Conservative U.S. Politicians Want Adult Sites Forced into .XXX
 

At a hearing a few months later, Rep Fred Upton 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 complained 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".

http://networks.silicon.com/webwatch...9130895,00.htm

Right wing Republicans and right wing Democrats will come together to make sure that .xxx becomes a nightmare for adult webmasters. The quotes above are from a few years ago, but they will be ready to attack as soon as .xxx is in place.

Don't forget that people claiming to represent our own industry sold us out so they could make money on the deal.

It also says in the article that the ACLU has already voiced concerns about the free speech issues of .xxx.

If you aren't an ACLU member, now would be a good time to join. You may not agree with everything they do, but they strongly support free speech.

been posted lots of times already look around

.xxx is a good idea, i dont see what all the fuss is about :2 cents:

why its good idea?

The fact that .xxx has been approved has been posted - now lets talk about what U.S. politicians have said about it.

The article quoted above shows that both Republicans and conservative Democrats will support forcing adult sites in .xxx.

that's a fucking terrible idea. besides, it should be the responsibilty of the parents to police what the fuck their children do on the internet. i'm sick of people passing these ridiculous laws to keep kids safe. it's not the place of the government.

he he,, I see lots of potentials here. Sex.com has to move to Sex.xxx and I buy Sex.com for pennies and ad a Church Prayer Site on there..

oh yeah hoorayyy...

I am now going to cry into my towel

exactly
fuck those sellouts....

These assholes have no fucking memory of who invented this internet thing in the first place.

Take your 2 cents back so you can go buy a fucking clue.

My thoughts exactly. Fuck those idiots.

:error I haven't seen somebody be so wrong as you in ages.

.xxx is a good idea for future adult sites and if they had introduced it from day one in the internet evolution, then it would have been fine to force people to use it for adult.

The problem is that it would be *impossible* to do that now, ie retroactively, because everyone is using other domains. Think about how many TM issues this would throw up, how much traffic would be lost and how much it would cost adult businesses to make the switch. Many adult business just wouldnt be able to switch. Its totally infeasible.

Stage 1: Force adult sites to .XXX
Stage 2: ISPs block .XXX

:disgust

Exactly.. we are being channeled and taken care off

Why is the ACLU suing the US Governement on behalf of fucking terrorists but is not doing anything about 2257 which is an aberration against our basic civil liberties, especially if you are a model?

No single organization can do everything. The FSC will work on the 2257 regulations as they pertain specifically to our industry. The ACLU will continue to make it harder for the US government to operate gulags like 'Gitmo.'

Personally, I support both organizations.

Porn has a history of being tucked away in the corner and rightfully so. xxx domains is a good idea and should have been implemented from the start.
Porn is tangled up with just about every net subject so it?s hardly surprising why people are getting fed up with it.

If it had been pushed onto a dedicated domain in the first place there would have been no argument and control of who gets to see it would have been made a lot easier.

If everything was run like the internet there would be hardcore porn all over the shelves at Toy R Us

Kicking internet porn up the ass is well overdue.

Responsible webmasters with professional business models will survive.

I remember when many adult webmasters advocated moving to .xxx as a counter to the arguments of COPA.

Funny but true. Lieberman is a "right-wing" Democrat.

Great question. I have been wondering the same thing. My guess is that the ACLU does not view this as a civil liberties case. It may be unreasonable but that will probably be determined by other parties vs. the justice department.

While I agree with you on Point 1, I don't think ISPs will block .XXX domains. From my point of view surfers will have the choice to block .XXX

This .xxx talk certainly takes the cake for the most talked about subject of the day on all the Adult Webmaster forums.

May I say I would rather have a .cum domain than a .xxx domain?

Just wait for the Ameican Family Association, Citizens for Decency, and other Christo-nazis start pressuring Google and other search engines to block xxx domains.

They wont survive when the bible bashers get isp's to block .xxx

How will they view their porn? :1orglaugh

noone can force you drop your dot coms

You can have your .com dropped for having incorrect info , the one thing that does have a central controller

Thats the idea of xxx domains so you can block it easily. Too much money at stake for ISP's to block everyone.

thehun.xxx would drop from 4 to 2 million visitors when the kids are gone.

that would mean even more money being deported from the US

ISPs don't need porn. All jokes aside, what percentage of people pay for an internet connection soley to look at porn and nothing else? Probably about the same % of people who wouldn't have a telephone if not for 1-900 phone sex. Almost noone falls into this category. Only the most egocentric and naive adult webmasters would believe ISPs can't make just as much money without providing access to porn.

The opposite is true. ISPs who don't block .XXX by default would suffer a loss of subscribers. A future of mandatory .XXX domains is a future of AOL-minded 'family-friendly' ISPs that may or may not allow you to turn the filter off client-side. Most married man with kids are not going to openly confront the wife to fight over the choice between a No-Porn ISP vs. a Porn-Allowed ISP. Get real.

And then, even if the market doesn't completely self-censor, what additional burdensome regulations may the government pass to make life miserable for ISPs who do allow .XXX?

Anyone who thinks this is a good idea isn't thinking too many moves ahead. We're being led into an ambush.

Damn - Joseph Lieberman is pretty liberal.

You honestly believe that? The internet is one giant wank mag. Its a pile of boring pop up hell, shit. The only reason people have the net is for porn. Your comparing it to telephone lines is so way off its un true

This reads like a post on some anti-porn board, not an adult webmaster board where people are supposed to support free speech.

The internet is not owned by children - it was made by adults for adults. You don't let your kids play in the freeway, so don't let them play on a porn site.

The internet is not ToysRus - it's a whole world and adult content has just as much right as anyone else to exist there.

.xxx is an attempt to remove all adult content from the major ISPs. Reading your post, I would guess you are anti-free speech to start with.

Government intervention. Yay!

Those ISP would lose business. Any ISP that blocked my access to porn would not get MY business. In fact many people wouldn't even have internet. Who in the fuck is going to pay $40 a month for access to weather.com, espn.com and cnn.com? It's the PORN that makes the cost worthwhile. Peole will just switch back to dial-up if all they can to do is e-mail and check the weather and sports scores.

Fact is governments at the state and local have already tried to get ISPs to block porn and it failed in court.

Lieberman, like some other stupid Democrats, is extremely conservative on "moral" issues. He would vote to help Bush and the right wing make porn illegal.

Lieberman (who is actually liberal on a lot of things) sides with Bush on pro-censorship issues, unfortunately.

Are you for real? Did you miss the point of why the Internet was created? Obviously you did so I'll fill you in. The Internet (not ARPAnet) was created for research institutes and government agencies world wide to communicate with one another and to allow a forum for free thought; it was later expanded to colleges and universities. The Internet was the first form of truly free speech that has ever existed in recorded history.

Governments around the world have sucessfully censored thought offline but have found that control of the public mind online has been nearly impossible.

The Internet is not Toys 'R Us. It was not created to be a form of entertainment for your children (and in some cases a babysitter) and there is no excuse for a parent not to spend $20 on filtering software if they wish to limit what their children are exposed to online (if they can afford $1000 for a computer they can afford Cybersittter).

what's the big deal anyways

Makes me think of when they moved the 'free speech' zones 5 miles away from the President's motorcade so he wouldn't have to be bothered with things he doesn't want to look at.

Problem is, among other things.., 'sexual education, condom instructions, child birthing info, info on STD's and sites like scarlet teen would be lumped in that .xxx TLD and therefore, would also be blocked.

This is the administration, who preaches 100 percent abstinence and took away funding from non for profit organizations who promoted safe sex.

There's many things wrong with the concept, business wise also..but that's a start.

get a clue

If they do as crappy of a job as they did re the "time / manner" restrictions on speech exemplified by the Supreme Court's rulings on strip bar location, then the ACLU is fighting a lost cause.

Increasingly, the conservative-led US Supreme Court is carving a two prong approach--placing "time/manner" restrictions on speech BUT focusing on opening political and commercial speech.

The blame of what children do in the home, will never be on the parents. It will always be on other things. Such as tv, and the internet. But they are not really worried about the children that are seeing the porn, it is more about the children that are being forced into it.

Seems like "they" won't sleep until "we" are out of biz

I think being immersed in the biz all the time has put blinders on you. People are not going to give up eBay or Amazon.com and all online shopping, or their political blogs, or chatrooms or message boards, or dating sites, or fan and hobby sites, or online casinos, or online video games, or VOIP, or P2P, music and movies, and everything else the internet offers just because the wife will only allow a family-friendly no-porn ISP.

There may be a lot of rebel pornographer types here, but most American men are pussy-whipped Yes-Dears.

Clueless fuck :1orglaugh

http://www.manchesteronline.co.uk/ne...or_1_in_4.html

Wonder why they don't go after sites full of pics of people torn to shreds from accidents... Sites with pics and videos of all sorts of violence.. and videos of people being murdered...

I guess this is accepted in our society.. Nothing immoral about all of this..

Ohhhhh that's right.. it's porn that causes kids to kill kids .. What was I thinking??

Unnecessary rude. And pointless too. Yes, porn is probably the #1 use of the internet right now. But if all the bored housewives demand .XXX-blocked ISPs then familys are not going to give up their #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7, #8 reasons for keeping the net.

AOL would gain more subscribers than they would lose through a massive TV ad blitz about how they have cleaned all porn off the internet. And adult sites instantly lose tens of millions of potential customers. Then multiply that by all the other ISPs that feature "clean" as a selling point just like they use "no spam" now.

All there is to argue about is how much of the population we would lose. A quarter of your sales? Half?