Strange Bedfellows: Religious Groups, Pornographers Denounce New Porn Domain ‘.xxx’
- Posted on March 20, 2011 at 2:02am by
Emily Esfahani Smith
- Print »
- Email »
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — You’ve heard of “.com“ and ”.org.” Joining them soon will be their bawdy cousin: “.xxx.”
On Friday, the board of directors of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, which oversees the Internet’s naming system, approved the creation of a red-light district online for pornographic websites. It follows a decade-long battle over such a name.
The uproar over the idea has brought together unlikely bedfellows.
Religious groups argue that giving adult websites their own corner of the Internet legitimizes the content.
Pornographers worry it will ghettoize their sites. Although it’s meant to be voluntary, they fear governments could try to mandate the domain’s use, so that pornographic content is more easily blocked.
Diane Duke, executive director of the adult entertainment industry’s Free Speech Coalition, said in a statement that ICANN has “disregarded overwhelming outpouring of opposition from the adult entertainment industry – the supposed sponsorship community“ and dismissed the ”interests of free speech on the Internet.”
Supporters have maintained that approving the domain is in keeping with the principle of openness that has fueled the Internet’s growth.
While the idea of “.xxx” has provoked a philosophical debate, for the U.S. company that submitted the application for the domain, the issue is little more than a matter of dollars and cents.
ICM Registry and its CEO, Stuart Lawley, who has led the fight for ICANN’s approval of “.xxx,“ stand to profit handsomely from the rollout of ”.xxx” websites – because he will be in charge of collecting fees for the use of the new domains.
Lawley plans to charge registrars $60 per year for the domain names. He estimates that he could sell as many as 500,000 by the time he rolls them out this summer.
“This was always going to be a very lucrative arrangement,” he said in an interview Friday.
Lawley’s prices have been a critical issue for opponents to his plan, since domain names typically sell for a fraction of what Lawley plans to charge. They often sell for $10 or less.
ICANN had repeatedly rejected Lawley’s application since 2000, under pressure from Christian groups and governments unhappy with the spread of online porn. Lawley has pitched the suffix as a way for parents to more easily block access to the content. He argues it will be easier for Web filtering software to block “.xxx” sites since they are clearly labeled as porn.
Popular Stories
Paper Details Obama Admin’s Alleged Secret Note Sent to Iran: If Israel Attacks, We Won’t Get Involved 585 Comments
‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 413 Comments
This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 412 Comments
Roseanne Barr: Most Billionaires ‘Violent Pedophiles’ & ‘Heartless’ Cocaine Addicts 375 Comments
President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 369 Comments
Faith
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 412 Comments
Pakistani Muslim Cleric Accused of Framing Disabled Christian Girl in Koran-Burning Case Read More- ‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 413 Comments
Meet the Controversial German Imam Accused of Brutally Beating His Wife & Pushing Sharia Law Read More
‘Self-Proclaimed Messiah’ & Unification Church Leader the Rev. Sun Myung Moon Has Died — Here’s His Life Story Read More
Business
- President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 369 Comments
- Germany’s Upcoming Court Ruling Will be Huge for the EU Read More
Ford Looks to Beat Toyota for Best-Selling Car in 2012 With This Model 151 Comments
Bernanke & QE3: Here’s What You Need to Know Read More- ‘Extortion’: Why Did the Labor Department ‘Drop the Hammer’ on Oregon Farmers? 303 Comments
Technology
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 412 Comments
‘TaserDrone’: Hackers Weaponize Quadcopter With Actual ‘Shocking’ Technology Read More
Ever Heard of the Wild ‘Burning Man’ Festival in the Middle of the Nev. Desert? Here’s Your Primer Read More
Stanford Develops Technology ‘Better Than Steroids’ for Athlete Recovery Read More
Have You Pretended to Know What ‘the Cloud’ Is? You’re Not Alone Read More
Submitting your tip... please wait!
Comments (83)
Psychosis
Posted on March 20, 2011 at 1:45pmbut but ……………….. I THOUGHT WE HAD A PROBLEM WITH COMPANY AND GOVERNMENT COLLUSION???????
WHATS DIFFERENT HERE? OTHER THAN PORN IS “ BAD”
i think all rules and laws should treat everyone the same ……………..period
and all of you saying you dont have a problem with it are the same ones who complain about special treatment of one company over another, while those who have a problem with this example of collusion now, are the same who have no problem with collusion in other situations
it seems the positions have been reversed…………………….people are fickle and shallow and rarely hold firm to a standard
Report Post »YankeeBlue
Posted on March 20, 2011 at 12:39pmI fail to see the problem with the .xxx domain – in fact, the federal government could do us all a favor and actually make legitimate use (for a change) of their ability to regulate interstate commerce and require all pornographic materials to use .xxx domains, as internet commerce occurs frequently across state lines. Those, such as myself, who have an interest in blocking such content from my home, can simply block any website having a .xxx extension (although realistically I‘m sure we’d still need dynamic filters to catch the billions of websites that wouldn’t bother making the switch).
As far as I’m concerned, the church should embrace this idea rather than get involved in a philosophical debate about ‘legitimizing’ pornographic content – by standing in the way of a porn-exclusive domain extension they are only exasperating an already problematic situation.
Even as a strong Christian with an interest in blocking pornographic content within my home, I stand firmly on the side of the pornographers rights to produce such material so long as it does not violate the law.
The logical middle ground would seem to be to require the use of .xxx extensions (but not further regulation by the federal government). This, of course, raises the concern of the regulation of the internet (i.e. net neutrality). However, it should be noted that the Congress mandating the use of .xxx domains extensions is wholly different from the FCC assuming a wide and expansive ability to regulate the internet however they please.
Report Post »ScienceIsNotEvil
Posted on March 20, 2011 at 4:05pmWhat is pornographic content precisely? You have to define that before you can do anything with it.
Report Post »cykonas
Posted on March 21, 2011 at 6:18amThe “logical middle ground” of the gun control debate in the 60′s was known as registration. That was supposed to be the end all in the governments gun control efforts. Did it stop there?
We should fear the .xxx porn designation for the same reason. It won’t stop there. Along with the problem of defining porn that other posters have brought up we need to keep the government away from the internet. If we look to the government to protect us they will likely do just the opposite, as usual.
Report Post »Its Gonna Getcha
Posted on March 20, 2011 at 12:16pm“Pornographers worry it will ghettoize their sites”. Great line.
Report Post »UlyssesP
Posted on March 20, 2011 at 11:55amThis is a chance to make some money re-selling domain names. Keep an eye on this. I know someone who made some cash off of buying recent .co domain names and re-selling them. Not for me, but interesting.
Report Post »TJexcite
Posted on March 20, 2011 at 11:46amWhen does theBlaze.xxx come on |ine. The Lawyers are already writing lawsuits to stop swatters on
Disney.xxx Coke.xxx and Pepsi.xxx and the like so the said companies can buy them and just have
them forward to the com
What will happen is the pom company and any company that wants to protect their brand just would buy the .xxx and then just forward it the .com they have been using for years.
Report Post »REVENANT
Posted on March 20, 2011 at 11:28amWhat happens when they get around to segregating political websites? We had better be very careful.
Report Post »NicoleTheGreat06
Posted on March 20, 2011 at 11:16amSome Religious groups are just as bad as Progressives, they want to control you and your speech..
Report Post »NO NO
Posted on March 20, 2011 at 10:56amfreedom of speech seems quickly forgotten… …..Are you okay with them regulating everything as long as it’s something you dont agree with??
Report Post »Richio
Posted on March 20, 2011 at 9:49amWho will go around evaluating sites? What would be the criteria to push a site into that category? Will Christian sites then be given their own DOTniche? Here come the internet police – first with just a few “helpful” regulations. Why do we need the government to protect us? Can we not do it on our own?
Report Post »Chet Hempstead
Posted on March 21, 2011 at 5:41amSince it’s voluntary, all porn will be on at least two sites, the original .com site and a mirror site with the same name and the new .xxx extension. This will not in any way affect our glorious mission to make unlimited pornography of every imaginable variety and level of depravity available to every man, woman and child on the planet. They say we don’t make anything in this country anymore, but it’s not true. We make porn!
Report Post »Ashrak
Posted on March 20, 2011 at 9:38amTo Religious groups – Porn is legitimate content. Liberty commands that if you want your Holy book to be respected as legitimate by others, then so too must you accept a book of another kind. You don’t have to like it, you can speak out against it, but if you make effort to squash it by government machination, you are effectively telling government to squash your own cherished books. Please, think through your position. You don’t have to like porn, but you do have to accept the freedom that brings it about.
.xxx is a great idea so long as it remains a willing entity rather than a government mandate.
Report Post »mcfloyd
Posted on March 20, 2011 at 2:04pmNo one who makes money from internet porn is going to “willingly” restrict themselves to the XXX domain. Their potential customers are all over the world wide web…and that’s where the pornsters will be unless mandated otherwise. Without some teeth behind it…it’s nothing but a suggestion and a waste of time.
Report Post »Woody WoodBecker
Posted on March 20, 2011 at 8:46amIf the government can do this to porn, can’t they do this to other content, making it easier to block. I don‘t want porn in my house but schools don’t want christianity in their buildings. What about offensive language?
Report Post »AceClaymore
Posted on March 20, 2011 at 8:39amThis make so much sense, of course it’s opposed!
Report Post »VTHS
Posted on March 20, 2011 at 8:38amI‘ve been wired on the ’net for well over 15 years. I’ve never “accidentally” stumbled on to a porn site, and Googgle and Yahoo both have filter options in their search engine.
We’ve got bigger problems facing us than sex on the internet.
Report Post »mcfloyd
Posted on March 20, 2011 at 2:16pmI find that very hard to believe. I recall the first time I ended up at a porn site by accident. In 1998 I was on the PC and my wife wanted a recipe that she had seen on “Martha Stewart” and she asked me to punch up her site. Never having been to Martha’s site…I clicked on the first thing that came up baring her name. I guess I don’t need to tell you that what came on my screen was not THE Martha Stewart I was looking for…and although she WAS “cooking”…it wasn’t in the kitchen and I saw no recipes.
Maybe I’m just not too proficient at navigating the web, but that type of thing happens quite a bit.
Report Post »mcfloyd
Posted on March 20, 2011 at 8:14amThe triple X domain is perfect and should be mandatory for all pornographic sites. The complaints by the porn industry and church groups are meritless.
Report Post »bobodu
Posted on March 20, 2011 at 1:01pmMandatory huh??
Report Post »You sound like a freedom hating, Big Government person to me….
This is what I mean by “You couldn’t handle true liberty”.
mcfloyd
Posted on March 20, 2011 at 1:52pmWell Bob…I’m not sure what you mean. I’m not trying to do away with your porn…I just want to put it someplace where no one has to look at it unless they want to. You’ll have a key to the porn lock box and can open it up any time you want.
This way I’m protecting your rights AND mine. So what’s the problem?
Report Post »ScienceIsNotEvil
Posted on March 20, 2011 at 4:03pmPlease provide us with a definition of porn so we know what should be in that TLD.
Report Post »HellAndBack
Posted on March 20, 2011 at 8:01amLike the sites or not they are protected by free speach… You should be strong enough to say no … no weak enough to have the GOVERNMENT determin that decision for you… THE Gov. WILL ABSOLUTELY regulate and finally illegalize this…. then what is next. dont give up even what some say is the BAD stuff… One Mans Porn is another mans Huck Finn… know what I mean?
Report Post »MR.CONSERVATIVENEGRO
Posted on March 20, 2011 at 7:44amIf BIG BROTHER has anything to do with blocking, stopping, monitoring or supervising “FREE WILL”, one should be apposed to GOV’T involvement. Porn would die on the vine if there were not a market for it. Kids will find mom and dads CC card and pay for phone sex, video game site…oh, and online porn. Discipline the crumb-crunchers at home and all will be fine….lighten up MORAL POLICE. You holloween hags, go into the bedroom…pay attention to your hubbies in the bed and porn will cease to exsist. Porn has been known to assist married couples as well…it is not ALL bad.
Report Post »Stoic one
Posted on March 20, 2011 at 11:22amAgreed
Report Post »cykonas
Posted on March 20, 2011 at 7:42amThose of you who are agreeing to, or calling for, forms of censorship when you happen to find it agreeable are opening Pandora’s box. When have governments, or quasi-government regulators, ever stopped after their first round of their stated purpose? Once their collective feet are in the door you can bet there will be more censorship to come.
I completely “get” the need to protect the children, but that is the job of parents and families. If the parents are too lazy to educate themselves then their children run a much higher likelihood of being affected in a negative way. Freedom can be dangerous but the danger is much more tolerable, in my eyes, than the danger of censorship. If you trust the government regulators to do the right things then you must see history in a much different light than I do.
Report Post »commonsenseguy
Posted on March 20, 2011 at 7:57am@cykonas, agreed,this is nothing more than an attempt to regulate,not just porn,but everything else,they could not get net neutrality through,so this is another attempt ,just through the porn sites.
Report Post »Tnredneck
Posted on March 20, 2011 at 9:11amBingo!
Report Post »teachermitch32
Posted on March 20, 2011 at 10:32am@Tnredick, you forgot the pttttt….tiiiing…at the end of that bingo. You know….the sound where your filthy spit hits the spitoon on the saloon floor?
Report Post »Erasumus
Posted on March 20, 2011 at 12:20pmI am not quite sure about this…
I really like the idea of moving porn sites to the .xxx address. Easier to block children from accessing sites that they really don’t need to be at, yet allowing adults that want that kind of entertainment the access to the sites. That is a good thing. It seems straight forward enough.
However, when I look at with the idea of someone actually making a profiting off this move, then I wonder whether this group is in it for the children OR for thier own pockets to be filled. And with this
I pause.
When I look at it from the idea of the website owners saying “I don’t have a porn site, I have pictures of classical nudes” or what ever else they can come up with, I wonder to myself “WHO decides what is porn?“ and ”Who decides who has to be moved?”. Can I trust this person to make the right call on who moves and who doesn’t? Do they have an agenda when they are making these choice? This in a sense, at least to me, smacks of the “Eminent Domain” battles in the real world and who in the government decides who has to moved out of thier house so the government can build a whatever. I know we are not talking about moving a family here out of thier home or business, but, there is money changing hands here, and we are letting someone from the government make a regulatory choice, worse yet, a regulatory choice about the internet!
Perhaps others here in this forum can see this more clearly than me, but I wonder in doing this .xxx stuff, if we are saying to ourselves that we are making a choice “for the children”, but in reality, we will end up actually allowing the first slippery step of regulation to invade the internet.
Report Post »commonsenseguy
Posted on March 20, 2011 at 7:13amgood morning blazers, i find it odd that we are discussing porn on such a beautiful sunday morning that god has made., but as everyone says,the show must go own,so be, REAL MEN DON‘T NEED PORN AND REAL WOMEN DON’T NEED PORN. but any way,that is my two cents on this subject,porn is just as bad for our country as drugs, okay ,my three cents, have a great day.enjoy this day with god,family and you will be blessed,
Report Post »Smokey_Bojangles
Posted on March 20, 2011 at 7:01amIf you make it Easy to Block Achmed’s porn,he may get angry and blow up something.
Report Post »Ioc
Posted on March 20, 2011 at 5:00amCome now… they aren’t that strange of bedfellows. They both sell fake intimacy, just one of the body, one of the soul.
Report Post »teachermitch32
Posted on March 20, 2011 at 10:26amDid you just post twice? Or….was that your o-t-h-e-r personality? You know, the one that tells you to do things you wouldn’t otherwise do.
Might want to take something for that…or get help of some sort. Maybe a fake relationship with a therapist.
Report Post »bobodu
Posted on March 20, 2011 at 12:00pmThat’s completely true…ask Mark Souder.
Report Post »Bible in one and and his whore in the other.
Ioc
Posted on March 20, 2011 at 4:57amCome now… are they really that strange of bedfellows? They both sell fake intimacy -. one of the body, one of the soul.
Report Post »Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra
Posted on March 20, 2011 at 3:05amBy the way, broker 101 or one of the other leftwing loonies didn’t get first post. Nee.
Report Post »walkwithme1966
Posted on March 20, 2011 at 3:23amPerhaps we didn’t try!! And for the subject at hand – I agree they will be better able for parents to block. But wouldn’t you know that there was money behind the whole idea in the first place – money makes the world go around!!! http://wp.me/pYLB7-KX
Report Post »Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra
Posted on March 20, 2011 at 3:36amWalkwithme.
Report Post »We agree brother.
Save the children.
Diane TX
Posted on March 20, 2011 at 3:03amPerfect! Let the porn sites use triple X for their domain. It’s nice to know that those sites have to pay more than normal, and that parents can block all sites with “.xxx” in their names.
The only ones who will visit these sites are the “sickos” who don’t have real relationships anyway. I can’t imagine to have to pay for sexual context, when it’s free in real life.
Report Post »Tnredneck
Posted on March 20, 2011 at 3:25amI bet the trolls are paying for real life sex. Them ho‘s gotta pay for they’s crack somehow
Report Post »BigSky
Posted on March 20, 2011 at 4:01amIt won’t block the kids access to them, some kids are smarter than their parents when it comes to internet filters and blocks.
Report Post »teachermitch32
Posted on March 20, 2011 at 10:21am@Tnredick visits those places all the time as it is. You can tell because of the inappropriate comments he leaves all over the place. Kinda like him getting slimed there and then him coming here and sliming us.
Report Post »cheezwhiz
Posted on March 20, 2011 at 3:03amAlthough it’s meant to be voluntary, they fear governments could try to mandate the domain’s use, so that pornographic content is more easily blocked.
Report Post »—————–
Why would Obama do that ?
Its porn, NOT FOX( or one of those BIGisites).
Why would Obama destroy the only date his base ever gets
Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra
Posted on March 20, 2011 at 3:10amHa. At least the other trolls didn’t get first crack at this.
Report Post »Now at least it will be easy to block this from our kids.
That is why there was such a big fight on this.
Tnredneck
Posted on March 20, 2011 at 9:16amIf the blaze moderators would stay off those sites they might do a better job. Seems they are into comments that are over the top especially when it comes to the twisted and perverted and complete disrespect for the families of the deceased. Glen beck has gotten his empire to big to control.
Report Post »Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra
Posted on March 20, 2011 at 2:57amThat would just be fine. Porn.xxx….at least we would know what to block.
Report Post »godlovinmom
Posted on March 20, 2011 at 3:40amwasn’t the security department officals caught doing hours of porn on their computers while at work…well this way it will be easier to keep track of em…
Report Post »thetreyman
Posted on March 20, 2011 at 4:06amagreed, i dont know why anyone would have a problem with this. i will now know to put a . xxx after all of my searches.
Report Post »Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}
Posted on March 20, 2011 at 5:38am@Darmok
Any chance they might come up with a .troll adresses for useless trolls to make up their rantings at?
It too would make it easier to block them out.
Report Post »poverty.sucks
Posted on March 20, 2011 at 6:04amWill it be a violation for them to post sites @ .com so innocent people don’t stumble upon that filth?
Report Post »Creestof
Posted on March 20, 2011 at 6:27amWill the “.GOV” sites auto-switch to the new “.XXX”? They probably should since they have been flocking us for years.
Report Post »Nobamazone
Posted on March 20, 2011 at 7:07amthe article said “although it is meant to be voluntary”
Report Post »so, no…. they won’t have to have the .xxx
seems to me that while on the surface it sounds like a great idea, but in the end it will just give government the ability to regulate the internet, after all, many will demand that they MUST, that will lead to someone having to oversee it…..
I am totally against porn, but we should be careful about thinking this might work
BLACKDIAMONDSKIER
Posted on March 20, 2011 at 8:21am@ CREESTOV
That’s hilarious. Good one.
Report Post »HappyStretchedThin
Posted on March 20, 2011 at 9:05amDon’t fall for it, Darmok, it’s a head fake. The porners are only FAKING the cry of foul they’re making. They have every intention of exploiting the new domain and NO intention of giving up any other domains they currently infiltrate. Sadly, that’s how this evil works, by mission creep and slow but ever more broadening legitimization. They just crossed another line in the sand that wasn’t properly defended.
Report Post »Chuck Finley
Posted on March 20, 2011 at 10:31amor veiw
Report Post »J.C. McGlynn
Posted on March 20, 2011 at 10:37amPorn sites are already blocked on government computers. They found a work-around by using google. Also, if the normal charge for a site is $10.00 dollars no more than $20.00 should be charged for .xxx sites.
Report Post »CountMeIn
Posted on March 20, 2011 at 10:46amI agree, Darmok. People who are so inclined will know where to look and those that hate it will know what domains to avoid. Seems like a win-win to me.
Report Post »Xcori8r
Posted on March 20, 2011 at 11:09amAs long as is is voluntary and legal content is never mandated or restricted, no big deal.
If there was enough traffic demand, why not a .mus or .jc, .ju, .hin, .bud etc.
Also, the domain extension is elective so there would be no stopping a church evangelizing from a .xxx
Heck of a sinner magnet for a missionary.
Report Post »docvet
Posted on March 20, 2011 at 3:37pmIf the .xxx sites are easily blocked, would all conservative sites be required to be xxx, too.
Report Post »lorgrom
Posted on March 21, 2011 at 8:57amOne of the problems with this, that no one is addressing, is companies like Comcast already block internet traffic, this will allow such companies to block even more sites.
Report Post »