What's wrong with drugs and prostitution. Cigarettes are more lethal than marijuana and alcoholism causes more fatal care accidents than marijuana use. What's wrong with prostitution. If I get laid by a hooker, as long as we are two consenting adults, then what does it matter that I pay her afterward. If I get high on drugs, how does it harm you? In fact, all victimless crimes, ie crimes in which I commit which does not take away from another individual's freedom or prosperity, IS the government forcing one person's morality on another. Child abuse is another thing entirely. There you hurt an innocent nonconsenting minor for sadistic pleasure. Comparing that to drug use is nauseating.
I see a lot of applications of the DMCA are similar to that of gun control laws. "If guns are criminalized, then only the criminals will have guns." In this case, the saying may as well read, "If programming is criminalized, then only the criminals will program." The problem with a law as broad in its scope as the DMCA , is that it does not recognize that all programs, by design, are often amended, put together, and modified by not only the original designers, but even the end users. While there are ways for an end user to in fact take advantage of their unique position in the supply chain to steal others work, the sad reality is that if you outlaw their input into the product itself, others along the chain will seek rents on their utility of the product, whether it be the RIAA, who seek to litigate current market realities out of existence, or spammers, who would steal the time and effort of good law abiding citizens in the protection of their soft and hard computer assets. Perhaps the saying may as well read, "Legislation is a broad tool, all too often too powerful in scope, and not subtle enough in design."
"Yes, someone will have to define what pornography is in order to control the domain system. Someone get on that right away."
Care to take a stab at it? What constitutes pornography vs. free speech, advertising, sex education, the economy (if this one confuses remember that all economic transactions are based on two willing parties at exchanging goods and services for money based on demand and supply - and one of the greatest driving forces of all human behavior is sexual). If you allow ANY non.xxx site to link to a.xxx site then the whole system collapses and a curious child can go from www.kidsplaysafe.org to www.kidsseehooters.xxx. If you create one internet that is completely segerated from another it will be a year until the government begins MANDATING that all children under 18 HAVE to be on the non.xxx server - after all its illegal for minors to buy pornography elsewhere isnt it?
Right....except for one thing. It's not that the idea is in and of itself such a bad thing. As you said, a sight about birth control is now regulated to a.xxx domain. But its the first step. The wonderful thing about the internet as it currently stands is the unregulated free flow of information, be it fallacious, unclothed, or decent. But now you've restricted access. Some people can find out about birth control and others can't. Who is the government to tell and not to tell about birth control? Who decides? And if birth control is limited, then there are many things about sex that others would consider to be worse than birth control, so we should ban these too. And if schools won't allow.xxx domains then kids under 18 cant learn about birth control in school. But they can at home (if their parents let them) so either we admit that the policy is ineffective and that parents are letting their children know about birth control anyway - which is the state we are in now - or the government steps in and bans the use of teenagers to view birth control material at home as well...Then the age limits come into question. What's the difference between the maturity of an 18 year old student who cant read about birth control and a 19 year old who can? Where do we draw the line? If we let the government take control of the slippery slope we all fall into ruin.
I worry though.
Think of it this way: If you try to partition the internet into two non interconnected parts (ad absurdum - one completely free of pornography and one where anything goes) and these parts do not link to each other in any way so that pr0n will not get "infect" the clean partition - then the government will be pressured to force all of using the clean partition in the hopes of protecting the minority. It is often the case in society that the rights of the many will be trampled for the benefit of the few. I find any government involvement in regulation worrying.
Why do we need a.xxx account?
If it is implemented, it will be two months until The Raging Arsemunching Mothers for Protection against Society (TRAMPS) will be requiring that all pr0n will be put on.xxx servers and not on anything else. Or anything that looks like it might link to something that MIGHT talk about birth control. And there, ladies and gentlemen, goes the internet as we know it.
Slashdot Mirror
What's wrong with drugs and prostitution. Cigarettes are more lethal than marijuana and alcoholism causes more fatal care accidents than marijuana use. What's wrong with prostitution. If I get laid by a hooker, as long as we are two consenting adults, then what does it matter that I pay her afterward. If I get high on drugs, how does it harm you? In fact, all victimless crimes, ie crimes in which I commit which does not take away from another individual's freedom or prosperity, IS the government forcing one person's morality on another. Child abuse is another thing entirely. There you hurt an innocent nonconsenting minor for sadistic pleasure. Comparing that to drug use is nauseating.
I see a lot of applications of the DMCA are similar to that of gun control laws. "If guns are criminalized, then only the criminals will have guns." In this case, the saying may as well read, "If programming is criminalized, then only the criminals will program." The problem with a law as broad in its scope as the DMCA , is that it does not recognize that all programs, by design, are often amended, put together, and modified by not only the original designers, but even the end users. While there are ways for an end user to in fact take advantage of their unique position in the supply chain to steal others work, the sad reality is that if you outlaw their input into the product itself, others along the chain will seek rents on their utility of the product, whether it be the RIAA, who seek to litigate current market realities out of existence, or spammers, who would steal the time and effort of good law abiding citizens in the protection of their soft and hard computer assets. Perhaps the saying may as well read, "Legislation is a broad tool, all too often too powerful in scope, and not subtle enough in design."
"Yes, someone will have to define what pornography is in order to control the domain system. Someone get on that right away." Care to take a stab at it? What constitutes pornography vs. free speech, advertising, sex education, the economy (if this one confuses remember that all economic transactions are based on two willing parties at exchanging goods and services for money based on demand and supply - and one of the greatest driving forces of all human behavior is sexual). If you allow ANY non .xxx site to link to a .xxx site then the whole system collapses and a curious child can go from www.kidsplaysafe.org to www.kidsseehooters.xxx. If you create one internet that is completely segerated from another it will be a year until the government begins MANDATING that all children under 18 HAVE to be on the non .xxx server - after all its illegal for minors to buy pornography elsewhere isnt it?
Right....except for one thing. It's not that the idea is in and of itself such a bad thing. As you said, a sight about birth control is now regulated to a .xxx domain. But its the first step. The wonderful thing about the internet as it currently stands is the unregulated free flow of information, be it fallacious, unclothed, or decent. But now you've restricted access. Some people can find out about birth control and others can't. Who is the government to tell and not to tell about birth control? Who decides? And if birth control is limited, then there are many things about sex that others would consider to be worse than birth control, so we should ban these too. And if schools won't allow .xxx domains then kids under 18 cant learn about birth control in school. But they can at home (if their parents let them) so either we admit that the policy is ineffective and that parents are letting their children know about birth control anyway - which is the state we are in now - or the government steps in and bans the use of teenagers to view birth control material at home as well...Then the age limits come into question. What's the difference between the maturity of an 18 year old student who cant read about birth control and a 19 year old who can? Where do we draw the line? If we let the government take control of the slippery slope we all fall into ruin.
I worry though. Think of it this way: If you try to partition the internet into two non interconnected parts (ad absurdum - one completely free of pornography and one where anything goes) and these parts do not link to each other in any way so that pr0n will not get "infect" the clean partition - then the government will be pressured to force all of using the clean partition in the hopes of protecting the minority. It is often the case in society that the rights of the many will be trampled for the benefit of the few. I find any government involvement in regulation worrying.
Why do we need a .xxx account?
If it is implemented, it will be two months until The Raging Arsemunching Mothers for Protection against Society (TRAMPS) will be requiring that all pr0n will be put on .xxx servers and not on anything else. Or anything that looks like it might link to something that MIGHT talk about birth control. And there, ladies and gentlemen, goes the internet as we know it.