Saudi Arabia Objects To Proposed .gay gTLD, Among Others
459
Qedward writes "The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has objected to a variety of new generic top-level domains (gTLDs) ranging from .porn and .sexy to .wine and .bar and .bible, according to records of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). The organisation said in June it had received 1930 applications for gTLD 'strings,' of which 911 came from North America and 675 from Europe. Saudi Arabia's Communication and Information Technology Commission, the IT and communications regulator, has objected to the .gay string and asked ICANN to refuse the application for the new gTLD. 'Many societies and cultures consider homosexuality to be contrary to their culture, morality or religion,' CITC said. 'The creation of a gTLD string which promotes homosexuality will be offensive to these societies and cultures,' it added."
Well I object (Score:4, Insightful)
to their treatment of Jews and women, so they can kiss my ass.
Keep censoring and let the rest of the world go on (Score:4, Insightful)
Why don't the simply censor those domains? They already censor the hell of the internet anyway.
Contrary to my morality (Score:5, Insightful)
I find religion contrary to my morality.
So whats the problem? (Score:4, Insightful)
... then don't go there? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm continually amazed that people think that because something offends THEM, that they have the right to censor what other people can do/see/say/hear/view/etc. There are a few things that the world DOES agree on - such as kiddie porn and murder being bad - but beyond that, if you're offended then simply censor YOURSELF and don't visit those sites! If the whole country agrees (which I doubt!), then block it in your country.
If ICANN doesn't tell them to go take a flying leap, there should be rebellion.
MadCow.
Irony (Score:4, Insightful)
Saudi Arabia refuses to allow for a .gay domain
People continue to put oil from that country in their cars.
Chick-Fil-A founder says he personally believes marriage is between a man and a woman
Gets boycotted.
Can we hear again about how wonderful... (Score:5, Insightful)
...it would be for "control" of the Internet to be taken away from the evil Americans and given to the saintly UN where rational, tolerant governments such as that of Saudi Arabia have influence?
But they applaud the .stoning TLD (Score:2, Insightful)
They also like the .slavery, .nowomensrights, and the .infidel TLDs.
Seriously; I think some of the alternative energy things are barking up the wrong tree, but at this point, I would be willing to support any energy plan that gets us off these jerk's oil. I want to be liberated from Saudi Arabia and then bomb their fucking stuck-up, 15th century asses into the ground. The USA gives them latitude because we depend upon their oil, and all the while, they are the most restrictive country in the world. North Korea has more freedoms (if you're female), and yet the USA's focus is on every "bad" country except Saudi Arabia.
Re:Irony (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, let's see here...
Cheap petrochemicals are one of the most vital foundations of modern technological civilization, making possible(and helping to set the price and availability of) virtually anything everyone who isn't a subsistence mud farmer interacts with day to day.
Brand A fast food chicken products are, roughly as comestible as Brand B fast food chicken products.
Nope, no significant difference there, must be ironic.
Re:Keep censoring and let the rest of the world go (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly my thought. Wouldn't this make it EASIER for them?
What are they bitching about? Its a boat load easier to block entire TL domains in their DNS servers than to block a gazillion .coms all over the world.
Sure the wise will change to some other DNS server, and they may have to block IPs, but so what? They already have that problem. I suspect they also block out of country dns servers.
Re:Well I object (Score:5, Insightful)
So, why would they object to .gay? They can block it for the same reason.
Re:Contrary to my morality (Score:4, Insightful)
Meanwhile, I'm not convinced we need all these boutique TLD's. Maybe there's lots of pressure for more after the .xxx cash-grab.
The more descriptive TLDs are not something the xxx crowd wants.
I suspect establishing these is but the first step to a wider enforcement of censorship. Once these are in place you can impose laws forcing the use of the appropriate TLD, and then simply make it really easy to block the entire TLD.
There are already restrictions in place on .gov and .edu (easily circumvented in many cases). There was even some noise about .net being tightened a bit in the last couple years.
Re:List of the Current gTLD Applications (Score:2, Insightful)
I see no valid *purpose* in adding gTLDs whether offensive or not.
Re:Keep censoring and let the rest of the world go (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem is that it will be easier to block them, so now they won't have access to them.
The old "Women are for babies, boys are pleasure" attitude in the Islamic world is prevalent enough that I do not understand why they don't just come out of the closet?
http://sheikyermami.com/2008/06/22/afghanistan-thursday-night-is-boyz-night/ [sheikyermami.com]
Re:But they applaud the .stoning TLD (Score:5, Insightful)
and then bomb their fucking stuck-up, 15th century asses into the ground
Yeah, that'll show 'em what civilized behavior looks like!
Re:Hmmm... (Score:1, Insightful)
"Official" stance almost always differs from "personal" stance. Officially there were a number of Republican officials against gay anything, personally they went around having casual gay sex all the time. Officially cocaine and other drugs are illegal and should carry heavy sentences. Personally there are any number of cops, judges, and elected politicians that use them all the time. Officially hookers are illegal...
Oddly enough this rhetoric and stance has been used as a positive. That officials should support the will of the people rather than their own personal opinions or anything they might be more informed about. Never mind that "the people" can often be ignorant, spiteful dunderheads and that elected officials were theoretically elected to be better at deciding these things than "the people".
Re:Keep censoring and let the rest of the world go (Score:5, Insightful)
Saudi view themselves as the leaders of the Islamic faith (sort of like if Italy took the lead on all things catholic that the pope said, good ideas or not).
To them the notion that some of these concepts could even be considered acceptable, anywhere, is outrageous, and true moral leadership is to object vigorously to all of it. They know they'll probably lose, and they probably want to lose (and I'm sure the US embassy was consulted in advance as to whether or not they had any chance of actually getting their opinions followed). But as the stewards of the islamic faith they must at all times appear to object to things contrary to the brand of islam they are promoting.
The idea that these behaviours (consumption of alcohol, sex for fun, homosexuality etc.) could be exposed to any of the islamic faith, especially their poorer brethren, who rely on the Kingdom for guidance and support on these issues, means they must show their leadership to the world and demand such unislamic activites be discouraged at all time. It would be equally terrible if a member of the Islamic faith outside of a Islamic society were to be corrupted by these ideas, especially as a young, impressionable boy or girl in the US or Europe, and the international community should at all times work to protect them from unislamic influences, everywhere.
It's stupid, they know it's stupid, you know it's stupid, but the poor illiterate bastard in Bangladesh or Afghanistan or Morocco or the like can get outraged over it and they don't know it's theatre for their benefit, the saudi's can claim to be defenders of the islamic faith (which wins them points with the literate crazies) and it's unlikely to go very far anyway, so no harm done.
Re:Hmmm... (Score:4, Insightful)
That officials should support the will of the people rather than their own personal opinions or anything they might be more informed about.
No, officials are elected to office to conduct government for the good of the people . Sometimes, large segments of the people are not able to recognize what is good for them.
If we say that elected officials should represent EXACTLY the will of the people, there would still be slavery in the South, and homosexuality would be, for the most part, illegal.
Is that what you want?
A political dichotomy I honestly can't understand (Score:2, Insightful)
To my understanding the social left in America is about inclusion. Obviously, this means a heavily pro-gay agenda. It has also manifested in an effort to respect all religions*, including Muslims, and not only tolerate their practices and beliefs in the US, but support and embrace them. Whenever someone comes out against perceived or real moral deficiencies of Islam, the left is ready to attack that person as a right-wing hater.
But Islam condemns homosexuality. It is not only a general disapproval of homosexuals on the level of the more hardline Christians, but homosexuality is even illegal, punished up to the death penalty, in most countries with a majority Muslim population. So, how does a person on the left, which branded Jerry Falwell as an "agent of intolerance," reconcile this "respect everyone" attitude with this? The leftist mouthpieces would be up in arms right now if Pat Robertson was making this statement, but *crickets* since it's the Muslims.
* Except Christianity for some reason. You don't usually hear them saying we should respect the Christian religion, or attempt to glorify its past and promote its accomplishments. And, FTR, I despise both Falwell and Robertson.
Re:Contrary to my morality (Score:5, Insightful)
My religion compels me to pray for you, and to let you be.
Your religion doesn't compel any such thing - it is your personal internal sense of morality that guides you. If a proof were produced that your god did not exist, would you suddenly throw away all of your morality and principles, and turn to murdering, raping and thieving? Of course not. Millions of people have been killed in the name of the world's major religions, and many more have suffered persecution because of their religious beliefs. The "peace" that we have have now is more a product of the Western world turning towards secularism than anything else; it was only 70 years ago that some Christians were busy rounding up Jews - when the leader of the Eastern Orthodox Church actually said, [time.com] "Why should we not get rid of these parasites [Jews] who suck Rumanian Christian blood? It is logical and holy to react against them.". Of course it would be unacceptable for a religious leader to say something like that today, wouldn't it? Hmmm... are we really so arrogant to believe that we have evolved so far, culturally and as a species, that such thoughts are no longer possible?
So, is the Vatican objecting? (Score:4, Insightful)
Um, nevermind, it's too late for them to do that with a straight face.
Re:why modded funny, not all youth dancing is dirt (Score:3, Insightful)
Waiting for you to name a Christian country where what you wrote is rule of law.
Re:why modded funny, not all youth dancing is dirt (Score:4, Insightful)
It's interesting how little of the current breeds of Christianity is based on the words of Jesus, and how much on the words of his students and church leaders. And how rarely all the 'love and giving and kindness' is followed by the 'righteous'. You very rarely hear a person quoting Jesus, while other authors are quoted in just about every conversation where something is claimed to be against the will of God.
Islam considers Jesus a prophet as well by the way. So anything he said also applies to them.