NPR Washington is interviewing me about .xxx, this should be interesting...
 

Going to be on the air in the government's own backyard Monday. What message should I send to those listening?

:1orglaugh :thumbsup

ok, you asked for my message

http://www.geocities.com/~cousin_itt/c/c43.jpg

haha, nice!

Read the 1st and 14th amendment to the US Constiution. .xxx really shouldn't fly.

Practical issues is rights over key money URLs such as adult.com (adult.xxx) etc. who gets it?? Who gets pussy.xxx?

Waste of time, because the Supreme Court will prolly knock it down...

The behind the scenes BS that as already occoured with respect to ASACP etc.

Good points, I will definitely ellaborate on those.

I hope this never passes

read Lensmans and Mike Hawks threads on the .xxx extensions

it almost already passed :( :Oh crap :disgust :helpme :(

can you slip in a quickie mention on 2257 and models losing their privacy?

I sure will. I've already expressed my desire to speak a little about 2257 and the producer was receptive.

Are those interviews live or pre-recorded? I listen to NPR every day.

you should read Connors article

live, check it out Monday, 10am PST.

I have and his views coincide with mine.

Tell em' we're pissed!

Remind them how successful we have ALREADY been at keeping minors out of porn. When we simply object to 2257, it makes it seem to those looking in from the outside that we've been negligent or insufficient, and that a governmental/legislative intervention was NECESSARY -- it was not, as we can readily show.

I think if we always start by describing how 2257 is UNNECESSARY, and let folks know that we're proud of our industry's age enforcement record, it will make people wonder -- "Then, why was this law passed?" -- which is exactly what we want -- :2 cents:


j-