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."
Hmmm... (Score:5, Funny)
Interesting the .gay thing, considering how infamous Saudi Party Boys are...
Re: (Score:3)
"Interesting the .gay thing, considering how infamous Saudi Party Boys are..."
That's among the reasons Saudis pray in KSA but party in Bahrain.
Re:Hmmm... (Score:5, Funny)
What should we expect from men in dresses who are afraid of women? At least Allah has put them someplace where there's plenty of lube!
Re: (Score:3)
Gosh, I hope they aren't going to my ".fatuglymisogynistichomophobicsaudidouchebags" gTLD too.
Re: (Score:3)
I was thinking we work with the Unicode people to get one or more of the 'smiley face' characters renamed to 'The Prophet Mohammed'. And then we try to register 4chan.(that)
While they are busy freaking out over that, we proceed with all of the gTLDs we were really planning on creating.
Re:Hmmm... (Score:5, Interesting)
Not sure why that's modded funny. Bachi Boy parties [bullseyerooster.com] are common in saudi arabia, afghanistan and a variety of other middle eastern countries.
why modded funny, not all youth dancing is dirty (Score:3, Informative)
Because "Saudi Party Boys" *sounds* like it might be the name of a gay porno flick.
"Bachi Boy parties" sounds like a children's-entertainment company specializing in hosting bocce ball birthday parties.
Oh, thanks to the recent military involvement in that part of the world, most Americans who watch the news are aware of "Bachi Boys" in Afghanistan and the political trouble American military and civilian personnel get into back home if they appear to endorse the sexual and quasi-sexual (e.g. erotic dancing)
Re: (Score:3)
Well it's not like the Bible is much better when it comes to the rights of women. Rape is allowed, as long as you pay the woman's father a fine and then marry her, slavery of women (even sexual slavery) is fine as well. Even murder is fine if you say she's a witch.
Re: (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.
Re:Hmmm... (Score:4, Funny)
That's not nearly as strange as their rule that they aren't allowed to be alone with a male goat (nannies are ok).
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?
Re: (Score:3)
I think the act still is illegal in many states, isn't it? They're still lots of laws on the books about sex acts that stray from the 'norm'.
Well... (Score:2, Funny)
Well I object (Score:4, Insightful)
to their treatment of Jews and women, so they can kiss my ass.
Re:Well I object (Score:5, Funny)
to their treatment of Jews and women, so they can kiss my ass.
The Saudis probably wouldn't object to .jew because it would help them block a lot of material...
Re:Well I object (Score:5, Insightful)
So, why would they object to .gay? They can block it for the same reason.
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe their objection in this case is not that they may be forced to see it, but the thought that other people might be enjoying it. :D
Heh, Ambrose Bierce put it best;. from The Devil's Dictionary [wikipedia.org]:
Puritanism: the haunting feeling that someone, somewhere, might be happy
Re: (Score:3)
To bolster their credentials among the faithful? I'd be surprised if the Vatican doesn't get in on the action.
You really do not understand... (Score:5, Interesting)
Lots of the arab countries do not want to be able to block things like porn or ".gay" material.
No, they do not want it to EXIST. At all. Not there, but not where you are either. So they are not OK with ANYONE having a .gay domain, because they fundamentally think it's wrong to allow this for anyone.
Think about this the next time proposals are made to have the U.N. control domains...
Re: (Score:3)
I've no idea what the fuck you're really on about, but if you're asking why I'm not keen on gTLDs then here are a few reasons:
- It destroys the hierarchical structure of DNS
- It forces companies and individuals to pay many millions of dollars to protect their trademark, and for what benefit?
- ICANN is meant to be non-profit, yet it's just created a billion dollar income stream. What does it intend to do with it? Why should international companies be forced to pay this to a US organisation?
- Only large organ
Re: (Score:2)
Is it too late for me to object to .COM?
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Yep. Surely this makes it far, far easier to block these sites at the ISP level.
Then again, maybe we're expecting politicians to understand technology.
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: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:men having sex with men IS a different matter (Score:4, Informative)
I have personally seen large buildings where under-age kids were censoring foreign printed publications before distribution.
A rather shabby piece of cleric would first investigate the magazines and newspapers and specify what needed to be cut out.
These examples were then hung on the wall and the kids went to work, no damage to them when they had to handle all these photo's of insufficiently dressed people because they were of the age of innocence.
A brochure for expensive yachts and boats was nearly the worst victim, on virtually all photo's there were people in states of undress so in the end there would be little left of the magazine if not for the fact that the importer of the yachts paid extra to have the kids use sharpies to paint clothes on the bikini babes and yacht men in shorts.
A sick society.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, it would make it easier. So why do they still object? Because for many religious people (and not just them) it's not enough to live their own lives according to their own ideas - they could do that already and have no censorship of the internet at all. No, they want to meddle in other people's lives as well.
And then of course there is what many corrupt and morally bankrupt politicians do: they pander. Acting "against immorality" - no matter how pointless and ineffectual - conveys the impression that
Re: (Score:3)
giving an entire TLD to gays is validating/recognizing something that some religions consider a sin
FTFY.
And it *is* special treatment because they aren't proposing one called .hetero are they?
I was under the impression that "they" (ICANN?) aren't proposing anything. Instead they let others request the addition of these gTLDs. In which case, there is nothing stopping you or anyone else from requesting a .hetero gTLD, is there?
.gay gTLD, then you may have a point. But until someone requests it and has that request denied, special treatment this ain't.
Now if ICANN then comes back and says "screw you", but accepts the
Re: (Score:3)
Is the fact that you can legally kill an animal a indication that bestiality should be okay or is it a sign that the human race can do better?
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.
So, is the Vatican objecting? (Score:4, Insightful)
Um, nevermind, it's too late for them to do that with a straight face.
Re: (Score:3)
When the oil runs out they still have money.
It's like saying when steel ceases to be the most important industrial commodity the US and the UK will suddenly fade into the history books. Right now it's not viable to do anything but extract oil, or oil related businesses in Saudi as a foundational industry. But now they have cash, and they can use cash to create an industry when something else becomes viable.
Poor countries having nothing with which to create a new industry. Saudi isn't like that. The roya
Contrary to my morality (Score:5, Insightful)
I find religion contrary to my morality.
Re: (Score:3)
My religion compels me to pray for you, and to let you be. Others, not so much.
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?
Re: (Score:3)
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.
How about this new gTLD? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
That's intolerant to not accept that everyone views things the same way you do and no one ever said YOU are the authority.
It's not intolerant to not tolerate intolerance. Just as it's not anti-freedom to restrict the freedom of those who want to destroy freedom.
List of the Current gTLD Applications (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I see no valid *purpose* in adding gTLDs whether offensive or not.
Re: (Score:3)
You do know that ICANN has yet to accept any of those TLDs, right?
Ban them all (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Anarcho-Syndiclist
...
bloody peasant...
Re:Ban them all (Score:5, Funny)
As an Anarcho-Cyclist I object to car companies so I respectfully request that we remove the .car and .carinsurance TLDs.
So whats the problem? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
The problem probably is that I registered .quran and made it an alias.
... 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.
Re: (Score:3)
There are a few things that the world DOES agree on - such as kiddie porn and murder being bad -
I don't see a lot of agreement on "murder being bad." Lots of countries and cultures regularly commit it with premeditation.
Re: (Score:2)
Murder is, by definition, the bad kind of killing. Other types of killing may exist-- it depends on the state.
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
Funny, it seems to go both ways, with the Chik-fil-a thing and Chicago/Boston think they can keep an employer out of city simply for expressing his views about .gay marriage. However, I agree with you on principle, if people would quit forcing their views on others, that would be great.
For the record, I'm offended that you're offended that I'm offended that you're offended.
Re: (Score:3)
Funny, it seems to go both ways, with the Chik-fil-a thing and Chicago/Boston think they can keep an employer out of city simply for expressing his views about .gay marriage. However, I agree with you on principle, if people would quit forcing their views on others, that would be great.
For the record, I'm offended that you're offended that I'm offended that you're offended.
Spectator #1: Oh my God. I'm so offended. I'm going to do something about this.
Spectator #2: Mike, there's not really anything you can do.
Spectator #1: Wow, you're right. I guess I'm just going to have to develop a sense of humor, huh?
- Excerpt from A Very Special Family Guy Freakin' Christmas
Re: (Score:3)
Jesus was all about tearing families apart and seemed generally against marriages (although being sort of weaselly about it and saying that as much as it should be avoided, it wasn't outright a sin or anything)
I think most of that sentiment was attributed to Paul (or the forgeries in his name). Jesus did say a few things that, when taken out of context, can be thought of as anti-marriage or anti-family, but most of those were metaphors for other things. Peter and Andrew's family let the deciples stay with them on at least one or two occasions. Also, consider that the first miracle attributed to Jesus was to supply wine for a wedding.
Paul believed that the world would end in his lifetime or shortly after. The
Re: (Score:3)
You hurt us, you kill [aljazeera.com] us. You silence us, you torture [cnn.com] us. You deny us basic [thinkprogress.org] human [youtube.com] rights. [youtube.com]
We aren't asking you to "bow down" to us. We are making you stop hurting us. The second we can live our life "like all the heterosexuals do," we'll stop bothering you. Asshole.
Re: (Score:3)
"just live your life like all the heterosexuals do."
That's what most homosexuals are trying to do, but they're being stopped by heterosexuals want to keep that from happening in order to maintain that thin veil of otherness between the two groups.
Same sex marriage proponents feel our viewpoint is the be all end all as you put it for a number of reasons: your opposition against same sex marriage stems from 1) personal discomfort and dislike, and 2) religious belief that marriage is defined as being between o
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.
Re:Irony (Score:4, Interesting)
For a related example, look at all those people who boycott genetically-modified foods, but would suddenly find their objections disappear upon diagnosis of diabeties. The best treatment involves insulin produced by transgenic bacteria. Or the fuss last year when it was emerged that some of the flavorings used in coke-cola and a few other products were tested on human embryonic stem cells - there were a lot of boycotts over that one, but always of food. No-one called for a boycott of drugs, even though practically every medication developed in the last thirty years was developed and tested using the same cell line, HEK 293.
Re: (Score:3)
Bad related example. I grow my own vegetables, using Heirloom seeds. These seeds are bred and cultivated, sure, but they don't undergo the sort of selective breeding as you'd find happens with the Triticale family of grains which leaves farmers (mainly in Canada) sowing terminal generations of cereals. Those crops do not spawn successive generations, hence the collective term "terminal". What I grow does spawn successive generations, which are in practically every sense of the word, identical to the previou
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: (Score:2, Funny)
You do realize that the US gets the most of its oil from Canada don't you? While I am no fan of french fries and gravy, I see no reason to boycott Canadian oil.
Re: (Score:2)
Minor nit, but as the 3rd largest producer of oil, the #1 source of American oil is America. So maybe Canada is #1 exporter to America.
That being said, America uses a lot of oil (both in terms of gross numbers and per capita) and oil is fungible. So it does not matter who the Saudis pump to, global swings in supply and demand will affect the price you pay at the pump.
Re: (Score:2)
I see no reason to boycott Canadian oil.
Really? Chiquita banana [www.cbc.ca] tried. Then they said it wasn't true and there was no boycott. [nationalpost.com] That was after the Canadian public turned around and left their produce rotting on store shelves.
Re: (Score:2)
Let me know how to boycott Saudi and ONLY Saudi gas and I'm on board.
Re: (Score:3)
Second, who cares what the CEO of Chick-Fil-A said. The issue, which started before he opened his mouth, is Chick-Fil-A the corporation is donating to Anti-Homosexual groups. Some people have a problem
Re: (Score:3)
Homo Depot, Target, JCPenney and others actively give thousands of dollars each year in support of indoctrination of kids and employees to accept the gay lifestyle.
Indoctrination? Citation please.
Apparently people are no longer allowed to have opinions, or at least those that are in disagreemnt with the homosexual agenda.
Homosexual agenda? What agenda is that? The one where gay folks would prefer not to be beaten to death or dragged behind a car for their sexual orientation? The one where they would prefer to be treated just like everyone else in terms of being able to build strong, healthy families and enjoy the same government benefits bestowed upon heterosexual couples?
Zip up, your bigotry is showing
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?
I am offended by Saudi Arabia (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Saudi Arabia stands for tyrannic despotic dictators with no legitimate right to rule who enforce intolerance and oppression over a people who deserve far better.
You are correct; were it not for the billions that they make every year selling oil, and the fact that they are a U.S. client state propped up by U.S. industry and military support, then it is likely the House of Saud would have been overthrown a long time ago. The alliance between the United States and the House of Saud is purely one of convenience and money - as soon as one no longer needs the other, it will go bad.
if there was a moment of the Arab revolt that sounded the death knell for a broad and rapid transition to representative government across the Middle East, it came on the last day of February, when Saudi tanks rolled across the border to help put down the mass uprising that threatened the powers that be in neighboring Bahrain. http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/136473/john-r-bradley/saudi-arabias-invisible-hand-in-the-arab-spring [foreignaffairs.com]
In foreign policy the Saudis are leading other monarchies in the region in the counterattack against political change. They backed the Tunisian and Egyptian dictators until the last minute. They gave Jordan $1.4bn in aid and took both it and Morocco into the Saudi-dominated Gulf Co-operation Council (GCC). Along with other Gulf states, Saudi Arabia sent troops into Bahrain to quash the Shia-dominated protest. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/sep/30/editorial-saudi-arabia-arab-spring [guardian.co.uk]
Publicity Stunt (Score:2)
You would think they would be all for it because once it's in effect they can simply block by TLD. Right? Wrong.
With this request they are simply advertising to the world: "We are serious about remaining unintelligent, primitive bigots".
.bible (Score:2)
Do you suppose they also object to .koran, .quran , or whatever else might represent their scriptures?
Probably. This is about control, of course, and that's the game in most of the Middle East . Well, probably everywhere else too. Darn.
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 Ko
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: (Score:2)
Civilization (n) [from the Latin civilus, "a Roman legionnaire, particularly one in the Gallic divisions"]
1) Having bigger, better, and more weapons than "uncivilized peoples"; this implicitly elevates the status of one's arts and culture above the rest
2) A computer game series, in which victory is generally obtained by acquiring bigger, better and more weapons than the other players.
See also: civil war
Contrast: barbarian
(Taken without permission from the 2038 edition of the Oxford English Dictionary)
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't it civilized to punish people who do bad things?
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't it civilized to punish people who do bad things?
Like being gay or driving with girly parts.
Who gives a rats ass if they "object" (Score:3)
I mean, I know I am being bombastic, but really... who cares what they think. We don't need to change our ways or ideas because they are "offended." As a matter of fact the reason they want us to change... so they can enforce their views on the public. As a sovereign country they can do that even if it is distasteful to us. They don't have the right to extend that influence anywhere else because they aren't sovereign any where else.
Look at what Iran has just done. If they want to disconnect from the rest of the world they can do the same thing.
Throw them ALL away (Score:2)
If I were running my own kingdom I would object to every new tld added not directly related to the partitioning of a new country.
I would seek all technical measures and pressures possible to ensure those who would use such TLDs would find them to be inaccessable to huge swaths of public thus significantly degrading their value.
ICANN deserves to rot in .hell for hurting the network for profit.
If no .gay (Score:2)
Why do we need top level domains anyways? (Score:2)
Aren't they rather antiquated? We don't need them - what about http://google [google]?
The TLD system has been screwed enough already (Score:2)
There seems a lot of Islamophobia on the site today!
The system should have simply kept to the .org .edu .mil .gov and .com TLDs, plus the ones for countries where nations could do as they like.
In fact it was a bad idea having ANY tlds except for nations; it would have solved a lot of problems if Saudi Arabia applied its own rules to its own domain, and the US to its domain. Instead everyone wants a TLD to show how important their organisation is.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, .edu, .mil, and .gov should also be abolished. They should be .edu.us, .mil.us, and .gov.us. The gTLD namespace should not have US TLDs polluting it.
Have they even HEARD of the internet? (Score:2)
Do they think that the current internet is unable to host sites that 'promote homosexuality'?
On a side note, who here still thinks it's a good idea for the UN to be in charge of the internet?
.gawd (Score:2)
I find religious TLD's offensive. My point is easy to see.
Religious TLD's make it so much easier to get to religious sites and that increases the risk of extremism with all the sad consequences.
Apart from that, sites about gawd are an insult to all the free thinking people in the world.
Remember the Spanish Inquisition? Should the internet be a platform for "those kind of people"?
Ok. Enough sarcasm.
Please believe what you want, as long as you don't bother me with it. But that doesn't go the other way around,
Shut up! (Score:2)
I (dot).Kill you!
Okay, someone will be offended by something at any given moment. But let's look at any of the rules in there. Do they have any verbage against curse words?
But then again... .sex is probably allowed and .gay could mean a lot of things...
Screw it. Let them eat hate for breakfast lunch and dinner.
Proper Response: (Score:2)
Subsequently, we refer you to the response given in Arkell v. Pressdram
Have a lovely day.
- ICANN
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 homose
Re: (Score:3)
To my understanding the social left in America is about inclusion.
Well, see, there's your problem - you've bought into the false image, perpetuated by the mass corporate media, that such labels actually apply to any reasonable sample size of the population.
The "Liberal Left" and "Conservative Right" do not exist. I know it's hard to believe, especially in the face of non-stop, 24-hour propaganda networks telling you that they do, but both labels are obvious fabrications, easily debunked by dropping one's preconceived notions and actually talking to other people. Do so,
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I'm firmly "social left" by American yardstick, but I despise contemporary mainstream Islam with a passion for being the most bigoted major religion in the world today. Their treatment of gays is a part of that.
With all due respect to the KSA (Score:3)
The KSA didn't invent or build, nor do they own, the internet. If the KSA objects to the content on the internet, they are free to filter or restrict whatever they wish, in their own country. While the rest of the world is unlikely to have much interest in their objections, they are free to make as many objections as they wish.
Re: (Score:2)
Eh, almost. This is why it should be a true "inter" net. If Saudi Arabia doesn't want those TLDs to resolve, they can implement it on their name servers. If the US does, they can implement that on their name servers.
Democracy is great, but what I like even more is choices. I'd abhor living in Saudi Arabia, but if that's your kind of thing, go ahead, just leave me alone to live the way I want over here.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, because everything else the US controls has been so hunky-dory in terms of freedom and transparency. It doesn't matter who controls ICANN, it will never be 100% fair. People aren't fair. Just because the UN is a giant spin agency to cover up atrocities and foreign corruption doesn't make the US any less evil by default. You're looking at it from the wrong perspective.
What ICANN should be is a system designed to be as open as possible, and if certain networks object, they can censor it themselves as
Re: (Score:2)
Masturbation is also against their religion.
Re: (Score:2)
Damn straight. I personally don't give two shits what saudi finds offensive.
Re:TLDs failed (Score:5, Interesting)
ICANN wants the money too badly to admit failure.
But there is only one sane solution to these international problems. Put everything in the country specific tlds. Then the only international cooperation needed is to ensure we can all find the national roots and divide up the IP space. And IPv6 removes pretty much all controversy over a fight for addresses so problem solved. Yes it would mean a longterm migration of .com, .net, .org and .mil into the .us address space and probably mirroring them into most of the others, at least for a transition period since the sensible behavor for browsers would be to determine the local .cc and append it to everything. But over a decade we could end all this bickering AND the relentless push to turn control over the entire Internet to the U.N.
The idea of Saudi Arabia objecting to the existence of something in someone else's namespace would be laughed at. But if it is a shared namespace they really have as much right to object as the various other factions to support these goofy new top level names.
Re: (Score:3)
International entities live in the .int TLD.
Re: (Score:2)
What's a port site? A site about sea commerce?
Re: (Score:3)
> Or - at least I damn well hope that ICANN doesn't answer to Saudi Arabia.
Not yet. But if we don't solve the problem (see above for my proposal) eventually the UN will get control of the Internet and remember, this is the same organization that thinks Libya, Iran, Cuba, etc. are just peachy pronouncing on Human Rights violations, etc. So yes, eventually the OIC (Organization of the Islamic Conference) will be able to blok vote damned near any rule they want. So lets fix the problem while we still can
Re: (Score:3)
So what do you think will happen in the US if someone proposes a .negro gTLD?
Some group of self-righteous, narcissistic assholes would inevitably make a stink, only to be shot down on First Amendment grounds.
Thereafter, they will be thoroughly ridiculed by the vast Spanish-speaking community, for whom the term 'negro' is an everyday description of the absence of all color (we English speakers refer to that one as 'black').
Of course, only a sensationalist idiot would even pretend that there's any similarity between the USA and Saudi Arabia when it comes to free speech...