re: .xxx THINK for a second Dumbasses - GoFuckYourself.com

Donny · 06-02-2005, 07:11 PM

1. If the US decides to force all adult websites to use .xxx do you honestly think ALL adult sites will start using that? Anyone outside the USA will simply give the good ol' US the finger and go about business as usual.

2. Forcing us to use a particular extension is a huge free speech violation. It ain't gonna happen.

3. Using the excuse that adult sites will be easier to keep out of the eyes of children if they use .xxx extensions is bullshit. There are already plenty of filters out there to take care of the problem. Parents just have to get off their asses and use them.

Stop freakin' out, idiots.

fireorange · 06-02-2005, 07:12 PM

Shutttup

fireorange · 06-02-2005, 07:12 PM

Click here:
http://www.gofuckyourself.com/showth...oto=nextnewest

Donny · 06-02-2005, 07:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fireorange

Shutttup

says a complete nobody

tony286 · 06-02-2005, 07:14 PM

one more time slowly porn is not protected speech ,hasnt been for a long time. You are not protected by the first amendment

Donny · 06-02-2005, 07:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tony404

one more time slowly porn is not protected speech ,hasnt been for a long time. You are not protected by the first amendment

Freedome of speech and EXPRESSION are both protected. It's your opinion that porn doesn't apply. Many others disagree. That's the beauty of it... no one agrees. Therefore we're still pretty much protected unless we're doin' somethin' illegal.

Martin · 06-02-2005, 07:24 PM

I agree - not gonna happen.

thaifan99 · 06-02-2005, 07:28 PM

And will the search engines block them in safe search mode.....

chadglni · 06-02-2005, 07:29 PM

Can I just get a .x domain? My shit isn't near triple x.

Martin · 06-02-2005, 07:31 PM

Every fucking year it's something new that's going to bring us down. I say fuck em all.

Terry · 06-02-2005, 07:32 PM

I also agree. That wont happen. Even if xxx does go live, I dont see anyone being "forced" to use it.

smack · 06-02-2005, 07:33 PM

apperently you don't understand republicans much.

kernelpanic · 06-02-2005, 07:36 PM

Well said, I agree with you on all points:

1) If US webmasters can't use non .xxx sites to push porn, they'll simply sell all their domains to foreign webmasters. The same domains will be serving porn, just under different ownership.

2) Amen to that. If I have a blog on a .com, and then post a pornographic picture, do I now need to buy a .xxx? It is vague rules and classification/restriction of speech that would get this struck down by the courts.

3) If .xxx is made an official ghetto for all porn sites, the children without filtering software will know exactly where to look. Kids who want porn will just go straight to the .xxx, they might just have to do it at home not at school.

MikeHawk · 06-02-2005, 07:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smack

apperently you don't understand republicans much.

hahahaha..

Well, its like this, we are doing exactly what this group of people who have made this back room deal thought we would do so far "nothing".

The problem is there are way to many "high profile" people involved with this behind the scenes not to keep an eye on it and try and do something.

Not really looking into this completely would make anyone an "idiot".

jonesy · 06-02-2005, 08:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DonovanPhillips

2. Forcing us to use a particular extension is a huge free speech violation. It ain't gonna happen. .

since you profess knowledge on the subject of first ammendment rights in regards to porn, please explain the violations / factors of the failure of .xxx succeeding as being law or regualtion.

Donny · 06-02-2005, 08:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jonesy

since you profess knowledge on the subject of first ammendment rights in regards to porn, please explain the violations / factors of the failure of .xxx succeeding as being law or regualtion.

as soon as your question is restated in English I'll be happy to attempt a reply.

jonesy · 06-02-2005, 09:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DonovanPhillips

as soon as your question is restated in English I'll be happy to attempt a reply.

got any facts to back up/prove/support your claim?

adonthenet · 06-02-2005, 09:41 PM

your 110% right bud.

Major (Tom) · 06-02-2005, 10:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martin

Every fucking year it's something new that's going to bring us down. I say fuck em all.

for once we agree.
but we still have to fight this cancer. it wont go away.. it only goes into remission.
Duke

mrthumbs · 06-02-2005, 10:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DonovanPhillips

1. If the US decides to force all adult websites to use .xxx do you honestly think ALL adult sites will start using that? Anyone outside the USA will simply give the good ol' US the finger and go about business as usual.

Who regulates .com's ;)

seeric · 06-02-2005, 10:58 PM

porn is protected under freedom of expression. same goes for comedians that people dont like what they say.

Mike Okitch · 06-02-2005, 10:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DonovanPhillips

1. If the US decides to force all adult websites to use .xxx do you honestly think ALL adult sites will start using that? Anyone outside the USA will simply give the good ol' US the finger and go about business as usual.

2. Forcing us to use a particular extension is a huge free speech violation. It ain't gonna happen.

3. Using the excuse that adult sites will be easier to keep out of the eyes of children if they use .xxx extensions is bullshit. There are already plenty of filters out there to take care of the problem. Parents just have to get off their asses and use them.

Stop freakin' out, idiots.

A fucking men to that

That's what I've been thinking all along and I couldn't have said it better myself.

Sly · 06-02-2005, 11:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martin

Every fucking year it's something new that's going to bring us down. I say fuck em all.

Someone should start selling umbrellas. They'd make a killing.

$5 submissions · 06-02-2005, 11:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tony404

one more time slowly porn is not protected speech ,hasnt been for a long time. You are not protected by the first amendment

That's not what Miller V. California says. "Porn" is legal as long as it is not OBSCENE. Obscenity is defined as material where "(a)the average person, applying contemporary community standards would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest;
(b) the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law"

What you are probably referring to are "time and manner" restrictions on speech. Under Rhenquist, the US Supreme Court has made this body of law clear--it is ILLEGAL to ban protected speech. It is LEGAL to require permits and restrict places where it can be said as well as time and manner.

Applying that jurisprudence to .XXX extensions, yes, it may be legal to force porn operators to .xxx domains (easy to ban and blacklist by ISPs)

Moving porn sites to .xxx extensions is NO MORE OBTRUSIVE than the time/manner restrictions the Rhenquist Court imposed on strip bars and porno shops. Didn't you think that the sex shops that were forced by ZONING rules to move to industrial or far off areas not HARMED by being forced to move?

As for moving stuff overseas... well, what's preventing the US government from treating non .xxx compliant sites with blocking or local lawsuits? As long as they market to the US market, they may be fair game given how personal jurisdiction issues play out on the Internet.

I do AGREE with your CONCERN though. Given the recent regulatory changes, perhaps the knockout blow to online adult (in its current form) would be .xxx relegation and VISA crackdown on 'high risk' rebills.

But even within such DREAD scenarios... online adult will still survive and... produce a new crop of millionaires.

Sources:

http://courses.cs.vt.edu/~cs3604/lib...rong-test.html (Miller Standard)

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/proj...lacemanner.htm (time and manner restrictions vs CONTENT restrictions)

BTW,
If anyone wants to DIVERSIFY their income stream by venturing into MAINSTREAM, hit me up via ICQ

macker · 06-03-2005, 12:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by $5 submissions

That's not what Miller V. California says. "Porn" is legal as long as it is not OBSCENE. Obscenity is defined as material where "(a)the average person, applying contemporary community standards would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest;
(b) the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law"

What you are probably referring to are "time and manner" restrictions on speech. Under Rhenquist, the US Supreme Court has made this body of law clear--it is ILLEGAL to ban protected speech. It is LEGAL to require permits and restrict places where it can be said as well as time and manner.

Applying that jurisprudence to .XXX extensions, yes, it may be legal to force porn operators to .xxx domains (easy to ban and blacklist by ISPs)

Moving porn sites to .xxx extensions is NO MORE OBTRUSIVE than the time/manner restrictions the Rhenquist Court imposed on strip bars and porno shops. Didn't you think that the sex shops that were forced by ZONING rules to move to industrial or far off areas not HARMED by being forced to move?

As for moving stuff overseas... well, what's preventing the US government from treating non .xxx compliant sites with blocking or local lawsuits? As long as they market to the US market, they may be fair game given how personal jurisdiction issues play out on the Internet.

I do AGREE with your CONCERN though. Given the recent regulatory changes, perhaps the knockout blow to online adult (in its current form) would be .xxx relegation and VISA crackdown on 'high risk' rebills.

But even within such DREAD scenarios... online adult will still survive and... produce a new crop of millionaires.

Sources:

http://courses.cs.vt.edu/~cs3604/lib...rong-test.html (Miller Standard)

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/proj...lacemanner.htm (time and manner restrictions vs CONTENT restrictions)

BTW,
If anyone wants to DIVERSIFY their income stream by venturing into MAINSTREAM, hit me up via ICQ

This post makes too much sense, and is even referenced. It has no place on GFY

06-02-2005, 07:11 PM	#1
Donny As you wish... Industry Role: Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 13,754	re: .xxx THINK for a second Dumbasses 1. If the US decides to force all adult websites to use .xxx do you honestly think ALL adult sites will start using that? Anyone outside the USA will simply give the good ol' US the finger and go about business as usual. 2. Forcing us to use a particular extension is a huge free speech violation. It ain't gonna happen. 3. Using the excuse that adult sites will be easier to keep out of the eyes of children if they use .xxx extensions is bullshit. There are already plenty of filters out there to take care of the problem. Parents just have to get off their asses and use them. Stop freakin' out, idiots.

06-02-2005, 07:28 PM	#8
thaifan99 Confirmed User Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 3,029	And will the search engines block them in safe search mode..... __________________ ARE YOU A FAMILY MEMBER? CLICK HERE TO FIND OUT!

06-02-2005, 07:29 PM	#9
chadglni Confirmed User Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: PEI, Canada Posts: 6,924	Can I just get a .x domain? My shit isn't near triple x. __________________ Sign up here - Dating Site affiliate program

06-02-2005, 07:32 PM	#11
Terry Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Montreal Posts: 1,604	I also agree. That wont happen. Even if xxx does go live, I dont see anyone being "forced" to use it. __________________ TengaCash ICQ: 6776764

06-02-2005, 07:33 PM	#12
smack Push Porn Like Weight. Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Inside .NET Posts: 10,652	apperently you don't understand republicans much. __________________ Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war.

06-02-2005, 07:12 PM	#2
fireorange Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 1,648	Shutttup

06-02-2005, 07:14 PM	#5
tony286 lurker Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: atlanta Posts: 57,021	one more time slowly porn is not protected speech ,hasnt been for a long time. You are not protected by the first amendment

06-02-2005, 07:24 PM	#7
Martin "Assassins" Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: At home Posts: 17,277	I agree - not gonna happen.

06-02-2005, 07:31 PM	#10
Martin "Assassins" Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: At home Posts: 17,277	Every fucking year it's something new that's going to bring us down. I say fuck em all.

06-02-2005, 07:36 PM	#13
kernelpanic Too lazy to set a custom title Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 2,961	Well said, I agree with you on all points: 1) If US webmasters can't use non .xxx sites to push porn, they'll simply sell all their domains to foreign webmasters. The same domains will be serving porn, just under different ownership. 2) Amen to that. If I have a blog on a .com, and then post a pornographic picture, do I now need to buy a .xxx? It is vague rules and classification/restriction of speech that would get this struck down by the courts. 3) If .xxx is made an official ghetto for all porn sites, the children without filtering software will know exactly where to look. Kids who want porn will just go straight to the .xxx, they might just have to do it at home not at school. __________________ ZangoCash - Turn Your Traffic Into Ca$h. $.40 Per Install - No Tier

06-02-2005, 09:41 PM	#18
adonthenet Too lazy to set a custom title Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 16,753	your 110% right bud.

06-02-2005, 10:58 PM	#21
seeric .......... Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: .......... Posts: 41,917	porn is protected under freedom of expression. same goes for comedians that people dont like what they say.