Triple X and “keeping children safe online”

So I catch this article the other day.  I a little terrified at
the idea of the government deciding on appropriate content.  Not that this
doesn’t sound good in theory, but in practice, they’ll screw it up royally.

Senators propose labels for adult Web sites

The requirements appear in legislation announced Thursday by two Senate
Democrats, Mark Pryor of Arkansas and Max Baucus of Montana, that they say
will “clean up the Internet for children.”

The proposal, which the senators describe as a discussion draft, relies
on the idea of embedding a new tag–such as <L18>–in all Web pages that
the government deems unsuitable for minors. Then future Web browsers used by
minors could be configured to reject L18-labeled Web pages.

Another section of the Cyber Safety for Kids Act of 2007 would require
the owner of any Web site with adult content on it to say so when registering
the domain with the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers. The
owner must also give ICANN the Web site’s Internet Protocol address and other
information.

(http://news.com.com/2100-1028_3-6175549.html)

Oh, if only there was a way to easily indicate an x-rated site. 
Something really easy to filter on, like maybe a top level domain.  A TLD
could be very easily filtered out, and you’d pretty much know what kind of site
you were headed to when you looked at the URL.  Something that industry
would fully support…

ICANN rejects .xxx domain registry

The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers has rejected a
controversial proposal to create a new .xxx domain suffix for adult Web sites.

(http://news.com.com/ICANN+rejects+.xxx+domain+registry/2100-1030_3-6172046.html)

Well, never mind.

Posted in Mumbles and Grumbles
One comment on “Triple X and “keeping children safe online”
  1. JB says:

    I am convinced that porn sites TARGET children and seek to get young children addicted to porn. The more stupid addicts, the more clicks they get on their sites, hence, more $$$. If they (and the politicians) were concerned about our children, they would require ANY site that is remotely pornographic in any way to have a ".xxx" in place of a .com or .net. Then, you may pay 2 or 3 bucks extra a month to your ISP, and all those sites would be blocked.

    Simple solution, and for the most part, problem free. But, oh, that precious "free speech" thing. Oh yes, we MUST be allowed to tell 8 year olds how to give proper oral sex by letting them watch porn movies online. It is, after all, a free country. Free until you say the wrong term for a certain social group or ethnic group, then you lose your job. Double standard out there I am afraid.

    So REQUIRING a xxx domain is a violation of free speech, yet REQUIRING that a child be 21 years old or older to buy a porn magazine at the gas station is not? So protecting a child in a brick and mortar store is okay, but protecting them online is a violation of free speech? Thats like having a website that sells wiskey. The gov’t REQUIRES that you only sell to people who can prove their age as 21 years or older yet you fight that requiring any restriction is a violation of free speech.

    What do porn sites have to win by keeping a .com or .net? I’ll tell you. They have children to gain. Adult customers won’t mind that it ends in xxx. And ISPs can block xxx domains for a fee. It is funny how free speech freaks want to protect a line in the constitution, even if it means putting childrens minds at risk.

    Sorry for the rant, for more rants, see my site, http://www.techtipsforparents.org … I hope it is not a violation of freee speech that I chose a .org instead of a .com :)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*