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?"

Comments

juden-raus.ie

[P(0)(!P(k) P(k 1))]

From TFS:

And in this day and age, should a government-chosen domain registry be allowed to enforce their own moral code on the public?

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.

Re:juden-raus.ie

[donscarletti]

If pornography was a superset of free speech, strict or otherwise then all free speech would be porn. What you mean is that porn is not a subset of free speech. But I think in Ireland which is fairly conservative IIRC, it might actually be a disjoint set to free speech.

Re:juden-raus.ie

[lixee]

juden-raus.ie, I suspect, would convert many here into willing censors.

torture-and-kill-arabs.ie, I suspect, would not raise an eyebrow here.

Re:juden-raus.ie

[Planesdragon]

If you don't see the west's double standards in treating Jews and Arabs let me refresh you memory;

I see a double standard, but let me rebutt yours before I argue mine.

People get sent to jail for challenging the accuracy of the Holocaust figures, yet freedom of speech in invoked everytime someone gratuitousely insults the prophet Mohammed and his teachings.

No one ever gets sent to jail in the west for insulting the Jews or their teachings. Insulting the prophet Mohammed (isn't there supposed to be an addition there?) is the equivalent of saying that Kabbalah is devil-worship; it's freedom of religion.

Those counties (of which the United States is NOT a part) that made denying the Holocaust a crime did so because they were complicit in the holocaust. It'd be as if the United States made questioning the reality of southern slavery a crime. You're comparing apples and, well, pears.

Israel gets away with a stockpile of nukes but no Arab country could dream of being allowed to develop them.

No arab country has millions of Jews planning on burning it from existance. And while Israel implies that they have nuclear weapons, they do not openly admit to having them, and they have never performed a nuclear test. It's entirely possible that they don't have a single nuke of their own, and are just mis-stating the presense of nukes installed by their allies.

As for how the Jews get special treatment -- you're right. They, as a part of their religion, believe that they're special, and as part of their politics, hold that they have a modern-day right to do so. Because they've done such a good job adapting to the west, the jewish idea of what is offensive and abhorrent is treated as an agnostic view, and so carries a fair bit of weight. This is, in essense, subversive, but it's not the sort of thing that my country is going to get riled up over. After all, Christians and Muslims have exactly the same access to influencing our country; they just need to play their cards right.

Re:Murder or Porn

[ozmanjusri]

A site about murder is far less likely to inspire murderous actions than a porn site is to incite pornographic actions.

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.

Re:Religious fundamentalists

[evilandi]

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.

Re:You miss the point ...

[DrFaustos25]

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.

Re:Religious fundamentalists

[Darkman, Walkin Dude]

No, we just thought they were restricted to America.

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 .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.

Re:Porn isn't free speech.

[Dunbal]

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.