[IP] more on Editors comment on the number of items re ex-ex-ex
Begin forwarded message:
From:
Date: June 3, 2005 10:37:08 AM EDT
To: dave@xxxxxxxxxx
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 roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To manage your subscription, go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/