So, Wait, Is .xxx Good Or Bad For Kids?

from the you've-got-us-all-mixed-up-now dept

It would appear that we now have two different groups of politicians, both of whom are trying to appear more "protective of our children" tossing around a political football concerning the .xxx top-level domain. Back in December, the US administration stepped in and pressured ICANN not to approve .xxx for adult sites, after conservative and religious groups protested such a red-light district online as "legitimizing" such content -- and, of course, this was bad for the cause of "protecting our children." Meanwhile, earlier this month, some US Senators started pushing a bill that would force the creation of such a domain and require all adult content sites to reside there. Again, this was put forth as a way of "protecting our children." So, for those of you who expect the government to parent your children for you, .xxx is either the best thing or the worst thing for protecting your kids. Meanwhile, ICANN, who is supposed to be making this decision on its own and who is also supposed to be separate from the US government, had planned to meet on this again this week, with approval of .xxx expected. Except... US officials have again stepped in to force ICANN to hold off, thus showing that ICANN doesn't seem to have quite the independence it claims to have. As the discussion on this continues, expect to hear over and over again the importance of protecting our children -- but who protects our children from ridiculous political battles?

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  1. identicon
    Jack G, 31 Mar 2006 @ 11:02pm

    i cant believe its come to this....

    this is ridiculous... to compare animal sexual behavior to explicit human sexual activity(soft or hard core pornography) is incredibly absent minded. yes sex is a natural thing, but do we take pictures of animal sex and post it on the internet? if your going to apply that argument, check the facts, do the animals have a sense of right and wrong? no. i think not. they are born to reproduce, they dont have sense to wear clothing or hide their reproductive organs. humans have the sense to do these things. if it werent explicit behavior than there would not be laws against under-age pornography. if it were completely natural, than Jesus would not have worn clothes, and the bible would have been a kama sutra more than a guidline for life. if you dont want to bring religion into the forum, do not use Jesus Christ, and God, as if you were using the bible for your answer, refer to the story of abraham and his sons, when he was drunk and naked, one of the sons, ham i believe, covered him with the robe, because it is stated that NUDITY is not pure, while sham just laughed at the sight of his father, he was later scolded, and there are some other beliefs that go along with Shams story, and i know the comment of the whole religion argument will come up, and if it is, the very person arguing is the one who brought up religion in the first place. our country is built on morals, ethics, and Christian values, and this bill should not be excluded from this traditional way of governing our great nation.

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Special Affiliate Offer

Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.