Enjoy unlimited access to all forum features for FREE! Optional upgrade available for extra perks.
Brandable.uk

Bill pushes for no more sex on .COM

Status
Not open for further replies.

Guest
http://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/internet/04/17/surveillance.reut/index.html

I quote:

Adults-only Internet domain
The bill would also require Web sites containing pornography, hate speech or other material deemed harmful to minors to give up their ".com" Web addresses and register under an adults-only Internet domain such as ".prn."

Such an approach could prove troublesome, as other congressional attempts to regulate online content have been struck down in the courts or run aground on free-speech concerns. Moreover, Internet domains are created and approved not by the Congress but by an independent, international body.

A bill approved last week by the House Commerce Committee would seek to protect children from inappropriate online content by creating a kid-safe Internet space within the United States' ".us" domain.

A House staffer who has worked on the issue said that Commerce Committee members decided their approach was workable because it would not limit speech online, nor would it seek to impose decency standards on other countries.
 
Domain Summit 2024

chris

Level 4
Legacy Platinum Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2002
Messages
198
Reaction score
0
This is ridiculous and unjust.

First, let me tell you that I don't deal in adult domain names or websites and never have.

(Doesn't mean I haven't thought about it more than a few times. :D)

That also "DOES NOT" mean that I condemn others for doing it -- so long as they aren't adulterating children and minors in their content.

Take notice that I said "in" their content. Not "with" their content (unless of course they are marketing to children and minors... but this is something else in itself).

I believe that a child's parent or guardian must take responsibility for what they view on the Internet, in their home, or anywhere else.

To penalize a business (for this reason) because a parent or guardian is neglectful is inexcusable.

It's no different than saying a site that deals in anti-abortion should be taken down and given the .abt extension because their pictures and content describing the process of abortion offends others and could affect a child's mental development.

Or no different than saying a site that deals in autopsy photos should be stripped of their .com and given a .apy because a child could accidently stumble across it while typing in random characters into their browser window.
 

Guest
There are too many administrative barriers to making it work.

On which countries tolerances would the determination of suitability be made?

Who will police it?

How will US legislation affect non US based registrants hosting sites on non US servers running with a domain registered by a non US registrar?

Its just pie in the sky.

Making a new namespace that is kid friendly is more sensible than trying to kiddify an existing and maturing namespace.
 

Guest
I agree, you both posted some excellent comments. I think the hard part is making these creative politicians (whose average age is 60+) to get their heads out of their asses.
 

DnPowerful

Level 5
Legacy Platinum Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2002
Messages
351
Reaction score
0
...much of this stuff mirrors the V-chip rhetoric that possessed Republican do-gooders a few years back.

That said, I sympathize with the frustration behind it all: Porn does not belong on a terminal with immediate access for youngsters. This is not an issue that good parenting will solve--it's completely beyond parental control (or pretty close). Clearly, the easy availability of hard core porn for all of society's members is not an ideal, and blaming parents just won't do.

Of course, ghetto-izing it all in its own extension will hardly solve the problem.

In California, there has been a huge movement to go after Internet pornographers on the basis of decency laws, and it's starting to sting. So many sites now have no nudity on their "front doors"...

The porn biz has a tremendous incentive to solve the problem, and not just laugh it away. When 10 yr. old kids can see a triple pen while sitting in a public library, it's going to create a lot of frustration.
 

Guest
I thought most libraries implement word filters or use software that blocks specific web sites. But in any case, I fail to see how this bill (or the other one about copy protection) would pass as a law.
 

chris

Level 4
Legacy Platinum Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2002
Messages
198
Reaction score
0
Originally posted by DnPowerful
This is not an issue that good parenting will solve--it's completely beyond parental control (or pretty close). Clearly, the easy availability of hard core porn for all of society's members is not an ideal, and blaming parents just won't do.

I just don't agree. If you don't have time to monitor what you're child is doing and viewing -- then you shouldn't have made the time to have a child. If you don't have the time to watch where your child is going online -- then your child shouldn't be getting online until you can. If your child is viewing porn in schools or libraries -- then you need to complain until they put parental blocking software in their systems and refuse certain search terms, words, phrases, et cetera.

Can you watch what your child is doing at all times? Of course not. Should porn be in the reach of children? Of course not.

But unless the porn site is using deceptive advertising to deceive and attract children and minors (which includes false search terms, etc.) there should be no reason why a child should find a porn site.

If you've setup their e-mail addresses to filter certain words and phrases then there should be no reason that they'd receive a porn message by e-mail either, unless the porn site used deceptive advertising.

Why should a legit company be penalized because a parent is too lazy to setup or learn about how to use software (that doesn't always block everything but does a good job) to block the things they don't want their child viewing.

Originally posted by DnPowerful
In California, there has been a huge movement to go after Internet pornographers on the basis of decency laws, and it's starting to sting. So many sites now have no nudity on their "front doors"...

This is common courtesy and a good practice. There should be a message on the front page of a website that explains what is contained within and what to expect. There should also be a notice for anyone under 18 not to come through. If the child goes through anyway, it's not the porn site's fault (unless they have a push-and-pull script to redirect the user to the main page without allowing them to choose first). It's the parent's fault for not establishing what's right and wrong and not providing the proper amount of attention towards what their child is doing.
 

simone

Level 3
Legacy Gold Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2002
Messages
60
Reaction score
0
Making a new namespace that is kid friendly is more sensible than trying to kiddify an existing and maturing namespace.


You make a good point here Safe, I always thought we should just move the mature/adult/xxx sites, but now think our children would be better of if we moved them to new cyberspace free from the content we dont want them exposed to.
 

DnPowerful

Level 5
Legacy Platinum Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2002
Messages
351
Reaction score
0
Of course, filtering mechanisms are a joke. They're better than nothing, but there's probably nothing more creative than a 10 year old boy with a hard-on who would rather see Pamela Lee's booty than study Andrew Jackson's speeches...

When I was a kid, Cheryl Tiegs in a fishnet on the cover of Sports Illustrated was about as good as it got.
 

Guest
I agree with safesys,

Keeping kids out of porn site is far simpler than trying to herd porn sites under one extension. If parents don't want to supervise kids then they should be using blocking software.

Anyway porn operators have more money that the US government so the bill will never become law :)
 

Guest
The problem is that parents rely on the Internet to amuse their own children, the same as TV does!
Parents are "too busy" today, this, unfortunately, is the way it is.
The parents MUST make the time, and MUST oversee what their child IS doing at all times.
There are too many ways to get around things.
There will ALWAYS be pornography and parents MUST realize this and pay close attention!
 

Guest
Originally posted by DnPowerful
...much of this stuff mirrors the V-chip rhetoric that possessed Republican do-gooders a few years back.

That said, I sympathize with the frustration behind it all: Porn does not belong on a terminal with immediate access for youngsters. This is not an issue that good parenting will solve--it's completely beyond parental control (or pretty close). Clearly, the easy availability of hard core porn for all of society's members is not an ideal, and blaming parents just won't do.

Of course, ghetto-izing it all in its own extension will hardly solve the problem.

In California, there has been a huge movement to go after Internet pornographers on the basis of decency laws, and it's starting to sting. So many sites now have no nudity on their "front doors"...

The porn biz has a tremendous incentive to solve the problem, and not just laugh it away. When 10 yr. old kids can see a triple pen while sitting in a public library, it's going to create a lot of frustration.
______________________________
__________________________________________________


just thinking out loud/via keyboard...


if every .com / or biz domain was required to insert an 'SIC' code for their biz type.. at the time of registration.
And if there were a means for any PC owner.. school.. or whatever... to have the ability to BLOCK the "SIC" code's of their choice. wow.. that would work..

An 'SIC' code is needed for any legit biz which opens up shop in every state in the usa... comes along with your biz license & tax permit / sales tax license..

the SIC code infrastructure is already layed down.. it's computerized.. by our government.

and it's a standard identification code... recognized by all corporations & biz owners..
 

Guest
This is all too SICk :D

Standardize our behavior according to patterns dictated by the government?

There is filtering software that does its censoring work lovely. Those that are concerned and have no time to supervise their own kids should buy and use it. But to say that by default our behavior should be this or that, predecided by a rating system deeply embedded within the browser or Internet connection is a violation of this country's basic rule: Freedom.
 

Guest
Originally posted by timechange
This is all too SICk :D

Standardize our behavior according to patterns dictated by the government?

There is filtering software that does its censoring work lovely. Those that are concerned and have no time to supervise their own kids should buy and use it. But to say that by default our behavior should be this or that, predecided by a rating system deeply embedded within the browser or Internet connection is a violation of this country's basic rule: Freedom.
___________________________________________________


you drove so fast by my message, that you didn't even read it.

a) it did not indicate anything regarding 'behavior' or gvm't regulations.
b) nor did it mention anything of 'browser imbedded' BS..


the message is all about having FREEDOM..
such as you & I have to do

a) call blocking
b) call forwarding
c) email blocking.

an SIC is a 'Standard Identification Code' which 'identifies' the business 'TYPE'..
ie: Home Manufacture code 569
Retail Store: Code: 453
Internet ISP. Code: 421
Adult Services: code: 291
Direct Marketers: CODE 111


* my PC is like a phone these days anyways..
why couldn't i block access to certain SIC CODES ??
same as CALL BLOCK..

* I might just want to BLOCK all those Ad/DirectMarket SIC codes too..
as we ALL hate this type of invasion... the long Distance Co's.. the spam mail..
the teleMarketers..
 

Guest
Basically you want the government to preconfigure your behavior at the technology level so that you have a variety of options that otherwise only require the use of common sense?

I propose this (tongue in cheek):

Have the V-chip embedded at birth so that we manage to conform to the high standards they have decided that it's good for us. :D
 

Guest
Originally posted by timechange
Basically you want the government to preconfigure your behavior at the technology level so that you have a variety of options that otherwise only require the use of common sense?

I propose this (tongue in cheek):

Have the V-chip embedded at birth so that we manage to conform to the high standards they have decided that it's good for us. :D
_______________________________


You still do not understand my post.
no big deal..

the post is all about freedom..

a) freedom of free enterprise to any biz.. doing anything on the web
b) freedom for the net browser to 'code block' a certain 'code' type of url.

it's all about freedom.

ain't got nothing to do with gvm't intervention, at all..

the SIC code system's been in effect for YEARS..

it's standard identification code.. just basically a 'biz type' code..
___________________________________________________


if you enjoy the freedom of
call blocking
and
call waiting
and
email blocking
and
Ad blocking..

then why would you be against an individual who wishes to block a certain 'code' / biz type, from being accessible on line? kinda like a switch..
they can use it when needed..

what's the big deal over that kind of freedom..
 

Guest
OK.

Now please tell me who will decide that me, you or the person down the street provide content by the SIC code of 101, 200 or whatever. Who will DECIDE for me, other than myself, that the content is harmful, twisted or otherwise inappropriate for a specific audience.

I don't want that freedom, thanks.
 

Guest
Originally posted by timechange
OK.

Now please tell me who will decide that me, you or the person down the street provide content by the SIC code of 101, 200 or whatever. Who will DECIDE for me, other than myself, that the content is harmful, twisted or otherwise inappropriate for a specific audience.

I don't want that freedom, thanks.

have absolutely nothing to do with anything being 'harmful'

a SIC code.. is what the biz owner decides.. his biz 'type' falls into..
so.. it would be you..

and it has NOTHING to do with HARMFUL for a certain AUDIENCE..

it just means.. if your an adult content biz owner.. this is your code.. if your an biz host.. this is your code.

it's a LIST.. of all 'biz types'.. and you / biz owner.. key in which biz type you are.
 

Guest
Wanda,

You are telling me basically that you want segragation of content based upon a coding scheme. I am in full support of having an .XXX or .SEX or .PORN TLD that is the only area adult content exists.

But variations in content are so many that you can't enforce this. Where would you put a sex therapy web site? Under BIZ or XXX? A web site for support of victims of abuse? Breast cancer will have to go under .MED or .SEX ?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Days till Domain Summit

00

Days

00

Hours

00

Minutes

00

Seconds

The Rule #1

Do not insult any other member. Be polite and do business. Thank you!

Sedo - it.com Premiums

IT.com

Premium Members

MariaBuy

Our Mods' Businesses

UrlPick.com

*the exceptional businesses of our esteemed moderators

Top Bottom