TELECOM Digest OnLine - Sorted: Re: EU Slams ICANN Interference With Sex Site Vote

Re: EU Slams ICANN Interference With Sex Site Vote

Linc Madison (lincmad@suespammers.org)
Thu, 11 May 2006 12:26:34 -0700

In article <telecom25.178.2@telecom-digest.org>, Huw Jones
<reuters@telecom-digest.org> wrote:

> Supporters said a .xxx domain would have made it easier to confine
> sex sites or filter them out, but critics such as the Family Research
> Council, a conservative U.S.-based religious group, complained it
> would only legitimize the porn industry, and ICANN agreed with that.

I have to agree 100% with the EU on this one. The porn industry *IS*
legitimate -- it is a legal business, with thousands of properly
registered, tax-paying, law-abiding companies involved. If you don't
like pornography, then don't surf the porn sites -- but that's exactly
what the ".xxx" TLD was designed to facilitate.

Let's suppose that you're a parent and you don't want your kids to see
porn sites. You're never going to get the sex sites off the Internet
completely; that's beyond dreaming. Where there is demand, there will
be supply. As things stand now, you have to fiddle with web ratings and
content-blocking services, but they have difficulty distinguishing a
site about cervical cancer from a hardcore version of Girls Gone Wild.
With a .xxx TLD, at least those sites that choose to locate there could
be blocked by a single checkbox in your computer's preferences.

We should create .xxx (or .sex or .porn, or whatever you want to call
it), and provide legal incentives for sites to move there. For example,
it should be much more difficult to prosecute a ".xxx" site for
peddling porn to minors, since it would be so trivially easy for the
responsible adults to block the kids' access.

Linc Madison * San Francisco, California * lincmad@suespammers.org
<http://www.LincMad.com> * primary e-mail: Telecom at LincMad dot com
Read my political blog, "The Third Path" <http://LincMad.blogspot.com>
DO NOT SEND UNSOLICITED E-MAIL TO THIS ADDRESS. You have been warned.

Post Followup Article Use your browser's quoting feature to quote article into reply
Go to Next message: Mark Crispin: "Re: EU Slams ICANN Interference With Sex Site Vote"
Go to Previous message: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com: "The Balance Between National Security and Privacy?"
May be in reply to: Huw Jones: "EU Slams ICANN Interference With Sex Site Vote"
Next in thread: Mark Crispin: "Re: EU Slams ICANN Interference With Sex Site Vote"
TELECOM Digest: Home Page