On Thu, 18 Aug 2005, TELECOM Digest Editor noted in response to Mark Crispin:
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Also see article on how substantially
> child p*rn is growing on the net elsewhere in this issue of the
> Digest. PAT]
And how, pray tell, would an .xxx TLD address the problem of child pornography?
As far as I know, rumors to the contrary about certain Scandinavian countries notwithstanding, child pornography is completely illegal throughout the world. This is not "restricted" pornography which would presumably go into an .xxx TLD; it is "prohibited pornography" which has no legitimate home.
It is inaccurate and misleading to bring up the question of child pornography in a serious discussion of whether or not an .xxx TLD is a good idea.
-- Mark --
formatting link
does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate. Si vis pacem, para bellum.
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The Editor's Note in question was intended as a _cross reference_ on the topic of 'adult' web sites which appeared in the same issue, no more, no less. And unless you wish to be in denial (not all that uncommon I have found in many Usenet newsgroups) child pornography -- legal or illegal not with- standing, -- is a _major_ part of the overall 'adult web site' scene on the net. The Editor's Note was not intended to either justify nor disparage the use of .xxx and kiddie p*rn. I am sorry you jumped the gun and made that association. PAT]