Two years after FRC helped to defeat the idea, the push for a "Triple X" domain for pornographic web sites is on again. The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) continues to debate whether or not to establish an online .xxx domain specifically for the adult industry. While supporters argue that it would help regulate pornography, FRC strongly disagrees. Instead of relegating it to a specific domain, the government would actually be facilitating the adult industry's growth. Without the necessary enforcement, pornographers would simply retain their .com sites and add to them. If successful, ICANN could be responsible for potentially doubling the number of porn sites on the Internet. Proponents claim the .xxx domain will make it easier to filter out these graphic sites, while web experts say it will make it more difficult because the sites will be operating under dual domains.
The .xxx would also establish a virtual red light district or "safe haven" for illegal, hardcore obscenity. Rather than legitimize an industry that exploits women and endangers children, ICANN should focus its efforts on making the web safer for families.
Comments (3)
One problem I have with your analysis is that the idea of an XXX domain is not popular among the purveyors of pornography.
The adult website industry seems to be convinced that an XXX domain would indeed lead to greater regulation of their industry, and that regulation would be detrimental to them. They believe that an XXX domain would become mandatory and force them out of the .com domain.
I do not agree with ICM that making .XXX mandatory would not pass constitutional muster. I think it is quite possible that a law could be constructed that would force pornography of the .com domain without offending the first amendment.
February 27, 2007 9:35 AM | Comment Permalink
Noone actually wants .xxx :> The FRC is opposed to it, for reasons just stated. The porn industry is opposed to it, because they want to be seen as legitimate entertainment, not just shoved off to the side of the web out of sight. The ISPs dont want it, because if it passes there will be calls for them to block access to children, and they really dont want to become for unwilling guardians of the net - a quite impossible task even with .xxx, but legislaters wont admit that.
The only groups that want the new domain are the registars who will be selling it - for whome its going to be a huge burst of cash. Not only would all the porn sites want to buy an XXX domain, but most non-porn companies will try to buy their own too, just to make sure noone else gets it first. The attempt to create .xxx is pushed forwards almost entirely by these companies, for purely commercial reasons.
February 27, 2007 9:45 AM | Comment Permalink
Suricou Raven - Do your research and stop with the talking points.
Have you personally talked with the head of the ICM Registry? I'm betting no. However, I have and what you are saying is total junk.
blocking the .xxx domain is much easier than a hodgepodge of various domain names using different gTLD's.
Also, the FRC does not speak for me as a Christian on all issues, so let's not make that leap either.
An ISP can chose right now on if it wants to filter or not. If it does, then there are guidelines it must follow, adding an entire gTLD would not make their job THAT much more difficult. Nor would it make them "guardians" of the net. Anyone with common sense realizes we are each our own "guardian" on the net and those of us with children are their "guardian" until they are ready to do it "alone".
Seriously, everyone needs to quit trumpeting the "party line" here. Get the facts, do the research and get educated. Every IT professional I talk with who is a Christian thinks .xxx will be a great idea and a step in the right direction.
ICANN has not shown any real leadership or unbiasness in their decision making within the past few years. Again, research will show this. Perhaps a review of how the .com and .net gTLD's were assigned again to VeriSign will enlighten those in the dark.
March 31, 2007 6:13 AM | Comment Permalink