Baucus plan unites porn sites, Christians in opposition

[The Straight Story]

Baucus plan unites porn sites, Christians in opposition

By The Associated Press
WASHINGTON -- It's rare that Christian conservatives and the pornography industry agree on anything. But a congressional proposal to create a new Internet domain has made odd bedfellows of the two groups.

Some moderate Democrats in Congress are pushing for an Internet red-light district where pornography would be isolated on a ".xxx" domain. Conservatives and the adult entertainment industry are fighting the idea -- but for dramatically different reasons.

Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., is crafting the legislative package that would require the Department of Commerce to create the new domain name. Pornographic Web sites would be required to abandon their ".com" addresses, ideally consolidating them all in one Internet neighborhood.

The idea, supporters say, is to clean up the Web as former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani cleaned up Times Square.

http://www.billingsgazette.net/articles/2006/02/06/news/state/30-porn.txt

[MrModerate]

1. A really.stupid.idea . . .

How could you force them? If you were able to force them, at what cost to the Internet?

[ComerPerro]

4. Same way you prevent for-profit companies from getting .org or .gov

[MrModerate]

11. that might work going forward, but . . .

It would be very difficult to weed out the existing ones. Not to mention the same difficulty that always comes up when you try to censor these things: how do you reasonably decide (short of a court case on each instance) what's porn and what's not? The financial incentive to defeat censorship is so great that it'd be a very difficult battle.

And the loser would be the free exchange of ideas.

[htuttle]

17. Those can be controlled through the domain registrar

I do not believe the .ORG domain actually has any restrictions anymore, but the '.GOV' domain is controlled by the government, so they can control who's in it.

But as far as forcing companies to switch from the '.COM' domain to something like '.xxx', forget it. No one country has the power to do that. It's all controlled by hundreds of private, for-profit registrars around the world. There's neither the authority nor ability to regulate the .com domain in that manner.

[FreedomAngel82]

7. I don't think it'd work either

Only thing you can do is just have the warnings I think or pay sites.

[Benfea]

10. It's not a dumb idea.

Yeah, you can't really enforce it with 100% accuracy, but that doesn't really make it a bad idea.

If anything, opposition to this is stupid.

The porn industry is opposing it because they think such a move will be used to censor all porn on the Internet (as you correctly point out, that's not possible), while the Christians are opposing this because they think that they can somehow eradicate all porn on the Internet by not making an .XXX domain, which is even dumber.

The .XXX domain will give parents some control over keeping their kids out of some (maybe even most) of the porn on the Internet. Is that really such a bad thing?

[MrModerate]

12. 1) False sense of security . . .

2) Damage to the free flow of ideas
3) Huge costs and liabilities likely to be transferred to ISPs
4) Increased likelihood of undesired encounters with porn, because sites will try to become more stealthy . . .

[Fleshdancer]

how is .xxx a "damage to the free flow of ideas"?

if the site and the "ideas" expressed on the site are the same but with .xxx instead of .com, how is there damage?

Is transferring an ISP really all that expensive?

[MrModerate]

31. Enforcement.

Owners of these sites will not want to be confined to the XXX ghetto; people who use their work computers to access porn will attempt to get around their corporate blocks, and the corporate blockers will try harder to prevent end runs; children will, no doubt, easily overcome any barriers set up by their parents.

The result? Escalation in the blocking wars. More and more draconian measures, tighter and tighter filters, more and more surreptitious usage.

Ultimately this will interfere with non-porn useage of the Internet, to the impoverishment of us all.

[Benfea]

33. I disagree.

There are networks of Internet users out there… even porn consumers, who will instantly report any kiddie porn they find. Consequently, sites that show that stuff have to regularly switch servers unless they can find someone providing server space offshore that doesn't mind that sort of thing. The kiddie porn is still out there, so in that sense the efforts of Internet users is a failure, but it does keep pressure on people who make that stuff available for download, and they have to make moving targets of themselves to stay in business. The porn is still on servers, people who want to see it can still find it, but it's a little harder for everyone involved to do so.

I expect a similar response from the Internet community over the .XXX domain. Yes, some Internet porn sites will oppose it and try to find ways around it, but some other sites will realize that the primary driving force behind all these "censor the Internet" movements involve the ease with which children can access this stuff, thus they have a motivation to use the .XXX domain, and to encourage others to do so, because it takes the wind out of the sails of the very thing that is the biggest threat to them.

As for corporate blockers, who really cares about that? People have no business surfing porn while at work anyway.

[MrModerate]

37. While kiddie porn is the hot button issue, this initiative . . .

Is aimed at legal, adult porn. The purveyors and consumers of kiddie porn have to behave in entirely different ways, because their "hobby" will get them thrown in jail if discovered.

But the vast majority of adult porn sites are commercial enterprises. Sleazy perhaps, but just businesses. They are up in arms over the notion of segregation into an XXX domain for straightforward commercial reasons (just as they resisted segregation into porn-shop ghettos when paper and celluloid were their primary means of distributing their products). They will, I predict, continue to oppose and find workarounds to this segregation.

And, in attempting to enforce this segregation, non-porn information exchange will be negatively affected. As an example, when the first home filters came out, they had a tendency to block non-prurient topics such as breast cancer, masturbation, gay identity, etc., etc. I have no reason to believe that similar filtering shortfalls will not afflict any enforcement efforts to round up porn purveyors into an XXX corral.

With regard to corporate blockers, the issue is not whether people should be using corporate resources to get their yah-yahs off, but what is the effect when those corporations take the very necessary steps to prevent employee behavior for which they must assume substantial liability?

It's many additional levels of censorship -- for the Internet as a whole -- that cost more, take more time, and interfere with (as I suggested earlier) the free flow of information.

[Benfea]

38. No, kiddie porn is a side issue

The primary driving force is keeping junior from seeing perfectly regular porn. The .xxx domain goes a long way towards alleviating that concern.

[MrModerate]

39. Well, to summarize my previous points . . .

1) It won't work
2) Non-porn consumers will suffer

[Benfea]

40. I've already addressed that.

Nothing works with 100%, I never claimed it would. By your standard, the laws against printing your own counterfeit money "don't work" (the problem is far more rampant than is reported in the news), does that mean we should repeal those laws?

And I completely disagree with your second point.

[MrModerate]

41. It'll be interesting to see how this initiative plays out . . .

Based on my experience with the implementation of techno-moral crusades in this country, I'd predict the whole thing'll fizzle out. However, Internet governance issues usually DON'T go away -- some standards group hangs onto them, bulldog-like, for years until they're either implemented or rendered irrelevant by technology.

So the XXX idea (which has already been around for awhile) might eventually come to be.

On a personal level, I do worry about the Grundyization of the Internet and the wasted effort involved, and have already evolved a workable filter for my own children's Internet usage (their computer is in the same room as mine and my wife's and it doesn't get turned on unless we're there to watch).

But my system is probably not for everybody.

[immoderate]

32. What about sites outside the US?

What about art sites that have some erotic art?

This is a stupid idea. Can literature be pornographic? Some might see some disagreements here.

--IMM

[Radical Activist]

2. I'm sure the Christian Conservatives will spend a lot of time researching

porn on the internet.

[FreedomAngel82]

8. LOL

Like Gonzalez is wanting to with the internet searches right? *giggle*

[Crazy Dave]

3. .xxx huh? Wouldn't that make it easier to find?

:shrug:

[MrModerate]

5. Yeah, but much easier for parents, businesses, and ISPs to block

Not as if finding porn is especially difficult as it is.

[Crazy Dave]

13. Another good point

Even as far back as '98 I was doing research on Russian fighter jets and my search results always came up with a majority porn related links or Russian mail order brides. But hey, I guess it's what's helped the Internet grow more than any other entity.

[MrModerate]

15. Sex sells. Even when you give it away. n/t

[Crazy Dave]

19. Should we invest and grab up a whole bunch of (fill-in-the-blank).xxx

domain names yet? ;)

[FlaGranny]

18. I can empathasize

because I work in the medical field. Many medical searches bring up porn sites. Sometimes you can't find what you're looking for because of the number of porn sites taking up the results screens.

I would like the idea of dot xxx if we could trust the government not to take advantage of the increased ease of censoring them.

P.S. I encourage everyone who has not done so already, to research and learn about the "left behind" crowd - the answer to what's going on in the US and the world lies right at their doorstep.

[TheFarseer]

6. sure, BUT

a parent could disable that part of the internet or put a password on it so the kids couldn't see.

[FreedomAngel82]

9. One would think wouldn't it?

:shrug:

[realisticphish]

14. honestly

as one who has on occasion... ahem... persued such interests, the basic internet is NOT where people get porn (for free, at least). P2P programs and bittorrent are where most of it comes from

[MrModerate]

16. Let us not forget the venerable USENET n/t

[tgnyc]

20. Cornhole on the leak to the Times.

Yes, that's the real issue isn't it?

[progdonkey]

21. I like the ".kids" idea...

Instead of trying to keep adult businesses away from kids, it makes more sense to keep kids away from adult businesses. A parent can have the computer set to only allow viewing of ".kids" links, and it shouldn't be too difficult for a company such as Nickolodeon to set up a ".kids" website and have all the old ".com" links redirect to their respective ".kids" address (or just to the main page). If a child types in a ".com" address, it'll just come back with an error message.

Content filters would just need to check if it's a ".kids" website, and if it is, allow it.

Of course, it'd be easy for some crooked porn companies to set up a ".kids" website with porn on it, but since the ".kids" domain name is strictly for children under 18, I doubt any sort of Constitutional issues of free speech would come in to play, making it rather easy to regulate. If a website has content that is obviously only for adults (naked images, adds for cigarettes and/or alcohol, etc.) it would be hard for those content providers to argue free speech, since they're hosting the images on a ".kids" domain name. Any pornographic images are obviously there with the goal of having kids see them.

You could also possibly have extra protocols for obtaining a ".kids" address that would involve providing more extensive proof of identification without charging applicants a huge amount. This would make it easier to arrest and/or fine the people who put pornographic images on a ".kids" website.

I'm sure I'm missing a lot of negatives, but I do think this is a better idea than trying to get rid of all porn on the net or relegating porn to a ".xxx" domain.

[eggman67]

27. That is better

Signing up for one domain would be a hell of a lot easier and easier to enforce if set up correctly.

I have no problem with have .xxx being available, I think that's a fine idea. In terms of mandating that sites use it based on content, it would be pretty much unenforceable.

[progdonkey]

28. and pretty superfluous...

A voluntary ".xxx" would not be bad, but there wouldn't really be any point, because only the reputable porn sites would sign up for it, since the ".xxx" would most likely be automatically filtered by content managers. The "gotcha" porn sites, which are the actual problem, would still just use ".com" addresses to create pop ups and so on.

Another benefit of having the ".kids" domain is that, when you have a dedicated domain for a specific market, whatever it is, the content providers are stating their target audience by simply using that domain: ".kids" is for kids, ".xxx" is for porn-viewing adults. If a kid finds his way to a ".xxx" site (or a regular ".com" porn site like now), the site owners can easily deny responsibility by saying, "Hey, this was meant for adults, it's not my fault this kid found my site... even if I did spread pop ups all over the net. It's not my job to raise this kid. My target was the adult population." Etc. If a kid finds porn on a ".kids" website, unless it's the victim of hacking, the fact that it's a ".kids" domain tells the authorities that the site owner set out with the express purpose of having kids see the porn. It's the difference between putting up a naked poster in a seedy part of town and putting up the same poster in a school.

[eggman67]

29. I agree

It would definitely make things about 98% better. My only caveat is putting too much faith in this:

"If a kid finds porn on a ".kids" website, unless it's the victim of hacking, the fact that it's a ".kids" domain tells the authorities that the site owner set out with the express purpose of having kids see the porn. "

What authorities?

[progdonkey]

30. I'll try to clarify...

Yeah, the way it's written is a bit too muddy. What I meant by "authorities" would be first the ISP and then the police (or really anyone who would be able to sanction or penalize the website operator, for that matter) if the web site owner refused to take down the photos. As I said, since it's a ".kids" website, the site operator is plainly stating that the target is children; if someone finds porn on the website, and it was put there by the site operator and not through hacking, the logical conclusion is that this porn was meant to be seen specifically by children. Presenting pornographic material to children is a criminal offense, so the police should at least open an investigation into whether the content is pornographic.

[Don Claybrook]

22. Should I add an xxx to my Usenet client?

I could rename the shortcut on my desktop to NewsRoverxxx if the government thinks that would help. If not, one of the biggest sources of porn on the internet is left untouched. I doubt the GOP has even heard of Usenet, so it's probably a moot point. Maybe they should compare notes with the RIAA.

[MrModerate]

23. Shhhh! They might be listening.

[Fleshdancer]

24. I wouldn't mind a little more internet organization

we have .org, .edu and .gov which is a start but I wouldn't mind having more. Not just .xxx for porn but maybe .fun for games or .buy for internet retailers, etc. :shrug:

Can there only be 3 characters past the dot? If so, why? I've always wondered that.

[eggman67]

25. No

there exists .info & .name as well

[Fleshdancer]

26. cool, thanks for answering my question. n/t

[The Straight Story]

34. How about .dem and .rep so we filter out the idjits :) (nt)

[Fleshdancer]

36. .dems vs .dumbass

Sounds good to me! lol :D

[jmowreader]

35. Head-end filtering is what worries me about .xxx

Porn does nothing for me so I don't look at it.

If there was a .xxx domain, the first thing that would happen is Wildmon's bunch would start an e-mail campaign to convince all the ISPs to head-end filter .xxx out of the streams they send down under threat of boycott. (This one the freepers wouldn't play in...were it not for porn and hand cream, freepers would have no release for their sexual tension.) This would cause serious ripples in the internet economy, since it is well established that there are exactly two things you can make a profit selling online with no brick & mortar presence: porn and travel.