more on Editors comment on the number of items re ex-ex-ex

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From:
Date: June 3, 2005 10:37:08 AM EDT
To: dave () farber net
Subject: Re: [IP] Editors comment on the number of items re ex-ex-ex


For IP, and anonymize me if you please. And my previous email on this  
thread, should you use it.

Dave,

I agree that this is an important issue- we all know that censor-ware  
limits legitimate news websites and even the White House website on  
occasion. Your concern over birth control and drug discussions being  
sandboxed away are well worth considering. If these discussions are  
deemed undesirable and can be shut away, what else can be? Social  
security reform? Handgun ownership? Religious discourse?

I wonder who started this .xxx tld campaign which ICANN responded to.

I know locally in North Carolina, it was a grandmother who was upset  
that her granddaughter typed the wrong domain and instead of seeing a  
teen-oriented website found an adult-oriented website depicting  
teens. You can imagine her shock and outrage.

http://rdu.news14.com/content/top_stories/default.asp?ArID=66508 is  
from march 2005 and talks a little about the grandmother's campaign  
for a .xxx tld, but she began pushing for this much earlier, in 2001.

http://www.protecteverychild.org/ is the grandmother's site.

My contention has always been that a .xxx tld will be an ineffective  
band-aid solution, and that parents teaching children what is and  
isn't appropriate for viewing is a better solution.

Of course, from protecteverychild.org's standpoint, the .xxx tld  
still protects the 1st amendment rights of pornographers:

"Pornography is not going away. .XXX will protect the 1st Amendment  
rights of the majority—every child, every adult—while continuing to  
protect the rights of the few, the pornographers. It will give us  
back the freedom to choose what comes into our homes and block the  
door to the stranger entering uninvited when a word is misspelled.  
One wrong click of the mouse has changed the lives of countless  
numbers of our youth. We don’t send our children to the park alone in  
the dark. Don’t sit back while they continue to meet strangers in  
your den or perhaps in their bedroom. This, too, is Homeland Security!"

I'm not certain that I know the best answer: Perhaps Dan Steinberg is  
right, and google's example of defaulting to not showing results with  
explicit pictures is the right balance.



On Jun 3, 2005, at 10:20 AM, David Farber wrote:


> I believe this is a very important issue in both network  
> "governance" and maybe in (in the USA) the 1 st. amendment.  I am  
> concerned about the morfing of the xxx into a place where birth  
> control , drug discussions,  will be required to live in.
>
> I am trying to conver all sides.
>
> Dave

-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as lists-ip () insecure org
To manage your subscription, go to
 http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/