FA+
Shop
XXX domain
15 years ago
So, this ruling has finally passed:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/10412765.stm
What upsets me, though, is that the article doesn't say whether porn sites would be *required* to have an xxx domain.
It says that the new domain would make it easier to avoid porn-- which would only be true if all (or almost all) sex sites had urls ending in xxx. But it never explicitly says that this would be required. It also says that they had already received some applications for xxx domain sites... which would seem to indicate that it was on a voluntary basis.
But even if nobody's required to use the xxx ending, I feel as if there's a strong possibility that it might *become* a requirement later, if the government wants to take advantage of this possible way to "make it easier to avoid porn."
And that would open up the whole insane can of worms that gets opened every time the government tries to regulate porn: the fact is that you can't *define* porn, and, depending on different people's opinion of what porn is, lots of pretty tame sites would be threatened and harassed while lots of hard-core sites would go unnoticed. (Kind of like what happens when parents try to use a program to filter out adult content on their kid's internet connection. If laws can't define porn, how can a computer program?)
What would happen to FA? We're not part of the mainstream porn industry, we don't have photographic porn, and not all of our content is sexual. Would we have to split up into two sites, one for sex and one for no sex? Where would artistic nudes go? How do you define whether a nude image is erotic enough to qualify as porn?
What would happen to my free Tripod page with my Star Trek fanfiction on it? Some of the stories have sex scenes, and I have drawings there too. Tripod ends in .com, not .xxx. Would that be a problem?
And what would happen to historical sites that contain images of ancient Greek pottery with sex scenes painted on it? What do you do if the image is clearly pornography, but the presentation is historical or sociological? I cannot think of any way laws could be written to cover all the possibilities. Language, even legal language, is an imperfect way to describe reality, and there are some things that simply cannot be defined in words. I think feelings would take over, people sending threatening letters all over the place on a case-by-case basis, sits owners being attacked over every questionable image, once all the angry prudes in the world think that they have the law on their side.
So I am really, really hoping that the presence of an .xxx domain does not start being used to police internet content. But lawmakers have done stupider things in the past (especially regarding internet freedom) so I don't have as much hope as I'd like.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/10412765.stm
What upsets me, though, is that the article doesn't say whether porn sites would be *required* to have an xxx domain.
It says that the new domain would make it easier to avoid porn-- which would only be true if all (or almost all) sex sites had urls ending in xxx. But it never explicitly says that this would be required. It also says that they had already received some applications for xxx domain sites... which would seem to indicate that it was on a voluntary basis.
But even if nobody's required to use the xxx ending, I feel as if there's a strong possibility that it might *become* a requirement later, if the government wants to take advantage of this possible way to "make it easier to avoid porn."
And that would open up the whole insane can of worms that gets opened every time the government tries to regulate porn: the fact is that you can't *define* porn, and, depending on different people's opinion of what porn is, lots of pretty tame sites would be threatened and harassed while lots of hard-core sites would go unnoticed. (Kind of like what happens when parents try to use a program to filter out adult content on their kid's internet connection. If laws can't define porn, how can a computer program?)
What would happen to FA? We're not part of the mainstream porn industry, we don't have photographic porn, and not all of our content is sexual. Would we have to split up into two sites, one for sex and one for no sex? Where would artistic nudes go? How do you define whether a nude image is erotic enough to qualify as porn?
What would happen to my free Tripod page with my Star Trek fanfiction on it? Some of the stories have sex scenes, and I have drawings there too. Tripod ends in .com, not .xxx. Would that be a problem?
And what would happen to historical sites that contain images of ancient Greek pottery with sex scenes painted on it? What do you do if the image is clearly pornography, but the presentation is historical or sociological? I cannot think of any way laws could be written to cover all the possibilities. Language, even legal language, is an imperfect way to describe reality, and there are some things that simply cannot be defined in words. I think feelings would take over, people sending threatening letters all over the place on a case-by-case basis, sits owners being attacked over every questionable image, once all the angry prudes in the world think that they have the law on their side.
So I am really, really hoping that the presence of an .xxx domain does not start being used to police internet content. But lawmakers have done stupider things in the past (especially regarding internet freedom) so I don't have as much hope as I'd like.
