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...
Isn't this standard procedure for most country TLDs? I just checked for my country:
From their webpage:
Translation: The proposed domain name must not be offensive or contrary to public policy or generally accepted principles of morality
Thus, identical to the Ireland registry provisions. The real question here is, why someone would consider "murder" falling into that provision? I clearly don't. You see, this could be a website about prevening murder, or a forum for people seeking help that had a relative murdered. I don't know.
Also keep in mind that pretty much all "normal" sex-related words should be registrable just because of *that* reason. tits.com used to be about birds (the real, flying kind). Now, I do not know what the porn guy exactly tried to register (just checked the article: it was porn.ie). It would be hard to defend "bondagegirls.ie", but a case for "sex.ie" might be acceptable, if the content clearly is non-sexual. (Well, the applicant was a p0rn peddler, so good luck to that)
Oh, and I see he owns sex.ie... Now really, it's not as if sex.ie is registrable, so should be murder.ie.... He is complaining about nothing *at all*.
What I think that happens: the registration process is completely automated and the words just pass through an automated filter which, incidentially, just contains sex-related words. He should try "t1ts.ie" ;-)
Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
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 &
That doesn't make sense. "goatse" only works with the .cx domain, because of the pronunciation of "goatse.cx" as a whole sounds like "Goat Sex". Frankly, "goatse.be", "goatse.ch", "goatse.lu", "goatse.us" or even "goatse.kz" don't have a that nice ring. (Though I picked goatse.kz, because it might just work fine phonetically...)
Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
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."
What about /.ing it? Is it ironic if it is /.'ed?
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
We are talking about the country where reading Playboy was illegal only a few years ago, check out the wikipedia page for the whole censoring frenzy.
Porn sites inspire people to create porn?
1q2w3e4r5t6y7u8i9o0pqawsedrftgthyjukilo;p'azsxdcf
(or solo, given that this is Slashdot)
Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
Sure then what about prawn.ie? Hey! That's not a shrimp!
That country would have been the United Kingdom (specifically, Northern Ireland), not the Republic of Ireland. And even there, they stopped a while ago. You're wrong in both time and space.
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.
The Irish broadcast regulator stop certain typs of programme from being aired. The advertising regulators prevent distasteful ads. from being published.
Your position is no different. They're enforcing public policy or generally accepted principles of morality. If you don't like that, well, you can appeal or run for public office and then change the rules to whatever you can persuade people to accept.
Finally, don't you think that if this domain name was registrable, someone would have got there before you? The only reason it's "available" is because others have run into the regulations before you.
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
Nice domain, would've been really cool during the browser wars.
If words weren't moral, then there would be a positive word for "murder".
The fact of the matter is that you are purchasing a service, and as the providers of the service they are allowed to set the rules. If they wanted to set the rules such that every domain must start with the letters "ie" they could, and I don't see any reason they shouldn't. It is their service, and they should be allowed to set the terms. Period.
The truth of the matter is that if enough people didn't like it, they wouldn't sell enough domains to stay profitable, and they would be forced to change.
I'm sure this concept will be completely foreign to the socialist minions here on Slashdot, but that's how capitalism works. Your business, your terms. Government run or not, that's the way it is. If you don't like it, go buy a domain name somewhere else, and stop whining. Nobody is trying to oppress you, they just don't want their registry polluted with filth.
The force that blew the Big Bang continues to accelerate.
I've had it! I'm switching to .ff!
Northern Ireland is a part of Ireland taken by force and still held by a foreign power and most of the IRA's activites were funded by robbing banks in the South.
Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
What truth?
There is no dupe
Exactly, but you seem to be supporting pornography which is not being kept private; the 'consenting adults' are making it other people's business also.
So, please take a side or clarify yourself.
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
For example there was a website called bourdela.gr (bourdela is 'whorehouses' in greek) that had a directory of all whorehouses in Greece. They operated for a few months and then EETT decided it should not approve this domain and the website had to go to a com domain.
This is one of the many reasons people choose .com/.org etc domains instead of .gr domains. With .gr domains you may very well get fucked months later (after you've spent money to make people remember your domain)
btw, i am not in any way affiliated with the bourdela site. I just like to read it because i find it fun how people go into flamewars over whores.
Slashdot Sig. version 0.1alpha. Use at your own risk.
maybe that will make people curious about ICANN and such things as how they don't give a damn about domain name squatters - ahh, well we can dream people will anyway, right?
Probably true, if what you meant was "sexual actions". However, since the controversy is about not being able to have the domain name porn.ie, not about what kind of content the web site can have or what actions the content of the web site might inspire, I find your comment totally off-topic.
There must be ooodles of .ie web sites with pornography. Also, I rather doubt you'd have a lot of luck registering killcatholics.ie (or other variations with
Protestants, Jews, etc.), either. So your argument would seem to have nothing to do with this.
The registrar's TOS are designed for CYA --- so it can arbitrarily pull offensive domain names to not get sued. The controversy is that many people don't feel that porn.ie would be a big liability exposure to them, so they appear to be overstepping their authority into sexual censorship.
.US bans various domains too for similar reasons, such as FuckCensorship.US
r ship.us&TYPE=DOMAIN
For the timebeing, along with others, it's in perpetual limbo:
http://www.whois.us/whois.cgi?TLD=us&dn=fuckcenso
Ron
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."
They've come a long way in the last decade or so, but when it comes to matters of morality, Ireland's been lagging behind much of the rest of the Western world. It might call itself a republic, but in effect it was run like a Catholic theocracy till not too long ago, with the government taking its lead from the Church, and the Church doing pretty much whatever it pleased, until people started to see them for the bullies, racketeers and paedophiles they all-too-often were and they lost some of their grip on the public consciousness. They only legalised divorce in 1996, and abortion's still not on the cards unless there's a serious risk of the mother dying. The state-owned TV still carries the Angelus call to prayer at 6PM every night. So it doesn't really surprise me that this sort of stuffiness persists.
"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
You can try if you find where to register domains for Eritrea.
The thing with goatse.cx is that it doensn't look suspicious to the casual surfer. Something with "fuck" in it, most certainly does. I personally got hit by goatse.cx when at work, and I was damned lucky nobody was looking.
Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
An MS funded site to warn to Irish companies of the insidious and subversive nature of Open Source Software. I'm sure no one here has a problem with that.
Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
What truth?
There is no dupe
No wonder I've never come across an Irish website! I'll have to use -A flag in the future.
The only thing immoral going on here is enforcing this stupid policy.
+0 Meh
There is nothing wrong with keeping society prim, proper, polite and personable on the surface.
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...
don't force those who adminsiter and check these to suffer your personal tastes, and don't cry foul by their decisions. That is what pisses me off.
So we should all suffer YOUR personal tastes? Or should we go with "majority rules" here, and fuck anyone who disagrees with the majority?
Meet Bob, he had the same rights as everyone. One day he fucked a watermelon, and loved it. Now he felt that he didn't have the same rights as everyone else and started a campaign for 'equal rights' and 'tolerance'
And so long as Bob isn't harming a soul while fucking watermelons, what precisely is the problem? If he's prevented by law from doing that, he damned well SHOULD campaign for equal rights and tolerance.
I think your poorly-veiled allusion to gay rights, plus your use of quotation marks around 'equal rights' and 'tolerance' speaks volumes about your position, though. You do realize that without 'equal rights', it's just as easy for someone to find something about you that is slightly different than the majority, and get after you about it?
Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
I hope that after some healthy reflection you're now wishing for an edit function on /.
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
And you know what, the majority would agree. You don't like it? Go live in fundamentalist/survivalist camp and then decide who is the kooky one.
Personally, I think that the one who is the kooky one is the one who thinks that disagreeing with censorship is equivalent to being a fundamentalist. That's just my opinion though...
Here's a decent definition of censorship: The practice of suppressing a text or part of a text that is considered objectionable according to certain standards.
This is censorship. They aren't self-governing rules - they are striking specific sites simply because they find the name morally objectionable. This is a government, not a simple administrator. This is governmental censorship. Look at the argument. You can now form your opinion and feel free to disagree or agree, but definitions of words are definitions of words.
While we're getting to the definition of words, I didn't know that the majority would agree. I'm not sure you know either - you should probably write "guess".
Now I'm still not sure what the fuck having sex with a watermelon has to do with this issue...
Censorship isn't censorship when it's "self governing"? What? And how is this self-governing? It's being enforced by a private company, not by the people.
"Of course the rule can't be wrong, simply because it isn't quite as strict as a the rules in an arbitrarily chosen survival camp!" A truly masterful point. Arg, how did you come up with this?
Oh, and there's nothing wrong with keeping society prim, proper, polite and personable. So if you want to drop the "f word" in a post, then feel free, but don't cry foul when I mod you down for it, and don't force those who administer you to suffer your personal tastes.
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.
yes but what they say and what they enforce are two different things. they make the laws out of catholic guilt. they can always look at playboy because they will be forgiven for it anyway.
And you know what, the majority would agree.
If that's true, I've guessed we've made much less progress than I thought.
You don't like it? Go live in fundamentalist/survivalist camp and then decide who is the kooky one.
Since when has this been any fucking kind of an argument? You see it all the time in discussions about the United States, where any criticism regarding loss of rights or liberties brings out the knee-jerk response, 'Well you go to North Korea and see what rights you have there!!!!!' Bub, we're not talking about North Korea or a fundamentalist/survivalist camp, and the fact that you're so quick to say 'We're still better than them!!!' is a very sad state of affairs.
There is nothing wrong with keeping society prim, proper, polite and personable on the surface.
Uhuh. And what exactly is 'prim' and 'proper'? Define these words in the context of modern society.
Mother, do you think they'll like this sig?
Actually, Christians realized this problem and by and large have moderated away the interdenominational killings. This was a significant part of the Enlightment.
But I'll still let your mom be on it.
A site about murder is far less likely to inspire murderous actions than a porn site is to incite pornographic actions.
Yeah, well, murderous actions are generally against the law and harmful to one or more persons. 'Pornographic actions' generally aren't.
Mother, do you think they'll like this sig?
This is censorship, the .ie registry is a monopoly put in place by a democratically elected government.
The Irish government does presently not outlaw pornography so where the hell do these civil servants think they do have this authority in their own little(?) corner of Irish society??
There is nothing wrong with keeping society prim, proper, polite and personable on the surface.
Oh come on, you're one hell of a superficial shit, so as long as it's done (you can do it) in dark corners you're OK!
Besides, the example given of alowing murder.ie invalidates your silly reasoning rather exquisitly...
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
Can a word be immoral?
Well, if you really want to pick nits, you could argue that a word cannot be any concept. It's a word... nothing more and nothing less. However, even a single word can represent an immoral concept.
A government should create a policy which clearly defines what is morally acceptible for it's people. How to do this is far beyond me. If individuals at the ".ie omain Registry" are coming up with their own definitions of what is acceptible, in the absence of clear policy, I would say that they are wrong. However, the blame falls on the government for creating a set of rules without a definition of terms. In the US, the principle of "separation of church and state" forces our moral baseline to be very basic... in spite of our glorious leader's perceived religious bias.
I am a Catholic American living in a country with an Islamic government (Malaysia). I suppose that gives me a unique perspective. I see examples of a similar problem in censorship of the media. It is common knowledge that words that are contrary to public policy or morally unacceptible will not be allowed in any media. The problem is the same: Neither the public policy, nor what the government deems morally unacceptible is clearly defined. As a result, I suppose it's left up to the people in charge of the TV/radio station, newspaper, magazine, etc... Because there are no clear rules, every offensive word makes it through occasionally. Also because of the lack of clear rules, many words that are clearly not offensive and a few that are just confusing are censored. Occasionally, the name Jesus is also censored. I suppose this is the religious bias of the person employed to censor the media.
Malaysia _claims_ to have freedom of religion. Their constitution even guarantees it, though there are some problems.
For the record, I disagree with _government_ censorship in almost every form.
By the way, I've just learned that the domain "porn.us" is available... "Offer $5 000 000.00 or more and your offer will be accepted."... quite a bargain, dontcha think :)
-- Ghodmode
How about porn.murder.ie?
A word perceived by some to be rude or offensive in one language may be entirely innocuous in another language. For example sex.ie might be registered by a Swede living in Ireland ("sex" is the Swedish word for "six"). Similarly, a Swedish word for a Sami tent also means "horny", "Fart" means fast in many germanic languages etc. The authorities / state should have no place in censoring like this. Think I'll register nook.ie for my site about the nooks and crannies of censorship policy ;-)
Respectfully disagree:
1. It is censorship. Third parties can practice censorship as much as the government.
2. Aren't domain registrars everywhere controlled by their governments? The effect being that this *is* government censorship.
3. The majority would agree? Is that wishful thinking or agumentum ad populum?
4. You assume that by allowing pornie.ie society would not be prim, proper, polite and personable. What you state is merely your opinion passed off as fact.
Ahh, I see.
If you get something wrong and somebody calls you on it, you can just label it a joke that went over their head. That's a handy catch-all, isn't it?
Next time I fuck up a story in the pub and someone points out my flaw, I'm gonna get a beermat and scrawl some unfunny doodle with someone's head and an airplane and everyone will think I'm so cool!
Thanks!
Mother, do you think they'll like this sig?
No, you've got it all wrong.
It's miller time!
The truth of the matter is that if enough people didn't like it, they wouldn't sell enough domains to stay profitable, and they would be forced to change.
If I was a part of an ethnic, moral, sexual or religious minority and the majority of people (including the government in a democratic country) thought like you do, I would be in serious trouble. Who gives a fuck about the minorities as long as the majority votes for us?!
Antti S. Brax - Old school - http://www.iki.fi/asb/
Isn't this standard procedure for most country TLDs?
same thing in Romania. swearwords, etc. are a no-no. for example pula.ro (slang for penis, dick, schlong...) is still free after all these years. and i bet it gets rejected every week.
ftrules:
Stop Computers/Cars Analogies on S
quick.ie
"I love words. I thank you for hearing my words. I want to tell you something about words that I uh, I think is important. I love..as I say, they're my work, they're my play, they're my passion. Words are all we have really.
We have thoughts, but thoughts are fluid. You know, [humming]. And, then we assign a word to a thought, [clicks tongue]. And we're stuck with that word for that thought. So be careful with words. I like to think, yeah, the same words that hurt can heal. It's a matter of how you pick them.
There are some people that aren't into all the words. There are some people who would have you not use certain words. Yeah, there are 400,000 words in the English language, and there are seven of them that you can't say on television. What a ratio that is. 399,993 to seven. They must really be bad. They'd have to be outrageous, to be separated from a group that large. All of you over here, you seven. Bad words. That's what they told us they were, remember? 'That's a bad word.' 'Awwww.' There are no bad words. Bad thoughts. Bad Intentions.
And words, you know the seven don't you? Shit, Piss, Fuck, Cunt, Cocksucker, Motherfucker, and Tits, huh? Those are the heavy seven. Those are the ones that will infect your soul, curve your spine and keep the country from winning the war.
Shit, Piss, Fuck, Cunt, Cocksucker, Motherfucker, and Tits, wow. Tits doesn't even belong on the list, you know. It's such a friendly sounding word. It sounds like a nickname. 'Hey, Tits, come here. Tits, meet Toots, Toots, Tits, Tits, Toots.' It sounds like a snack doesn't it? Yes, I know, it is, right. But I don't mean the sexist snack, I mean, New Nabisco Tits. The new Cheese Tits, and Corn Tits and Pizza Tits, Sesame Tits Onion Tits, Tater Tits, Yeah. Betcha can't eat just one. That's true I usually switch off . But I mean that word does not belong on the list.
Actually, none of the words belong on the list, but you can understand why some of them are there. I am not completely insensitive to people's feelings. You know, I can dig why some of those words got on the list...like cocksucker and motherfucker. Those are...those are heavy-weight words. There's a lot going on there, man. Besides the literal translation and the emotional feeling. They're just busy words. There's a lot of syllables to contend with. And those K's. Those are aggressive sounds, they jump out at you. CocksuckerMotherfuckerCocksucker. It's like an assault, on you. So I can dig that.
And we mentioned shit earlier, of course. Two of the other 4-letter Anglo-Saxon words are Piss and Cunt, which go together of course. But forget about that. A little accidental humor there. Piss and Cunt. The reason Piss and Cunt are on the list is that a long time ago certain ladies said 'Those are the two I am not going to say. I don't mind Fuck and Shit, but P and C are out. P and C are out.' Which led to such stupid sentences as 'OK, you fuckers, I am going to tinkle now.'
And of course the word Fuck. The word Fuck, I don't really...well, this is some more accidental humor, but I don't really want to get into that now. Because I think it takes too long. But I do mean that. I mean, I think the word fuck is an important word. It's the beginning of life, and, yet it's a word we use to hurt one other, quite often. And uh, people much wiser than I have said, I'd rather have my son watch a film with two people making love than two people trying to kill one other. And I of course agree. I wish I know who said it first, and I agree with that. But I would like to take it a step further. I would like to substitute the word fuck, for the word kill in all those movie cliches we grew up with. 'Okay Sheriff, we're gonna fuck ya now. But we're gonna fuck ya slow.' So maybe next year I'll have a whole fuckin' rap on that word. I hope so.
Uh, there are two-way words, but those are the seven you can never say on television. Under any circumstances you just can not say them ever, ever ever, not even clinically. You can not weave them in the panel with Doc an
And in order to put a few knots in the rubber band, let me just state that the answer, unequivocally, is no to both formulations.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Invoking Godwin's Law on a first post in an attempt to come off as witty or humorous is not only annoying, it can even ruin a romantic cruise.
You are where you are at the time you are there.
You can onl register a personal domain with your initials and two digits after that eg JohnSMith can get js01.ie and he you have to demonstrate a "Real and Substantive Connection" to Ireland. After that companies with Irish links, state agencies, schools and politicians (and a few more categories) can register a domain. So this ban will only affect those who managed to register a company or trademark with an "offensive" name or try to make use of the "Discretionary Name" category. Look here for more details: http://www.domainregistry.ie/RegistrationPolicy.ph p
This has very little to do with freedom to be honest. It's their tld, they've setup the rules. Don't agree with them, buy a .com name.
No, you should suffer the Terms Of Service of the registrar, like the ones many tld's enforce. Don't like it? Write to the registrar, then write to the government, after failing to yield results just buy the damned .com .
No problem for me. Hell, if Bob wants to enjoy his watermelons that way, or if he is gay, as long as he's not bothering me, have fun and safe sex (or not). But if the Irish tld organization doesn't want to sell him a domainname, it's their right. It's their service, and they have a TOS up that warns you about this.
Equal rights and tolerance are just arguments you'd use when you're disciminating against specific groups of people (homosexuals, race, ethnic groups, etc), in this case no pornography is allowed at all. Not heterosexual, not homosexual, not interracial, not interspecies, just plain old NOTHING. While I don't agree with the fact that you can't open a porn site under .ie (after all, what the world really needs is more porn on the internet), it's their tld. Buy a .com name if you don't agree.
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.
I recall getting a call from a Mr Fuck from Switzerland a few months ago trying to find out why his registration of his domain got refused. After carefully explaining what his name meant in English he decided to register the domain in the name of one of his Dutch business partner.
Next day he called again and said that they had the same problem to register the domain under the name of his partner, Mr. Cock.
Supporting MS products doesn't mean you have to like them.
The moment it's advertised though, it could rationally be said to be public. If you organise among your friends some activity, it's private. If you advertise it in the paper, it's public.
http://marriedmansexlife.com/
Let me tell you a little something about Ireland.
.ie registry. In fact it's almost certain as they tend to be incompetant misers and .ie domain names are about $90 a year. So on behalf of the country, I formally apologise for this disgrace. We'd get rid of them, but ironically, the smaller the country, the harder it is to dislodge the dead wood from office.
Yeah it's all true. Playboy was Illegal, along with condoms and being homosexual until 1993. Yes 1993. Prior to thise, people were still selling playboys, condonms and being homosexual, but it was in fact illegal. We don't actually have an explicit right to freedom of speech in this country. In the Irish constitution, most if not all personal rights are, to use the exact phrase, "subject to public order and morality". Oy'veh!
Anyway, it's not like that over here anymore. Long story short, people got relatively wealthy and now have the money to be as debauched and decandent as they like, hence the laws got changed. The current Taoiseach of the country, that's the Prime Minister, is divorced and living with his girlfriend. Or he was at any rate, while still Taoiseach. He might have married her. Might. So no we are not currently talking about a conservative catholic theocracy anymore. Because it was a conservative catholic theocracy at one point. I've got witnesses who can testify to that.
However! There's still a lot of old guard catholic dead wood hanging around. The kind who thought that Vatican II was an opening of the floodgates of sin. They're here and there, usually in minor offical positions that they obtained through their connections to government. "Pillars of the Community" had a lot of government connections over here, mostly because everyone else had emigrated.
Anyway, these kind of officals tend not only to be catholics, they are very often members of some subversive catholic organisation like Opus Dei or the Knights of Columbanus. I believe the attoreny general in the infamous X case was a member of the latter. Think Pat Robertson, only without the TV show. Trust me, these guys are the real pros, Robertson's just a wannabe.
Anyway, it's highly likely that someone of that ilk is running the
May the Maths Be with you!
You don't get killed for being the wrong flavour of Christian, you die for being either a Nationalist or a Loyalist, which tends to run along the same lines.
When the posters fear their moderators, there is tyranny; when the moderators fears the posters, there is liberty.
The Slashdot blurb asks some reasonable questions but misses the crux of the matter.
.ie registry. Like any state, the Irish government has no useful metric for figuring out what the "right thing to do" is, nor do they have any particular interest in doing so. Whatever they do will please some and piss of others, with those others having no useful recourse to change things.
.ie registry. The Internet is a de-centralized network, and anyone can set up their own DNS server. Anyone can also change their networking settings to use third-party DNS services other than the government's. It's unfortunate that organizations with little or no accountability have laid claim to the official servers, but private DNS exists and people could switch if things got bad enough. At the moment, the costs of government censorship and other domain name issues have yet to exceed the convenience of relying on government-run DNS, but it may not necessarily always be so.
The government is in charge of the "official"
However, no one's forcing you to use the Irish state's
He who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.
May the Maths Be with you!
the Irish, whom, I believe, you converted to Christianity in the first place
Actually, it's more like the other way round and long before Ireland was invaded. Christianity made it's way to Ireland on it's own, and for some strange reason really found a home there. Then when Christianity started to wane a bit in Europe, it was bolstered up by Irish missionaries. For example, look at a list of saints related to Scotland (such as at http://www.visitdunkeld.com/scottish-saints.htm) and you'll see that a lot of them are Irish missionaries. And if you'll look at when they lived, most if not all of them lived long (500 odd years) before the "English" invaded in 1169. It even debateable if the people who invaded Ireland should even be called English as they were the decendants of the Norman invaders of England 100 years previously, so Anglo-Norman would probably be a better term.
At some point, somewhere, the entire internet will be found to be illegal.
The USA was taken by force from the red indians. If the UK gives NI back to the Irish, then surely we should give the USA back to the red indians, Australia back to the Aborigines, New Zealand back to the Kiwis etc.etc.etc.
And your weak link is, there are fuck all English people living in the north. There are unionists (mostly scots descent protestants), and republicans. Currently the unionists outnumber the republicans by a small minority, but the balance is shifting over time. I'd say within another 40 or 50 years, the north will rejoin the south again. Not saying its a good or bad thing, but it seems inevitable, really.
What he can't kill, he has sex on. Trent.
The proposed domain name must not be offensive or contrary to public policy or generally accepted principles of morality
How can it be that after a 2000 year history of anything from book burning, illegitimacy, sexual escapades, and torture to mass murder and genocide in the Catholic church, people can still fall for the belief that repression and suppression are means of improving morality?
See this for what it is: an attempt to get control over people by keeping them in fear of knowledge and basic biological functions.
Fair enough, but what about those "swingers mags" and such like, where people advertise, but it is a medium meant for the advertising of such things amongst consenting adults.
At some point, somewhere, the entire internet will be found to be illegal.
You don't get killed for being the wrong flavour of Christian, you die for being either a Nationalist or a Loyalist, which tends to run along the same lines.
Which is something that is often forgotten, that it's not quite a 1:1 mapping between religion and nation/union-ism. I once knew someone from NI who was of Catholic origin but didn't want the North to be a part of the South because of the south's social conservatism.
At some point, somewhere, the entire internet will be found to be illegal.
Morals are based on religion
Laws are based on morals
governments are a collection of laws
thus government is a collection of religious moral beliefs.
If you have no seperation of state and church you have a government run by the church.
Look back in history, all governments have some connection to the church.
Even the US was based on the christian church.
Now should a government enforce the rules of a non government registry?
Hell No
-- I am the NRA, enough said...
Can a word be immoral?
Yes, depending on who you ask, words can be immoral, but I don't think a domain registry should act on it.
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
where did you get THAT idea? The only thing a porn site would most likely "incite" is masturbation.
I got permanently modded -1 because I dared to question Israel on
Never really thought about it too much. I think that their are some things, that even if you find them acceptable, or even good, it's still appropriate to keep them private. I find an interesting comparison to using the toilet. Nobody is against it, yet their are clear boundaries of what's considered acceptable in public, and nobody is crying "You can't legislate morality!"
As for swinger mags, I think if people who aren't interested are confronted with them during their daily business, it's a problem. Here in Australia, for example, pretty much every service station (gas station) has porn prominently displayed. It is virtually impossible to go about your business without being confronted with porn, which is to say, at least some viewing is forced on you. It could be accessible without forcing it on everyone.
http://marriedmansexlife.com/
Stroller.
Christianity made it's way to Ireland on it's own, and for some strange reason really found a home there.
:D
Err, when you look at what we had to deal with at the time, it makes a bit more sense...
What he can't kill, he has sex on. Trent.
A-hahahhaha, man you make me laugh. Funny guy!
Ireland has one of the highest literacy rates and educational standards in the world. University education is free (actually you get paid to go- everyone gets a grant of about $6,000 a year) we have one of the highest University attendance rates per member of population in the world.
We also have one of the highest rates of economic growth on the planet, and have a democratically elected govornment (unlike the good ol' U.S of A, who even managed to elect a Cletus-clone as president).
Oh, I forgot, Americans have one of the lowest foreign travel rates in the world, and most of you couldn't find Canada on a map. I really shouldn't have expected more.
When the posters fear their moderators, there is tyranny; when the moderators fears the posters, there is liberty.
I visited Ireland for the first time about 5 years ago and I was blown away by how modern it is, both in infrastructure and attitude. Really a great country, friendly people, nice climate (it was sunny the entire time), high tech industry. Can't say enough nice stuff about you folks.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
Translated:
Yes, according to the DENIC anale-penetration.de is completely valid. However, the registration can be rejected if it would be obviously illegal - which is not the case with porn.
USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
The idea that porn is free speech is a modern foolishness that doesn't date back more than half a century. The people who wrote "Congress shall make no law..." did not consider pornography to be covered under that umbrella. I realize that moral relativism is all the rage, but it's a stupid philosophy that only teenagers, morons, and hippies take seriously.
Our rights of free speech protect, first and foremost, political discussion. If they are extended to cover smut (as they have been), we will see a steady abridgment of the first purpose (as we have seen).
Furthermore, sex in the media is far more influential than murder in the media. (When was the last time you saw somebody killed in a beer commercial?) Sex on television gets people to think differently about sex. Murder on television does not make people more violent.
The current moral situation regarding sex in America and Europe is pretty bad. Girls sleep around, and that's really no good for anybody. (Sure, I get a lot more sex today than I might have in 1930 -- but hell, how much sex you're getting really has a pretty small effect on happiness. Relationships in general really are a lot better with someone who you're actually committed to.)
is still free after all these years. and... gets rejected every week
/.
Like most pula here on
Or it could be about (a flock/group of) crows.
Ambiguity can be fun.
That government is chosen by the public, so yes. If the majority of the public disagrees, the next term there will be another government. So frankly the question is quite absurd, IMNSHO. A tad american perhaps *ducks*
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. Time to die.
"Meet Bob, he had the same rights as everyone. One day he fucked a watermelon, and loved it. Now he felt that he didn't have the same rights as everyone else and started a campaign for 'equal rights' and 'tolerance'." Poor bob. Too bad he got reduced to that. At I wonder if he puts the watermelon in the microwave first.
No sex words allowed in your .ie domain name? So, no www.dickvandyke.ie?
You just got troll'd!
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!
Bang on the money. Irish ways and Irish laws... the law is just a guideline, or a jumping-off point.
Wolfe Tone.
If you're reading slashdot while on a romantic cruise, then I'm afraid it's already ruined.
...Unless, of course, she's into that sort of thing - in which case - Has she got a sister?
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
How about cook.ie? Or dook.ie?
incite pornographic actions.
What exactly are you trying to say here? Which "pornographic actions" do you refer to? You mean that people DIDN'T have sex or masturbate before the invention of pornography? Do you mean that pornography is the CAUSE of masturbation and sex?
Hey buddy it's not my fault if you can't look at a porno film without jerking off, but don't think that everyone is like you.
You don't kill someone because you know that somehow it will all go wrong and either a) the person you are trying to kill will realize it and kill you, or accuse you and/or b) you will get caught, or c) you have enough respect for humanity that even if you hate someone's guts you're not willing to end their life for them. The same can be applied to rape. You are interfering with someone's life and well being in a major way.
But porn? Who cares what you do in your house? I certainly don't. Go ahead and refuse to look at it if it bothers you so much. Or if you're really into it, good for you. I hope you enjoy it. And that should be the end of it.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
I live in Oz, take a good look at the porn in the servo, the "bits" you can see are no worse than "TV week's" front cover. It just looks like "porn" because they are in hermetically sealed bags and the models wear too much make-up. The strange thing is: I have never, ever, seen anyone buy them, yet they take up a fair bit of rack space????
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Most porn sites exist as a business. You have to pay for the sexual activity, making the practice prostitution. Most governments take a dim view of prostitiution.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
but horn.ie will do
I'd like to let the Irish people decide if their government should enforce a moral code. Where is it our place to decide for them or even judge them? I don't think humanity has necessary found the correct/best answer to any complex system like religion, government, and economics. I believe most people here agree that you shouldn't try and force your religion on other peoples of the world. But when it comes to morals, government, or economic systems they feel that those should be. I'm scared shitless of a world where every nation is modeled after the United States. In diversity is strength.
Personally I don't want censorship of porn where I live. Not because I think porn is good for society, but because once you start censoring some things it's easy to start censoring more things that might matter. But if these people think censoring some things should be done for moral reasons I think that's a valid choice, and very well could result in a happier society.
Hobby Robotics
Now very far OT, but yes: all sets are supersets of empty sets, all sets are supersets of themselves, all sets are subsets of themselves.
However, A is a PROPER superset of B only if A contains B and is distinct from B.
etc.
Nothing prepares you for database modeling like good ol' fashioned high school math.
It's true I tell you, feller at work's next door neighbour read it in the paper.
The Republican party has determined that sex is immoral, but violence is not only perfectly acceptable, it's ESSENTIAL for morality.
nice climate (it was sunny the entire time)
Come back soon and please please bring your weather with you!
What he can't kill, he has sex on. Trent.
If your pussy race got kicked out or conquored by a stronger foe, you just deal with it. If the world starting carving out new countries for races of whiney people...who knows what kind of ugly conflict such arbitrary nation-building might initiate. The displaced people would probably hate the citizens of the 'new nation' and dedicate their lives to exterminating the assholes who took over THEIR LAND!
Blar.
So we should all suffer YOUR personal tastes?
.com.
How about the personal "tastes" of the population of Ireland, which presumably are the reason for this in the first place? Respect for the generally accpeted mannerisms of a nation/people is a good thing, because "harm" is a lot more than the rather materialist notion you have in mind.
And like the good man said, if you don't like it then buy a friggin
I sure hope so. The government is supposed to be seeking the good of its people. How could it possibly do so without reference to any sense of right and wrong? Just because you disagree with a particular choice doesn't mean they shouldn't be doing what they believe is morally right.
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."
Now, I think this is a sorta 'see this is what you get when government decides who can and cannot get on the network' type of issue, but I think if the government of any sort is to be the main provider of domain names then it's the duty of said government not to censor that which it finds offensive. Granted, we can't have websites with criminal intent, but porn.ie? Come on, when's the last time someone got in a porn 'rage' and raped someone? Or stolen something? Or created a criminal organization to plot our collective doom?
I think this is indicative of Ireland, considering it's a conservative Catholic nation, but it needs to accept there is a strong minority of Irish citizens that are not so, and that it is the mandate of any decent republic to respect the minorities of the non-criminal kind in their rights to exist and to express themselves. Otherwise, it will have more in common with countries that chop folks' hands off and what not than with its EU neighbors.
I find it a sad time we all live in, where the networks are ultimately become more and more closed, whether it's the restriction of 'adult' content and file sharing or whether it's a restriction on open/free[libre] software and content. This is a time where the networks need to be more free not less free, because it's this time that our civilization is beginning to evolve and to improve itself. Yet, such censorship as it is going on in Ireland simply will not facilitate such a natural progression. And it only proves that a certain part of the species is unwilling and unable to move on with its arbitrary 'sensibilities.'
I really don't see what the big deal is here, even being aware that /.ers like to make a big stink over every precieved violation of human rights / free speech that rolls down the line. But that's not what this is at all.
A domain name was banned because it violated the rules and terms it agreed to when it tried to be registered, namely the name contained words or phrases that were precieved to be amoral (and regardless of what your personal take on the morality of sexuality is, seeing as it doesn't matter in the slightest as far as this discussion goes, you would be hard-pressed to find a public official who didn't take the stance of porn being amoral - at least if they wanted to keep their job). Whether or not "murder.ie" is also covered and should be shut down is irrelevent and a red herring.
If you really have a problem with this, work to get the rule changed (which, by the way is the same everywhere).
Yeah, but I have to go to work, otherwise I starve, too.
If women were told that they couldn't work any job, but porn, then you'd have a better argument.
The next time you see a guy breaking his back working shit labor, ask yourself if he's sure he wants to be there. This is, essentially, the trafficking of human beings.
Watch everything you buy. You don't know where it came from.
We should make buying shoes illegal; I hear that the people who are forced to make them don't have any alternatives. It's essentially slavery.
Hence the Six-One News.
As long as it's not US, North Korea or Russia - Yes.
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.
As republican supporters were almost entirely catholic and loyalists were almost entirely protestant, it would be forgivable to conclude that there might have been an element of religion involved.
Isn't anything ending in IE immoral?
The original poster may not have intended this interpretation, but I look at it as the Irish governing the Irish here. If the majority of Irish people didn't want this policy, they're free to vote someone else into power to change it. In my opinion, the only people that have a right to complain about this policy are those actually in Ireland. As much as I hate seeing things like censorship and imposed morality, I hate interfering in peoples' rights to self-govern even more. If this is the way they want it there, let them have it that way. It's their call.
The imposition of one's morals onto others is the root of most of the conflicts in the world today. People don't understand that morals are not absolute concepts.
How can a domain name be "immoral" and whose morals are we going by?
.com and host outside Ireland - so this kind of policy only serves to move money out of the Irish economy).
I think it's stupid that some people can't handle the english language in all its glory, and think that some specific words are "bad" or "unacceptable" or "immoral".
Personally, I've never understood how a word can be bad, but the meaning of it is OK. Example: you can say "biatch" and "a-hole" on the radio, but you can't say "bitch" or "asshole".
But since the meaning is exactly the same, the censorship is meaningless and only serves to sanitize the words, not the sentiment behind them.
In other words: it's all total "bullshit" (you can't say that on radio or tv, but you can say BS, even though the meaning is exactly the same and everyone knows what you mean).
This whole thing is childish beyond comprehension. The inmates have long since taken over the asylum. I'm just glad I'm still in my room, albeit not a rubber one.
The examples cited are quite funny, and unlike some here, I think comparing "murder.ie" and "porn.ie" is a great example of what gets accepted and what gets rejected, because it deomnstrates that apparently the "morals" of the body responsible for deciding those things are that the graphic visual depiction of consenting adults engaging in sexual activities is immoral, but the willful and premeditated taking of a human life is somehow more morally acceptable.
I wonder if a chicken farmer can register "cock.ie", and if he can, shouldn't anybody else have the same ability? This is government censorship, pure and simple. Any time you give the government the ability to decide what is and is not acceptable to say or write, it's a very slippery slope that inevitable leads to the censorship of voices critical of the government. I wonder if you can register "TheIrishAreAllDrunks.ie" or "BertieAhernIsAnIdiot.ie" (if not, you can always register them as
The "jews-out" someone came up with is a brilliant example of how easy it is to manipulate people into giving up their rights. Just throw out the nazi scare and people are willing to do a lot of stupid things, including the acceptance of censorship.
Freedom of speech means nothing if you limit it only to speech with which you agree. Yes, that means nazis and other morons have the same right as you or I to say what they want. ISP's don't have to host their sites if they don't want to, but the government should never, ever be given the power to decide what is and isn't acceptable speech. What is deemed acceptable by you today, may be unacceptable by someone else tomorrow, and that someone just might be in the position to censor your speech.
With freedom comes excess. If you're not willing to accept the excess, you don't truly believe in freedom.
I'd rather let neo-nazis enjoy their freedom of speech, than give the government the power to censor mine.
-- This sig for rent.
is that not Langer.ie ....?
It doesn't logically follow that Ireland is obliged to tolerate the commercialization of sex or provide a public forum for the pornographer. You want it private? Keep it private.
That explains a lot. Your view of Ireland is formed by what you've learned form Irish people who left the country in droves in the past. Unforunatly that view is now well out of date.
And, we don't enter another nation after a ten mile drive.
Thats funny, neither do I. In fact, until amphibious cars become widespread, the only other nation I'll be driving to is Northern Ireland. That's one of the problems with living on an island you know.
Those are cultural and social ideals, and not necessarily shared by all other cultures. While in the US and a few other countries we theoretically aspire to the ideal that that freedom and liberty are more important than peace and public order, not all other cultures feel the way we do.
And most importantly, they are not required to. Sovereign nations have the right to live under their own ideals (within reasonable limits of egregious crimes against humanity, of course) even if they disagree with ours.
I think the guy tried to register f*ck.ie and the system thought he was a firefox zealot.
If enithin kan gow rong it whil. (Murfey)
First of all you're thinking of the wrong bloody country. The IE domain is for the Republic of Ireland, not Northern Ireland which is part of the United Kingdom.
The majority of Irish people accept evolution, as opposed to a certain other country. The government funds stem cell research, unlike a certain other country. Our politicians don't pander to religious groups when making policy, unlike a certain other country.
Stones, glasshouses.
Unfortunate as it is there is truth in the old addage "You can not legislate morality." It's pathetic and sick that people, as a whole, will find ways to do the things the vast majority (in some cases the 'majority in power' (often not the same as the majority, and rarely thinking along the lines of the majority they are supposed to represent)) finds simply unacceptable and immoral. However, if a person is going to do something like that, a law or ban or restriction of any sort is going to be useless. That would only serve to keep those who "might not" do it from deciding "oh why not, it's not illegal" and going off and doing it. It will not prevent those who want to do it despite what people in general say and press for (legal-wise) from going out and doing it anyway. In the case of a domain name "ban" or "filter" on certain "offensive" words... Please, that's too easy to abuse and misuse. How many people whine that being called "black" is offensive or "African American" is offensive, or "hispanic" instead of (or in some cases being called) "Latin American" or "caucasian" instead of (or due to being called) "white"... it's retarded. If someone thinks they can get something or get a fleeting moment of fame by crying the "I'm oppressed and insulted by this" for something, they WILL come up with a reason for it. At this rate we'll be banning words like "Play" and "toy" and "special" and "school" and a slough of "offensive" words b/c of misuse or people's feigned insult at their use. Want to truly ban something offensive, ban the excessive control on what is billed as being the greatest medium of free speech and free idea trade ever created. Let people police themselves and the vast majority will do so - let the ones that don't want to just do their thing and stop making it a mainstream media frenzy and glorifying their struggle and making a liberal issue into a serious threat to everyone (ie: quit making these groups that want to do this stuff the hero by glorifying their fight for their free speech - b/c that is a REAL issue and makes us all have to get involved, and that's just making a bad thing glorified in order to save a good... we can do without that if there weren't a threat on the good at all).
-- "You must be the change you desire to see in the world." Mahatma Gandhi --
Sovereign nations have the right to live under their own ideals (within reasonable limits of egregious crimes against humanity, of course) even if they disagree with ours.
And we're allowed to have our own opinions about that, aren't we? So what's wrong with someone expressing their opinion about it?
Downmodding is the refuge of the weak. Don't downmod, make a better argument!
More to the point, a site called "porn.ie" probably (and, according to TFA, was intended to be) actually pornography in itself.
Who modded this insightful? It's just a half-assed retard attempting to take a pot-shot at personal freedoms. So now sexual liberty is equivalent to some nutjob fucking a watermelon? Eat shit and die, you conservative prick.
Don't like personal freedom, cocksucker? Go to China. Stop fucking up the civilized world.
You heard me. GET OUT.
Ex nihilo nihil fit.
Thanks for that. The most insightful post on slashdot for the day!
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Legislating morality fails.
... discuss.
All information has positive value.
There are no bad thoughts, only bad actions.
Trying to control what people think will not work long term.
People will act to avoid control structures in any way they can.
People who work to control other people are often out of control of themselves.
People get severely screwed up but too much judgment, or said differently: trying to stop people from having their "bad/immoral" thoughts usually means the problems that create those bad thoughts are not addressed and corrected.
New Zealand back to the Kiwis I think you'll find you actually mean the Maori, and as it happens they've been doing a lot over the last 20 years to do that. Well, at least address some of the wrong doings. However this is quite off topic. Darn it.
Sometimes bad things happen.
I had understood differently, I'm quite shocked by the way you discribe the situation.
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
Plus, the question of actions between consenting adults can conceivably become my business, though that isn't what I was thinking about. I was thinking about criminal or public behavior. I do think there is something wrong with pornographic actions, but there's really not much I can do to control what you do in your home even if I wanted to (I don't want to).
The question of whether or not the government should regulate either of these sites is a completely different one.
I cried real tears when Li Mu Bai died.
"The proposed domain name must not be offensive or contrary to public policy or generally accepted principles of morality"(emphasis mine)
Unless you want to argue that murder is generally accepted morally, murder is out. Of course, the same logic is also a valid reason to ban tits, porn, and a lot of other words. On the other hand, sex, penis, and a lot of words would be acceptable (there's nothing amoral about a necessary function to continue the human species or the clinical description of a part of the body).
Besides, your line of logic that "the site could be a website about preventing " could be used for any amoral domain name, so they'd have to allow any domain name regardless of how it's actually used.
Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h
Consider the wide definition that pornographic activities could mean. That was probably my mistake, leaving it so broad.
I cried real tears when Li Mu Bai died.
Your comment history suggests that you don't live in Ireland. Perhaps you're a plastic paddy.
And a rude patronising moron.
But maybe I'm wrong.
The one and only purpose of government is to enforce a moral code on the public. Too little enforced moral code, and you get a Somalia. Too much moral code, and you get a Taliban or a USSR. Of course, having a GOOD moral code is as important having the right amount of it enforced.
Certain liberals are frequently outraged at the enforced Western moral code because of a simplistic presupposition that violence is bad and sex is good. A more nuanced view would require that violence can be either good or bad, and sex can be either good or bad. Further nuance might require that there is not a one-to-one mapping between good/bad and good-to-publicly-display/bad-to-publicly-display.
My own view is that sex is not only good, but sacred. But however, that public depiction of sex and nudity is a bad thing. When sex stops being a private thing, it stops being a good thing. That dynamic does not exist with violence. Nor does the depiction of violence have anything close to a similar compelling effect on the mind. These things are based on my own philosophy, religion, and experience. Your mileage may vary. Anyway, reasoned arguments are great, but the trite, unreasoned, and one-dimensional arguments that this subject tends to suck out of the woodwork... not so much.
I'd suggest that whatever sexual activity takes place between consenting adults (or solo, given that this is Slashdot) is their own business.
Given the range of human behavior, I don't think I can totally agree with that. There need to be some limits.
These were voluntary acts, but I think most people would say they never should have happened. (Not for the squeamish)
Cannibalism trial told of suspected new cases
3 charged in castrations in Haywood 'dungeon'
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
You speak of "Bondagegirls.ie" that turns some people on. IANAP (I am not a paedophile) but couldn't the same arguement be made for "xxxpreteens.ie"? It turns some sick freaks on. So we still allow it? So seriously, if you're going to use that logic, make sure you subject your logic to every example before stating it.
Warning: Corny karma killing post above.
Luxembourg is a member state of the European Union and as such bound by the declaration of human rights. That includes free speech.
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
Invoking Godwin's Law on a first post makes dead baby jesus cry.
---
And WHAT IS UP with these fake "slow down cowboy" hits lately? I havn't posted since yesterday but it tells me it's been 17 seconds.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Not really sure it *should* be their right tho.
TLD is equivalent to a public highway or a public utility.
It's like saying, "You can't run porn businesses next to public highways" or "with public utility power."
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Would've been the perfect address for a spreadfirefox mirror...
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
Only your readers could see a article about Irish censorship and realize its true nature; a soapbox for another Arabs vs. Jews flame war with countless unchecked facts being used to as a check to someone else's enormous ego.
You were critically hit for no damage. The bruise will look nice, and maybe the scars will make good party talk.
Nude pictures of preteens is illegal and the problem. A website called "xxxpreteens.ie" is only a problem if they are doing something illegal like that. The name itself is not immoral.
I am offended by all domains started with a A.... Where can i request them to remove all those domains?
Regards, Johan Louwers.
Well, I laughed!
Mother, do you think they'll like this sig?
So rich third world countries too?
You can't take the sky from me...
Simply, no.
This was a significant part of the Enlightment.
I always get a kick out of that. "We shouldn't kill people if they're from another kind of the same religion as us. Other religions are still fair game though." And they call it the "Enlightenment."
Religion: The ultimate in Marketing.
*insert Internet Explorer joke here*
(note that I searched before posting, nobody posted it)
That would be the Irish domain suffix.
A prefix would come before the domain.
Bring back Sirius Punk!
You know your statement is a direct result of the Enlightenment, right?
During the Enlightment most people started feeling that being religious and killing people other people because of their religion were somewhat incompatible, regardless of the religious beliefs of the person you're killing.
Your obvious distate for killing someone who disagrees with you is the same belief that you're protesting so loudly. The irony is amusing.
I can see where people get this idea from, but for one second let me offer an alternative thought that is totally independent of prejudice (semitic or otherwise).
Consider that the Israelis have proven time and again to be absolutely ruthless in dealing with attacks on its people and provinces. Consider also that the Israeli government has a scorched earth policy in relation to the detonation of WMD's on their soil. Consider also, that America relies on large quantities of oil from the Arabian peninsula to maintain its economic and technological superiority.
It paints an altogether different picture no? I believe that the issue is less one of America protecting Israel and more one of America protecting all of its other interests in the middle east, from fear that the Israelis get it into their heads to vaporize the lot.
Respect for the generally accpeted mannerisms of a nation/people is a good thing
You are rephrasing the grandparent's >.
It's like saying, "You can't run porn businesses next to public highways" or "with public utility power."
If that public highway happens to run near a school, you might run into exactly that problem. Many places in the US prohibit "adult" businesses located near schools.
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
I am not now, nor have I ever, been a Communist, but I guess I count as a subversive sympathizer under that definition. Just getting that out in the open. Anyhow, I'd be rather shocked to hear about a Knight of Columbus in Ireland unless he was an American expatriot (or tourist, naturally), as the organization was specifically founded to be an *American* Catholic lay organization. Its emphatically not like the Boy Scounts, which are American in America and British in Britain and what have you. (N.B. That the Knights of Columbus in the USA are a very patriotic organization, but when they talk about "America" in the historical sense they mean it in the sense of the American continents -- thats why they picked Columbus as their namesake, incidentally)
o f-Jews that you might think if you read too many bad Dan Brown novels. (Actually, "bad Dan Brown novels" is about one world longer than it needs to be. Remember, this is a guy whose novel about encryption had the NSA unable to defeat a cracker-jack decoder ring.)
Anyhow, for those Americans reading this, there are probably Knights in a neighborhood close to you carrying out their subversive activities of operating soup kitchens, selling insurance (its a biggie -- long story), and escorting the flag on the Fourth of July. Oh, and giving $140 million to charity in 2005 alone. "Cumulative figures show that during the past decade, the Knights of Columbus has donated more than $1.208 billion to charity, and provided in excess of 574 million hours of volunteer service in support of charitable causes." (pulled from their website)
The Opus Dei, yep, also not the world-spanning Zionist-conspiracy-except-with-Catholics-instead-
Help poke pirates in the eyepatch, arr.
I would like to point out that this is the same country where homosexuality wasn't decriminalised till 1993. It was in and around the same time before it became legal to sell playboy in the shops.
Thankfully the church here in Ireland doesn't hold the same sway it used to but we're still 95% Roman Catholic. The counrty is progressing and has gone from a third world country in the 1980's to one of the richest countries in Europe today. The country has tried take huge steps to come around to the idea that it is better to let people say things you don't like than make everyone think the same way. Every now and again the will conservatives win one though.
I am not particularly interested in whether porn sites can sell wares under an IE domain but this issue is the true test of free speech. I take hope in the idea in this fast evolving soceity these incidents are becoming less common.
Ireland will be united as one just in time to be subsumed into the United States of Europe.
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
What does the name have to dow ith content? Why can't I put a site called "xxxpreteens.com" but on it have pictures of 18+ women who just happen to look young? While not my cup of tea, I've done nothing illegal.
oogly boogly!
Different issue. Being near a school is not the same as being near a public highway.
The school prohibition applies based on distance and doesn't matter if there even an easy connection between the two locations. Example: All roads west out of neighborhood are closed by a bayou but the naughty business is still closed because it is 500' from a school even tho you would have to drive or walk 3000' to get to it from the school.
My point is TLD a public commons like a highway or utility power.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
"should a government-chosen domain registry be allowed to enforce their own moral code on the public?"
yes.
But this shouldn't be handled by a domain registrar, which has no training in what kinds of speech are unsuitable for minors or carry other offensive characteristics.
What you need is a Bureau of Proper Speech, which has veto power over all domain names, then those who specialize in this area of governing are making the decisions. This type of regulation shouldn't be left to the amateurs who probably do not know the difference between "asshat.com" and "analingus.com".
Once properly funded and empowered, your Bureau of Proper Speech can regulate far more than mere domain names. After all, it is the content of the websites that you are concerned with, not just the domain names. They can cover all kinds of ground, and protect you and your women and children from all manner of unsightly, disturbing, arguably incorrect, and controversial materials.
And you are right. It's vastly important that we protect children from abusive speech. A well-run Bureau of Proper Speech could protect your children from dangerous bullies at school. It could protect them from teachers who are prone to spout socialist propaganda in the classrooms. It could even protect them from parents who might poison their minds with slanderous points of view about your country's leadership.
Why stop at domain names. Efficiency and public desire demand that your Bureau of Proper Speech be given broad powers and the proper funding to make use of ***new technologies*** that will protect your children and everyone else from objectionable content.
I guess the
Anyone else here get a completely wrong impression of the article by the inclusion of "IE" and "immoral" in the title?
Jesus told him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one can come to the Father except through me. - John 14:6 NLT
Now, considering that 1% of people own 99% of the world -- and there is not really a such thing as "private property" anymore (unless you're a homeowner), I daresay that government censorship is a very small threat to free speech, when compared to private censorship.
The true threat that may quell the voice of the people are apologists like you who seem to think that censorship is a-okay, as long as the one doing the censoring is not the government, and has enough money^H^H^H^H^Hownership to set his or her own rules.
I'm here to warn you that, for the sake of humanity, your position is a dangerous one to take.
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
IEDR has to try to follow the rules and under its interpretation, porn.ie is not acceptable. Of course allowing bebo.ie, windowsonecare.ie, onecare.ie (Microsoft products), irishindependent.ie (one of the biggest Irish newspapers with the domain irish-independent.ie), googel.ie (google typo), dmoz.ie to be squatted is perfectly fine. Though technically, porn.ie might not be acceptable under the legislation governing .ie ccTLD. Most ccTLDs tend to run differently to the gTLDs like .com where anything can be registered.
That's right, I made up that stuff about proper supersets, added it to math textbooks all over the world, bribed teachers into teaching it, professors into professing it, tutors into tooting it.
Why did I do all this? Isn't it obvious? It's all part of my cunning ploy to confuse earth's inhabitants so I can take over the world.
Alternatively, you're wrong and there really are such things as proper supersets and proper subsets.
Inconceivable!
The proper superset of all sets is: everything; also known as infinity, NaN, your system is running low on resources, etc. ("Shoot the bloody pedant!")
The proper superset of a collection of sets is best explained by example: set A is equal to set B, both are distinct from set C, and set D is the proper superset of the other 3 sets: it contains all the properties of A/B and all the properties of C. Because D contains C in addition to A and B, it is distinct from the other 3 sets and can rightly be called the proper superset of all sets. In a situation where C does not exist, A=B=D and therefore there is no proper superset of all sets. Once the symbols are removed, we see that this is accurate: there is only one set cloned three times.
It is important to distinguish "proper" supersets/subsets from supersets/subsets. Some mathematicians even use special symbols to illustrate the distinction.
That should read: "...there is only one set cloned twice."
My bad.
i'm replying to the parent, not you (the grandparent)...
you let me know when you can show me the set that is a proper superset of the set of all sets
horn.ie
I love humanity, it is people I hate
Apologies, I didn't realize your last post was intended to be sarcastic; I thought you were agreeing!
I have not personally seen that set that is the proper superset of the set of all sets, but reliable sources inform me that it's blue (from the outside, at least). They wanted to call it the Ultraset, but it turns out people have already started calling it other things that don't sound like a mix of Tramadol and acetaminophen. Religious people call it "The Absolute". Computers call it "NaN" or "Divide by zero error on line 42". For the rest of us, the term "cosmos" suffices.
Read it again. Particularly the part at the end where it says "Other religions are still fair game, though."
> or example comparing the life of citizens of Luxembourg to the life of Rwandanese people
Same goes for Luxembourg where it's apparently not possible to register the sex.lu domain (and probably also any other "offending" one)
Atari rules... ermm... ruled.
Exactly right. We don't believe we should kill muslims because they're muslims.
"TV week's" front cover.
:)
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrgggggggghhhh! Oh wait...what.... oh, you didn't put a link to it, phew, thanks
Seriously though, I know it's not exactly hardcore, but its there and unavoidable. To go back to my "going to the toilet" comparison, maybe its like someone taking a leak in the shopping centre car park. Well, he's not taking a crap, he's even turned away, so you can't actually see anything, and it's over a drain, so it won't get on you, but it's still not OK to most people. Nobody wants to stop him taking a leak, they just want him to do it out of sight. Right out of sight. I would prefer porn to be handled similarly rather than the way it is now. I just want the right to choose not to view it. At all.
http://marriedmansexlife.com/
I don't like everything I see either, I can't get away from sport on the TV at certain times of the year. I have two grown children, when they were kids they knew there was a part of the adult world that was "adult bussiness", (ie: grog, smokes, porn, violent movies,..). We have some strong legal deternts to ensure none of these "adult pastimes" are open to kids, but to deny their existance turns it into a "wedge issue".
I'm not suggesting that porn should not "irk" you, I'm suggesting your "taste" should not be allowed to push "overtly sexual" people into dark alleys. Have a look at a movie called "The people vs Larry Flint", don't let the cover put you off, it's a great political drama based around the founder of Hustler magazine, it is also a great example of how the US constitution should work.
"I'm guilty of nothing more than bad taste" - Larry Flint.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
I don't like everything I see either, I can't get away from sport on the TV at certain times of the year.
...to deny their existance turns it into a "wedge issue".
You can reasonably make a decision to not watch TV. Not being able to buy fuel without being exposed to something is very different.
Perhaps, but I didn't suggest its existence should be denied.
I'm not suggesting that porn should not "irk" you, I'm suggesting your "taste" should not be allowed to push "overtly sexual" people into dark alleys.
Again, not what I was advocating. Would you consider going to the toilet to be an activity that has been pushed into dark alleys? Signs are in every place to show where you can go. Nearly every building has a toilet. Nobody is embarrassed about it, and yet you have the ability to not see it. Would it really be so oppresive to "overtly sexual" people if they didn't foist it on me?
http://marriedmansexlife.com/
"Fair game" doesn't mean "acceptable." It means "game" as in "prey" (think hunting). If you actually think they don't beleive that, I assume you haven't talked to many of your compatriots lately, hm?
"Enlightenment" is the antithesis of religion.
"You can reasonably make a decision to not watch TV. Not being able to buy fuel without being exposed to something is very different."
You are not seeing porn in a servo, but you know the porn is hidden behind the mag wrappers, just like people taking a dump are hidden but you still know they are there and what they are doing.
"Would it really be so oppresive to "overtly sexual" people if they didn't foist it on me?"
Nobody is foisting porn on you, it is illeagal to display porn unless access is physically restricted to over 18's. You simply don't want to be reminded it exists, using a sign on a door that says "porn this way" is no different to an opaque wrapper saying "porn inside". Check out the movie I suggested, it's entertaining and highlights the issues far better than I can.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
I'm talking to you, whose mental thoughts are the result of the Enlightenment bashing the Enlightenment. Try reading Locke and his thoughts on religion.
As an Irish resident and citizen living in Ireland, there is a lot wrong with the way the .ie domain is managed, but this issue is not one of them. Even in a free market economy you have to have checks and governance, and some sort of rules. If the the IEDR didnt adopt this approach the .ie domain would be a joke, much the same way the .com/.net/.org/.biz/.info system is now. Remember how .org used to be just for not for profits, .nets for netork companies etc.? Have another look and you will see that idea has gone by the wayside with the proliferation of the nastier side of the web.
I don't think youll find anyone of any nationality who would like their country level domain being used for what is popularly conceived to be adult, racist, or malodorous content.
So while its easy for people to wave fingers and point out about free speech and your constitution, thats your country not ours. I think if anyone saw the site allamericansarepigs.us they wouldnt be too happy, we have a similar right and obligation to uphold the good Irish name.
As a domain reseller I am happy with their rules on these sort of things as it actually is a selling point in getting a business to part with 120 instead of 10 for one of the popular domains.
This is not a free speech issue as its being popularised, more a one of upholding the inherent market value and marketability of a product. Remember the IEDR did ask for consultations on this and other issues, so this is what the response was. Also the IEDR is set up as a non govermental, self funding body. A cursory read of the website would reveal this and many more details.
If you want a porn site or other "non censored" domain, logon, open your wallet and pretend to be whoever you really want to be, and get yourself a virtual card and off you go and setup your porn/adult or whatever kind of site you want .com/.net/.org/.info/.biz.
However if you are an irish business and you want to instill into your customer and market that you are a) reliable b) trustworthy c) local d) established, then go get yourself a .ie domain and leverage that for all its worth!