Loss taken in War on Pr0n

waronpron.jpgThe controversial .xxx domain has been denied by I-CANN. From C-Net:

The plan has drawn considerable controversy over recent months, with conservative groups campaigning against the domain due to concerns that it would legitimize pornography. Advocates of the plan have denied this, claiming that it would make it easier for Web users to avoid porn.

If the nitwits hadn’t checked, pr0n is all over the Internet. How much more legitimate can it get? One would think that neocons would want the distinction in order to make it easier to keep their kids, spouses and preachers off of sex sites.

Despite ardent political interest in the issue, Paul Twomey, the chief of ICANN, told the Associated Press that the decision “was not driven by a political consideration.”

Yeah, right. And I’ve got some beachfront property in Arizona for sale.

posted May 11th, 2006 by Stephen Gordon
  • http://reinke.cc reinkefj

    and I have a bridge in nyc … no political my tush … even though I’m not interested in p0rn, it would be useful to shove it all in its own domain just to keep it out of the way. I would have thought that the Prez could have said “I have directed the AG to proceed on the assumption that all p0rn in the xxx domain is free speech, and that any not in that domain is per se attempting to lure children into compromising circumstances and he will prosecute accordingly.” The legit p0rn vendors would have been tripping over themselves to get “right with the AG”. imho.

  • vforvandyke

    I worked for a hosting company some years back where 90% or more of their customers were in the adult biz. These people are adamantly against a .xxx TLD because it then gives Congress the ability to legislate morality on the Internet (one man’s 17th century nude art review is another man’s smut). They have already taken many ICANN rules and codified them into law (requiring real names and addresses on domain registrations is one example).

    Do we really want the same government that covers up boobies in the DOJ hall to be anywhere near the censorship button on the Internet? Let the market decide how to handle the adult content on the net and keep the lawmakers far away.

  • Ian C

    Hey! I resemble that remark — ’bout “beachfront property in Arizona.”

    I’ll have you know that Arizonans per capita are the most frequent owner of boats than any other state”-ians” in the nation.

    Besides. It *WILL* be oceangoing beachfront property… when The Big One hits. I’d cross my fingers, but I’m not a landowner.

    Besides; beaches can be on lakes, too… roflmao.

    (Just my little stab at being contrarian. Enjoy)

  • John G4lt

    none of the other TLDs is content-based, only based on the characterization of what the site is for. .com, business, .org, NGOs, .net, sites that have lots of hosts, .gov, the government, .mil, military sites, .edu, schools. Given that ICANN is all politics, it really didn’t have to do with politics and more to do with ICANN killing something that should have been aborted long ago

  • http://www.crackerscentral.com/enjoyeverysandwich/blog.html Kirsten

    As owner of an online sex toy store, I am not sorry to see .xxx domains go away. Registration was going to be significantly more expensive than what I currently pay for a .com domain, and what value would I get from it? None. But I’d have to quick hunt down my same domain name but with the .xxx extension and pay for that in addition to my current website or risk losing business when someone else snaps it up and my customers accidentally go to the wrong site.

    Meanwhile, herding all adult sites into the .xxx fold opens the door to putting different conditions and restrictions on adult websites that other sites need not be subject to. And it’s not a big leap from “Here, would you like a .xxx domain name in addition to your .com domain name?” to “I’m sorry, but we’re revoking your .com domain name. As an adult site, you are only entitled to a .xxx domain name.” I am just amazed that an organization such as Focus on the Family would oppose this ghettoization of adult websites.

  • Stephen Gordon

    Kirsten,

    On a related note, we need to get some sort of effective national organization of sex toy shop owners so we can more effectively fight some of the issues you all face. I’d be happy to help organize such an activity.

  • http://www.freeme.org Keith

    Yes, thank goodness this failed. This proves that the system works, sometimes. Pro-freedom people pushed against this because it was designed to reduce freedom and we won.

  • undercover_anarchist

    Keith: Could you explain how “pro freedom” won?

    From what I can tell, big government won. Big religion won. Maybe even the porno industry won. But “pro-freedom?” I don’t think that having a dot-com domain suffix is an unalienable right.

    I’d like to see all of the porno sites moved from .com and .net to .xxx and .sex or .porn or something. That would be in no way stifling speech, but at the same time, would make it very easy for parents to proect their children. I don’t want my daughter asking me “what’s a cumfart cocktail?” even though I may want to find out for myself.

  • error

    I give up. What’s a cumfart cocktail?

    .xxx itself may be pro-freedom, but requiring anyone to use it is not.

  • http://www.crackerscentral.com/enjoyeverysandwich/blog.html Kirsten

    What your daughter views on the web is your responsibility- not mine. Still, as a courtesy, my front page is a warning page that the site contains sexually oriented adult material, and those under 18 should not enter.

    Being able to do business on a mutually consensual basis without interference from uninvolved third parties so long as I’m not violating their rights through my business (and I’m not) is an inalienable right. On the other hand, herding people whose speech is offensive to you into an Internet ghetto to “protect” your child isn’t an inalienable right.

    Yes, it would be stifling speech to say that people who want to say things that you don’t mind your daughter consuming should be allowed to speak in certain venues whereas those whose speech is not pre-approved by you are not.

    Sometimes, perhaps often, being a parent is a tough job. I get that. But you chose to take on that role- not me. It’s not my responsibility to make it easy for you.

  • http://www.crackerscentral.com/enjoyeverysandwich/blog.html Kirsten

    Because I know how nitpicky these discussions can get, I should amend that to read “certain venues that you do not own”. If it’s your property- and my website and domain name are not- then, sure, it’s up to you who gets to speak and what can be said.

  • http://www.tom-hanna.org Tom Hanna

    Finally, proof that I’m not a neocon – I only like the idea of the distinction to keep my kid off the sites. The wife and the preacher can get on them all they want (though hopefully not together).

  • Stephen Gordon

    LOL, Tom.