Slashdot Mirror
Adult .IE Domain Names Banned As Immoral
An anonymous reader writes, "The Irish domain prefix, .ie, is controlled by an organization called the IE Domain Registry. In their terms and conditions they state, 'The proposed domain name must not be offensive or contrary to public policy or generally accepted principles of morality.' But this policy is only applied to sex words as this adult webmaster has discovered. Murder.ie is acceptable, Porn.ie is not. Can a word be immoral? And in this day and age, should a government-chosen domain registry be allowed to enforce their own moral code on the public?"
From TFS:
porn.ie is a poor example, since pornography has been a strict superset of free speech since the 1960's; how about: juden-raus.ie?juden-raus.ie, I suspect, would convert many here into willing censors.
Certainly you mean suffix...
As much as I love the country, remember that you're talking about a nation that banned the sale of condoms to minors for a long time. They're simply more conservative over there; I don't believe that makes them wrong (or right, for that matter).
That is disgusting. If true, I feel that IE Domain Registry is revealing their own sickness by enforcing such as bizarre standard.
My Greasemonkey scripts for Digg &
You're still implying there's something wrong with pornographic actions, and that it's the role of the government to regulate them.
I'd suggest that whatever sexual activity takes place between consenting adults (or solo, given that this is Slashdot) is their own business.
"I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
Slavery, apartheid, imprisoning and executing unwanted people. These have all been public policy at one time or another. If we base our decisions on "public policy" instead of freedom of expression and liberty we are on the way to totalitarianism.
Did you think countries of religious fundamentalism were restricted to poor 3rd world countries?
No, we just thought they were restricted to America.
Boom-cha! Thank-you, I'll be here all night.
Andrew Oakley - www.aoakley.com
Posting sexual pictures of yourself on a site called www.porn.ie, for example, is making a decision to participate in a sexual activity (exhibitionism).
Going to a site called www.porn.ie is a decision to participate in a sexual activity (voyeurism).
If people choose to do either, they are consenting to make the sexual activity their own business.
"I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
"should a government-chosen domain registry be allowed to enforce their own moral code on the public?"
yes.
your right to free speech does not:
1. extend to other countries
2. usually does not extend to material unsuitable for minors, depending on the situation and audience.
(like creepy domainnames for porn site)
3. does not extend to other things, like slander, libel, false advertising, misrepresentation, etc.
mostly your right to free speech is there to criticize the government(your own government), it's not there so you can download child porn.
If you want to get upset, having a nazi.xx domain is illegal in most European countries. but as far as I know it is legal in the US. WHOIS for: nazi.com, nazi.org
I personally find domains like IHR.ORG and VHO.ORG far more offensive, they belong to Holocaust denial groups. Relastically we should ban those domains before we ban BIGJUICYSLUTS.COM (is that a real domain? I bet it is)
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
The countries domain is a service provided for the country; privatized or not, it's supposed to be run in the interests of the people. If enough people of Ireland feel that their countries service isn't what they want then they have every right to demand that the government improve that service, again, privatized or not. They shouldn't have to use another countries domain name when their own government is supposed to be providing their citizens with a service that the majority of them like.
Would you argue the same about other privatized services? Water? Transport? "If you don't like it, use someone else?" In a lot of countries there is no viable competitor, and in this case, if Irish people want an Irish domain (surprise!) then they have no other service to go to.
Maybe the majority of them want the restrictions, and that's their choice. But you don't get to shut down the argument over whether or not this is a good choice by simply spouting some inanity about the market deciding blah blah blah. If the citizens want their own countries domain rules to change, they should.
Except for, you know, the idea that we should be free to do whatever the hell we want, so long as we're not harming others. I know freedom (and liberalism) in general is out of favour these days, but still...
You're still free, as an Irish citizen, to register donkey-fuckers.com, donkey-fuckers.co.uk, etc. You just can't register donkey-fuckers.ie. So what? What about the freedom of the registrar to decide what data they will and will not allow to reside on their servers?
I really don't see how any rights are being infringed here; if nothing else, owning a domain is hardly a right.
It's official. Most of you are morons.
I hate people that justify others' actions because "it's their job." Those are like words spoken from an inmate saying that he can't escape because there are bars and cages all around him. I can imagine a Nazi concentration camp guard saying that he's not responsible--hes only doing his job! As if morals are like whispers in the wind, changing like the day's fashion. As if running for office will make you the knower of all things worldly. The unmoven mover of all things that can be moved. As if that will somehow make the accepted more acceptable, or less regrettable. I can hear the rumbles of anarchy, the shackles of insecurity. The movers are spinning the web, ever more closely, ever more tightly. But the harder the whip, the deeper the scar. You will take it because it is your job.
I'm sure this concept will be completely foreign to the socialist minions here on Slashdot, but that's how capitalism works.
.tld to a government-enforced monopoly and imposing strict rules regarding the use of that single, unique .tld is the epitome of capitalism and the free market!
Yeah, handing over a single, unique country
No, we just thought they were restricted to America.
.IE decision cropping up from time to time. Give it another thirty years and you won't be able to tell an urbanite from Dublin or Galway from someone from New York or London, apart from the accents. Not saying its a good thing or a bad thing, but its how I see it going.
Actually even in Ireland, the situation is changing extremely rapidly. What the GP was referring to was the "troubles" in the north, which had almost nothing to do with religion - Catholic / Protestant was just a convenient title for the opposing camps. Republican / unionist would be better. All that is besides the point, however.
The gap between younger and older generations in Ireland is staggering. We basically went from ultra conservative, churchgoing folks to hedonisitic, hip, and tech-savvy in about thirty years. The older generation is still in political power however, which is why you see things like this
What he can't kill, he has sex on. Trent.
Girls sleep around, and that's really no good for anybody.
I would argue that effective birth control has a lot more to do with this than "television". You're a LOT less likely to "take a chance" with that good looking guy you met if there's a high probability you'll end up with a baby out of a night's passion. Oh and why is it that girls sleeping around is no good, but guys sleeping around doesn't get a mention?
Women were culturally restricted to be a subservient class in a male dominated world. All this has changed, and now women fend for themselves, work for themselves, and educate themselves. Basically the sexual differences between male and female have been blurred now. There's no reason why they shouldn't entertain themselves sexually as well. What's good for the goose is also good for the gander.
While I agree that extremes in any situation including sex may lead to disappointing results, I feel that education, not imposition from the outside with stupid (and unenforceable) laws, is the solution. Outlawing something only makes it illegal. It does NOT stop people from doing it.
Morals are individual things. Respect for your fellow human being means you can't impose your point of view on them.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
It's pretty much like asking "Is God fair?". I only hope you don't expect an objective answer, because morals are just as subjective as religious beliefs (and please don't hit me back with a Wikipedia link to an article about moral absolutism or moral objectivism).
You just got troll'd!
I disagree. You probably accept that the airwaves "belong to the public", and you probably accept that we need to regulate them technically to keep them usable. So regulation in some form is okay, right? Here's the part where we disagree... if the airwaves belong to the public, then the public should be able to determine their use. While our democratic process might be flawed, it remains our best option for determining how to use public property. In my mind, banning nudity during daytime TV is no better or worse than banning nudity in a public park.
Also, I happen to think that the moral code used by the FCC is stupid. Nudity and sex are better than violence, IMHO, yet violence is not regulated very much while nudity and sex are. I'm apparently not in the majority, however. I also think that cable and satellite should remain out of the reach of the FCC, since they are not "public". Even where the cable is owned by the public, it is usually owned by a locality, and the FCC should have no jurisdiction.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
You're right, and that's really the only argument I see as being valid here. I'd say though, virtually every human activity can and will be misused. That's a good reason for effective laws and law enforcement, not a good excuse for censorship and repression.
It's the slavery (both physical and economic) that is the problem and needs to be dealt with, not the expression of sexuality.
"I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
It would be hard to defend "bondagegirls.ie"
Why?
I mean, it isn't everyone's cup of tea, but clearly some people are turned on by this kind of thing, and so long as it's just a theatre of willing participants what's the problem?
If it isn't just a theatre of willing participants, then there are crimes being commited that need to be addressed by far stronger means than censoring website names, and anyone who is going to suggest that any resources be spent on censoring website names while such crimes are being committed must have a very strange notion of logic and priorities. I mean really, what kind of blithering idiot would say, "People are being tied up against their will! Quick, we must BAN CERTAIN WEBSITE NAMES! That will solve the problem!"
Or, for the homophobes in the audience, what about gayboys.ie? Or gaygirls.ie?
Jews and Muslims may have scriptural grounds for hating gays, but Christians do not, and Ireland is a nominally Catholic country. Jesus never said anything about homosexuality (unlike remarriage after divorce, which he strictly forbade), Paul only referred to it ambiguously, and the Old Testament rules against it have the same force as those against wearing cotton-polyester (Deut 22:11). And nowhere in the Bible is there a single word against lesbians, so we must conclude that God is ok with all that hot girl-on-girl action we see on the web.
What kind of "morality" is opposed to the free expression of sexuality? And why? If the claim is that the free expression of sexuality is "harmful" due to some purported indirect and subtle effect, then why wouldn't such a morality be far, far more opposed to far greater harms, like warfare?
The logic: "We must ban all depictions of sex to prevent some subtle and non-obvious kind of harm" seems far weaker than "We must ban all depictions of violence to help prevent the clear and obvious harm that violence does." I'm not in favour of banning any depictions, because depictions don't do harm.
So why is anyone concerned with banning depictions of sex, while Arnold Schwartznegger gets elected governor of California on the strength of movies that glorify violence?
This is a serious question, and I think it's about time the would-be censors answered it in clear, unambiguous and consistent language.
Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
Cable and satellite are just as "public" as broadcast, and the rationale for regulating them is identical. Both use scarce public resources.
:)
I disagree, friend. Anybody with a receiver in range can pick up broadcasts, but with cable and "most" (not all) satellite services, you have to have a subscription. You're correct that satellite does use spectrum, though. I suppose it's tomato, tomahto.
I look at XM Radio (I have no experience with Sirius) as an example of where I believe the FCC should stay out of it. They have two satellites ("Rock" south of Miami, and "Roll" south of San Diego) which they have launched, and one can only receive the signals by having an XM antenna, an XM receiver, and an XM subscription.
I don't see how the FCC has license to monkey with that system any more than they would closed-circuit TV. When I sign up for their services, I know what they offer. It's like signing up for HBO. When you sign up specifically for it, you know there's the chance that there'll be boobies appearing on the screen, and the FCC doesn't say anything about that....
Just then the floating disembodied head of Colonel Sanders started yelling Everything You Know Is Wrong!-Weird Al