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."
Interesting the .gay thing, considering how infamous Saudi Party Boys are...
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
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.
.fuckyousaudiarabia
http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/program-status/application-results/strings-1200utc-13jun12-en
As an Anarcho-Syndiclist I object to organizations and companies so I respectful request that be remove the .org and .com TLDs.
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.
Saudi Arabia stands for tyrannic despotic dictators with no legitimate right to rule who enforce intolerance and oppression over a people who deserve far better. Take Saudi Arabia off the net NOW!!!!!!!
You would think they would be all for it because once it's in effect they can simply block by TLD. Right? Wrong.
With this request they are simply advertising to the world: "We are serious about remaining unintelligent, primitive bigots".
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain... time... to... die...
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.
I mean, I know I am being bombastic, but really... who cares what they think. We don't need to change our ways or ideas because they are "offended." As a matter of fact the reason they want us to change... so they can enforce their views on the public. As a sovereign country they can do that even if it is distasteful to us. They don't have the right to extend that influence anywhere else because they aren't sovereign any where else.
Look at what Iran has just done. If they want to disconnect from the rest of the world they can do the same thing.
Yep. Surely this makes it far, far easier to block these sites at the ISP level.
Then again, maybe we're expecting politicians to understand technology.
No sig today...
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.
Yes, because everything else the US controls has been so hunky-dory in terms of freedom and transparency. It doesn't matter who controls ICANN, it will never be 100% fair. People aren't fair. Just because the UN is a giant spin agency to cover up atrocities and foreign corruption doesn't make the US any less evil by default. You're looking at it from the wrong perspective.
What ICANN should be is a system designed to be as open as possible, and if certain networks object, they can censor it themselves as is already done. The issue of Saudi Arabia being an unenlightened medieval shithole of theocratic sociopaths has nothing to do with converting letters to numbers on the internet. Let ICANN worry about the internet, and let the warmongers figure out who's right and wrong in the world.
-Billco, Fnarg.com
There seems a lot of Islamophobia on the site today!
The system should have simply kept to the .org .edu .mil .gov and .com TLDs, plus the ones for countries where nations could do as they like.
In fact it was a bad idea having ANY tlds except for nations; it would have solved a lot of problems if Saudi Arabia applied its own rules to its own domain, and the US to its domain. Instead everyone wants a TLD to show how important their organisation is.
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
Masturbation is also against their religion.
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.
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.
ICANN wants the money too badly to admit failure.
But there is only one sane solution to these international problems. Put everything in the country specific tlds. Then the only international cooperation needed is to ensure we can all find the national roots and divide up the IP space. And IPv6 removes pretty much all controversy over a fight for addresses so problem solved. Yes it would mean a longterm migration of .com, .net, .org and .mil into the .us address space and probably mirroring them into most of the others, at least for a transition period since the sensible behavor for browsers would be to determine the local .cc and append it to everything. But over a decade we could end all this bickering AND the relentless push to turn control over the entire Internet to the U.N.
The idea of Saudi Arabia objecting to the existence of something in someone else's namespace would be laughed at. But if it is a shared namespace they really have as much right to object as the various other factions to support these goofy new top level names.
Democrat delenda est
> Or - at least I damn well hope that ICANN doesn't answer to Saudi Arabia.
Not yet. But if we don't solve the problem (see above for my proposal) eventually the UN will get control of the Internet and remember, this is the same organization that thinks Libya, Iran, Cuba, etc. are just peachy pronouncing on Human Rights violations, etc. So yes, eventually the OIC (Organization of the Islamic Conference) will be able to blok vote damned near any rule they want. So lets fix the problem while we still can have a say in it and not be outvoted by unfree hellholes.
Democrat delenda est
The KSA didn't invent or build, nor do they own, the internet. If the KSA objects to the content on the internet, they are free to filter or restrict whatever they wish, in their own country. While the rest of the world is unlikely to have much interest in their objections, they are free to make as many objections as they wish.
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
Yes, it would make it easier. So why do they still object? Because for many religious people (and not just them) it's not enough to live their own lives according to their own ideas - they could do that already and have no censorship of the internet at all. No, they want to meddle in other people's lives as well.
And then of course there is what many corrupt and morally bankrupt politicians do: they pander. Acting "against immorality" - no matter how pointless and ineffectual - conveys the impression that they actually care about their purported principles.
Because "Saudi Party Boys" *sounds* like it might be the name of a gay porno flick.
"Bachi Boy parties" sounds like a children's-entertainment company specializing in hosting bocce ball birthday parties.
Oh, thanks to the recent military involvement in that part of the world, most Americans who watch the news are aware of "Bachi Boys" in Afghanistan and the political trouble American military and civilian personnel get into back home if they appear to endorse the sexual and quasi-sexual (e.g. erotic dancing) exploitation of under-18 males or tolerate it if they are in a position to stop it.
I will point out that there is a continuum between children dancing as a skill in a non-sexual way and dancing for the purposes of erotic arousal. You see the former in the United States in events like Ballet Folklorico, children's dance theaters, and similar programs for youth. However, some of the dances they do could, if done by an adult with a slight exaggeration of certain moves, be considered sexually provocative and would be more appropriate for a night club or other adults-only venue. While some "Bachi Boys" are clearly exploited outright as prostitutes, and others are exploited or at least "given an opportunity" to dance in a way that most Americans would call "Adult entertainment" I'm sure many of the youth and child dancers in that part of the world entertain in ways that are more akin to the dances that trained American children and youth do to entertain adults.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
This is just an example of a very common mode of irrational thinking:
"This makes me feel squeamish, so I want it to stop. If we can make the expression of it stop, then people will just stop doing it, and will eventually nobody will ever do it."
It is clearly nonsense when expressed this way, but people who engage in this sort of thinking don't express it this way, they just act on their irrationality and try to control everyone around them.
To my understanding the social left in America is about inclusion.
Well, see, there's your problem - you've bought into the false image, perpetuated by the mass corporate media, that such labels actually apply to any reasonable sample size of the population.
The "Liberal Left" and "Conservative Right" do not exist. I know it's hard to believe, especially in the face of non-stop, 24-hour propaganda networks telling you that they do, but both labels are obvious fabrications, easily debunked by dropping one's preconceived notions and actually talking to other people. Do so, and you will find that almost every single person you meet, with the exception of the handful of psycho and sociopaths which exist in every society, harbors a mixture of both liberal and conservative ideologies. You've touched upon the idea yourself, in mentioning how some folks exhibit a penchant for tolerating one particular behavior (homosexuality), whilst shunning another (religion). A similar situation is how self-proclaimed "conservatives," which is to say they claim to believe in minimal government influence over private lives, will on the one hand protest against state-funded healthcare, whilst simultaneously insisting that the state determine which reproductive services a woman should have access to.
Put bluntly, political labels are bullshit, as we are all the exact same type of hypocrite, albeit variations on a theme. Labels only serve to divide, and those insisting such labels be used are doing so in order to turn us against one another for their own benefit.
Such individuals and organizations are not to be trusted.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
So what do you think will happen in the US if someone proposes a .negro gTLD?
Some group of self-righteous, narcissistic assholes would inevitably make a stink, only to be shot down on First Amendment grounds.
Thereafter, they will be thoroughly ridiculed by the vast Spanish-speaking community, for whom the term 'negro' is an everyday description of the absence of all color (we English speakers refer to that one as 'black').
Of course, only a sensationalist idiot would even pretend that there's any similarity between the USA and Saudi Arabia when it comes to free speech...
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
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.
giving an entire TLD to gays is validating/recognizing something that some religions consider a sin
FTFY.
And it *is* special treatment because they aren't proposing one called .hetero are they?
I was under the impression that "they" (ICANN?) aren't proposing anything. Instead they let others request the addition of these gTLDs. In which case, there is nothing stopping you or anyone else from requesting a .hetero gTLD, is there?
.gay gTLD, then you may have a point. But until someone requests it and has that request denied, special treatment this ain't.
Now if ICANN then comes back and says "screw you", but accepts the
"I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
To my understanding the social left in America is about inclusion. Obviously, this means a heavily pro-gay agenda.
No, that's not correct. It is about equality; it is possible to promote a group people being fairly without also punishing another group.
It has also manifested in an effort to respect all religions
Not correct at all. First of all, it is entirely possible to respect a person without bowing down to their beliefs. Second, it is about ensuring that the government does not use its influence to promote any particular religion.
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 above misunderstandings are the cause of your confusion. It is possible to allow a person to believe what they want without punishing them for their beliefs, and yet at the same time also not allow them to use the government to enforce laws based on there beliefs. Somebody thinks homosexuality is evil and should be illegal? I don't respect that belief, but I respect the person, and they're welcome to keep believing that. On the other hand, somebody wants to use the government to oppress homosexuals based on that belief? Nope, that's where the line is drawn. It's pretty clear.
Except Christianity for some reason. You don't usually hear them saying we should respect the Christian religion
That's because the vast majority of politicians in the US are Christian, and a significant number of them are fundamentalists who want to use the government to enforce laws based on their religion. That's why you see so much push back against them; it'd be the same if any other religious group had significant influence in the government.
Karma: Terrifying (mostly affected by atrocities you've committed)
Lots of the arab countries do not want to be able to block things like porn or ".gay" material.
No, they do not want it to EXIST. At all. Not there, but not where you are either. So they are not OK with ANYONE having a .gay domain, because they fundamentally think it's wrong to allow this for anyone.
Think about this the next time proposals are made to have the U.N. control domains...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I have personally seen large buildings where under-age kids were censoring foreign printed publications before distribution.
A rather shabby piece of cleric would first investigate the magazines and newspapers and specify what needed to be cut out.
These examples were then hung on the wall and the kids went to work, no damage to them when they had to handle all these photo's of insufficiently dressed people because they were of the age of innocence.
A brochure for expensive yachts and boats was nearly the worst victim, on virtually all photo's there were people in states of undress so in the end there would be little left of the magazine if not for the fact that the importer of the yachts paid extra to have the kids use sharpies to paint clothes on the bikini babes and yacht men in shorts.
A sick society.
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
International entities live in the .int TLD.
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
...we are doing something right! :)
Well it's not like the Bible is much better when it comes to the rights of women. Rape is allowed, as long as you pay the woman's father a fine and then marry her, slavery of women (even sexual slavery) is fine as well. Even murder is fine if you say she's a witch.
Is the fact that you can legally kill an animal a indication that bestiality should be okay or is it a sign that the human race can do better?
Space Shuttle was a program that strapped humans to an explosion and tried to stab through the sky with fire and math
I'm firmly "social left" by American yardstick, but I despise contemporary mainstream Islam with a passion for being the most bigoted major religion in the world today. Their treatment of gays is a part of that.
When the oil runs out they still have money.
It's like saying when steel ceases to be the most important industrial commodity the US and the UK will suddenly fade into the history books. Right now it's not viable to do anything but extract oil, or oil related businesses in Saudi as a foundational industry. But now they have cash, and they can use cash to create an industry when something else becomes viable.
Poor countries having nothing with which to create a new industry. Saudi isn't like that. The royal family may squander or steal the money they do have, leaving the rest of the populace with nothing, but just as easily they could use the trillions of dollars they have to buy into whatever industry looks most profitable at the time, they could end up being the bankers of the middle east (abu dhabi kind of does this now) where they end up like London playing host to investment if not manufacturing monies, as this hub of financial transactions going from the developed world to the islamic or developing world for example.
Saudi arabia isn't all that big of a country, it's basically slightly more populous than the netherlands (18 vs 17 million), but has 8 million extra foreigners living there. When the oil dries up they'll turf out the foreigners, and be left with a strategically convenient location, whatever remains of the novel and hard to replace uses for oil (which might end up being very high value remember), they have guaranteed tourism as the home of one of the pillars of islam if they want it, and they have a pile of money with which they could buy up a car company, a semiconductor manufacturer and a stock exchange with a lot left over.
Since the 70's they've realized the oil will run out, and they've been experimenting (with varying success) at various industries since, so it's not like this a problem they are blindly ignoring. It's just really really hard to find something worth doing in Saudi that isn't extracting oil. Which is the same problem places like texas and alberta and norway face but not as badly, where you're competing with oil companies for labour, it's just not worth it.
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.