On Wed, 17 Aug 2005, the News Wire reported:
Leaving aside their motivations, they are correct in their overall assessment of the undesirability of a .xxx TLD.
However, an .xxx TLD does not help the p*rn industry or its customers. The proper analogy is not with a zoned red-light district, but rather with a walled ghetto with no requirement that anyone live in the ghetto.
The basic notion of a zoned red-light district is to create a safe haven for the "entertainment" industry; if they stay in the district and follow certain rules, they can ply their trade without harassment. Another characteristic of the red-light district is that the customers of the "entertainers" can come and go discreetly without harassment.
The basic notion of a walled ghetto is to lock an "undesirable" subset of society into one area, and to track all comings and goings. Not only can't the inhabitants leave, but their visitors can't be discreet.
An .xxx TLD combines the worst features of both. The p*rn industry is not required to use it; and it is likely that the level of filtering applied to the .xxx TLD would block many of their customers.
We're not just talking about little Johnny not being allowed to look at dirty pictures on the school computer. We're also talking about legitimate adult customers on their own computers being blocked from their p*rn because some entity between customer and supplier chooses to block the .xxx TLD. It also makes it easier to track the activities of these legitimate adult customers.
There may be no recourse if the only ISP in a small town is owned by someone who chooses to interfere with his users' access to p*rn, especially if the user does not want his consumption of p*rn to become well-known.
An .xxx TLD does not help those who want to be in a "p*rn-free" environment either. There's no requirement for the p*rn industry to use it. There is abundant motivation for them *not* to use it.
It would be difficult, if not impossible, to create laws to force the p*rn industry to use an .xxx TLD. A red-light district or a ghetto involves a single legal authority to make the determination of what goes in and what does not. The Internet does not have that luxury. What is considered to be the vilest p*rn in Tehran or Mecca may be normal public art (or even medical information) in Paris or San Francisco.
If the real intent is to set up a red-light district, a better means of doing this would be through the means of content tagging. The tagging must be of a form by which local jurisdictions (and individuals!) can make their own determination of "p*rn" or "not p*rn" and by doing so create a red-light district customized for their own needs. For example, Tehran and Mecca would probably rate content with the "uncovered woman's face" tag as going in their red-light district.
The other necessary part -- and much more difficult to achieve -- would be to have an international body of law (with local versions in place at all countries with Internet access) which protects content providers from prosecution if they accurately label their content according to the content tagging standards.
It must be understood that protection from prosecution is a vital part of any red-light district.
Finally, it is the responsibility of the authority defining the red-light district to block content that is prohibited even in the red-light district. It is not the responsibility of the content provider; the content provider's responsibility ends with accurate tagging.
None of this is simple; and none of this is accomplished by an .xxx TLD.
-- Mark --
Mark said "It would be difficult if not impossible to force the p*rn industry to be part of 'xxx'."
Why would that be difficult, Mark? In many communities now, those places are required (just like taverns) to post notices that persons of minority age cannot be on the premises. It is not considered a free-association issue, but rather a matter of public policy and any challenges to the 'minors stay away' rule are always defeated. Why would it be a free-speech issue to impose on p*rn sites in the same way, with 'xxx' being the equivilent of a 'minors not allowed' sign? I have never yet seen a tavern, or a gay mens 'bathhouse', or an adult bookstore for example, which got anywhere trying to argue that that signs on the wall ordering minors to leave the premises were somehow an imposition on the establishment (or the patrons therein) rights of free speech or free association. Or, for that matter, a movie theatre (adult or otherwise) which attempted to enfore an 'X' or 'PG' rating making free speech claims, etc. So why would an internet establishment suddenly have that problem (assuming the law said that public policy dictated the protection of minors?
Mark also notes that the presence of 'xxx' would mean that snoopers or other busy bodies could easily spy to see who had been where. While that is true and it is easier to audit the behavior of others on a computer screen rather than standing on the sidewalk around a business place, don't you suppose conservative Christians (not to single them out but use them as a good example) couldn't observe the patrons of an 'adult' business place by watching from the sidewalk if they were so inclined? And yes, 'xxx' does not keep detirmined children (nor conservative Christians for that matter) away from such an Internet establishment if they wish to sneak inside, neither does a 'we do not sell cigarattes under 18 nor alcohol under 21' sign prevent kids from trying to purchase or use or peek, etc. Those signs merely serve as a reminder of society's stated purposes, and warn of society's intent to punish offenders.
One thing that 'xxx' _would_ do is provide a good screening and filtering mechanism for 'adult' purveyors who did _not_ want to be bothered by kids coming around, etc (when combined with their other validation techniques such as credit card proof of age, etc.). People who were so inclined could filter out 'xxx' in the same way they can filter out other spam and trash. What's your objection to that? PAT]