But Don't We Already Have Dot-Orgy?

|

You know something's gone a little loopy in the world when Mother Jones comes out in favor of creating a special ghetto for racy online speech, and the Family Research Council is opposed, but that seems to be how the teams are lining up on the Cyber Safety For Kids Act of 2006, which would resurrect the ".xxx" top level domain that ICANN, under pressure from the Bush Administration, put the kibosh on last year.

Weirdly, the FRC recognizes that the bill's attempt to force adult content out of other domains and into the .xxx TLD would be highly constitutionally suspect—while also stressing that what they really want to do is get the smut offline entirely. I hope the problems with a scheme to force certain content deemed "harmful to minors" into one TLD—as opposed to merely providing one more domain as an option—are fairly obvious: All the usual problems with making these kinds of determinations about content are compounded online, where information is equally accessible to communities all over the globe, with radically different standards for what counts as "indecent" or "obscene." But there's the additional problem that it was a bad thing for the administration to interfere with ICANN's determination to establish .xxx, and it's a bad idea for Congress to interfere here too. We're bound to once again see calls to create some more international Internet governance body as observers worry that the U.S. is exploiting ICANN's presence in U.S. jurisdiction to dictate policy to the rest of the Net. And you have to wonder: What happens when some of the many adult .com sites located overseas, outside the reach of U.S. law, decide they don't want to move?

Advertisement

NEXT: Good News and Bad for the Land of Enchantment

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. And you have to wonder: What happens when some of the many adult .com sites located overseas, outside the reach of U.S. law, decide they don’t want to move?

    Tactical military strikes.

  2. Dear idiots, install Websense and be done with it.

    No Love,
    Tim

    PS: I hid porn in your kid’s room, he’ll find it before you do.

  3. …certain content deemed “harmful to minors”…

    I’ve never actually seen any evidence that “content” deemed as “harmful” is actually harmful to anyone; generally such statements of harm are just taken at face value.

    Is there any evidence? I happen to think “harmful to minors” really means “embarassing to Judeo-Christian adults.”

  4. And you have to wonder: What happens when some of the many adult .com sites located overseas, outside the reach of U.S. law, decide they don’t want to move?

    Tactical military strikes.

    That’s “unilaterial regime change to prevent terrorism” to you pal….

  5. How about a .kid domain, wherein all content is, by threat of legal action, kid friendly (whatever that standard turns out to be). That way, the rest of us can do what ever we want on the rest of the net, but parents COULD restrict the kids to the .kid network (kind of like the Disney Channel, only for any content provider willing to ply by the rules).

    The marketing potential alone should have businesses clamoring for it.

  6. The marketing potential alone should have businesses clamoring for it.

    Except that for people who really care about children “intent to market to kids” would be the second red flag that a business should be banned from the domain. The first would be that the business is for-profit.

  7. the porn industry which has been a plague on our society since the establishment of the internet.

    Yeah, when Al Gore invented the Internet, that’s when porn showed up.

  8. How about a .kid domain, wherein all content is, by threat of legal action, kid friendly (whatever that standard turns out to be).

    That sound like a fair and reasonable solution. The crusaders will never go for it because these kinds of fights are never really about the children.

  9. kids.us already exists. It was originally supposed to be .kids similar to .com or .info, but then other countries raised objections to the US Congress determining what is and isn’t appropriate for children.

    The fact that no one has heard about it, seems to confirm that the crusaders against kids access to internet pornograpy are using it as a cover to control the internet.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.