Neowin.net

a world vote how nice!!! or are you one of the stupid Americans that think they own the internet

now if you cry after i say this i am really sorry

i'm not from america and i'm not stupid

this is freedom of speech not accessible to a vote. minority right out rule majority rights. this is the basis of freedom.

pretell how you can vote a right away?

Go troll somewhere else.

Putting all adult material on a .xxx suffix should be done. It's no different than having .uk, .au, or any others.

not only is its against us constitution but its illegal too on a moral ground. will you pay the difference in revenues to the companies ? will you force all debate to .debate or all freedom to .freedom ?

where will you censorship mongers stop?

And you are a Canadian who wishes they owned the internet...

i am? please don't speak that which you don't know

.
And I wish for you to do the same then please.

wish all you want but im not wrong and im not shutting up

1. Werejag is an idiot.
2. Werejag makes a good point about censorship.

1. explain
2. thanks

1.
2. I have to agree

its a bad idea. a more sensible idea would be .kids domain keep your kids there and off the internets. we do not need to be restricting the internets because you parents cant do your job.

Last edited by werejag on 30 Mar 2007 - 23:16

werejag, its not just useful for kids. even if you are thinking of things like kids, its good to block xxx just in public places like libraries for reasons that dont necessarily have to do with kids but might. (or businesses)

but it would be nice to have porn put on xxx so i dont run into those sites by mistake by site squatters or whatever, and i can block it so i dont run into one that tries to open popups or do annoying things on my computer. most adware and popups is from porn sites.

whats the bad part of the idea? do you just not like government regulation in general, or have some type of interest in how porn is regulated

Last edited by brianshapiro on 30 Mar 2007 - 23:45

if you do not want to see those sites do not get on the internets. it restricts free speech. when you start restricting where does it end??? libraries have said they do not want the restrictions either.

parents should just do their jobs and not make government do it for them. what happened to personal responsibility?

do not cloak taking freedom in protecting children taht makes me sick.

thanks

so you're against tv ratings also?

these things don't restrict individual freedom, they help it, because it helps people make choices.

--just like labels on food which list the ingredients and health information.

this isn't a law that bans anything or restricts it; putting in on its own tld is a matter of labeling, where people can make their own choice.

also given that domain names are a public resource, the public should have some say how they're distributed, even though nobody is banned from having a site in most cases. just like how domain names that infringe on copyrights are illegal. its the same reason the public has certain rights over broadcast airwaves.

if you're talking about parenting, a parent shouldn't have to be smothering and be involved in every single thing a child does or sees, whether its control or explaining facts to him. raising a child is about giving them a certain amount of freedom and only guiding them. an xxx domain name helps parents do their jobs.

but like i said, this isn't just an interest for children, it has a wide variety of purposes for public interest, whether for public settings or for businesses, or for individuals like myself who would block the xxx domain out of self-interest. and once again, its not a ban, its just a way of labeling and informing people. i wouldn't support a ban myself either.

people who are against this are taking a rather narrow approach to the principle of free speech, imo

then you agree we should restrict children to .kids domain and if a kid is found on another domain we put the parents in jail. might be a bit harsh but its their job and they should be responsible. parents have a job if they are not doing it we need to take care of them.

restriction of freedom of speech is unacceptable. people that think they can some how force companies into a domain because they look down at their free speech rights are nothing but McCarthy like.

Having a .kids domain would also be censorship by your standards. Most people on here would agree that any adult material in the work place is unacceptable. That's why there are posts all over the place here that have NSFW (Not Safe For Work). There are many places that would terminate employment for viewing such material at work. Why is it wrong to want all adult material moved to an .xxx domain? It's not censoring it. It's classifying it for what it is. Adult material. If you want to look at it then by all means do so. I or anyone else should be able to do a blanket block on that material if it's desired. I could care less that porn peddlers would lose revenue from it.




Show me anywhere that you have absolute freedom of speech. You cannot say whatever you want just because you think you have the right to say it. The real world doesn't work that way.

all adult material moved to an .xxx domain? how pretell are you going to do this? the internet is global.

you have to force a company or a person to relocate. now what defines porn? and how can you force these people to one domain?

you have to step on their freedom to post what they want on a website. where do you draw the line on censorship? what censorship is acceptable? what freedoms will you give up?

Show me anywhere where you have the right to dictate what i can or cant view. I can say whatever I want just because I know I have the right to say it. The real world still works that way till consorship people get try to change it.

Clearly, written by a kid.

clearly written by someone who hasn't a clue

How ****ing dumb are you? Few points:

• Having pornography on a .xx domains increases revenue from people specifically looking for pornography.
• It does not restrict free speech in any way shape or form, as it is still down to the individual whether or not they block specific sites.
• If a company or individual chooses to restrict access to a top level domain then that is there individual right, removing their ability to do is actually doing what you appear to be so adamantly against (see: hypocrite).
• How is a .kids top level domain even relevant? Do you understand how the internet works? Are you suggesting putting kids site on a top level .kids domain and restricting children to only viewing .kids by governmental decree? I agree, that would be a restriction of free speech. On the other hand, adding a kids top level domain and putting kids sites on it, while mainitaining the individuals right to either restrict or not restrict that top level domain is perfectly acceptable in any definition of 'free speech'.
• Look down at their free speech rights? Where the **** did that come from? They're talking about grouping specific sites together, like Australian sites under .au. Is there a restriction of free speech, do people look down on Australians (because theyre in a .au domain ;p)? There's nothing restrictive about this. The restriction is still at an individual level, which is something the individual elects to do. As it is now, I can just use AdMuncher or AdBlock to block anything with a set of keywords in it, all a top level .xxx domain would do is make it easier for me to do that.

The point is, you're just another white supremacist fiery stick waving ill educated conspiracy theorist that has no understanding of technology. Get back in your hole.

Wait, I just realised you're probably someone with a serious mental condition that actually believes absolutely nothing of what anybody says, and relies completely on reading non-existent subtexts that are contrary to your own personal views. Damn, why did I waste my time typing this.

Last edited by Emmy on 31 Mar 2007 - 09:48

Few questions and rebuttals :

• Having pornography on a .xx domains increases revenue from people specifically looking for pornography.
  
  Explain how you came up with this. so far no facts back up you. Do you often make up information on your losing issues??
  
  
  
• It does not restrict free speech in any way shape or form, as it is still down to the individual whether or not they block specific sites.
  
  yes it does restrict your telling a legit owner of a website, what he can and cant do on his property. feel free to block sites on a individual person basis. this is a choice aka freedom.
  
  
  
• If a company or individual chooses to restrict access to a top level domain then that is there individual right, removing their ability to do is actually doing what you appear to be so adamantly against (see: hypocrite).
  
  the true agenda of yours comes out. you want to move all porn sites to a certain tld and then ban that. thanks for confirming what i thought. nothing but censorship.
  
  
  
• How is a .kids top level domain even relevant? Do you understand how the internet works? Are you suggesting putting kids site on a top level .kids domain and restricting children to only viewing .kids by governmental decree? I agree, that would be a restriction of free speech. On the other hand, adding a kids top level domain and putting kids sites on it, while mainitaining the individuals right to either restrict or not restrict that top level domain is perfectly acceptable in any definition of 'free speech'.
  
  to protect kids, this is the only way to effectively do it and protect freedoms of the rest of the net. others ways would restrict freedom for the majority.
  
  its funny how your claiming you protecting kids but show your true intent in your ranting.
  
  
• Look down at their free speech rights? Where the **** did that come from? They're talking about grouping specific sites together, like Australian sites under .au. Is there a restriction of free speech, do people look down on Australians (because theyre in a .au domain ;p)? There's nothing restrictive about this. The restriction is still at an individual level, which is something the individual elects to do. As it is now, I can just use AdMuncher or AdBlock to block anything with a set of keywords in it, all a top level .xxx domain would do is make it easier for me to do that.
  The point is, you're just another white supremacist fiery stick waving ill educated conspiracy theorist that has no understanding of technology. Get back in your hole.
  
  Be littling me will not help you one bit. this is a sign you have nothing but hate in your heart plus as we see above your true intent is to remove freedoms for a group of ppl. Dont be a censorship person.
  
  Wait, I just realised you're probably someone with a serious mental condition that actually believes absolutely nothing of what anybody says, and relies completely on reading non-existent subtexts that are contrary to your own personal views. Damn, why did I waste my time typing this.
  
  i highly doubt that your as smart as me but go ahead try to attack me personally instead addressing the real issues.

Double

yes it does restrict your telling a legit owner of a website, what he can and cant do on his property. feel free to block sites on a individual person basis. this is a choice aka freedom.

its a restriction, but not on SPEECH, unless you consider being able to present your porn with any domain you want a part of speech. i don't think that would hold up in court, for many reasons. and as far as its a restriction on a PROPERTY, its a matter of what we consider domain names to be. do we want domain names to be a public resource or a private resource? the reason we consider it a public resource is because two sites can't have the same domain name on the public internet. this is one of the reason copyright/trademark laws are enforced on domain names. private intranets can do more of what they want.

to protect kids, this is the only way to effectively do it and protect freedoms of the rest of the net. others ways would restrict freedom for the majority.

what i hate about this discussion is that people who try to make this into a censorship issues, neither a. can show a practical way that its censorship, or b. can neither establish why it sets a legal precedent for censorship.... but, instead are either taking an absolute libertarian position regarding regulation of any kind, or more likely, c. so paranoid about anyone who criticizes porn, thinking that they're some drone in a church that wants to establish a theocracy for 'the kids', put people in jail for viewing porn, and eventually all of their freedom to masturbate to Kate and Melissa Midwest will be taken away, which they won't and can't let happen.

c most likely describes most critics

as for enforcement

countries will have to make their own choice if its enforced, but if its not porn sites will either find reasons to move to xxx domains or individual countries will find themselves pressured to. if it is law, it wont stop porn sites from taking regular domains, it wouldnt be that enforceable, but it would be so easy to be legitimate and make money off porn, that there would be no reason to not use xxx unless you're being defiant. but it doesnt have to be law.

and what if a country does enforce it... and later decides to ban xxx ? well, if its banned, and people care about porn, all the porn sites will just move to regular tlds, and there will be so many, it will be impossible to hunt all of them down. and impossible to enforce. so the government gives up and removes the ban. and porn sites find reason to go back to xxx.

the main reason for opposing xxx from both religious people and the porn industry is political. the porn industry doesn't want to change how they're operating, even if they can and be succesful. religious people dont want to see porn as legitimized, even if it isnt fully legitimate.

Last edited by brianshapiro on 02 Apr 2007 - 04:09

If porn moves to .xxx and it gets banned by a country then how is that different from China banning most of the internet? It's just a classification after all. And what do Chinese people who don't agree with the governmental edict do when they want to look at something that has been banned? They get around it, just like kids circumventing NetNanny etc. do.
As to the poor porn companies losing revenue, boo frickin hoo. Noone owes them a living. The other side of the coin is that if you have an idea where something you want is (even if it as simple as putting <insert required type here>.xxx in a browser), you're more likely to find it than if you don't, and therefore you're more likely to give these poor benighted companies your cash for some action.

where does banning and censorship end? when will enough be enough? when they decided your freedoms are next then you will complain too bad no one will care about you.

thank god for level headed icann people

sorry to inform all non us citizens of the internet but here is the usa we have a radical political agenda made by radical right wing nutters. who try to restrict everything on moral or biblical grounds. we have been fighting the battle against these nuts for a long time. the radicals keep trying to codify Christian law into our government.

we are here to fight for freedom.

yeah we been trying to get rid of em forever but they just keep coming back like the plague they are

they have a right to exist like these websites. thats the problem. we even allow them to exist. freedom has its price. our freedom comes with the right to allow them to exist.

So you ARE from the USA!

yep this is true

PARANOID.

the article mentions religious groups dont want XXX either because they think it legitimizes porn.

people who want it are moderates, sorry to say.

yeah and i have a bridge in san Fransisco.

That, good sir, is exactly why this is a bad idea. If it worked, and absolutely all the porn vendors moved onto it, imo it would be an improvement since you wouldn't stumble across things (site squatters etc). Yes, and the Think Of The Children factor as well, although it should be the parents policing that not the gov't.
But, that's never going to happen. They'll never all do a mass move, it'd probably cost them to buy the new domains, there's the "why move?" factor, etc.

Good idea in theory, awful idea in the real world.

i think you got good points.... im for the .xxx domain stuff myself.. although ithink your right as it will never happen cause if a high percentage of sites dont use it then whats the point.

p.s. i disagree with werejag and agree with most of the peoples comments that where going against him since they seemed to make more sence to me.... cause his "restricting freedom of speech" stuff is just crap since it aint restricting NOTHING , all it's doing is labeling it like how austrailia has .au etc etc etc. cause the .xxx domain would make it ALOT easier for people to filter out porn sites.... sure u can blame parents somewhat but this would make it far easier for them to block porn related sites!

ill explain a bit

the group of people wanting to move all porn sites to a .xxx tld want to ban such things. this is just a way to do it by pretending its protecting kids.

here is how they plan to do it

1. they force somehow all porn sites to a certain tld
2. then they get that tld blocked on a governmental isp level

we see this is true by a post of Emmy above.

after they do this what will these ppl ban next??? protecting rights some times protects people you do not agree. i will protect your right to choose.

parents have a right to block what their children see as long as it doesn't block my right to view it if i choose.
making it easier for parents is nice idea but this leads to the above nuts removing access for all. sorry but government has never been about making a parents job easier. parenting is a tireless job but they must do it.

god bless parents and the job they have

Last edited by werejag on 31 Mar 2007 - 18:17

Lol. Read my rebuttal, again you saw a hidden but non-existent subtext as you're just a conspiracy theorising child that doesn't want his porn supply limited. Porn sites aren't being forced on to the new TLD if it is allowed, therefore your points are moot and you're obviously just a dumbass.

Even if people wanted to ban the XXX domain it would never work, because porn sites would then start coming up on regular TLDs. and regular TLDs can never be so tightly policed. But, moreover, I think most people who support XXX domain realize this themselves, and have no delusions about what they can do.

puritanical would be = banning all porn.

but we have a distortion field today where anything that suggests in any little tiny bit that anything whatsoever to do with sex is a problem in any particular little way = puritanical

no doubt...