some lady there just posted this
Quote:
As a parent I am shocked at the disingenuous attempt by pornographers to shift
responsibility. This act is reminiscent to that of the tobacco Industry prior
to their labeling of cigarettes. The suggestion that a .Kids would solve the
pornography problem is a juvenile attempt at avoidance. It is the
pornographers that are making billions of dollars on smut. It is they who
should shoulder the cost of labeling their web sites.
The use of seatbelts in cars has never been 100% effective, but they do save
many lives when used. Because .xxx is voluntary, it will be less than perfect
also. But by not creating .xxx you take away the opportunity for adult
webmasters who would otherwise show integrity in protecting those who wish to
avoid porn. I can't understand why those wishing to not view pornography would
oppose labeling? Only a combination of technologies and education will be
effective.
Children will always be able to type in many "thought provoking words" into
search engines. The TLD .xxx will not make it easier than it is today, Google
has already done that for us. I doubt that the .xxx extension could possibly
make the juicy site descriptions produced from a search any more enticing.
Only a combination of site and content labeling will allow browsers to be more
effective. Anyone who has read the .xxx proposal will see that this is their
intention.
On a final note I'm intrigued that many are crying censorship. Stating that
.xxx will limit "freedom of speech". And that many web masters will simply
move "off shore". As far as I know only in the US is adult content protected
under the First Amendment. In many other countries pornography is illegal! I
question why web masters would risk losing First Amendment protection? The
solution here seams fairly simple, if adult content providers are being honest
in their intentions. They would use any means within their reach to identify
their content to protect children and others not wishing to view pornography.
I believe .xxx can be part of the solution.
Sincerely,
Jennifer Anderson
|