AM I WAAAAY Off-Base On This?

[davecummings]

I just finish writing the following to a comment on the GFY Thread http://www.gofuckyourself.com/showth...9#post11757739. Do you think my below comment (in response to posting #161), is way off-base? To me the entire thread is really, really, really important and should be read by everyone; and, IMO, anyone wanting to keep American government out of our business needs to quickly contact ICANN and their senators and representives to strongly voice opposition to .xxx.

Here's what I said:"I fear the probability that some asshole AMERICAN legislators (who are pandering to the radical right-wing religious hypocrites who pressure him/her/them into yet another mis-directed "to protect the children" bill or law, and/or those who contribute campaign donations to that/those legislators) will propose legislation to fence-out all AMERICAN dot com adult sites and force us into .xxx by going after ISP, or 3d-party billing, etc and imposing fines and/or jail time if we don't shut down our adult dot com sites. American law can't force foreign websites to go to .xxx, so they will flourish, hurt the income of American Adult dot com companies/sites, and fill the void and demand for our content by providing access to much harsher content from the former USSR and some Eastern-European and Asian locations that will make it a nightmare for everyone, including parents. Add to that the loss of sales, taxes, and the increase in the balance of trade deficits, and AMERICA gets hosed:-(((.

This .xxx has got to be stopped; and, IMHO, any entity that previously supported .xxx needs to write ICANN and rescind their support NOW (and PUBLICLY?)!!!!!!!!!

Yes, this old fogey is upset by .xxx and the people behind it, those supporting it, and those not willing to now admit they made a mistake when they supported it in the past before all the real facts came out. I invite those of you who know the present supporters to "OUT" them, and I hope ALL of us will boycott any supporters of .xxx.

IMHO .xxx is suicide for American adult sites.

:-(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((

Dave
Old Fogey"

Am I panicing too much?

Dave
Still an Old Fogey

[davecummings]

Brandon provided very useful info here:

http://www.gofuckyourself.com/showthread.php?t=693350

[AsianDivaGirlsWebDude]

.xxx has been slapped down repeatedly, but ICANN keeps trying to ram it through due to their vested interest in it.

It would be nice if the bigger players in the adult online industry would pony up some money to lobby and put this issue to rest once and for all.



ADG Webmaster

[F U S I O N]

Originally Posted by AsianDivaGirlsWebDude

.xxx has been slapped down repeatedly, but ICANN keeps trying to ram it through due to their vested interest in it.

It would be nice if the bigger players in the adult online industry would pony up some money to lobby and put this issue to rest once and for all.



ADG Webmaster

It would be nice if the bigger players in the adult online industry would at least email their affiliates and let them know the importance of this issue and encourage them to send an email opposing it.....

[polish_aristocrat]

Originally Posted by AsianDivaGirlsWebDude

It would be nice if the bigger players in the adult online industry would pony up some money to lobby and put this issue to rest once and for all.



ADG Webmaster

good suggestion, but at the same time you could also do your part and spend 5 minutes to write (and then confirm) an email opposing .XXX

if you did already - my apologies

[Quentin]

I don't think you're off base to be concerned about the possibility of legislators moving to make use of .XXX by adult sites mandatory under US law. There was at least one bill that never made it to the floor last session which proposed precisely that, and such a bill may very well be revived by the current Congress.

It's also true that any attempt to force use of .XXX would be very ripe for legal challenge, both in the US and in any number of foreign jurisdictions.

ICM Registry retained Robert Corn-Revere, a very prominent attorney with vast experience in First Amendment related issues, to compose a white paper arguing, in essence, that it would be facially unconstitutional to mandate .xxx use.

I'm not qualified to rebut or concur with Corn-Revere's analysis, personally, but I will say that several other legal experts I have discussed the issue with are nowhere near as certain that it would be impossible for Congress to foist such a requirement on US-based webmasters/companies.

Obviously, the answer is largely dependent the specific statutory language that such a law (one mandating use of .XXX) might include.

A few "for instances":

Would such a law be limited in its scope to material that to which 2257 applies? If so, would sites that include "simulated sexually explicit content" be required to move to .XXX as well, in light of the new section 2257A created under the Adam Walsh Act?

Would the law seek to relegate all sites and/or advertising that deals with "materials harmful to minors" to .XXX, or would it be limited to sexually explicit material that is "harmful to minors"?

Unfortunately, my hunch is that we will find out the answers to these and other .XXX-related questions the hard way; IMO some iteration of ICM's contract eventually will be approved by ICANN, whether it is the current version or some future version.

Following that approval, doubtless some in Congress, both Democrat and Republican, will push for mandatory .XXX use (in/for US-based operations), and such a measure will likely pass. I base that assumption on the notion that it is always a "political winner" to pass legislation that purports to protect children, no matter how unlikely it is that such legislation will have any impact whatsoever on the safety of children.

The question is, can Congress compose a law that is sufficiently narrow and well-defined that it will stand up to challenge, or will they (as they often do) knock out a vague, ill-defined law that seeks to effectively quarantine a lot of expression that isn't even vaguely "pornographic" or "obscene"?

Like I said, were I a betting man (something I'm no longer allowed to be over the Internet, strangely, but can still be at my neighborhood Circle K, any time I wish) I would bet that the Courts will get the chance to examine such questions themselves, eventually.

- Q.

[Daruma]

.xxx is as dangerous to the adult industry as the billing law that was passed for the gaming industry..

if you don't realize the chaos that can be caused, step back and take a careful look

[BoobleBob]

I think you are right on the money, Dave! XXX is evil.

[davecummings]

I have Time Warner's Roadrunner, and last Thursday tried to send some photos of a new porn girl to a Director who uses AOL. Although only slightly related, AOL returned the email to me because of "Too Many Body Parts". If AOL can do that, imagine what the goverment could do if .xxx becomes law and some government agency decided to write stuff like that into the implementing regulations (not unlike what DOJ did with the 2257 regulations they issued:-(.

Stop .xxx!!!!!!!!!!!!

Dave

[polish_aristocrat]

Originally Posted by BoobleBob

I think you are right on the money, Dave! XXX is evil.

[sarettah]

Originally Posted by AsianDivaGirlsWebDude

It would be nice if the bigger players in the adult online industry would pony up some money to lobby and put this issue to rest once and for all.

One or two of the bigger playas are the ones set to make the most money off of a switch to xxx

I would not look for help from the bigboys unless and until they are directly threatened by it

just my

[sarettah]

Originally Posted by Quentin

Would the law seek to relegate all sites and/or advertising that deals with "materials harmful to minors" to .XXX, or would it be limited to sexually explicit material that is "harmful to minors"?

xxx would actually make it easier or kids to find porn imho

[StarkReality]

Originally Posted by sarettah

One or two of the bigger playas are the ones set to make the most money off of a switch to xxx

I would not look for help from the bigboys unless and until they are directly threatened by it

just my

I don't think the big boys are an exception. .xxx would just be beginning, what we'd see next is big providers blocking .xxx by default and telling people that's the way they protect our children from the net's abyss of evil and demanding some (paid?) age verification to unblock .xxx sites.

Companies would filter .xxx by default and tell the media that they could dump another 10k of employees because the remaining would work that much more productive and not waste any time on porn surfing.

What a brave new world !

[tony286]

bump for a important thread

[SleazyDream]

looking at what happened to gambling and how they are combing the world for players and promoters now it's not too far off base to think that could happen to adult

esp when exposing a boob at the superbowl involves criminal charges.....

[Daruma]

Originally Posted by SleazyDream

looking at what happened to gambling and how they are combing the world for players and promoters now it's not too far off base to think that could happen to adult

esp when exposing a boob at the superbowl involves criminal charges.....

exactly - time to get things organized better as an industry
proactive - not reactive

[polish_aristocrat]

bump..........................