Internet's New 'xxx' District Won't Protect Kids and May Exacerbate Other Pornography

[tony286]

Internet's New 'xxx' District Won't Protect Kids and May Exacerbate Other Pornography Related Problems

6/6/2005 9:02:00 AM

To: National and State desks

Contact: Robert Peters of Morality In Media, Inc., 212-870-3222 or 3210

NEW YORK, June 6 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Last week, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) approved a plan to create "xxx" domains for websites that peddle pornography. Stuart Lawley, chairman of the ICM Registry, said in an interview last year that the xxx domain names will come with no restrictions except that any sexually explicit content feature only adults.

Robert Peters, president of Morality in Media, had the following comments.

"In May, Consumer Reports announced that all of the filtering products it evaluated were 'very good or excellent at blocking pornography.' It is doubtful, therefore, that the XXX tag will provide substantially more protection for children than filters already provide, unless every pornographer moves to the XXX domain and every parent uses appropriate screening technology, which isn't going to happen.

"The same problems that limit the effectiveness of filters (e.g., failure to block all pornographic sites, parents who don't use filters, access to computers outside the home, and the ability of older children to circumvent technology) will also limit the effectiveness of the XXX domain address.

"Like 'red light' districts in real space, the Internet's XXX district will also attract other types of crime (e.g., child prostitution) and make it easier for predators to obtain the 'adult' pornography and 'psuedo child porn' they use to stimulate themselves and to entice, desensitize and instruct their child victims.

"Meanwhile we will hear over and over again that government has no legitimate interests in enforcing obscenity laws against Internet pornographers who utilize the XXX tag.

"In a 1973 case, Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton, however, the Supreme Court held that there are 'legitimate governmental interests at stake in stemming the tide of commercialized obscenity, even assuming it is feasible to enforce effective safeguards against exposure to juveniles.' These interests include protecting the 'quality of life and total community environment,' 'public safety,' 'family life' and 'order and morality.' The Court also said government has right to maintain a 'decent society.'

"As for ICM Registry chairman Stuart Lawley, he should know that it is a federal crime (a felony, to be exact) not only to distribute child pornography on the Internet but also 'adult' obscenity" and that most 'xxx' websites today peddle hardcore pornography, which is subject to prosecution."

------

[Gawdy]

It will be a good way of a couple of people making alot of money.... Thats all it will achieve

[SykkBoy]

It's interesting because it's not often I agree with those self-righteous fuckbags at Morality In Media.....of course we have differing reasons for being against .xxx

[tony286]

I know I was shocked they are against and for software filtering

[polish_aristocrat]

Originally Posted by SykkBoy2

It's interesting because it's not often I agree with those self-righteous fuckbags at Morality In Media.....of course we have differing reasons for being against .xxx

Yep, same here, I'd be very happy if they could help us reverse ICANN decision.

[MandyBlake]

i hope they keep bitching....no .xxx and software filtering is the way to go