Announcement

Collapse

Welcome to Moorcock's Miscellany

Dear reader,

Many people have given their valuable time to create a website for the pleasure of posing questions to Michael Moorcock, meeting people from around the world, and mining the site for information. Please follow one of the links above to learn more about the site.

Thank you,
Reinart der Fuchs
See more
See less

The .xxx domain

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The .xxx domain

    It would seem that there is no way to make Republicans happy.

    Originally posted by Declan McCullagh for CNet News
    The Bush administration is objecting to the creation of a .xxx domain, saying it has concerns about a virtual red-light district reserved exclusively for Internet pornography...

    [The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)] approved the concept of an .xxx domain in June and approval of ICM Registry's contract to run the suffix was expected this week...

    In November 2000, the ICANN staff objected to the .xxx domain and rejected ICM Registry's first application.

    At the time, politicians lambasted ICANN's move. Rep. Fred Upton, R-Mich., demanded to know why ICANN didn't approve .xxx "as a means of protecting our kids from the awful, awful filth, which is sometimes widespread on the Internet."
    (emphasis mine) SOURCE: http://news.com.com/Bush+administrat...l?tag=nefd.top

    So... which is it? Would it be safer if porn had it's own domain or would it not? Why can't republicans make up their minds on this?

    In my opinion, it would be a helpful thing. It would, as Joseph Leiberman said, force adult-site webmasters to "abide by the same standard as the proprietor of an X-rated movie theater." Further, it is like a scarlet letter on porn sites. No more hiding smut behind a generic name like whitehouse.com (please don't test my example).

    Here's my favorite part of the article:

    Originally posted by Declan McCullagh for CNet News
    The Family Research Council, for instance, warned that "pornographers will be given even more opportunities to flood our homes, libraries and society with pornography through the .xxx domain."
    I'd love to know how. You'll note that the FRC offers only circular reasoning for this argument.
    "Wounds are all I'm made of. Did I hear you say that this is victory?"
    --Michael Moorcock, Veteran of the Psychic Wars

  • #2
    I'm not sure that it'll make any difference. I can see that it might make blocking access to porn sites easier, but apart from that...

    Comment


    • #3
      True enough, TM, but this argument that it will make things worse seems specious to me.
      "Wounds are all I'm made of. Did I hear you say that this is victory?"
      --Michael Moorcock, Veteran of the Psychic Wars

      Comment


      • #4
        I can't see how it would encourage more sites to grow up, if that were even possible. Surely the laws of supply and demand come in to play, regardless of domain names? They may be running obscene businesses, but they are still businesses aren't they? (I've never studied e-business, so I may be talking cobblers)

        I don't have any experience with these net-babysitter programmes which filter out "bad" sites, but I presume that a common domain name would help them... but how many computers have such software? And how many parents know how to activate it?

        I don't understand how they can get pornographers to change their domains though... I mean, are there any international laws which apply to the internet? Obviously "the proprietor of an X-rated movie theater" is much easier to track down than the proprietor of an X-rated web-site, isn't he/she? I guess you follow the money?
        "That which does not kill us, makes us stranger." - Trevor Goodchild

        Comment


        • #5
          Dee - correct. In fact you can find out the registered owner of any site or IP address quite easily (although for my PC that would say it was NTL rather than me as they are my hosts). Of couse some places make it easy to hide who the real owners are, much like companies in tax havens.

          I would see US and EU law changing to insist that sites owned by businesses in those territories must use the .xxx domain, and it being an offence to use a false-front site. The reason would be allowing parents / firms / libraries / religious groups to be able to opt to block all .xxx access.

          As people would also search the .xxx domain specifically rather than .com it would probably become self-enforcing in a way.

          The next issue of course would be what is defined as .xxx content. I think most of us know what it is at one end, but at the other it can be 'suggestive' imagery - and a good proportion of the Tate galleries contents. In that sense a voluntary domain would be a far better solution than an imposed one.

          Comment


          • #6
            Problems of definition aside, porn spreads across the web like a nasty infestation. It should be segregated.
            \"...an ape reft of his tail, and grown rusty at climbing, who yet feels himself to be a symbol and the frail representative of Omnipotence in a place that is not home.\" James Branch Cabell

            Comment


            • #7
              I wouldn't leave it to the bushites - or even blairites - to draw the line. In fact I wouldn't be pleased with anyone creating any rules that would apply to the whole world wide web, even for the best of reasons.

              Comment


              • #8
                Personally, I don't have a hard time seeing the line between porn ↔ erotica ↔ fine art. But as an artist who has had works banned from internet art communities for being "pronographic", I do fear the limitations imposed by people who are far too uptight for anyone's good, the Bush administration included.

                So, it is a complicated issue, thus the poll. I think segregating porn is a good idea... unless someone is going to claim my work is porn. :|

                Which it isn't.
                "Wounds are all I'm made of. Did I hear you say that this is victory?"
                --Michael Moorcock, Veteran of the Psychic Wars

                Comment


                • #9
                  My two cents...

                  It seems to me that most people who would register for a .xxx domain would be self-identified pornographers, rather than people who are accidentally identified by others as doing pornography (that sucks, by the way, PWV).

                  I'm all for it. As an aspect of the culture wars, the right has always argued that internet porn is so bad because children can find it so easily and accidentally. This would certainly rememdy the accidental part of that. It would be hard to argue that you didn't know something was porn when the site had a .xxx domain. It would also be easy enough for parents to block all sites with that same domain. The right should be all for it.

                  However...

                  As usual, they have to find some way to claim moral high ground on every issue. By approving of a pornographic domain, the implication could be that the approve of porn. Better to not have a convenient and sensible solution that get branded as someone who supports porn. Many of them are probably looking at those sites anyway. Remember Bennet and his ridiculous book of virtues. He gambled away the profits of that book. Or Gingrich and his mistress, or Thurmond and his illegitimate daughter, or... Oh wait. This isn't the hypocrisy thread. :D

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Doc
                    As usual, they have to find some way to claim moral high ground on every issue. By approving of a pornographic domain, the implication could be that the approve of porn. Better to not have a convenient and sensible solution that get branded as someone who supports porn.
                    Reminds me of their attitude of insisting on nothing but 'abstention' in sex education. They've probably all got shares in porn sites anyway... :x
                    \"...an ape reft of his tail, and grown rusty at climbing, who yet feels himself to be a symbol and the frail representative of Omnipotence in a place that is not home.\" James Branch Cabell

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I vote for 'Good idea' but I'm doubtful as to how enforceable it could be. For example, would Playboy (which probably sees itself as the 'respectable' face of pornography) prefer to be hosted as playboy.com or playboy.xxx? After all, we're primarily talking about a country that introduced the NC-17 film classifiation to get around the stigma attached to 'X' certificate movies, only to see that stigma re-attach itself to the new 'NC-17' certificate so that I understand many (most?) stations and publications in the US won't run advertising for NC-17 films.
                      _"For an eternity Allard was alone in an icy limbo where all the colours were bright and sharp and comfortless.
                      _For another eternity Allard swam through seas without end, all green and cool and deep, where distorted creatures drifted, sometimes attacking him.
                      _And then, at last, he had reached the real world – the world he had created, where he was God and could create or destroy whatever he wished.
                      _He was supremely powerful. He told planets to destroy themselves, and they did. He created suns. Beautiful women flocked to be his. Of all men, he was the mightiest. Of all gods, he was the greatest."

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Mikey_C
                        Originally posted by Doc
                        As usual, they have to find some way to claim moral high ground on every issue. By approving of a pornographic domain, the implication could be that the approve of porn. Better to not have a convenient and sensible solution that get branded as someone who supports porn.
                        Reminds me of their attitude of insisting on nothing but 'abstention' in sex education. They've probably all got shares in porn sites anyway... :x
                        :lol:

                        If you abstain, then we really have nothing to teach you...

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by demos99
                          I vote for 'Good idea' but I'm doubtful as to how enforceable it could be. For example, would Playboy (which probably sees itself as the 'respectable' face of pornography) prefer to be hosted as playboy.com or playboy.xxx? After all, we're primarily talking about a country that introduced the NC-17 film classifiation to get around the stigma attached to 'X' certificate movies, only to see that stigma re-attach itself to the new 'NC-17' certificate so that I understand many (most?) stations and publications in the US won't run advertising for NC-17 films.
                          At the risk of splitting exploitive hairs...

                          I think something like Playboy would clearly keep its .com domain. There seems to be a taste line that Playboy doesn't quite cross. Perhaps more importantly, it has saturated "mainstream" culture a little more thoroughly than hardcore porn has (even though more people probably actually consume hardcore porn--they just don't always admit to it).

                          Having said that, I can see your point about changing the line between porn and not porn. Maybe that is a good conversation for the American public to have...

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            .xxx sounds like a good idea, but I agree that it will be difficult to use.

                            Easier to enter into the parental filtering software, but how many parents have the time/can be bothered to use them? Parents complained about the content of TV shows, the shows got ratings, and some parents STILL don't pay attention to them.

                            .xxx will also act like the 'Advisory Warning' stickers on CDs and such. It'll draw the kiddies right to the site.
                            Madness is always the best armor against Reality

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Google and Yahoo have their 'SafeSearch' turned ON by default.

                              But yes, can't believe that Grandmother suing over Grand Theft Auto. She even admits she knew it was an age restricted game. I'm sorry, that's case dismissed as far I'm concerned. And charge her for knowingly buying a restricted product for a minor, then maybe the message might get through to parents!

                              (I don't entirely believe that - I'm sure I'm not alone in having spent my teenage years sneaking into pubs or 18 rated films underage, or sneakily watching 'video nasties' like The Evil Dead. But at least keep it a right of passage, rather than buying the things for your kids).

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X