Slashdot Mirror
Saudi Arabia Objects To Proposed .gay gTLD, Among Others
Qedward writes "The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has objected to a variety of new generic top-level domains (gTLDs) ranging from .porn and .sexy to .wine and .bar and .bible, according to records of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). The organisation said in June it had received 1930 applications for gTLD 'strings,' of which 911 came from North America and 675 from Europe. Saudi Arabia's Communication and Information Technology Commission, the IT and communications regulator, has objected to the .gay string and asked ICANN to refuse the application for the new gTLD. 'Many societies and cultures consider homosexuality to be contrary to their culture, morality or religion,' CITC said. 'The creation of a gTLD string which promotes homosexuality will be offensive to these societies and cultures,' it added."
to their treatment of Jews and women, so they can kiss my ass.
Why don't the simply censor those domains? They already censor the hell of the internet anyway.
I find religion contrary to my morality.
The .gay TLD will instantly make it apparent that the content is something they find offensive and they won't mistakenly go there. Seems like a win, unless of course the offensive material isn't what the problem actually is.
"I use a Mac because I'm just better than you are."
I'm continually amazed that people think that because something offends THEM, that they have the right to censor what other people can do/see/say/hear/view/etc. There are a few things that the world DOES agree on - such as kiddie porn and murder being bad - but beyond that, if you're offended then simply censor YOURSELF and don't visit those sites! If the whole country agrees (which I doubt!), then block it in your country.
If ICANN doesn't tell them to go take a flying leap, there should be rebellion.
MadCow.
I used to have a sig, but I set it free and it never came back.
Saudi Arabia refuses to allow for a .gay domain
People continue to put oil from that country in their cars.
Chick-Fil-A founder says he personally believes marriage is between a man and a woman
Gets boycotted.
sudo make me a sandwich
...it would be for "control" of the Internet to be taken away from the evil Americans and given to the saintly UN where rational, tolerant governments such as that of Saudi Arabia have influence?
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
They also like the .slavery, .nowomensrights, and the .infidel TLDs.
Seriously; I think some of the alternative energy things are barking up the wrong tree, but at this point, I would be willing to support any energy plan that gets us off these jerk's oil. I want to be liberated from Saudi Arabia and then bomb their fucking stuck-up, 15th century asses into the ground. The USA gives them latitude because we depend upon their oil, and all the while, they are the most restrictive country in the world. North Korea has more freedoms (if you're female), and yet the USA's focus is on every "bad" country except Saudi Arabia.
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
Exactly my thought. Wouldn't this make it EASIER for them?
What are they bitching about? Its a boat load easier to block entire TL domains in their DNS servers than to block a gazillion .coms all over the world.
Sure the wise will change to some other DNS server, and they may have to block IPs, but so what? They already have that problem. I suspect they also block out of country dns servers.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
I see no valid *purpose* in adding gTLDs whether offensive or not.
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
The problem is that it will be easier to block them, so now they won't have access to them.
The old "Women are for babies, boys are pleasure" attitude in the Islamic world is prevalent enough that I do not understand why they don't just come out of the closet?
http://sheikyermami.com/2008/06/22/afghanistan-thursday-night-is-boyz-night/
Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
"Official" stance almost always differs from "personal" stance. Officially there were a number of Republican officials against gay anything, personally they went around having casual gay sex all the time. Officially cocaine and other drugs are illegal and should carry heavy sentences. Personally there are any number of cops, judges, and elected politicians that use them all the time. Officially hookers are illegal...
Oddly enough this rhetoric and stance has been used as a positive. That officials should support the will of the people rather than their own personal opinions or anything they might be more informed about. Never mind that "the people" can often be ignorant, spiteful dunderheads and that elected officials were theoretically elected to be better at deciding these things than "the people".
Saudi view themselves as the leaders of the Islamic faith (sort of like if Italy took the lead on all things catholic that the pope said, good ideas or not).
To them the notion that some of these concepts could even be considered acceptable, anywhere, is outrageous, and true moral leadership is to object vigorously to all of it. They know they'll probably lose, and they probably want to lose (and I'm sure the US embassy was consulted in advance as to whether or not they had any chance of actually getting their opinions followed). But as the stewards of the islamic faith they must at all times appear to object to things contrary to the brand of islam they are promoting.
The idea that these behaviours (consumption of alcohol, sex for fun, homosexuality etc.) could be exposed to any of the islamic faith, especially their poorer brethren, who rely on the Kingdom for guidance and support on these issues, means they must show their leadership to the world and demand such unislamic activites be discouraged at all time. It would be equally terrible if a member of the Islamic faith outside of a Islamic society were to be corrupted by these ideas, especially as a young, impressionable boy or girl in the US or Europe, and the international community should at all times work to protect them from unislamic influences, everywhere.
It's stupid, they know it's stupid, you know it's stupid, but the poor illiterate bastard in Bangladesh or Afghanistan or Morocco or the like can get outraged over it and they don't know it's theatre for their benefit, the saudi's can claim to be defenders of the islamic faith (which wins them points with the literate crazies) and it's unlikely to go very far anyway, so no harm done.
That officials should support the will of the people rather than their own personal opinions or anything they might be more informed about.
No, officials are elected to office to conduct government for the good of the people . Sometimes, large segments of the people are not able to recognize what is good for them.
If we say that elected officials should represent EXACTLY the will of the people, there would still be slavery in the South, and homosexuality would be, for the most part, illegal.
Is that what you want?
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
To my understanding the social left in America is about inclusion. Obviously, this means a heavily pro-gay agenda. It has also manifested in an effort to respect all religions*, including Muslims, and not only tolerate their practices and beliefs in the US, but support and embrace them. Whenever someone comes out against perceived or real moral deficiencies of Islam, the left is ready to attack that person as a right-wing hater.
But Islam condemns homosexuality. It is not only a general disapproval of homosexuals on the level of the more hardline Christians, but homosexuality is even illegal, punished up to the death penalty, in most countries with a majority Muslim population. So, how does a person on the left, which branded Jerry Falwell as an "agent of intolerance," reconcile this "respect everyone" attitude with this? The leftist mouthpieces would be up in arms right now if Pat Robertson was making this statement, but *crickets* since it's the Muslims.
* Except Christianity for some reason. You don't usually hear them saying we should respect the Christian religion, or attempt to glorify its past and promote its accomplishments. And, FTR, I despise both Falwell and Robertson.
Um, nevermind, it's too late for them to do that with a straight face.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Waiting for you to name a Christian country where what you wrote is rule of law.
It's interesting how little of the current breeds of Christianity is based on the words of Jesus, and how much on the words of his students and church leaders. And how rarely all the 'love and giving and kindness' is followed by the 'righteous'. You very rarely hear a person quoting Jesus, while other authors are quoted in just about every conversation where something is claimed to be against the will of God.
Islam considers Jesus a prophet as well by the way. So anything he said also applies to them.