure to burn your retinas out first.
P.S. those people who can't see that porn or violent video games aren't EXAMPLES to be followed have REAL problems of basic sanity and would probably do nut ball things without violent video games or porn.
Tired of all the isms, don't exploit people as an employer, or a government, mmmmK?
While I don't think they should require porn to move to the .xxx domain name, it seems like simply offering it would go a long way toward the goal they want. After all, porn sites are a business, and business want to attract customers interested in their product. It seems to me that a lot of porn sites would voluntarily moved to .xxx (or, more likely, buy .xxx as well as keeping their other TLDs).
Famous Last Words: "hmm...wikipedia says it's edible"
My other car is first.
No wonder he likes parentheses and pays particular attention to punctuation -- because it is so rare in his choice of programming language(s).
(I am of the same kind myself (as in, preferring functional LISP-like languages) ).
Paul B.
So suppose somepornsite.com and somepornsite.org are owned by two different groups? Who gets dibs on somepornsite.xxx?
Oh, thank God. I've been trying to find out if I would still be able to get there, but AnalMasochist.com has been down all day. Thanks for the update.
This isn't a form of government censorship. It would be a form of personal censorship.
Your argument would be like saying you don't have the right not to have a Ku Klux Klan or Black Panther rally on your front lawn. I'm willing to bet that you're opposed to at least one of those organizations. Not only would it be a physical annoyance for them to be on your lawn, but you wouldn't want to even look at it either. They're both immature, ignorant, and intolerant, but so would coming and pissing on your pet or flashing your wife/child and stating it's "wrong" or "illegal" because they "didn't have to look". That argument just doesn't hold up.
But let's take your "didn't/don't have to look" argument. Let's say I'm asked to a child's birthday party as a clown to make balloon animals or whatever they do, but somewhere on my site's fine print hidden deep in a site map is the clause that I perform nude. Then I go and expose myself to a group of 20-30 children on the defense that they didn't have to look at me, but that they were supposed to be looking at the balloons. Ok, now your my lawyer and you have to respond to a child that said "I didn't want to look, but he held the balloon over his special place and then moved it away quickly forcing me to see it." Your defense would be that any circumvention of them "not wanting to look" on my part is irrelevant, circumstantial and insignificant.
But likely, when the parents at the party tried to kick me out, I'd just sue them for breach of contract since this is America. So I'll just wait for the porn companies to try and sue the geeks that make the personal choice to block their porn site from invading their screen by blocking their methods of circumvention.
One shouldn't have to be a hermit to protect themselves or their children from the immorals of society. Decency laws exist for that reason. There are certain ways to act in public, as there should be on the internet. Contrary to what forty "hojillion" /.ers think, the internet is a public place that should have some decency. And what's "decent" and/or "moral" shouldn't have to be taught to adults.
The problem with .kid or .cn is that the content leaves a huge gap (where teenagers land). I think it's best being real and honest with children and teenagers, but think about what isn't allowed to shown in public either.
I just used google for an example, when I should have said search engine. I really don't see how making a .xxx domain available is forming a ghetto. Porn sites are a nuisance. That's why I don't care for them in the least. They've paid people to harass others for years by sending spam. If the only solution to not receiving crap from them is their nonexistance, then good riddance. They've brought this upon themselves by their own actions. I see this as their punishment. If Ford sent everyone in the world 20 e-mails a day for a year peddling their products/promotions, and the government said the company could no longer use the internet at all in any form, who would you support? I suspect you would never buy [another] Ford product [again].
So you're protecting them by putting it under .xxx but doesn't that just make it all that much easier to find it. :/
Of course /. is harmful to minors. I'd have to put its IP in my local hosts file. But the children have to be protected from the far left views of this site somehow.
One shouldn't have to be a hermit to protect themselves or their children from the immorals of society.
And you don't have to be. The argument about porn popups is a red herring: as has already been pointed out a hojillion times the sites that respect this stuff already have front pages that emphatically warn people to stay away if they are offended, and they have links to all the "nanny" software anyone could stomach. The sites that do the popups are already in violation of the law and passing more laws that harm everybody isn't going to squash that behavior. and by the way, I use google at least a dozen times a day and I cannot remember the last time I saw a "porn popup" - I use a browser that disables this behavior by default AND I use a proxy server that filters out most of the scripting that leads to it, and that software (firefox and privoxy) is just as freely available to you as it is to me. If you're too fucking stupid to click and install that stuff by yourself, pay the neighbor kid twenty bucks to do it for you - I'm sure he could use the money to take your daughter on a date to mcdonald's.
if you have some "moral code" that inherently mandates restricting your children's access to certain forms of speech, it is your responsibility to your children to enforce it - not mine, and not Playboy's.
I never said google produced popups. I said they produced garbage search results with porn in them (when you're obviously not looking for porn). So before you go calling me a dumbass, learn to fucking read. And just FYI, I do use firefox and have all popups blocked. But as I've said in another post, the porn sites/industry have been a huge nuisance in the past and have abused the general public. I have nothing but scorn for them now. I think they should be punished far beyond forced to do a domain change for the crap they've done.
First people bitch that the US didn't approve the .xxx domain, which led to worldwide calls for the US to hand over the internet. Now they're bitching that the US is trying to corral porn with the .xxx domain. You can't have it both ways!
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
What a silly argument! Perhaps the end of that page is addressed to you:
It's out there, the proof, but the pornographers and porn-apologists make excuses to keep their power trip. They make excuses so they can continue to watch their sexist, racist filth and they want us to kindly shut up and go away.
I won't go away.
And to apologists, TRY to argue these numbers. You should be warned that I will win.
I think some form of categorization for pornography is great. It does not diminish the rights for pornography to be seen, it simply requires them to be defined by having a .xxx domain. The enforcement of this law in its entirety would be difficult, but for a large amount of commercial porn sites it could be controlled. This would give potential for the internet to be cleaned up, quite a bit in my opinion. And it should make it easier to find porn. lolllll
I seem to recall a somewhat thick book with some age to it, originating somewhere off the North American continent: Perhaps you've heard of it. The Bible. Sound familiar? Perhaps that has something to do with the "puritanic" nature of those in the US, and in SO many other parts of the world. The majority of the world is not as open and flagrant with sex as you apparently are. Please realize US citizens are not the root of all evil.
They're taking a good idea and trying to regulate it, as usual. .xxx extension counts as a good idea. .net or .org or dot-whatever-else TLD? I call stupid.
The idea of making a
The forcing of people to abide by it is a bad one. I mean, look at the state of TLDs today. "com" is supposed to be for commercial sites only, but that's not followed in the slightest. Is that what's next? Forcing people without commercial sites to switch to a
Tluin natha Linux xxizzuss uriu olt bwael mon'tun.
Except that the "anti-sex" interpretation of the Bible isn't the only one. The Bible's full of sex. Song of Soloman, for an obvious example
It's not so much a matter of "the Bible says X, so we believe in X" as it is "we want Y, let's find support in the Bible".
P.s. the numbers don't matter at all, my constitutional rights don't go away because some hair brained sociologist manipulates some numbers that mean nothing in a scientific sense as human psychology is far too complex to model in a truly scientific fashion complete with control groups, double blind testing, and eliminating variables like pre-existing conditions. Even if the numbers did prove something my rights ARE still primary to some sociological study.
We have become such a nation of cry baby safety freaks that many would make a bon fire of our civil liberties if some one says 59% of people say boo, THAT scares me. We need to stop being so easily frightened, hint the terrorists aren't going to get us so we don't need to discriminate against or bomb Arabs and books aren't going to get us either so put away your torches and go home and do something useful with your priggish uptight lives censors.
Tired of all the isms, don't exploit people as an employer, or a government, mmmmK?
I did not say I supported this bill. I said I think there is merit in making a .xxx top level domain. If there was a .xxx TLD, I think a lot of pornography would migrate from .com to the new TLD on its own. I agree that, when the government starts trying to regulate or mandate porn, they usually make things worse. For example, the demand that porn be taxed would probably follow by making more ways to bill for porn ... which will feed more money into the industry. Once the porn tax is an accepted revenue stream for the government, we will probably see a tax hungry government becoming a supporter of the pornographers.
.xxx TLD without mandating people move to it. I think that making a .xxx TLD might help undermine the money side of the porn market without having to resort to mandates.
The very wording in the article shows that the bill will be misused. Rather than regulating porn, the Bill says it will regulate anything that "has as its principal or primary business the making available of material that is harmful to minors". Pornographers are not in the business of making material that is harmful to minors. They are in the business of making sexually arousing images.
I would be supportive of making a TLD. I suspect, however, that most of the ideas that the morality police have to regulate porn will end up feeding into the pornographer's hands. As I stated, I think the best way to undermine pornography is to let free sites undermine pay sites. Creating mechanisms that can help people identify porn will help the people who want to avoid porn filter it out. There are some very good filters that individuals can purchase.
You can make the
Ford is a single entity. Your analogy is flawed. The government equivalent would be to bar the entire auto industry from using the Internet, and to follow that up by saying that all future auto makers were barred as well.
material that is harmful to minors
I'll repost something I posted here because it applies:
Interesting, as I've always felt that porn helps people relax and release tension. Like anything else, it can be addictive and too much can probably hurt you (though, like most things, too mcuh is dependant on the indivdual). It's also certainly good for couples when it's watched together (and is something both enjoy watching).
There is also the old reality/VR argument. Like video games, there is a significant difference between porn and reality. The problem comes when people can't differentiate between the two. In porn's case I'd argue that the lack of sex ed in schools probably contributes to that, as people develope their ideas about sex from pornos without having been taught anything about the reality of it (the "you mean all gals arent completely shaven, enjoy teh buttsecks, and like facials and giving blowjobs?!?!?!?" type mentality).
Porn is at its basic sense fantasy, and can actually sometimes be really funny if you understand that. Hell, my girlfriend and I spent a couple hours laughing at/critiquing some rather unrealistic and amusing porn this past weekend.
To bring this back on topic, regardless of one's views towards porn, filtering it is both impossible and a dangerous move to attempt. This is an area of parental responsibility, it should not be censored by the govt for us.
"goodbye and hello, as always" ~Prince Corwin, from Zelazny's Amber series
No, really? /sarcasm. I realized that when I wrote it. That's why I didn't create an analogy. I created a hypothetical scenario and asked your opinion of it. You inferred analogy.
Why not introduce a .kids domain or something equivalent which is the only TLD that is simply safe for kids?
That way it would be much easier to watch what they'll get to see, because next to sex there are also other things on the internet you don't want young children to see, and it'll be much easier to keep an watchful eye on the kids if they're 'playing in the same sandbox' so to speak.
hey - will the us government punish german xxx sites for example, if they don't obey this american law?
.xxx domain this would be an important step, but how do you want to make sites from other countries obey your law?
I mean shure it would be nice to protect minors and if EVERY xxx site on the net would use a
again I'm at the point where I have to say the world would be much better, if there was only one country (in effect one worldwide law) no religion and only one language... although the last two have no connection to this topic I still mention those two, because this is my bundle of utopism which WOULD also contain communism IF it worked...
The MAFIAA is a bunch of mindless jerks who will be the first up against the wall when the revolution comes
People can argue all they like about who determines what is porn and what is not, but I bet the people selling or providing it know, and thus the .xxx domain would be more useful for them and their audience.
.biz .info and friends are just plain useless to anyone else other than ICANN and domain squatters.
.here TLD approved for _special_ use by _EVERYONE_. Much like the RFC1918 (10.x.x.x, 192.168.x.x, 172.1x.x.x) IP addresses are reserved for special use. I think there will be many uses for it, just people don't see it yet.
Their audience could then go to google and type:
keyword1 keyword2 site:xxx
Sure its not exact or 100% but many things in the world don't have to be, just to be useful.
Whereas
I've been trying to get a
But I don't have thousands of USD to throw at ICANN to approve the TLD, so that I give it to the public.
US forcing pornographic sites to move to .xxx would be like China and Iran requirering US sites to move to .us such that they can protect their citizens from harmful freedom.
.kids domain or similar for minors, it is almost imposible to force established sites around the world to move, but with a dedicated new tld for kids you can control who gets in.
1) As suggested in other post(s), a
2) Agree on an open standard for web content labeling that makes it easy to filter, the W3C could standardize an meta-tag with content classification. It wont eradicate porn but will seem less intrusive for porn-businesses so they are more likely to comply on their own.
3) Agree on an extention to the http protocol, like prefered languages can be specified in the request a maximum acceptable rating say R15 or similar could be sent with the request, and the server would respond with an error 403 or similar if rating is exceeded.
This is really a neat solution because it would be simpler to configure than a filter and cause less traffic. Also, the privacy of the user is better protected since no content is retreived and posibly cached in a proxy or log entries kept on filtering events, there will be no evidence of what was blocked, only that rating exeeded the acceptable.
Paranoid parrents could block sites that does not support the extension, that would make support grow.
Both 2) and 3) allow for eg. public libraries to create users with different settings according to their age. With 3) search engines could easily addopt results such as not to display inappropriate results.
On single user systems such as Windows (yes I know, you _can_ have multiple users, but people don't use that feature) browsers should have password protected configurations such that parents could configure their browser without their kids messing up afterwards.
And, then the obvious question: why would porn industry support such standards?
They have no business to do with minors who can't even hold a credit card, so they would prefer to support these initiatives in order not to loose business with real customers.
This is what happens when you write too much in Perl.
Probably not a good place for discussion like this, but a lot of the comments are coming from "mature" hedonists who want want everybody to grow up and accept pron as just a normal, ethically neutral part of modern life, and everybody else who doesn't want to be forced to watch naked people is a conservative freak who should come out of the closet.
Lets have pron ads in the street too! I'd love to be walking home and see posters of people sticking carrots in each other plastered all over the bus stop, right next to the Kellogs ads. Let's all grow up and ditch those ethics right?
I think it Woody Allen that said:
"I can still remember when the air was clean and [extra-marital]sex was dirty"
Hmm, relegating .xxx to localhost is only for the faint of hard, err, hart.
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
Clearly, Toad is practicing crop rotation, letting the weeds replenish the soil. Similarly, the government is recognizing that sexual prudery and hedonism alternate every generation and that pretty soon the prudes in congress will die off and be replaced with more liberal-minded people. Then we'll rotate the plots and .xxx will become the backbone of the economy.
This bill was modified heavily in committee, here's some other TLDs that didn't make it but may be added to other bills as riders.
Some of these may be redundant but it's start.
Well, if your brain-dead web-filter is screening out any request to a .xxx domain, what if a user (or your child) enters in an IP address?
Reverse lookup? okay then, what if they use an anonymizing service?
This is just politics as usual in the USA though, I guess.
Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind. - Dr. Seuss
I share some of the same concerns most of you on /. have voiced in attempts to be funny or express your contempt for all things government.... I despise the "harmful to minors" line that is guaranteed to be abused eventually, if not immediately. But I sympathize with some of them on some thoughts. I have a very young child and watching him grow up I start to think about his use of the Internet and my earlier experiences. I remember going to Whitehouse.com looking for government docs or Gamefaq.com (or something very similar to gamefaqs.com but not quite) looking for help with a game I was playing only to discover some pretty hardcore porn. The game site was worse because, back then, I didn't have a pop-up blocker (and I'm not sure anyone else did either) and about 20 windows with other porn sites popped up immediately and every time I closed one, another opened. I had to force quit IE to get away. While both of these sites appear to be gone or radically changed over the years, they epitomized, to me and many others, the worst of the Internet. It wasn't about free speech (and I'll focus more on the gamefaqs take-off here) it was about deception. It was built specifically to capture those who errantly left out an s at the end of their url and followed by, essentially, capturing your web browser and popping up new windows every time you tried to leave, a practice I'm sure most /.'ers detested as much as everyone else.
/. what honest and helpful recommendations can you come up with as an alternative? I don't like limiting our free speech and I don't like the Feds forcing libraries to be filtered (but it's OK if the local government or Library Director dictates it) but neither do many like these kinds of sites. Is there an alternative or is this just part of the price we pay for our freedom?
Spare me your lectures on the importance of free speech. I believe in the constitution and do not want to see our rights taken away but I can empathize with many of these people and don't believe this is driven entirely out of desire for political gain (though I am sure some may be doing it for just that reason).
All of that being said, we do not allow our children to go to XXX or NC17 rated movies. We don't show our harshest TV shows on Saturday mornings (or even in the day). I believe these have been largely self regulated decisions by the industry (though the FCC seems to be re-asserting its power lately) and that's why it's O.K. with most everyone while making it law upsets us.
Do you think the government would have stayed out of it had they not regulated themselves?(Rhetorical question, just think about it)
Does the porn industry regulate itself?(Rhetorical question, just think about it)
Some change is likely to come. Obviously (well it should be obvious) we cannot take away our right to free speech but this isn't just about free speech. We already know that I cannot go into a Jewish neighborhood and start preaching the hate of Hitler. I would be guilty of inciting violence. Free speech has its limits and unlike topless bars it is pretty easy for kids (or anyone) to accidentally find themselves somewhere they never intended to go.
So, with all of the brain power at
Please, use your intelligence to give some real answers to a tough question. Remember, if you say it is the price of freedom and 67% of Americans disagree, you may well lose that freedom.
You forget the quarter of a million dead children we caused in Iraq.
We put sanctions on Iraq because we didn't like their leader. Their economy couldn't generate enough food to feed themselves. We allowed only $0.7 per person per day for food imports under the food for oil program. Approximately a quarter of a million children died from starvation. We blamed Sadam for the deaths.
Sadam Hussein was a very bad person, but we are much worse.
However, if you are going to use the Bible you need to use the WHOLE Bible. It is clear that while sex is in the "Song of Solomon" is it is in the context of his marriage. God treats sex very seriously. It was intended for a husband and wife. Unfortunately, we don't see it that way. So please don't cherry pick what you want to see out of the Bible. We have enough groups doing that already (on both sides).
Coral porn? Oh my god! That's just sick.
quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
FarmSex.com, SluttyLolitas.com, AnalMasochist,com... will not and will keep popping up in your browser
I don't know where you browse, but neither site (and no similar one) has ever popped anything up for me in > 10 years on the net.
If someone popped up tits in my face, it was my local yellowpress newspaper. So don't confuse people with weird sexual desires and sleazy spammers.
"When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
This phrase needs to be struck from the propaganda rolls.
Or better, re-applied to anything coming out of the White House since the US has murdered more children over the last twenty years than just about anybody, counting the Iraq sanctions and the Iraq invasion.
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
"The difference between pornography and erotica is lighting" -Gloria Leonard
...the difference between using a feather and using the whole chicken.
-Terry Pratchett
It is not so much that I have confidence in scientists being right, but that I have so much in nonscientists being wrong
It'll be just for Australian beers!
- JJ
http://www.xxxx.com.au/
I have a theory that the truth is never told during the nine-to-five hours. - Hunter S. Thompson
I really don't see how adding context restricts free speech. There's a place and time for any speech, but what about a person's right not to have to listen to such speech (ie, porn pop ups/general porn advertisements, crappy results from google)?
.God domain. All we would be doing is adding a context, just using the courts to nail anyone who tries to put religion anywhere outside of the .God domain.
Agreed! And I thank you for your advance support to expand this bill to other areas.
I really don't see how adding context restricts free speech. There's a place and time for any speech, but what about a person's right not to have to listen to such speech (ie, religious pop ups/general Bible advertisements, crappy religious results from google)?
Parents have a right to conrol their children's religious upbringing. Parents need the tools to properly protect their children against the heresies and dogma that other religions often attempt to push on immature vunlerable children.
Just add a "context" and put all religious refferences into a
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
There's an idea. "God" is the preferred 3 letters, works great. Know any lobbyists? Religion doesn't fall under .com anyway. I know I hate being "sold" my dogma. Alas, they already fall under .org as [typically] non-profit organizations.
"has as its principal or primary business the making available of material that is harmful to minors"
I can see the legislation now... budweiser.xxx
"Those who think they know everything are of great annoyance to those of us who do." - Isaac Asimov
I do good in this domain but not the manditory use of it. It would be great for thoes who want to avoid swank/smut/porn/pr0n/acts of inddecency etc. The down turn is i would make it easy for web censorship software. No parent should use software to prevent their childs exposure to said matrials insted they should be watchigthire kid while on the internet at all times. Software should not fill a niche in a kids life that a parent was too lazy to.
You're correct on the count that the Bible does contain sex. Song of Solomon is downright explicit in some areas. Where you go wrong (at least in this instance) is with the following statement: "We want Y, so let us find support in the Bible." Pornography violates the Scriptural context for sex in a few ways.
The Bible (and therefore in the Christian mindset, God) teaches sex as an act between one man and one woman and reserved for a marriage. It is intended to be something sacred and private, intended to help a man and a woman achieve a deeper level of intimacy in their marriage. The sex described or implied in Song of Solomon is between a woman and her husband. Pornography violates this Scriptural context by taking sex outside the marriage bed and displaying it for all the world to see, whether through magazines or screens.
In Matthew 5:27-28, Jesus said that looking at a woman lustfully means you've committed adultery with her, at least in your mind. Pornography is intended to arouse the mind and stimulate the sexual imagination. Unless the woman you're fantasizing about is your wife, you've just commited adultery.
While your "We want Y" thesis does hold true with other areas (fundamentalist disregard for science or using Scripture to justify slavery for example), in this instance it is a case of "The Bible says X therefore we believe X"/div.
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not entirely sure about the universe - Einstein
As usualy, Washington is a few months late to the party... Where the heck was the political pressure when ICANN decided not to do the .xxx domain this past year?
Insert Sig Here
No one cares about US politics (except maybe US citizens)
.XXX extentions would sell like hot cakes.
All I know is that an
I love it.
You see some 'We don't want Z, so let's ignore that part of the bible,' as well, these days. Stoning has fallen out of favour in recent years, to name one.
When XY wants XY and XX wants XX -- gay rights
when all you need is an XY and a freehand - Slashdot
Contrary to what forty "hojillion" /.ers think, the internet is a public place that should have some decency. And what's "decent" and/or "moral" shouldn't have to be taught to adults.
/. atheist, you should respect my choices. If you're a "God-fearing Christian"-type, who are you to override God's gift of free will?
Actually, the Internet is a semi-public wiring and routing system ("roads" perhaps?) connecting a collection of private endpoints ("houses", you might say). If you decide to conduct your business on your own property (server or plot of land), and you choose to invite the public to participate, then the "think of the children" crowd, while welcome to join, is not required to attend, and therefore can go to hell.
And your assertion that adults shouldn't have to be taught is childish, naive, and "behind the times". The new crop of adults weren't taught this crap as kids because of the prevailing attitude of their parents and their parents' peers. And if they don't want to learn, why are you forcing your own conscience upon them? Beyond the facts of what is considered by the majority to be "acceptable", who are you to dictate what is and isn't right? If you're the typical
I agree that public areas should be kept to the minimum accepted standard of the majority. But the Internet isn't public, and to force your rules upon it is absurd.
Rape's all well and good as long as it's consensual. Though that technically is role-playing rather than rape...
Hey, let's just gang up on the LARPers.
On the radio the other day, someone said female underwear ads were "secondhand sex", and complained about them being on page 2 of a newspaper. When you're constantly understimulated, you're easily overstimulated. Much of America works hard to avoid stimulation. Oh and they proceded to insinuate that anyonw whould walk arund in public in their underwear was insane and needed to be collected by the police.
And it's not just the ruling elite. It's anyone who thinks that all pleasure/pain should be specially sanctioned from above as a reward/punishment for being good/bad. Do the "good" thing by getting married, receive the reward of pleasure from sex.
all porn moves to .xxx
.lol
all religous stuff moves to
If this goes through, prepare for a federally mandated "plannedparenthood.xxx" and so forth...
RFC3675: .sex Considered Dangerous
.xxx == .sex; within the meaning of the RFC.
.xxx domain at a host that has porn on it. This need not be an intentional 'Joe job', but can be perfectly legitimate.
And, of course,
I wish more people were aware of this RFC - it seems to have fallen under the radar for the current spate of domain name based porn separation politics, which is a shame.
The short version is that it's unenforcable: domain names are _not_ cannonical names for internet activities, therefore, it's trivial to have multiple names for a host. Therefore you have to work out what to do when someone points a non
This is all totally seperate from the whole debate over what is and isn't 'pornography' - that is not decidable outside a handful of special cases.
Not all porn servers are in the US.
Great. All porn goes to .xxx, but let's not stop there.
.mil? .edu? .net? .com? .org?
How about the military is required to use
Educational institutions are required to use
ISPs required to use
Businesses required to use
Groups and organizations required to use
When TLD naming restrictions were abandoned (in 1992?) they became meaningless. If I recall correctly, there was a moderator who had to approve your name request for TLD assignments. Then the dot.com boom came, "professional" oversight ensued, they started charging fees and all TLDs became fair game to the first who ponied the cash.
I've breifly search wikipedia, but haven't found this recorded anywhere. If someone is more knowledgeable about this (I was a noob then), it might make a good sidebar to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top-level_domain
So, after they re-close this barn door, how about we reform telephone area codes? 800 and 877 are toll free? Wait, I thought 1+ meant "long distance" or charges apply? Errr...not always?! How fraking intuitive!
"You have liberated me from thought."
Two words: Spanglesh & Engrish
I wouldn't consider the mad hatter mad. Just reality impaired. He sure can make a mean cup of tea.
"In Matthew 5:27-28, Jesus said that looking at a woman lustfully means you've committed adultery with her, at least in your mind."
God isn't that stupid. What you're saying in effect is that I think of banging another woman, it's as good as doing it. Well, that's stupid. Think of why that is. Bonus points for you if you use your head instead of trying to look at scripture why.
But let's be practical. If I tell my wife "Hey, that's a hot chick with a great ass" my wife chuckles at me. If I were to actually have sex with her, she would leave me. But yet, by your reasoning, she should be just as mad when I look at a playboy, but that doesn't even phase her.
How could that be? I mean, I'll bet you think I'm going to hell because by your theory, I've had adultery with 10's of thousands of women. Yet I only has sex with me my wife.
Oh, I'll bet you think masturbation is really bad too. Your mind is one f'ed up little battleground.
Do you know the biblical theology behind abstinence? How about abstinence for "holy men"?
Don't struggle. You might drop that bible on your foot and hurt yourself. I'll save you the trouble. There is none. Oh and Paul was a misogynist. Great writer, but he clearly thought women were less than equal. Which is why women can't be priests. And some religious kooks in the dark ages decided to prove how much they love god by giving up sex. All that leads to is priests molesting young boys.
Jesus had some pretty good ideas. But men, even smart men, can't seem to grasp that what's written down in the bible was written by men with a flawed viewpoint and in some cases real wack jobs. Hell, what you have there in your king james isn't the whole bible! I'll let you look that one up because you won't believe me (i'll give you a hint. search for "the lost books of the bible"). But I urge you to be skeptical of anybody asking for money. Even if you think he's the arm of god himself.
cor-ral
n.
1. An enclosure for confining livestock.
Interesting how this wording shows government views on the people.
Support the FairTax
With 1 in 10. Completely. That is all.
B
Ok *snort snort* you are so smart, and I am so dumb. I would support the government. How does this play into your game oh wise one?
Why do they think that every site in the world is subject to US law?
Or do they think that only US pr0n is harmful to minors?
Sigh.
thegodmovie.com - watch it
but lets face it the USA government created the internet and therefore maintain an control it, if others countries wanted to police it they should have invented/discovered put it together first but the idea belongs to usa now so other countries need to realize this and realize they should have done it themselves instead of sit around an wait for the USA to invent every damn thing in the world an then leetch off it an want there own rules for is rediculous. Get a life invent you're own stuff an then police you're own stuff
I have no problems with a .xxx TLD. I think it would be great for those web sites that really wanted to advertise what they were doing. It would also give consumers who go to those sites a clear idea of what they're clicking on before they click on it. I'm not sure how effective it would be because so many porn sites rely upon gurrilla pop-ups in order to get traffic. Apparently any person who is looking for information on video games can't help but spend money on porn if bare breasts pop up on his screen during a search.
.xxx domain, but once they start forcing it then they get into a contest of who can be offended by the lamest content. This is what results in breast cancer information sites and the site of any radio station that employs a shock jock being stuck in the porn category.
.god extension for religious sites. I think they'd flock to that, and I think that it would make an AWESOME way for me to recognize when the content of a web page is hopelessly religeously biased.
The only problem with this is that they're forcing people onto it. I don't mind a general rule that porn should exist on a
What I'd like to see is a
Wake up - the future is arriving faster than you think.
I'll thankyou to let me decide what does and doesn't harm my children.
No ones censoring porn here. You can have your browser download every image from a xxx domain if thats what you want. But a LARGE number of people, and by that I mean damn near half the worlds population find pornagraphy unacceptable. All were talking about is createing a domain that coralls that porn so that it doesn't 'accidentaly' force it's self onto anyones screen against their explicit request.
Oh, and they don't have to be corraled 100%. The existance of a XXX TLD will make it trivial in court to prove that they were trying to place "offensive" material infront of minors/people who opted not to recieve any (by using a non-XXX TLD). If you can prove that they are subversively sliping porn to minors you have a strong case. Even without forcing them onto the XXX domain.
I would rather be ashes than dust!
yea they are trying to ghettoize it so they can more easily stomp it out.
they would be spending their time better going after racist and religious fundamentalist websites. i'm sorry, but porn stars are not blowing up or kidnapping people and cutting their heads off. get with the program goddamned puritains. hate and closed mines are what is dangerous to minors, not sex
Porn is made with REAL people. Real people doing real acts, remember that.
And she was full of desire for her lovers, whose flesh is like the flesh of asses and whose seed is like the seed of horses. Ezekiel 23:20 (BBE)
Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father -- Genesis 19:32
I am Ruth thine handmaid: spread therefore thy skirt over thine handmaid.-- Ruth 3:9
And when she had brought them unto him to eat, he took hold of her, and said unto her, Come lie with me, my sister.-- samuel 13:11
Let her breasts satisfy thee at all times.-- proverbs 5:19
The spirit of man is the candle of the LORD, searching all the inward parts of the belly.-- proverbs 20:27
Just a random sampling. there is more...your bible may vary.
Even talking to my father's generation, the general level of ignorance that prevailed concerning marital relations likely did more harm than skin mags. Where was this idea originally hatched, that skin mags are harmful to minors? I've never had an adult person confess to me to having been harmed in his / her teenage years by coming across the wrong kind of printed material under their parent's bed. One could argue that children are harmed by exposure to emotionally charged materials in the *absense* of appropriate parental guidance, yet apparently many/most parents find it difficult to offer this guidance with destroying some cherished illusion I never had myself as a child. I fail to grasp the sentiment. I suspect the prevailing, unspoken theory runs along the lines that restrictions on certain kinds of information promotes God-fearing behaviours, and that skin mags falling into the hands of impressionable minors somehow upsets this delicate apple cart. I presume it must be religious at root, because it's so often invoked but never explained.
I'm not playing a game. I was just thinking of that guy in Russia that got found out he was a massive spammer and was beaten to death by some average citizens. Legislative punishments are better than some others. And to some of the sites, it wouldn't be a punishment but a grant to their own requests. I just don't see why so many /.ers are opposed to that. Only reason I can come up with is they don't want their ISPs seeing their lookups to .xxx sites. Which would be very naive. The other concern would be people thinking their ISPs might block .xxx TLDs for them if this was passed.
Ahh, all good :-D
Any commercial Internet site or online service that "has as its principal or primary business the making available of material that is harmful to minors" would
Err, so that would be where you "corral" sites advocating critical thinking (since it's lethal to one's career prospects) while you put the materials promoting a healthy attitude to sex into the corresponding ".health" domain.
Right.
Oh, this is an American law isn't it. No need to worry agbout it then.
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
In an ideal world a .xxx(or similar, btw is 'xxx' universally reconized as indicating porn??) domain would work and would be a good simple catagorization. However for this to work, you would have to have everybody agreeing on what should or should not be in that domain, and then get everybody to enforce it.
This just isn't going to happen, ever.
Esp with the weird rules about who has the rights to a domain...we would quickly end up with nivida.xxx (does the 7900gtx turn you on more than the slim mx440?? !) or dhl.xxx (delivery fetishes;-)
----- I refuse to have an argument with an unarmed person
The parent post specifically mentioned sleazy popups, and his hope that this new domain would somehow make them easy to block. I was simply using dramatic licence to illustrate why I thought this unlikely.
So don't confuse people with weird sexual desires and sleazy spammers.
Both groups can be confused for all I care.
Which is a completely different motive than simply demarcating them. It's also self-defeating and, I must say, stupid, as the sites that offend you by annoying, spamming, etc are already renegades and move sites frequently; or are on "bulletproof" servers and will ignore any restrictions. You'd only punish the more ethical and sedate porn providers.
Both groups can be confused for all I care.
What can I say? Idiot.
"When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
Yes you are.
Not hilarious, but rather than respond to your insulting non sequitar in kind, I thought I'd make a joke. Sorry if it went over your head.
Its about time we do something to be able to set our browsers and computers to keep this stuff away from our children. How many people here have kids, and how many people think that porn doesn't effect them on some level, and how many of us can be honest with ourselves? My thought is that this should have took place long ago without he help of the government, but domestic violence and child abuse continues to thrive and the porn industry is becoming a monster towards traditional families.
Wake up and smell the coffee. I don't think anybody has the guts to fight for family, because they forget the one they had or didn't have. A buddy of mine did something about it which I admire, and did something not very popular in our culture even wih churches and came up with www.xxxchurch.com I am proud of these guys.