Comments on: The CWA is Wrong about XXX http://right-wing-religious-wacko.com/2005/12/14/the-cwa-is-wrong-about-xxx/ Wacko! is a conservative Christian living in the liberal Washington, D.C. metro suburbs. He will question both the left and right and offer conservative viewpoints in a thoughtful way. This is his take on faith, culture, politics, and society. Tue, 06 Jan 2009 03:04:27 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: Wacko! http://right-wing-religious-wacko.com/2005/12/14/the-cwa-is-wrong-about-xxx/#comment-841 Wacko! Tue, 10 Jan 2006 15:11:25 +0000 http://right-wing-religious-wacko.com/2005/12/14/the-cwa-is-wrong-about-xxx/#comment-841 You bring up a good point about regulation - who will police this and make final decisions? Also, why the focus on pornography and not sites with graphic violence or language? It could become a slippery slope. However, I believe there could be benefits for all parties if there was an .xxx domain. First, even though there are millions of porn sites, it doesn't seem like a big deal to police them and force them to move to an .xxx domain. Although there will be disagreement, perhaps the line in the sand would be to take any pornographic material that is already regulated by age restrictions and move it to these .xxx domains. That way it would remove the art argument and classify Playboy as pornography. Would it really hurt HH to have Playboy move to playboy.xxx ? The 'xxx' needn't refer to hardcore pornography - that's just the fashion of using a tradional 3 character domain extension. You bring up a good point about regulation - who will police this and make final decisions?

Also, why the focus on pornography and not sites with graphic violence or language? It could become a slippery slope.

However, I believe there could be benefits for all parties if there was an .xxx domain. First, even though there are millions of porn sites, it doesn’t seem like a big deal to police them and force them to move to an .xxx domain.

Although there will be disagreement, perhaps the line in the sand would be to take any pornographic material that is already regulated by age restrictions and move it to these .xxx domains. That way it would remove the art argument and classify Playboy as pornography.

Would it really hurt HH to have Playboy move to playboy.xxx ? The ‘xxx’ needn’t refer to hardcore pornography - that’s just the fashion of using a tradional 3 character domain extension.

]]> By: tgirsch http://right-wing-religious-wacko.com/2005/12/14/the-cwa-is-wrong-about-xxx/#comment-831 tgirsch Mon, 09 Jan 2006 21:08:25 +0000 http://right-wing-religious-wacko.com/2005/12/14/the-cwa-is-wrong-about-xxx/#comment-831 I think the problem is that it would be virtually impossible to force pornographers over to a .xxx domain. And what, exactly, constitutes such pornography? Playboy is certainly porn, but it's also nowhere near xxx level. Further, you're almost guaranteed to have disputes over legitimate artistic use of nudity and attempts by the more prudish to classify that as pornography, too. To me, the .xxx idea is one of those ideas that looks good on paper, but would be difficult to implement in practice. I think the problem is that it would be virtually impossible to force pornographers over to a .xxx domain. And what, exactly, constitutes such pornography? Playboy is certainly porn, but it’s also nowhere near xxx level. Further, you’re almost guaranteed to have disputes over legitimate artistic use of nudity and attempts by the more prudish to classify that as pornography, too.

To me, the .xxx idea is one of those ideas that looks good on paper, but would be difficult to implement in practice.

]]> By: ninepoundhammer http://right-wing-religious-wacko.com/2005/12/14/the-cwa-is-wrong-about-xxx/#comment-741 ninepoundhammer Thu, 22 Dec 2005 20:43:31 +0000 http://right-wing-religious-wacko.com/2005/12/14/the-cwa-is-wrong-about-xxx/#comment-741 I have to agree. I am not quite sure what the CWA think the 'sky is falling' regarding this issue. I have to agree. I am not quite sure what the CWA think the ’sky is falling’ regarding this issue.

]]> By: shadwomom1 http://right-wing-religious-wacko.com/2005/12/14/the-cwa-is-wrong-about-xxx/#comment-739 shadwomom1 Thu, 22 Dec 2005 12:47:05 +0000 http://right-wing-religious-wacko.com/2005/12/14/the-cwa-is-wrong-about-xxx/#comment-739 Seems like at the least it would allow for more parental controls to be put in place. And people like me, with no children in the home, can still eliminate them from our own computers. As can employers. It is not as if pornographers will not find as many ways as possible to distribute their product. Seems like at the least it would allow for more parental controls to be put in place. And people like me, with no children in the home, can still eliminate them from our own computers. As can employers.

It is not as if pornographers will not find as many ways as possible to distribute their product.

]]>