|
(cont)
Unlike online other suggestions for innocuous top-level domains like .travel or .jobs, the proposal for .xxx plunges the Internet into a political stew that's already at a roiling boil. The FCC recently has been tossing around penalties for "indecent" radio broadcasts, while Attorney General John Ashhahahahaha has indicated that a crackdown on obscene Web sites is about to take place.
The problem, in other words, is that as soon as .xxx launches, conservatives in Congress will begin to clamor for laws to make the domain mandatory for sex-related Web sites. That may not be a big deal for hard-core pornmeisters who prefer that virtual street address, but what about sex education sites that include explicit graphics and don't wish to be blocked by filtering software? And where should Salon.com, which features images of topless women, or Playboy.com, which publishes important interviews with US presidents, end up?
Protecting children
This is not just a theoretical concern. Back in 2000, before Lawley got involved as president, ICM Registry applied to run the .xxx domain. But ICANN shot down the proposal.
It didn't take Congress long to get involved. At a hearing in February 2001, Rep. Fred Upton, R-Mich., demanded to know why ICANN didn't approve .xxx "as a means of protecting our kids from the awful, awful filth which is sometimes widespread on the Internet." Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., griped to a federal commission that .xxx was necessary to force adult Webmasters to "abide by the same standard as the proprietor of an X-rated movie theatre."
To his credit, Lawley is pledging a legal defence fund of $250,000 to "maintain the voluntary nature of the domain name system." He's also hired Robert Corn-Revere, a top-notch lawyer at Davis Wright Tremaine who has represented Playboy Entertainment Group before the US Supreme Court, to research whether Congress could get away with ordering sex-themed Web sites to slap .xxx at the end of their address. Corn-Revere's conclusion: the .xxx folks "should prevail in any ensuing litigation if any attempt is made by the government to require registration in a .xxx domain."
Barry Steinhardt, head of the ACLU's technology and liberty program, isn't nearly as optimistic. "I am not quite so confident that we will prevail" under existing First Amendment precedents, Steinhardt said.
But the ACLU's real concerns with the proposal lie overseas. "There are nations all over the world that will undoubtedly try to force Web sites into the .xxx [top-level domain] or to block Web sites in it that they somehow view as offensive," Steinhardt said. "I don't think the operators have taken sufficient account of that problem. It will become a worldwide red-light district for the Internet, into which speakers who have free expression rights and should be able to reach a mass audience, will be forced."
Maybe US politicians have matured in the last four years. Perhaps courts can now be trusted to do the right thing and uphold the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of expression. But given that the House of Representatives voted by an 18-to-1 margin just two weeks ago to boost the penalties for "profane" broadcasts, the initially voluntary .xxx district may turn out to be a one-way street.
|