(Democratic) Senators renew call for .xxx domains

[LiberalGuy000]

By Anne Broache, CNET News.com
Published on ZDNet News: March 17, 2006, 10:52 AM PT

Controversial plans to create an Internet red-light district would be revived under a new U.S. Senate proposal.

On Thursday, two Senate Democrats, Mark Pryor of Arkansas and Max Baucus of Montana, introduced a bill called the "Cyber Safety for Kids Act of 2006." The 11-page measure would require the U.S. Department of Commerce to work with the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), the nonprofit organization that oversees domain names, to develop plans for a domain name system that would house material deemed "harmful to minors."

That material, according to the bill, includes any "communication," image, article, recording or other "obscene" matter, including actual or simulated sexual acts and "lewd exhibition of the genitals or post-pubescent female breast."

http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9588_22-6050973.html?part=rss&tag=feed&subj=zdnet

[LiberalGuy000]

1. How stupid can they be?

This will do NOTHING to block websites originating in countries outside the U.S. It will also encourage U.S.-based websites to relocate outside of the U.S. (and their tax dollars will leave as well).

[matcom]

3. yup

these idiots think the Internet is an AMERICAN institution :eyes:

most of those sites are hosted in the Netherlands anyway :eyes:

[saigon68]

7. Its for the Children don't you know

And a few millionaire Fundy Nut-case Preachers to rail over

[BootinUp]

8. I just don't see it as a big deal but maybe a good deal.

What does it matter to the porn sites whether they are on .com or .xxx. If they want to get money for their service they are probably going to try and play by the rules, U.S located or not. It would make it easier for people to block sites they don't want their kids to see.

Do you have some other problem with it other than you don't think it will be successful?

[SaveElmer]

9. That's my problem with it...

It looks to me like another form of labeling...which I favor. I just don't see how it would work...seems like it is designed for legal action.

[BootinUp]

10. It would have to be.

I think you make an example of a 100 or so that don't cooperate, then most would fall in line.

[LiberalGuy000]

20. most would fall in line?

No, most would leave the country and easily get around the law.

[BootinUp]

22. I would think that has been considered

more than likely sites could lose access to the US part of the network if they do no cooperate. Or there IP address could be revoked, or they may have to sign an agreement to continue their registration.

[LiberalGuy000]

25. well then we're moving toward a Chinese model of the Internet

It would truly be censorship to block sites coming from foreign countries.

[BootinUp]

28. The slippery slippery slope (bs)

The site can be shown in all its glory on the proposed .xxx domain.

And you know, political whims change all the time, if you take an absolutist stand then eventually there is a swing in the pendulum. Not unlike other social issues giving our party difficulty.

[Occulus]

100. Do you really think it won't end as fee-for-service?

That's always the end result of the antiporn parent lobby. They want credit cards involved 'for verification'. That's not how it really works: 'verification' ends up involving fees sometimes fifty, sixty, seventy dollars.

The whole 'age verification' spooge is a canard; some people want us to have to pay for our behavior because 'their kids might be harmed'- itself a canard. Good parents control these sorts of things; bad parents ignore it, but only the truly horrible parents foist off their obligations as parents onto the users of the medium to which they object.

We complain so much in this country about how violent and sexual content in the media affects 'our kids', but whenever anyone suggests that perhaps it isn't everyone's responsibility, these people go through the roof. People, you had these kids- not me. I can't get married, and in some places I can't even be a foster parent- where the FUCK do any of you get off saying that I need to do one single stitch more than pay my goddamn taxes?

In case none of you noticed, this is going to affect people who aren't allowed to BE parents in the first place. I say 'affect' because, again, this will- mark my words here, WILL- become a fee-for-service situation, with 'age verification' performed via credit card (NOT a guarantee of age, by the way, but that's how sites currently handle it) where users of ISPs who access any .xxx domain name have a 'maintainance fee' added to their bill- and that will vary; fundie owners could gouge the price if they wished. You might need to actually ASK for the .xxx domain to be unblocked, again, for a monthly fee.

Does nobody think forward anymore? Is there anyone here who has thought ahead on this besides me?

edited to add:

What's to stop ISPs from taking this idea and running with it? $39.95 for .com sites only, $49.95 for .com and .org sites, and so on?

Relegating a certain type of content to a certain domain is just a bad idea, and I just uncovered- just by thinking hard about it- another potential downfall.

The .xxx domain is just a bad idea clothed in children.

[toopers]

111. Unfortunately, you can use your good parents/bad parents . . .

argument on a host of political issues.

[Occulus]

112. Yeah... FUNNY how that works.

Responsible parenting is applicable in so many ways to so many issues, you'd think parents would 'get it'.

If we want to avoid the creation of a 'nanny state', we need to get parents to step up and stop relying on nanny legislation to 'make their kids safe'.

[LiberalGuy000]

125. dude...I'm with ya

I mentioned the extra fees for ".xxx" domains in an earlier post. I totally see it happening. Once again, the Regug trifecta is at work: Fundies, businesses, and "protect the children"-types will work together to create a situation that makes them happy at the expense (literally) of the rest of us.

[PassingFair]

44. Oh No!

Wouldn't want them outsourcing PORN!

I'm FOR the designation.

Some of us DO NOT want to watch others
in intimate situations.

You can still have your porn.

[Name removed]

60. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[toopers]

109. It would be much easier to block these sites . . .

if they were all on one domain. The issue you have is what content requires an .xxx and what doesn't. That has always been the problem with pornography/indecency laws.

[LiberalGuy000]

13. there are freedom of speech issues

You can already put filters on your computer to help avoid sexually-explicit content. There's no need to put constitutionally-protected material in a cyber-ghetto. Plus, this legislation would only add to the pathology that so many Americans have with sexual expression.

[BootinUp]

16. The old slippery slope

argument I guess.

I would think that the filters you are talking about are a far worse solution in terms of how accurately they filter.

This is just another example of why we are minority party.

[LiberalGuy000]

19. you haven't even tried using filters

Otherwise you would know that they actually work very well. Every major ISP has something similar to AOL's Parental Controls. They're not difficult to use at all.

[BootinUp]

21. I understand the technology limitations

The filtering technology is not perfect it just couldn't be no argument to have there.

Not every ISP has it.

Not everyone wants to spend the money on it.

Not everyone has the time to install and configure and test it.

The software you own may not be compatible with older/newer operating systems.

Anyways, there are also political advantages to this as well.

[PassingFair]

46. "cyber-ghetto"

You mean "cyber-gutter"?

:)

[Occulus]

102. See, but that's the problem:

Allowing it to be thought of in that way makes it much easier for people to say, "well, they should have to pay for it."

Relegating all of a single type of content to a single source (domain, in this case) is the first step in making it fee-for-service- with the fees possibly so high that few would be able to afford to see any of the content in the first place. Take note; the Marihuana Tax Act ended up getting pot banned, period.

Do you smell a .xxx Domain Tax Act in the works? I do. Relegating all porn content to a single domain- a single source, like THC comes from a single plant- is the first step. There's no "slippery slope" involved here; this really is the first completely necessary step to making porn too expensive to afford by many of its current consumers. From the attitudes on this thread, it will be well-received, easily passed, enshrined into law, and enforced when the rest of the shit hits the fan.

[LiberalGuy000]

126. absolutely

You can bet that ".xxx" will be the most expensive domain to register. Large domain registrars probably won't even handle ".xxx", adding further to the stigma of any sort of sexual expression in America.

[bananas]

17. For one thing, this doesn't apply just to porn

It includes any communication which might be harmful to minors.
That would include DU, because of all the fucking curse words.
Any site about drug law reform would be included,
sites about sex education, breast cancer, etc.

Remember the CDA "Communications Decency Act"?
On-line distribution or discussion of the Starr report would have been illegal, because it contained explicit descriptions of oral sex and cum stains.

The internet used to be called "the information superhighway", letting your kids go online unsupervised is like giving them the car keys and telling them to drive themselves to the playground. The internet is for adults, it's not a babysitter like TV.

[BootinUp]

18. I think your interpretation is incorrect.

Not saying that there wouldn't be grey lines. But I doubt the .xxx domain is intended to eliminate all cuss words from .com.

Anyways I wouldn't support that.

On the grey lines issue, thats part of life.

I don't agree with your car keys analogy, some people are still going to want some control built in. Just my opinion of course.

[mongo]

31. A standing ovation to you!

The internet is an ADULT space -- let's keep it that way.

[PassingFair]

47. A big RASPBERRY to you!

"The internet is an ADULT space -- let's keep it that way."

It is NOT an adult space. There are kids EVERYWHERE using the
internet.

How completely myopic of you.

You can still have your porn. Bon AppeTITe!

[Occulus]

55. Then create kid-safe domains.

I won't be tempering what I say and do on the internet so that is it "safe" for all kids. Sorry. If you're under, say, 12 or maybe 13, you really shouldn't be online when unsupervised- period.

This is a parenting issue, not an internet issue. The parents complaining about the safety of their kids when they're online are being bad parents. It's not a "deserve what they get" mentality at work here, either; rather, what they're in effect doing is complaining to others about something they (and, ultimately, only they) have direct control over.

Don't want your kid to see internet porn? Don't let them be online when you're not in the room with them if it bothers you that much. Oh, is that impractical? Yank their NIC card out of their machine or disable networking in the BIOS and set a password. Lock the case if you must so they can't clear the password.

Don't know how to do all that? Then I would suggest you either educate yourself to the point that you can do it (and these things, even for a novice, aren't difficult at all), or stop complaining. Again, this is a parenting issue. If you're not going to do everything you can if you feel you must to ensure that your child is not online unsupervised so they don't see porn or chat with someone you don't know about, then perhaps there shouldn't be a computer in your home that can get online in the first place.

This is the responsibility of nobody but you as a parent. We don't need to protect your kids in this environment- YOU do.

[PassingFair]

56. Hey, I, MYSELF, don't want to see internet porn.

I agree with putting it in the xxx domain where it belongs.

I don't want dicks and vulvas in my face when I'm shopping
either. If I want to be confronted with genitalia, I'll
go to my friend's store. Or go looking for it.

I detest having it pop up unannounced.

In my face, or my kid's faces.

For your info, all FIVE of our computers are in ONE room and I DO
watch what my kids are surfing.

No one is going to take away your porn.

[LiberalGuy000]

61. tell me where it's "popping up unannounced" (n/t)

[Occulus]

65. You caught that as well, huh?

Transparent.

[Occulus]

64. Then buy YOURSELF filtering software.

If you're not willing to take proactive steps for yourself, don't even bother asking others to change what they do.

Oh, and having been surfing the web since before it became popular (back during the days when people were using Mosaic to do it because it was NEW), I can state with complete confidence that you just don't see the sort of thing you're talking about unless you go to the 'seedier' places on the internet in the first place.

It doesn't, in my decade-plus websurfing experience, 'pop up unannounced' unless you're doing something or going somewhere that would cause it to do so. Filtering software helps to prevent this, and if you were half as astute about the subject as you claim you would already know that fact.

I maintain: if it bothers you that much, either don't go online or surf in the kids' section of the public library. Barring that, take steps to stay away from it if it bothers you so much, but don't you dare expect others to alter their behavior because you have a complaint.

[PassingFair]

66. "but don't you dare expect others"

"but don't you dare expect others to alter their behavior because you have a complaint."

It's OK Daddy, you can still have your porn. :crazy:

As as for unannounced images, try the image search on google sometime.



"but don't you dare expect others to alter their behavior because you have a complaint."

[LiberalGuy000]

67. Google has filters

You can easily set Google to filter out images you don't want to see. In fact, the default setting is to have the filter "on".

Go to Google.com, click "Preferences", and then "Use strict filtering" in the SafeSearch section.

[PassingFair]

68. Seems to me, it would be easier for you to just type XXX

that's what I would do.

[Occulus]

104. It seems fairly obvious to me (and, likely, others) that you

don't seem to have any desire to figure out or understand how to avoid these things yourself. You can, of course; there's no question at all that you could batten the hatches on your home machines and have very little or no difficulty or complaint.

No- you just don't want to take the time to learn how to do it; you seem to want it all magically done for you so you don't have to make the effort.

Sorry; you're (apparently) a parent. This is your responsibility, as surely as you are responsible to make certain your childrens' seatbelts are buckled up all safe and snug. Thia will only end in other people paying more, something I conjecture you might enjoy seeing occur.

You can already shut off the stuff you don't want to see, someone handed you on a silver bitchly platter one means to do so from one vector, and you fire back a thoughtless 'it's your problem, because I'm making it yours' sort of comment. No, it's easier for the rest of us for you as a parent to learn what you as a parent need to do to protect your PC from going places online you don't want it to go. Anything involving the public in this manner involves extra expense, only to accommodate you who could do everything that needs to be done if you were only willing to learn how.

By your response, it's apparent you don't appreciate learning how to do exactly what you claim to want to be done. I don't quite know what to make of that.

[LiberalGuy000]

127. bias toward "families"

And aren't we at a point where nearly half of American households consist of one individual living alone? It won't be long before the majority of Americans are living alone.

The myth of the perfect family with 2 parents and 2 children has been promulgated for so long that a lot of people can't believe that most of us live alone and have no need for draconian laws in the name of "protecting the children".

[Name removed]

98. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[silverojo]

96. Sorry, but you're mistaken

<<It doesn't, in my decade-plus websurfing experience, 'pop up unannounced' unless you're doing something or going somewhere that would cause it to do so.>>

Porn sites often hijack domains that have expired, so if you're going to a site you used to frequent (but now no longer exists), you can easily run into graphic porno pix. A lot of freebie sites also have XXX-rated advertisers, hence the pop-up porn.

In your "decade-plus websurfing experience", you apparently haven't been around much.

[Occulus]

99. Prove it.

Post a few. Any five will do. (It's a widespread problem, right? Five is nothing is this problem is as bad as Certain Parties claim.)

I don't believe you, of course. As a bonus, referencing to your final comment, and without Googling, what are Veronica, Archie, and Gopher, specifically?

The only places I've ever seen porn ads is on porn sites. If you're seeing a porn ad on a site you frequent, send them an email asking why or stop going to the site, and block it if you have to. Again, the solutions are very simple and only involve you. I doubt the hypothetical site you're talking about is unique in topic; go Googling and find another, similar site. Again, it's child's play.

When you say 'freebie' sites, what exactly do you mean by 'freebie'? As in, a free porno gateway site into a pay site?

Is that what you mean?

[Occulus]

105. edit period expired, so there's this:

Also, I'm envisioning a 'block all unregistered or expired domains' checkbox.

Why is that?

[Warren Stupidity]

108. I am amazed by the people who claim to be inundated with porn.

As you say "The only places I've ever seen porn ads is on porn sites". This stuff does not somehow end up on your computer EXCEPT for popup malware spyware crap. That is a separate problem that is only indirectly porn related. Good popup malware spyware crap filters are now free, excellent, easy to use, and starting to appear built in to browsers. The filters fix the popup crap problem and with it the unanticipated tits on your screen (but to go full circle on this, the unexpected tits are almost always a result of visiting some porno site with a toplevel page that gratuitously placed malware popups on your system - it is almost always evidence of voluntary behavior.)

So what are these nanny-staters talking about other than their insane and irrational desire to prevent you and me from doing things they find objectionable?

[TankLV]

107. Then don't go there.

Stop the moralizing for the rest of us.

Do a better job at parenting. Do a better job at browsing.

Stop being so lazy and blaming OTHERS for YOUR "problems" or rather LACK OF SKILL.

[GinaMaria]

69. I propose .kid n/t

[Occulus]

101. THANK you.

Finally, someone who gets it.

.kid would definitely be the way to go, but it would have to be a hardware setup that allows only trusted IP addresses access ('trusted' being, this is a verified child using the service. An ISP could do that just as easily. Put 'em behind a router or something that unblocks ONLY the .kid domain and let 'em go.)

[mongo]

113. Seconded!

.kid would be a great idea.

The people who are for the XXX domain just don't like porn, and don't want others to see it either.

They don't care if this .XXX won't work, they don't care if people will have to pay more for their ISP to allow them to access it, they don't care that every site about sexual health will be blocked, they don't care that resources for the gay community will be blocked, they don't even care that DU in it's current inception would be blocked.

They'ld just as soon get rid of all the naughty curse words on DU.

[GinaMaria]

136. Thanks. It's more positive and much easier to tell kids

where they can go as opposed to where they can't. .kid can have very strict rules about content, language, images etc. Schools can set up chat rooms for their students, so they know who is supposed to be there and who isn't. If they miss a day of school, they can log on and get their assignments (not that they don't do that now). It creates a safe zone for them that can be monitored. It can ease the need for a lot of tech saavy on the part of the parents, they will still need some, but they basically can set the rule, .kid only.

[LiberalGuy000]

137. absolutely

Major news sites like CNN.com could come up with a .kids site. In fact, all major companies could design a .kids site. That would make it much easier for parents to control what their kids see versus a haphazard enforcement of .xxx, which, in my opinion, will be useless from Day One.

[GinaMaria]

139. What would it take to get this started?

I'd like to hear from some of the parents who have concerns about their kids on the Web. Would this work for you?

[ebayfool]

144. Start a new thread - this great idea is getting lost in this one!

Dot Kid ... that is great! We have safe areas all over the place - nurseries in offices, churches, etc.

Just can't tell the kiddies that (my grandson would soooo offended - a nursery! LOL!)

Don't let it drown in this thread, more input would be good in a fresh one!

[silverojo]

95. If it weren't for kids

...most adults wouldn't even know HOW to use the internet!

[Occulus]

103. Which itself is a point I've been trying to make:

Parents in general have a need to know how to use a computer and the internet, intimately, if their children have access to a connected machine. They must be aware not only of all possible ways to block access to a specific site or form of content- be it violent images, sex, 'dark' websites, or whatever- but also of all the possible ways to circumvent those protections. They need to learn how to protect their PCs from unapproved access, log keystrokes on specific accounts, assign time-related access quotas, and a whole host of other things that real sysadmins in real IT departments know how to do. Congratulations, parents with computers- you have to know how to be a true sysadmin or your children will be 'at risk' when they're online.

This is the parents' job. They have to learn these things, or take their kids offline when they're not physically there.

[Occulus]

50. Here's what could happen

They pass this stupid law and then the christian right notices it really isn't changing anything. This will force them to propose legislation requiring ISPs to filter out pornographic content that does not appear in the .xxx domain.

This will, as others here point out, mean most of them. A lot of these sites exist offshore, and under this legislation, more would move there. That will spur the right to call for control of the internet, ala China, starting with porn.

They want to control the net more than anything else. It's the last place left that enables the people to speak completely freely, and be heard.

[BootinUp]

57. The battle lines

are drawn sure. Folks like many here taking an absolute position on one side, and fundies taking the opposite. The position most Americans will support is not either of those. And the more extreme the current position is the easier it is to exploit by the opposing side.

I would call this politics 101.

I'm going to have to start a DU journal, thats what I'll call it. Politics 101 and the fallacies of the liberal spine meme.

[Bushy Being Born]

142. Right. I don't see the problem with this either

I think an xxx-domain for porn would be good. Makes it easier for those who want it to find it, and easier for those who don't to block it.

[eyesroll]

2. So this would allow lewd exhibition of the pre-pubescent female breast?

:shrug:

[SaveElmer]

4. In the abstract I don't have any particular problem...

To me it is another form of labeling...but there is no way this would work!

1. Who decided what is obscene? Would it include sites related to breast cancer detection for example.

2. Who monitors it, and how could it possibly be enforced?

3. Like the OP said, what is to prevent people from simply going overseas?

Just too many logistical issues, this would end up in the courts for years....

[Evergreen Emerald]

42. they have already defined what constitutes child porn.

This is to get at the people who continue to victimize children with child porn.
Child porn is unacceptable and is as prevalent on the internet as are the pervs that use it.

It is difficult to stop and tools are needed. I do not see a problem with giving the state tools to stop this criminal behavior.

The slippery slope argument is never effective. Limits can and are put on tools given to the state. What constitutes child porn is well defined and easily recognizable.

[SaveElmer]

43. From what I read...

I don't see how this helps attack child pornography. What am I missing?

[Warren Stupidity]

53. nothing.

It is 'argument by non-sequitor', and 'appealing to emotion' to claim that this somehow puts a new tool in the hands of law enforcement to 'save the children'.

[LiberalGuy000]

62. Evergreen, you don't get it

The .xxx domain has nothing to do with "child porn".

[Evergreen Emerald]

75. I know...see what happens

when you post before coffee? This thread had absolutely nothing to do with child porn.

sorry...ignore me

[Warren Stupidity]

82. I never ignore anyone who admits to their mistakes.

You get an A+ in my book for that.

[MrPrax]

5. And to all the Naysayers:

Who think that Democrats are falling down on the job and ignoring the real issues...go back to your Ralph Nader!!!

God Speed Pryor and Baucus...You Are Saints :patriot:



:kick: :kick: :kick:

[mongo]

32. Pryor and Baucus are fascists

Why doesn't everyone control their own damn children, and stop trying to make everything in our society acceptable to 12yos?

So this is the "real issues" Democrats should be concerned with?

Let's all forget about this goddamn war we were lied into and make sure that everyone follows your morals. God speed, indeed.

[swag]

6. I guess Yahtzee club has started to bore them.

[Warren Stupidity]

11. Pryor and Baucus - nothing more important to worry about?

Like for example a motion to censure George Bush for exceeding his consitutional authority by clearly violating the law, clearly violating the constitution, and asserting that he is above both law and constitution?

Huh?

No, must hide tits. Very important. Got it. Gasbags.

[mongo]

34. Well Bush wants to get rid of the 4th amendment

Pryor and Baucus the 1st. Obviously they share the goal of eliminating the constitution.

[depakid]

12. Pandering to people who won't vote for them anyway

while alienating libertarian minded independents. They'll never learn.

[HuffleClaw]

14. *yawn*

idiots. 'cyber safety for kids' suuuuuuuuure.

[OnionPatch]

15. I see a silver lining here

whether you like it or not, perhaps this is a way to "do something" about internet porn, etc., which is one of the major reasons, or should we say, excuses, they have for always trying to limit internet freedom.

Of course this would infringe on some freedom on the internet, but the kind of freedom I'm much more worried about losing is freedom of information and equal access to sites like DU! Let them have their .xxx and then there is no reason why they can't keep their hands off the rest of the net.

[Orsino]

24. Appeasement doesn't work...

...with people hell-bent on regulating everyone else's fun. They will be coming for your pr0n, no matter what top-level domain it sits behind. Let 'em create .xxx, and they will soon be mandating it--shortly before they ban it.

We'd just be sweeping it up for them.

[LiberalGuy000]

26. absolutely

And I can picture the big ISPs blocking all .xxx domains unless you sign up and pay extra for their "adult package".

Coming soon to an ISP near you:

"only an additional $29.95 per month and you'll have access to all adult sites!
(except for the ones our government deems obscene)". <-- This part would be in fine print.

[BootinUp]

29. Its called winning elections.

And when you lose them then you have even less say. Or is the picture not clear enough yet with current events?

[mongo]

35. so then all Dems have to do to win is turn into Republicans

Now I get it...

[BootinUp]

36. Its all black and white to you huh?

I'd say grow up but then I don't know how long you have had this problem understanding politics.

[Warren Stupidity]

38. We've been running from our principles and acting republican

since ronnie reagan and it has lead to our loss of control over all three branches of government. A lot of us here have no problem at all understanding politics, and we are pretty clear on why the Democratic Party stands for nothing and has no respect.

[BootinUp]

48. Don't confuse flip flopping with actual stance on issues n/t

[Warren Stupidity]

49. I didn't.

But thanks for regurgitating that right wing meme.

[BootinUp]

54. And thank you

another example of the liberal blogosphere spine meme nonsense.

[BiggJawn]

122. Oh, yes, and lets distance the party from:

Those nasty people who don't love Jeezhus.
People who criticize the Pretzeldunce.
People who think Clinton got railroaded.
People who drive foreign hybrids.
People who don't like clear-cutting forests
People who want to preserve the ANWR.
People who are against the War.

The ends justify the means, eh, Jim?
And when your "ReTHUGlican-Light" version of the "Demoractic" party gets elected, THEN what?

I'll tell you what, then Ralf Nadir will be right. They're just 2 different flavours of the same TURD.

You wanna go with a "wanna-be winner", no matter what they have to morph into in order to lose by a gnat's whisker, why don't you check out the DLC? You already mouth their "Weirdos are costing us elections" mantra pretty well.

[BootinUp]

124. I'll send you a link

to my journal on politics 101 when its ready, seems like it could help you.

[LiberalGuy000]

128. enlighten us, won't you?

You keep talking about this amazing Politics 101 journal that could help us all. Please - I'd really like to hear this wisdom that will solve all of our problems.

[BiggJawn]

138. Why, it's really quite simple....

Don't do anything that might keep a not-so-sure about themselves cargo-cult ReTHUGlican from switching sides.

Jim goes on and on about "winning" being the important thing, and I keep countering with "So what then, when we win elections because there's no difference between us and the OTHER assholes?"

As an "out and proud" Atheist, I get enough of that "Shut the hell up, you're costing us VOTES" bullshit from Jim and the rest of his DLC ReTHUGlican-Lite ilk.

I've heard Wes Clark speak, and I've shook his hand, but you know, until 2003 or so, he was just as ReTHUGlican as Karl Rove and Ronaldus Rex are, so being for Wes Clark doesn't carry a lot of cred with me..

[Warren Stupidity]

37. No no no no no.

You do not gain anything by giving in to this nonsense. We will only start to win when we start to have the courage to stand up and speak the truth. As soon as you allow the government to regulate content on the internet they will do so for all content, not just the content that you find offensive.

"Let them have their .xxx and then there is no reason why they can't keep their hands off the rest of the net."

They won't do that. As soon as you open the door they will walk in and take over. You seem to think you know exactly what is offensive and what isn't to government censors. "Fuck that shit." Get my point?

[OnionPatch]

45. Ok, here's my reasoning for thinking this

so maybe it doesn't make sense to you but I thought it did.

I'm going on the notion that MOST of the public does not want the internet to be censored. The only few people I know or have heard of who want it censored use the pornography thing as an excuse. Once that excuse is gone, what other excuse could they use that makes the least bit of sense to the rest of the country?

But I do see your point and wouldn't put it past them to drum up some other reason. I just can't for the life of me think of one the American people would accept. But then again, I'm forgetting that the government these days doesn't really care what we want, do they?

[Warren Stupidity]

51. "the government these days doesn't really care what we want"

Exactly. But even if the only thing implemented were the requirement that 'adult content' be moved to the 'xxx' domain, who decides what is 'adult content'? The prior legislation (CDA) included just about anything. The word 'vagina' would qualify a website for falling under the CDA.

I am not being paranoid about this. We have the recent history of the FCC crackdown on 'broadcast smut' aka Janet Jackson's tit and Howard Stern's mouth. They have succeeded in putting the fear into MSM broadcasters who are all now toeing the line and censoring their content. But they are not satisfied. The nannny-staters, having taken care of broadcast tv and radio - no more Bono saying 'fuck', no more Janet Jackson uncovered no more NYPD Blue buttshots, and Stern is gone. Now they want to go after cable and they want to go after satellite radio too. They are never satisfied. They take every concession as a sign of weakness from the defenders of freedom and immediately reach for more. It is only when we start to push back that they will stop.

[BootinUp]

58. Recent history?

There is nothing new about censorship in America. You're pushing a position that most Americans won't agree with if you put it to a poll including most Democrats.

[Warren Stupidity]

59. Do I care if this issue is popular? No I don't.

I didn't care if being against the Iraq war was popular either. My positions are based on my perception of what is right and what is wrong, not on what is popular. Had our Democratic leaders been more concerned about right vs wrong three years ago perhaps they would be in a much stronger political position right now with respect to the Bush regime and its hideous war. Instead most of them have to either apologize for their position back then, or pretend that everything is fine now, or - as most of them do including our last presidential candidate - just sort of muddle along hoping that they won't have to defend their position at all.

Of course you can sell your desire to make sure that you can regulate what I watch by framing it correctly. No shit. Please bring up 'the children' or 'the baby jesus' or whatever it is that you can use as an emotional argument to sell state control with. Most people want your nasty stuff censored but they want their dirty bits left alone. They want their HBO, but they don't want porn on the internet. They want to be able to rent dirty DVDs, a huge business all across america, but when asked they are 'against porn'. They smoke a little pot every now and then but are all gung ho about the 'War On Some Drugs'. Most people are self-deluded idiots.

If you think the road to victory for the Democratic Party is smothering nanny-statism - you are as foolish as Tipper Gore, Joe Lieberman and Hillary Clinton. Haven't you had enough pandering from that other party?

[BootinUp]

71. All that passion over a porn domain?

Just because the Iraq war was a mistake that doesn't make you so right on this issue of a portn domain. Thats a ridiculous argument to make so I must call bs.

The extreme position is rarely the best position for a political party for more than just the issue of whether its popular. If you want to govern you have to address peoples concerns not just tell them they are wrong.

[Warren Stupidity]

78. Its about freedom Jim

And yes I am passionate about it.

[BootinUp]

86. ...If you believe the slippery slope is riskier than the

absolute position then you have a good case. I think that is flawed logic. In order to preserve the internet close to its current form, we should allow for some (minor porn) regulation.

The activist left and the absolute positions advocated on social issues, foreign policy issues, you name it, have drastically reduced the size of our support.

[mongo]

115. "minor porn regulation"

We are talking about what people do in the privacy of their own homes.

How about a law prohibiting possesion of ANY adult materials inside a home where a child lives, because they MIGHT see it?

Now, don't come back with some BS argument about showing kids porn, etc., 'cause we all know that child abuse is already illegal - and wrong.

What the hell is so hard with using filters, using AOL, etc. to keep in control of YOUR children.

And don't tell me I have some vested interest. I wouldn't be upset at all the business it would drive to my store if they made it harder to access porn on the internet.

[BiggJawn]

116. Oh, so it's all about wooing the "Swing Voters" again...

"The activist left and the absolute positions advocated on social issues, foreign policy issues, you name it, have drastically reduced the size of our support."

I dunno about you, Jim. Maybe you fancy yourself as some kind of "Liberatrian" who really doesn't like what the GOP is doing, but to my way of thinking you're no "Progressive", "Liberal", whatever.

If getting upset about criminalizing what ADULT people do in the PRIVACY of their own homes uder the catch-all of "protecting Children" is an "activist Left" position, well, then I'll be an "activist".

" In order to preserve the internet close to its current form, we should allow for some (minor porn) regulation."

I find Religion and Evangelists and references to "Angels" offensive. Perhaps in order to "preserve the internet" we should put all that crap undr a "dot-god" domain?

How about prohibiting access to this site? Randi Rhodes site? The Daily KOS? There's suitable technology, they do it every day in China.

Being a fan of Freedom means ALL of it, Jim, not just the parts you don't find personally disgusting.

Anything less is Double-plus-Good

[BootinUp]

117. This is a red herring

My understanding of the legislation is quite different than you are painting. Its not about criminalizing what goes on your bedroom AFAIK.

I am not shy of debating the issues with you, but I do expect you to make an attempt to comprehend the issue before attacking me with bs.

[BiggJawn]

120. Where did I say anything about "Bedrooms"?

I don't want to debate you, I was just telling I think you're full of shit.

"...Its not about criminalizing what goes on your bedroom AFAIK."

Not this week, anyway.

People don't like to look at Porn, don't look at it. they don't want their kids to look at porn, do a better job of parenting.

But for crying out loud, stop trying to paint anyone who can see the grease getting slathered on the slope as some kind of "activist" who's costing the party "support".

I'm a single custodial father of an adult who's also an Atheist and enjoys "dirty pictures" and thinks Dumbya is a War Criminal, and I'm damn sick and tired of people claiming that the Democratic Party has to throw people like ME out of the lifeboat, or they'll never get elected again.

[BootinUp]

121. Its mutual. n/t

[LiberalGuy000]

63. Jim4Wes, some of us have principles

There's more to politics than simply trying to appeal to the majority. Some of us feel strongly about certain issues. You seem to suggest in your posts that everything we do should be geared toward appealing to the masses.

[BootinUp]

72. You are correct its more than about being popular.

Some issues are certainly worth going against the majority. But this is not one of them.

[LiberalGuy000]

73. this is a discussion board

You really sound like you don't want us to even discuss issues like this. I guess I'm not as conformist as you are. I don't gear my thoughts and motivations according to what the majority of Americans find acceptable. People are more complex than that.

[BootinUp]

74. I'm all for discussions

I hope people read ours and think about it too. Do you have a problem with my participation? My feeling is that we will not do as good as we need to in coming elections if the liberal wing of the party is the only one energized. I am hoping to energize folks that think like me.

[Warren Stupidity]

79. So assuming that the majority of people

voted for asshat republican idiocy, the road to victory is surely becoming asshat republicans too. Somehow there is something very wrong with that logic.

[BootinUp]

84. who made you the arbiter

of what Democrats and Republicans can believe?

The truth is that there are varying opinions on varying issues in both parties. What a shock for you I know.

[BiggJawn]

123. " folks that think like me."

They already are, they're called the "Democratic Leadership Council", or as I call them, "Repubbie-Lite"

I don't see too many people "like you" being energised in this thread. In fact, I see a lot more people "like me", getting pissed off at you.

Your "We gotta start offering the American sheeple a differnt flavour of what the GOP tells them they want" attitude really disappoints me. I think Bayh, Liebermann, and Clinton represent their Corporate Masters, and not the "little Folks", too.

[mongo]

114. You're right that censorship is not new

The Comstock law was used to go after Margaret Sanger and her pamplet on Birth Control.

How many sexual health sites will be caught up in this new law?

But hey, if it sounds good to Mary Soccermom, go for it! Who the hell cares about pornographer's anyway.

[BootinUp]

118. I haven't seen a case made here

on what the damage is supposed to happen to pornographers. Care to try, or not? I might understand the issue better if you can explain that.

I assume that people would still be able to access sexual health sites as well. The legislation is not about eliminating access to material, its a reorganization of domain names.

[Ian David]

23. Last time, it was the "christian" right that killed this bill

Concerned Women for America in particular.

It sounds like there is a relationship there somewhere akin to the Ralph Reed / Abramoff / Gambling scandal.

Worth looking into who the pornographers used to buy them off.

[Xithras]

27. I have ALWAYS supported this idea.

Porn domains in the US can be forced into the .xxx domain, and noncompliant sites can be blocked at a backbone router level. Nothing gets banned this way (it's the equivalent of extending zoning laws to the Internet) and it makes filtering simple for those people who don't want it on their PC.

[Warren Stupidity]

39. "Nothing gets banned this way"

except of course for the 'noncompliant sites'. And who decides what is a porn site and what isn't? Who decides which images and words are obscene?

"it makes filtering simple for those people who don't want it on their PC." I've found it very simple to not have porn on my PC - I do not go and visit sites advertising pornography. I don't go looking for pictures of naked people having sex, and oddly enough as a consequence I don't have any porn on my pc. No government regulation was required for this miracle. Here is what you nanny-state prudes really mean: you don't want any porn on anybody's pc. At least be honest about it.

[BootinUp]

76. I really don't find name calling to be an effective argument.

And I don't care if whether or not you want to view porn. We are talking about making it more clear where the porn is located to help you find or avoid it as is your preference.

[Warren Stupidity]

83. You defend nanny state prudery you are a nanny state prude.

Sorry if you find that offensive. You know what? I've never had a problem recognizing where the porn is located. For example, at the local convenience store, the porn is located in the magazines with the huge-breasted scantily clad women on the front. I just don't buy those magazines. If you don't want to look at porn, don't go visiting porn sites. It is that simple. My pc is not inundated with porn. If yours is then that is because you keep on clicking to those porn sites. Perhaps you should stop doing that if it offends you.

[BootinUp]

85. We are getting off the real issue.

The porn mags are kept in racks that conceal much of the covers often behind the counter and are not sold to minors. And its not about what offends me or other adults. (But its a nice easy argument for you to pursue.)

[sandnsea]

97. Oh it's really simple

If you run a porn site, you know you're running it. If you don't want to risk having your site shut down or blocked, you go to .xxx. There really isn't any logical reason for a porn site to stay with .com.

I used to say the same thing as you about porn, but I have seen a huge increase in porn spam the last year. And there are an awful lot of legitimate phrases that you just can't search in images for. Imagine being 14 and wanting to find out about being a "teen model". Or looking for "sexy lingerie" for a bridal shower. It really has gotten ridiculous.

It isn't about wanting to keep porn off everybody's computer, it's about not having it forced on mine.

[LiberalGuy000]

129. your problems

You've seen a huge increase in "porn spam"? What are you doing to block spam? I almost never get any spam at all, let alone "porn spam".

Anyway, forcing adult sites into .xxx will do nothing to stop your so-called problems with spam. Spam is an entirely different issue.

And geez, regarding your searches for images - why don't you use the filtering options that Yahoo and Google provide? They work.

[sandnsea]

131. I can block .xxx completely

The reason I get thousands of spams a day is because I can't change my email address because it's a business address. It's been all over the internet for years, I've got no choice in the matter. Most of the spam is blocked, but at least 3 times a week some porn spam or other gets through. It would be much easier to block .xxx

I also don't use the filtering options because I don't trust them to make those decisions for me. A self-designated .xxx seems to me to be a much better way to go. I don't understand the problem with designating your site as porn if you're selling porn.

[LiberalGuy000]

134. that still doesn't make sense

What makes you think that blocking .xxx is going to stop the spam you're receiving? Much of it comes from outside the U.S., and spammers can send from any email address.

I would be fine with the establishment of a .xxx domain, but forcing certain websites to use it because some government entity deems it "obscene" is wrong and most likely unconstitutional.

And you don't trust search engines to filter out the images that you say you don't want to see? So, you're saying then that you'd rather deal with seeing sexually-explicit images. Again, a .xxx domain is not going to stop adult sites from appearing in your search engine queries unless you use the filters that they've designed specifically for people like you.

[sandnsea]

135. If they block .xxx, yeah, it will

The Supreme Court has already ruled that communities can zone pornographic businesses. This is no different and I don't see them having any problem with it. I don't think any government entity is going to direct the use of the .xxx. It will be available and its use will come from market pressures, likely a search engine that only accepts .xxx and so you either change or be lost altogether.

I'm not supporting an entire agency to monitor the internet and dictate which sites have to be .xxx and I don't think that's what this legislation would provide. It would simply create .xxx and ISP's and registrars and the public would pressure the changes from there.

It seems to me to be a pretty fair solution.

[mongo]

145. If what you really want is to stop porn spam from you mailbox

(which is different than a .xxx domain) Then you should work for that.

I would support those efforts. No one needs to get porn spam in their mailboxes.

Don't confuse the issues. These are two different situations. Creating .xxx domains does nothing to address porn spam in your mailbox.

[mongo]

30. How many hollywood movies would have to be shown in the xxx

domain under "simulated sex acts".

Geesh.

[Charlie Brown]

33. Unless you want EVERY gay-themed site placed under .xxx

there's no reason to support this bill, and mark my words, that's exaxtly what will happen if this becomes reality.

[w4rma]

40. Good luck enforcing this. (nt)

[Atmashine]

41. Harmful to Minors = www.democraticunderground.xxx

Don't want children learning the liberal agenda behind their parents backs!

[Warren Stupidity]

52. exactly. nt.

[BootinUp]

77. Really?

America uses censorship to keep political speech from minors? Any actual cases you can point to?

[Atmashine]

80. Well, I was half joking

But there's some threads here lately about moving gay/lesbian books away from childrens parts of libraries. Since we fight for their civil rights here, I could see them classifying DU as part of the homosexual agenda, thus harmful to minors, thus .xxx'ed.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=2172215

Edit to add link.

[Warren Stupidity]

81. As was pointed out earlier.

Prior attempts at regulating internet content (CDA for example) would have potentially relegated any site with any content not suitable for sesame street to some porn ghetto. DU has already banned sex talk, but it would have to include dirty word patrols too in order to avoid being exiled to the internet porn ghetto by this sort of fucked up bullshit that asshole prudes are trying to ram down our throats.

Oh but of course only the 'real porn', the kind 'you' want to stop others from seeing, would be banned. And certainly the most corrupt and overreaching administration in my lifetime would never abuse legislation for political purposes.

It is not about pictures of naked people having sex. It is about freedom of speech.

[BootinUp]

87. And it failed exactly because it was too extreme.

You are only making my case stronger by pointing to that example.

[Warren Stupidity]

94. Actually it passed.

The old court ruled it out of bounds. This court? I ain't going to bet on it.

[Atmashine]

89. Free Speech Zones

For adults and minors!

[BootinUp]

91. ?...lost you on that one.

[LiberalGuy000]

70. commentary from adult entertainment lawyer Paul Cambria

Legislating Dot-XXX a Bad Idea
By Paul Cambria

LOS ANGELES - Creation of a dot-xxx domain will not significantly assist parents because, even if all American adult Web companies joined the domain, that would leave hundreds of thousands (or millions?) of offshore websites free to continue their business outside of dot-xxx.

Creation of a dot-xxx domain will force American website operators to consider taking their businesses off shore so they have the same advantages this bill creates for foreign businesses. Consequently, this bill could increase unregulated foreign adult content.

Dot-kids is preferable to dot-xxx because the domain operator will be able to control the granting of domain registrations, limiting them only to websites with content appropriate for children, thereby creating a guaranteed safe area on the Web. Creation of dot-xxx will not accomplish that, because innumerable foreign adult websites will exist outside the dot-xxx domain.

Existing American adult Web companies have committed significant money and effort to developing their brands. Branding in the context of the commercial Internet includes popularizing the domain on which the website exists (usually either dot-com or dot-net). Forcing American adult Web companies to abandon their brands (like “Hustler.com” or “Vivid.com”) will impose severe and unwarranted economic penalties on American adult Web companies, while leaving foreign companies free to exploit the dot-com and dot-net domains.

More:
http://www.avn.com/index.php?Primary_Navigation=Articles&Action=View_Article&Content_ID=262476

[BootinUp]

88. his argument is incredibly weak.

There are means to block sites that don't follow the rules.

What exactly is the advantage that the foreign companies (assuming they don't get blocked) would have?

Branding is connected to .com or .net? Thats absurd.

[LiberalGuy000]

90. branding IS tied to .com

The vast majority of people type ".com" following a brand name. A site or company could advertise constantly that their domain name ends with ".us" or ".biz", but most people will still type ".com".

[BootinUp]

92. So you are saying

that when all the porn disappears from .com or .net and its blared on the radio, tv, newspapers, and internet about the law, that people wouldn't be able to find their porn? LOL.

[LiberalGuy000]

93. laughing at the situation...

doesn't help at all. Forget it. You're choosing to be ignorant about this topic.

[sandnsea]

132. .xxx is soooo confusing n/t

[LiberalGuy000]

133. fine

You don't stand on principles either, or you just don't get it. Don't worry - there are millions of others out there like you. You have lots of company.

It is unconstitutional to take any legal form of speech and wall it off from all other forms of speech.

[BiggJawn]

106. Makes it easier for the DOJ to round up us "Undesirables"

Lot of morans in this thread, because the RW couches this in their usual "Fur Den Kinder" argument, and you swallow it hook, line, and sinker.

You don't want your kids looking at 2 (or more) people fucking after they get bored with playing GTA online, it's up to YOU to police their usage, not up to ME to have to wear a yellow dildo armband on my ISP's records.

My kid's an adult now, I don't have any kids in my home. Granted, some juveniles COULD break-in and look at my computer, and get their little Burglar brains corrupted by my hard-drive, but that's a pretty remote possibility, dontcha think?


This is a thinly-veiled attempt to make it easier for the Taliborn-agains to round up us "perverts" and send us off to their re-hab camps when they finally ride their "Protect CHILDREN and Country for GAWD'S Glory!" train into power.

But any of us who say "what is this shit" are branded as pedophiles or some kind of craven creep who hates kids.

[ButterflyBlood]

110. I don't see what's wrong with this

(speaking as someone with 2 gigs of porn on my HD and strongly opposed to any type of censorship)

This doesn't censor anything, it's just labeling. I bet the porn site producers would like this, it makes their sites easily identifiable and easier to find. It's not really any different than porn sections in video stores.

[BootinUp]

119. I see the other sides of the argument

about a change to the internet as it is basically unregulated at this point. But I think we should play a part in determining what regulation makes sense, not to try and hold back the inevitable. I am not in favor of limiting free speech as some have characterized this, I just don't agree with the characterization.

[LiberalGuy000]

130. lol

No, the porn site producers do not like this idea at all. No one likes being put in a ghetto, my friend.

[killbotfactory]

140. Seems like it would make porn sites easier to find, and easier to block

:shrug:

[messiah]

143. Remove Che please

if you want to put thousands people out of business by making them change their domain extension then please remove Che.

[Neshanic]

141. So how many here for this with kids block MTV?

Or block Comedy Central, the hysterically named "Family Channel", Jerry Springer dysfunctional dwarf deviant sex with my mom show, or any of the parade of networks and shows that show lurid behavior?

Not many I would suppose, because that is actually what makes up the majority of their cable line-up.

I pay a large cable company money to go on the internet, and watch whatever I want. They just got LOGO and it's great.

It's called being parents. Try it sometime.