Two Senate Democrats, Max Baucus of Montana and Mark Pryor of Arkansas, officially introduced
the "Cyber Safety for Kids Act of 2006." The new bill would push
for the Bush administration to create an ".xxx" domain, which would be
reserved specifically for pornographic web sites. The ultimate
goal would be for parents to be able to easily filter and eliminate
what their kids can and cannot view on the Internet.
"While the Internet is an exceptional learning tool, it allows
children the same easy access to websites about space shuttles as it
does for pornography," said Senator Baucus, adding that violators would
be subject to a hefty fine.
The two senators hope that the U.S. Department of Commerce and the
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) can work
together to make sure that minors are shielded from adult
content. The legislation will have a hard road, especially with
many public interest groups ready to rally against the creation of the
virtual red-light district. During last summer, ICANN initially
went along with an .xxx domain, but was met with heavy criticism that
forced the organization to hold off any decisions since last December.
quote: But there's also a problem of multiple domain pointers. With .xxx we just affirm that obsession with peeking at other people's genitals is something normal.
quote: If you're going to be an insulting, pedantic twerp, you should take care to at least be accurate. First of all, it was obvious the previous poster pretty much shares your viewpoint; you misinterpreted his remarks painfully.
quote: Oops, he made no such distinction. He didn't even imply it. He merely indicated those classes of people exist, and not that they excluded any and all other possible classes.
quote: According to centuries of US law, case history, and legal tradition, this statement is false. You may have a belief that the proper function of government should be more limited (a view I share myself) but the statement as it stands is incorrect.
quote: You've gotten your terms confused. His original statement on obsession didn't refer to pornography...it referred to viewing the genitals of others. You can do that directly or by proxy, using pornography.
quote: Any person motivated enough to regularly seek out pictoral representations of genitalia fits the textbook definition of obsession, even if it doesn't necessarily rise to the clinical one.
quote: But even in the US, most men do not view pornography on a regular basis, and thus someone who does is outside (if ever so slightly) the norm.
quote: I'm ignoring the even more basic fallacy of substituting "men with working genitals" for the more generic "people". The former term is, say, only 49% of the population at large. If 51% of that set engage in an activity, that translates into only 25% of the entire populace.
quote: Lol, you wrote three replies to him-- one of which weighed in at mini-series length-- before you realized you'd wholly misinterpreted him?
I stand vindicated.
quote: You refuse to face facts. Some people are, indeed, obsessed with pornography. That leads to their spending, cumulatively, several billion dollars per year on it. That in turn leads to an Internet so awash in porn links, popups, and sites that its nearly impossible to keep it away from small children. And THAT is the rationale behind the .xxx domain proposal. A rationale predicated upon the existence of an obsession. If no one was obsessed with porn, the industry would be vastly smaller...and this proposal wouldn't even exist.
quote: And the dictionary definition is fulfilled Anyone who regularly views porn has a preoccupation with it, and masturbating to porn certainly qualifies as a "fixed idea".
quote: But what's most amusing is that, had he been correct, it would have done even more to disprove his original claim that "most people" view porn on a regular basis.
quote: obsessed with shielding children from porn it's absolutely ridiculous
quote: Don't people have something better to do than this?