seriously? November 17, 2006
Flipping through the channels while eating lunch, I stopped for a moment on Fox News where they were discussing the pending bill that would give all porn sites a .xxx extension and the Child Online Protection Act that would provide criminal charges and stiff punishment for anyone who knowingly made harmful material available to minors. I personally think it’s a great idea and would prevent children (and me) from stumbling across sites I really don’t want to see. It would also make it much easier to block porn sites from computers that children use (at home, in schools, in public libraries).
Apparently (but not surprisingly) the ACLU has a problem with this proposed law, claiming it violates the first amendment right to free speech. Just in case you’re not aware of the exact wording of the first amendment, here it is: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
May I first point out that the first amendment protects our “freedom of speech”, but says nothing of our “freedom of action.” In other words, you can say anything you want and believe anything you want, but you may not do anything you want. There have been many studies on the effects pornography has on children. How does the right of a person to make and broadcast pornography supersede the right of a child to be protected from exposure to such harmful things? I don’t think anyone would claim that a person has the right to harm a child in any way. This law does not prohibit people from making pornography or making money from pornography. It just requires pornographers to notify people visiting their site that they are an adult site and make the person verify their age. In the case of the .xxx extension I think it would make it even easier for someone who was actually looking for a pornographic site to find one, so I fail to see how it would adversely affect the porn industry.
I’m not sure if I’m stating this all well. Please let me know what you think.
Having a .xxx would create a new TLD (top-level domain) — basically the .com, .net, .org, .us, .uk, and several others you find in domain names (the names associated with the machines that serve websites and recieve email) — which could be easily blocked by browsers, Internet filtering software, and such.
For people who do not want it blocked, it makes it clear what sort of content would be at the site. For people who do want it blocked, it provides a quick and easy way to determine the type of content hosted on the site.
I think that having the .xxx TLD is a probably a good thing. Even if not required, I’m sure several people in that industry would probably flock to it it it were available, and that would make things easier for everyone involved.
Allea, very well stated. I have always been impressed with your level headedness and ability to state things in an incredible profound way. Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this nasty subject.
oh yeah, and congrats on the wedding!