New Vote on .xxx Internet Address Nears 214
Billosaur writes "ICANN is once more set to vote on the creation of the .xxx Internet address. Though the proposal has been voted down by ICANN's board twice before the group behind those previous proposals resubmitted after they 'agreed to hire independent organizations to monitor porn sites' compliance with the new rules, which would be developed by a separate body called the International Foundation for Online Responsibility.' Once more the proposal has led to pornographers and religious groups finding themselves on the same side of an issue, the porn industry worried that the domain would lead to government controls, the religious groups worried it would make access too easy and allow porn to expand even further onto the Internet."
Why not? (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't understand how this is NOT a win-win for everyone! (Except for those that either want to block porn altogether and those that want to make it that much easier to "stumble on." F*ck both those groups!)
I'll tell you why not. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I think it's a bit easier than "I'll know it when I see it."
How about "if it shows nudity for non-educational purposes." If there's any doubt, you could set up a board or something to decide disputes. It's really not that hard to figure out. (pun not intended!) Ron Jeremy movies were not rated G for a reason.
Re:I'll tell you why not. (Score:4, Insightful)
Is a family photo album site, which happens to contain pictures of a kid taking a bath, "educational?" Is artistic photography "educational?" I'd say "no" and "no." But neither of them are "porn," either!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Current laws define what porn is and yeah, it's subjective. Photo processing labs all over the country deal with this every day. Sometimes people get stupid and call the cops over a baby in the bathtub picture. Sometimes, people get stupid and take a picture of their child in the bathtub when the "child"
Re:I'll tell you why not. (Score:5, Insightful)
Right...good luck getting 6B people to agree. (Score:2)
Your definitions of porn aren't going to be the same (or maybe not even close) to what some people in other parts of the world are going to think. Who gets to decide on those "case by case basis" situations you're talking about? You? Mahmoud
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
What exactly is an 'educational video' and what's 'sexual entertainment'? If I'm a pornographer, and you make it difficult to sell straightforward porn, it makes sense that I'm going to make the
Re:I'll tell you why not. (Score:4, Insightful)
What about non-nude pictures which have still been intended for sexual arousal? This is especially the case with less-vanilla stuff like BDSM material. And whilst you and I might count that as erotica rather than pornography, bear in mind that many people and Governments do not (e.g., the UK Government's definition of pornography in their plans to criminalise possession of simulated and consensual "extreme porn" [backlash-uk.org.uk] is any image which was produced for the purposes of arousal, whether or not it shows nudity or sex).
On the other hand, there could be nude pictures which aren't porn, but aren't educational either. I mean, would a topless woman count? Breastfeeding? What about nudists?
Another problem, even if we have a fixed definition of porn, is that it's not easily to split everything up into different websites. For example, what if someone wants to post an erotic picture on their LiveJournal? Suddenly we'd have to have LiveJournal.xxx, and split it across two domains.
Personally I think rather than trying to split off "porn", it would be better to split off a "for kiddies [and anyone offended by stuff they don't have to look at] only" domain, leaving an "adult" Internet for the rest of us.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
On the other hand, there could be nude pictures which aren't porn, but aren't educational either. I mean, would a topless woman count? Breastfeeding? What about nudists?
Yes, probably no and yes.
And yet it quite legal for topless women to walk down the street (and you do see the odd one) in my country (Canada) and not unusual to see a women breast feeding.
At that in Canada we consider racism much worse then porn eg the famous super bowl with Janet's tit hanging out, the CRTC only got complaints about the beer commercial because it seemed racist.
Perhaps any racist site should have its own domain as well. And another for sites promoting hatred.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I certainly wouldn't consider breast-feeding porn. Quite the opposite, actually. Nothing has turned me off of breasts faster than seeing a woman breastfeed. Not that it's gross or anything, but when you see something used for what nature intended, it kinda takes the thrill out of it!
But the first part of your argument is best I've read in
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I think you're forgetting about "National Geographic" type photos of native women in Africa and so on. Would National Geographic have to move to an
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
So, which law would you like to use? The U.S.'s? (I mean, obviously we should copy the laws from a country with one of the highest teen-pregnancy rates in the industrialized world -- clearly they must have some good ide
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Do not thrust your desire for someone else to do your baby sitting and force the creation of even more bureaucracy around the domain system, that, by definition, cannot work. Porn is on the Internet, you cannot regulate it away,
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually, I think this is one of the few areas where capitalism really could resolve the matter since websites have turned into something of a commodity.
If a someone wants to make money from porn, their site should be .xxx. So, to use an example from later in this post, if a website called "grape" is a site that depicts naked women doing odd things with grapes, it should be grape.xxx. If "grape" is about the Napa valley it should be grape.com.
Here is how the capitalism/self policing works out: if the
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course, ICANN, InterNIC, and their ilk completely shot to hell the entire notion of separate TLDs for different kinds of sites when they started giving out random .com, .net, and .org addresses. As far as I'm co
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Some countries do believe in equal rights including the right for any one to take their top off and obviously someone walking down the street is not porn.
The problem is the USA has some strange ideas about what is porn and doesn't have equal rights or the right to free speech and wants to shove that down everyone else's throat.
(Most countries don't have free speech either, but at least they don't brag that they do
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
... like PICS [w3.org]. Of course, this has already been discussed in RFC 3675 [faqs.org].
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Yeah, and the men's swimming sites as well. Nipples a-plenty. And sites that show animals suckling. Oh, and baby bottles. Yessir, nipples are bad! I never look at nipples, because I'm an honorable, upright citizen. Well, gotta go now, look at something healthy, like extremeviolence.com or shootinganimalsforheadtrophies.com, um-hmm. I can go with a clear concience, because I know it is a good thing that nasty, nasty SEX stuff will be in its own ghetto now! Man, that stuff is nasty. Did you know if you do it
Re: (Score:2)
Those without a racket master no serve.
Speaking tangentially, of course.
Would you care to cosign such an outlook?
Or have I thrown you a curve?
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that there is no way to define what IS and IS NOT porn.
The person building the website (you know, the one who goes "I'd like to register penguinsex.xxx thanks") probably has a fairly good idea whether or not his site is pornographic.
Re: (Score:2)
Very tough decisions for ICANN.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Why not? (Score:5, Insightful)
<SARCASM>
Yes, I think we need to move all religious content to a tld such as ".xxx" or ".lie" or ".myth" so we can easily block it. As for sex, no need for that. My kids know sex is perfectly OK, and lying about superstition is not — they're smart kids. No need to lean back towards the dark ages. I was happy for them when they had their first sexual experiences. I'm just as happy they've managed to avoid being conned by these superstitious dimwits, but you know, not all kids are as smart as mine. That is why we have to put religion in its own tld. It must be blocked because I don't like it!
</SARCASM>
Re:Why not? (Score:4, Insightful)
Organised religion on the other hand, is responsible for inciting many of the past - and current - wars and atrocities. Iraq can oh so easily be classified as a religious war, just look at the portrayal of muslims in the US press. There really is a good an argument for filing religous websites away on a separate section we can easily filter - as much as there is for filing away sexual websites, anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
All all those filthy ".com" sites, too. Damned capitalists.
Re: (Score:2)
So who decides what goes in the .xxx domain? Who decides what is porn?
The person registering the domain.
"Let's have a .xxx TLD for pornography" and "let's force every pornographic website to use a .xxx TLD" are two very different - and very separate - arguments.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you accept that it's impossible to restrict porn to
Re: (Score:2)
Well, if we quit sitting here with our thumbs in our asses talking about it, WE do.
If it has an concentrated level of nerve endings in it, & you can see it, it's porn.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What guarantees porn sites will move? Some of their
In a perfect world, I'd agree. But as it stands, it just seems like it would cause a lot of fuss, and then we're just going to get a bunch of assholes arguing about what is and isn't pornographical. And trust me -- those people that would be making the decisions are going to be a bunch of assholes.
And people should start ignoring the "What a
Re: (Score:2)
What law? American Law? European? Chinese? The United Nations?
Re:Why not? (Score:5, Insightful)
Meanwhile the legitimate high-profile .com sites will also need a .xxx site: there will be misspellings, and imagine the bad rap that, say, Microsoft would get from microsoft.xxx being a porn site. So the legitimate .com site owners will have to buy up the .xxx domains too.
So now we have everyone buying a new .xxx domain name which points to their original site and keeping their own .com site. No porn site will move to being only .xxx because everyone is used to .coms, and no legitimate business will risk a domain-squatter in the .xxx domain. It's no easier to block porn as before, nor easier to find it. All this does is give the domain registrars more money and the DNS servers more headaches.
The only possible way of moving all porn to .xxx sites is by legislating it, and it's impossible to have a legislative solution that works, because people's definitions of porn vary. So porn will always be a presence on the internet, and you are still responsible for your own filtering.
Re: (Score:2)
And the
What's the problem?
the bad rap that, say, Microsoft would get from microsoft.xxx being a porn site.
Image the lawsuit for using their name without their permission.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Not true unless it's unique (Score:2, Informative)
If I run McDonald's Lawn Care Service, I can get any available McDonalds.* domain and the hamburger company can't do a thing about it except bribe me.
Now if you can show I started the lawn care company just so I can grab available McDonalds.* domain-names, then you may have a case.
Re:Why not? (Score:5, Insightful)
The only possibly sane way to do this would be to have something like a
The bottom line is really that you're trying to mandate a subjective standard through technology, and that sort of thing just doesn't work. You can get rid of the obvious stuff with existing filtering technology, but at the end of the day you still have to actually watch your kids if you want to make sure they stay away from stuff you find objectionable.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but the definition of illegal isn't. If you have a law that says something to the effect of "it's illegal to give pornography to a minor" there must be some sort of definition, or at least a helluva lot of precedent. Which magazines can a minor buy? What exhibitions can he go to? What cinema pictures can he go to? What videos can he rent/buy? Even if
Re: (Score:2)
But that's one of the big problems, isn't it? The Arab countries, for example, have no use for this distinction, and would want their own standand. Meanwhile, the Netherlands and Poland are likely to have different standards as well.
Time after time, history has shown that classification is the first step to regulation: witness the
Re: (Score:2)
Good grief, no. Use PICS [w3.org].
(See also: RFC 3675 [faqs.org])
Re:Why not? (Score:5, Insightful)
-US Supreme Court Justice Frankfurter, defining obscenity (IIRC)
Therein lies the problem - what's porn? Nekkid chicks? Nope - half the Smithsonian's art collection would qualify. Is it nekkid people doing the nasty? Umm, nope - plenty of porn sites specialize in costumes and full rubber body suits. Sexual depiction? Well, there goes every health site which does 2d and 3d clinical cut-away renderings showing how human reproduction occurs.
Also - let's look at a state like Utah... the place is hella restrictive on what it considers "porn"; I could see the Utah state legislature mandating that ALL ISP's who do business there block the entire .xxx TLD from its citizenry. Adults, kids, whomever... everybody looking for pr0n gets the firewall in the land of Deseret. I suspect that more than a few counties and towns/cities/etc in the Southern US would happily pass similar laws (see also alcohol and "Wet Counties" vs. "Dry Counties") Care to be a multi-state or multi-national ISP having to add that selective and patchwork firewall burden to your list of things to do?
Just looks to be more trouble than it's worth on a macro scale, IMHO.
Re: (Score:2)
Difficult to define or enforce should not be a reason to avoid a law. What constitutes murder vs. manslaughter vs self defense? What
Re: (Score:2)
yes.
"As for porn, it could be as simple as nudity for non-educational purposes. "
no igt doesn't. SOme people might get off an a statue of David. Now it's porn? some people might just enjoy lokoing at it without any 'educational' value. Now it's porn?
So a picture of a women on a topless beach is now porn?
I culd go on and on with examples that wuold cause this to fail.
"If that's what the good citizens of Utah want, then that is what they should
Re: (Score:2)
yes.
Uh, like rape (vs. rough sex), murder (vs self defense), parody (vs libel or slander), driving while intoxicated (drugs, not alcohol) and the list goes on. So, you are saying we should repeal all these laws because they are subjective? Subjective laws are not a bad laws. They allow for common sense.
"As for porn, it could be as simple as nudity for non-educational purposes. "
no igt doesn't. SOme people might get off an a statue of David.
Re:Why not? (Score:4, Insightful)
Intent, as proven or disproven before a jury at trial. If the prosecutor screws up and mis-names it, he loses.
"What is the difference between libel and parody?"
Intent, as proven or disproven in civil tort at a lawsuit.
Notice the similarities? The examples you posted as per law require either a trial or lawsuit to hammer out. You, umm, really want to have that happen on a case-by-case basis with (at level best) tens of thousands out of a porn-site ownership pool numbering in the millions, if not tens of millions?
Notice the differences? The examples you posted involve action against individuals or highly definable entities for the most part (you sue a single entity for libel, you try a single person or at most a small group of persons for murder vs. manslaughter).
"As for porn, it could be as simple as nudity for non-educational purposes."
I have a coffee table book at home, called "Fille d' Joie: A History" (IIRC - I'd have to check @ home for the exact title). It contains a rich collection of stories, illustrations, photographs, personal accounts, insights, artifact images, and historical data - from prostitutes, madames, pimps, and historians throughout time. Many of the images in there are rather graphic, and there are probably more than a few sites who would dearly love to make money from displaying most of it - sites which feature pornography from a time when most folks' grandfathers probably spanked their collective monkey to 'em.
I bought it at the local bookstore, where it sat plain as day, for anyone with the funds and the means to carry it to the checkout stand. As a book, it's apparently just fine for sale in the Historical section where I found it. Online, it would likely get slapped with an ".xxx" TLD. It is after all educational, if one actually reads it. OTOH, anyone dying to get their jollies can prolly just flip through the pictures.
"Otherwise, don't do business in Utah. What's the problem here?"
So everyone there will automatically have the means to simply pack up and leave, right? (FWIW, I'd moved out of there a period of time ago). It's very similar to the anti-smoking laws that are soon to hit the state... easy enough to say "well if you want to smoke in a bar, do it in Nevada, or Wyoming, or just move elsewhere..." but for folks not able to simply do so, that's an awful big burden to place on them. I realize that we're just talking ab't pr0n here, but what happens when the subject gets more serious (e.g. anti-smoking laws getting too intrusive, etc)?
Sure, big ISP's will have local DNS servers in place (but not necessarily per-state). Now they would have to have one per state, or per county or town (in the case of selective county or municipality laws to such an effect, etc)... Do we get to the point where every single IP address user has it's own personal DNS server, and has to to correspond to a physical area just to comply? If so, we'll have to stock up on IPv6, 'cause IPv4 numbers will start getting tight much sooner than anticipated.
I'm just weighing the benefits vs. burdens, and apparently the burdens win out by a large margin IMHO.
Re: (Score:2)
And it's not clear how to handle the Internet being international - I suppose servers are still in one country, but it becomes difficult if every country has different requirements.
Actually, wouldn't ICANN (or whoever is in charge of domain names) handle this? I don't see why you need to get the courts involved unless Phil Flash wants his stuff declared as art as opposed to porn and sues to keep his
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Now what I'm wondering is how Utah is going to force all pr0n sites to change their domain name (and give up their old DNS name.) Especially the many sites outside the US. And let alone the many sites that have tame and XXX sections, and much in between. Like blogs, pic sites etc.
Just making pr0n sites register a
Re: (Score:2)
-US Supreme Court Justice Frankfurter, defining obscenity (IIRC)
Re:Why not? (Score:5, Insightful)
1) Will it be voluntary or mandatory? If it is voluntary, it will not work on principle, because every porn operator out there knows that the so called "blocks" will not be implemented only for children, but for everyone that is under anti-porn zealots internet jurisdiction, even who wouldn't mind to access this kind of content. Just see what happens now, the whole bias the media already has (both ways, liberal and conservative). Imagine it being imposed ISP level too, if you have no choice of ISP and the owner is against porn, he can simply impose his view. Now, if it is mandatory, it could work, but
2) How will you define porn? Is it sensual posing? Partial nudity? Full frontal nudity? Simulated sexual intercourse (softcore)? Pixelated sexual intercourse? Uncensored sexual intercourse? Is it only for pictures? Movies? Radio podcasts? Will it include foreign porn? Are written stories going to be censored? If so, only the online version or the good old printed book too? How will the foreign ones be translated? And, the most important question: Who will define porn? Who will catalog every internet content and create the blacklist and the whitelist? Who decides what is an acceptable expression of art and what is filthy debauchery?
People have to understand that you cannot both regulate artistic expressions (whatever kind it is) and have free speech at the same time. The judge that stroke down the COPA [slashdot.org] understood that you cannot deprive the whole society of its liberties in order to protect the children, specially because they will grow and become adults someday, and they will be entitled to those freedoms too, unless we take it away from them. If you are concerned about your children browsing habits, there are already software available out there [wikipedia.org]. There is no reason to legislate everybody to suit to your personal needs.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
All of them? Even the ones that aren't hosted in the US and don't use one of the international tlds? In short, what makes you think that anyone in any country other than the US is going to take a blind bit of notice of the
The way I see it, it's a large amount of effort for little or no real benefit; the only ones who would benefit wo
Re: (Score:2)
If it's blantently labeled, nobody has an excuse to be looking at it when they get caught.
Re: (Score:2)
That's because you failed to read RFC 3675 [faqs.org].
they're not that different. (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah, they both use the phrase "oh god, oh god" on a daily basis.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
The similarities end there. After that religeon gets gross.
It would make it easy.. (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
expanding porn? (Score:5, Informative)
Is that even possible... I mean unless Disney starts up an XXX line porn is pretty much everywhere already.
Well, (Score:2)
(but then, certain there are certain firearms afficinadoes who would argue with me on that point...)
Strange, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Besides, considering the outright abuse of .org, .com, and .net, what's to stop ".xxx" from being turned into a mush of sites which may have little or nothing to do with porn? After all, I can think of lots of groups that would love to have an .xxx extension, just for the cool factor (bloggers, artists, and not-so-intelligent l33t h4x0r sites just as a ferinstance). Unless they have some intensely strict rules w/ the registrars - more than what they propose for it (e.g. give 'em the rules required to get, say, a ".mil" extension), it won't be just for pr0n - at least not for very long, IMVHO.
Don't even get me started on the domain-squatting and name-grabbing/auctioning, either... it'd make the Oklahoma Land Rush of the 19th Century seem tame by comparison.
Considering all of that, ICANN can prolly say "nope" yet again and call it good, for all the good it'll do. Seems like a headache all-around; and when both porn industry and fundies BOTH get all ate-up about not having it, you know something's inherently wrong with the idea.
Re: (Score:2)
A lot of
What drives technology adoption? (Score:3, Insightful)
Is that really possible? In all seriousness,"Internet porn is a $2.84 bln market"http://www.itfacts.biz/index.php?id=P7960 [itfacts.biz] How much of paypal's success is tied up in that $2.8 bil? What about faster bandwith, or video compression, or antivirus software? Gaming certainly plays a significant part in the adoption of faster computers, I think porn might play a similar part in the relm of data transfer. We are more eager to get new toys than to work more efficiently.
No Compelling Reason (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Yeah, but (Score:2)
Set for life. Let the morons who bid for it figure out that it's worthless next week
Stop the presses! (Score:2)
Yow! There is a physically possible act that has not yet been carried out that can allow porn to expand even further onto the Internet! What can this mysterious act be? Does it involve high energy particles from some monstrous new accelerator? Have aliens finally arrived from a distant galaxy, ready to share their vast and incomprehensible technologies? Is there now a 5th dimension, asid
Separate the domain from the carrier decision (Score:2, Interesting)
Anyone who doesn't will lose 4/5ths of their revenue.
PLEASE!!! (Score:2)
I don't feel that it should be required that all xxx material be hosted in the xxx domain, however I would imagine that most of the legit porn sites (feels funny saying that) would happ
Re:PLEASE!!! (Score:4, Insightful)
It sets an ugly precedent for further dividing content into groups easily blockable by groups in control (governments, corporations, etc). Would you like to wake up some day to find that negative discussions regarding your government are deemed inappropriate, and subjugated to a TLD (by US law perhaps?) and then blocked by a majority of access providers?
Finally, uou nor anyone else are fit to define what content is available or grouped for everyone else. You are responsible for your OWN content viewing, and those you are legally considered guardian of, no one else.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That's defining who owns the server, not what content is on it. Furthermore, it's not really enforced anywhere except
More bad ideas (Score:2)
Exactly my point, the current 'system' prevents me from excercising my desire to not see such content and undermines my wishes. Organizing content into easily located and/or avoided locations is only sensible. That's why the DNS system is setup the way that it is, to help categorize information.
On a similar vein, I would love to see a bunch of new TLD's started and popular. If the information were organized properly into the correct TLD, and everyone knew that blogs were in .blog for example, they co
Re: (Score:2)
It is a very large ditributed network.
That means you can not enforce it.
Here it is again:
You can NOT enforce a domain specific activity.
"however I would imagine that most of the legit porn sites "
Why does that feel funny? Pornography is a perfectly legal trade.
But you hit the problem, many site would not move there..they would set up there ALSO. You can't control the world.
OTOH, don't like it? don't go there.
Or evelop sopme thick skin and a sense of humor.
Re: (Score:2)
xxx (Score:2)
THE definition of porn is easy. (Score:2)
Pornography, is sexually explicit content who's purpose is to entertain, stimulate, or pleasure. Nudity is not pornographic, sex is not pornographic, however videos/images of nude people engaging in sexual activities intended as a source of entertainment for adults is pornographic.
I agree that people try to move that line in both directions, but I think anyone rational will agree that the above is a fair definition.
Perhaps we need a new word, instead of pornography we can
Re: (Score:2)
bzzzt try again.
""sexual entertainment""
yes, it would be defined by religous groups to mean what ever they want it to mean.
Do you know there are people who consider a penis on a statue pornographic?
" but as long as they are written"
good luck with that. People have only been trying to do that for hundreds of years.
Why do I have to explain this on
"Hell, we do it with movies and music, we can do it with the inter
.xxx is an incredibly bad idea (Score:2)
videos/images of nude people engaging in sexual activities intended as a source of entertainment for adults is pornographic.
I'm not sure if you're a troll or if you seriously believe the utter bullshit you've ejaculated into this discussion.
Do you actually believe that there is something morally wrong with the type of content you mention in the quote above? Do you actually think that sex is "dirty" (whatever that means)? Come on, we ALL do it. Even bacteria conjugate.
You are claiming that th
Proposal sounds stupid (Score:2)
They still insist it is voluntary, so it does nothing to help keep it out. Tempting to add just to spite the idiotic rightwing arguement that with
They think these sites will rate themselves and need to spend more than a current
The Wrong Way (Score:3, Interesting)
If you want to clear the internet of pr0n and make it safe for kids, create a
Create e-mail servers that require a name, address, SSN, and valid phone number to activate e-mail. Have monks (like they have anything better to do) call every person who registers and verify their information.
After that, sell software that only allows
Users should be classified based on their ages. If you are between 8 and 18 and you e-mail someone more than 1 year older than you, the e-mail gets sent to LDS missionaries (give them something to to besides annoy me) for review. If the content is inappropriate, your e-mail is revoked. Make it work the same way for older people e-mailing younger people. Just give more leeway.
In about 30 days and with absolutely no resistance, you could create a family-safe internet.
Seriously, if you or someone you know came up with the idea of
Re: (Score:2)
Yikes! You think I want my kids exposed to those guys freaky ideas!?!?! That's your idea of "family-safe"? Scary! Keep those guys the hell away from my kids.
As for whoever came up with the
Conservapedia (Score:2)
Excellent points. Of course, this places the burden for the cost and tedium of administrating such a kid-friendly program squarely and solely on the potential "benefactors".
Nevertheless, they're testing out the possibilities: see Conservapedia [conservapedia.com]
A week ago they didn't even have an article for Sex. Now it just redirects to "Gender".
Re: (Score:2)
In about 30 days and with absolutely no resistance, you could create a family-safe internet.
And even better, in another 30 days it would collapse as every user gets booted for minor infractions!
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe after praying with your pastor or confessing to your priest, you could get back on.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
ok, i'm religious ... (Score:2)
Er
OK, I'm religious, but that's about the stupidest argument *against* a
An
boxligh
what?? again???? (Score:2)
Not as a 'Top' level domain... (Score:2)
No, don't read RFCs when making Internet policy (Score:2)
You people are idiots. (Score: -1, Redundant... This is Slashdot, after all.)
Please do the world a favour by tagging this article "rfc3675", then go read it [faqs.org].
Ooh, what can we register? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
That's like saying anything that makes the sky blue... Most parents are already ignorant! You could also say that GUI's should be banned because they make the computer user ignorant... or that C++ should be banned because it makes programmers ignorant (as opposed to using straight assembly or even w
Re: (Score:2)
Good point. I agree that it is the parent's responsibility to raise their own children (the village can go screw itsel
Re: (Score:2)
Speaking of a "modest proposal," where would eating babies fall in? With the deceased gay donkeys, or with the neocons?
Re: (Score:2)
Donkeys don't have the ability to first skin the babies.