some great questions.
your last question is a very interesting one, because to protect children, means filtering and blocking and i am sure 99.9% of adult webmasters don't want children to be looking at their stuff.... but this is also about adults who don't want to see porn....
whether with labeling with ASACP's RTA label (http://www.rtalabel.org), using ICRA, or having the .XXX extension, these elements can and would be used by filtering technology to block.
There are already blacklists that firewall/proxy hardware uses in corporate america.. using additional ways to block will certainly be added.
The flipside argument is not looking at who is being filtered out, but who will be filtered in.. ie. adults who want to see porn will find it easier to spot (i know that is a stretch because porn is so easy to find).
For example... veganporn.com , not a porn site, but you would think it was by looking at it.
veganporn.xxx would visually indicate a porn site.
So the argument that ICM/IFFOR has suggested is that this visual marking will keep kids and adults out because they saw the .XXX warning.
This same argument has been applied to the "click if over 18", but we know minors can still get in, but by doing so, was to put up some kind of defensivable position in court to show that the website had done what it could to warn about the "sexually explicit" content inside.
I believe that those Congressman that think .XXX is going to be some magic answer to protect children and adult from seeing "the bad" stuff, they should make .XXX a safe-harbour zone.. meaning if you have a .XXX domain, then there is no way to prosecute for obscenity, because the domain was clearly labelled.
I think that this kind of talk would make many conservatives and religious folks shudder because it would clearly say that porn was ok and was protected as long as it was in its "virtual red light district".
Fight the mylittlepony.xxx!
your last question is a very interesting one, because to protect children, means filtering and blocking and i am sure 99.9% of adult webmasters don't want children to be looking at their stuff.... but this is also about adults who don't want to see porn....
whether with labeling with ASACP's RTA label (http://www.rtalabel.org), using ICRA, or having the .XXX extension, these elements can and would be used by filtering technology to block.
There are already blacklists that firewall/proxy hardware uses in corporate america.. using additional ways to block will certainly be added.
The flipside argument is not looking at who is being filtered out, but who will be filtered in.. ie. adults who want to see porn will find it easier to spot (i know that is a stretch because porn is so easy to find).
For example... veganporn.com , not a porn site, but you would think it was by looking at it.
veganporn.xxx would visually indicate a porn site.
So the argument that ICM/IFFOR has suggested is that this visual marking will keep kids and adults out because they saw the .XXX warning.
This same argument has been applied to the "click if over 18", but we know minors can still get in, but by doing so, was to put up some kind of defensivable position in court to show that the website had done what it could to warn about the "sexually explicit" content inside.
I believe that those Congressman that think .XXX is going to be some magic answer to protect children and adult from seeing "the bad" stuff, they should make .XXX a safe-harbour zone.. meaning if you have a .XXX domain, then there is no way to prosecute for obscenity, because the domain was clearly labelled.
I think that this kind of talk would make many conservatives and religious folks shudder because it would clearly say that porn was ok and was protected as long as it was in its "virtual red light district".
Fight the mylittlepony.xxx!



Comment