|
06 Dec 05 - 07:03 PM (#1621550) Subject: BS: Anti-Porn Triumph? From: JohnInKansas [quote] Washington, D.C.—Concerned Women for America (CWA) is thrilled that a plan by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) to create a .xxx domain for Internet porn sites has been deleted, days before expected approval. Vint Cerf, the chairman of ICANN, announced yesterday that the issue had been removed from the agenda of an upcoming board meeting due to time constraints. He did not indicate when it might be reintroduced. Media reports indicate that the news came as a surprise to everyone, including Stuart Lawley, the president of .xxx's sponsoring organization, ICM Registry, who has spent millions of dollars getting the bid this far. Mr. Lawley was due to present the domain to the same meeting just minutes after Mr. Cerf's statement. CWA actively lobbied against this new domain and has worked to increase awareness of its dangers for families and children. "Creating a .xxx domain exclusively for pornographers would just be giving them a new platform to spread their smut," said Jan LaRue, CWA's Chief Counsel, who met with top officials at the Department of Commerce to block the domain. "Not only would smut-peddlers retain their current pornographic Web sites on all other domains, they would have been granted their own exclusive one. "Porn site operators are the only ones who stand to gain from having a .xxx domain. Families across America realize that this outrageous scheme would only provide children with more opportunities to view hard-core porn images, and help legitimize an illegitimate industry," LaRue concluded. [edquote] For what it really means: Ubiquitous Porn: Alive on the Net PC Magazine, 12.05.05, By John C. Dvorak. Numerous people, specifically including Dvorak, have lobbied for a long time to get an ".xxx" domain to isolate and allow simple blocking of porn for those whe do not want to see it. Now the idiots have assured that it will remain everywhere on the 'net, as it is today. [quote] "Ladies, you may as well crow this: "We won, now porn will be everywhere!" There will now be more porn than ever, and it will be harder than ever to filter it out. It will come in e-mails and show up on search engines. The .xxx idea was going to be a step forward. It was labeling. Instead, the idea was ravished by naïve do-gooders who are clueless as to how the Internet works and what has to be done about porn. They must be so proud of themselves. And Vint Cerf, known as one of the "fathers" of the Net, should be ashamed of himself for knuckling under to knuckleheads. It's a sad day for freedom. The pornographers will be lifting their glasses. Now the purveyors of porn may as well own the whole Net." [endquote] The problem with those who blindly follow is that they can be so easily (mis)lead. That's why politicians love them – and pretend to be one of them. John |
|
06 Dec 05 - 07:12 PM (#1621556) Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Porn Triumph? From: GUEST BS: SEXY Santa's Sensual gift selection And the difference is? |
|
06 Dec 05 - 09:05 PM (#1621605) Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Porn Triumph? From: Big Al Whittle Australians wouldn't give a xxxx for anything else.... |
|
07 Dec 05 - 08:18 AM (#1621880) Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Porn Triumph? From: Bunnahabhain Trying to stop porn on the net would be like trying to stop the sun coming up. Having a large proportion of it in one domain just seems sensible. It won't encourage it, and will make it easy to block a large amount of it. Imagine you're opposed to people driving fast. They've just opposed the building of racing circuits, which would keep the fast people happy, and out the way of everyone else. |
|
07 Dec 05 - 08:38 AM (#1621891) Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Porn Triumph? From: Skipjack K8 I thought it was a motorbike. How disappointing. |
|
07 Dec 05 - 12:07 PM (#1622024) Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Porn Triumph? From: Clinton Hammond Porn is never going to go away.... And that makes me very very happy! As long as everyone involved is consenting, what's the harm? There isn't any, that's what... |
|
07 Dec 05 - 03:42 PM (#1622140) Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Porn Triumph? From: Piers Is that consent in the, literally, fucking desperate for money kind of way? |
|
07 Dec 05 - 08:23 PM (#1622329) Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Porn Triumph? From: Richard Bridge Piers, that is an issue for capitalism, not censorship. |
|
08 Dec 05 - 05:31 AM (#1622557) Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Porn Triumph? From: Piers Yeah, but no, but one might make a case that regulation is appropriate not on moral grounds, but on the basis of reducing the likelihood of vulnerable and poor young people being exploited, risking their health and getting involved with drugs and gangsters. There is a separate matter of speculation: would there be pornography and prostitution if there was no economic compulsion to do so? |
|
08 Dec 05 - 12:58 PM (#1622902) Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Porn Triumph? From: GUEST,IVOR BIGGIN Ever notice that it's always ugly women who protest against porn ? You never see a total babe protest. Old dogs should accept that if their partner wishes to look at images of young attractive women other than go to bed with a monster lying with six asses. What is the harm in that ? I know several women that visit porn sites and love them. Why is it these old hags that protest always use the line, but the perv's move onto childrens sites. Their line is one to shock. Most of these dragons have either been dumped by a man for a younger attractive model or the hate their own body image.Why don't theyjust accept it. Watched it on the news and when I looked at the front line of those women, Christ I would face tigers first before I would feel passionate towards any of them. |
|
08 Dec 05 - 01:15 PM (#1622918) Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Porn Triumph? From: Clinton Hammond It goes for porn the same as Chris Rock said about rap music... Lots of people say that rap music is mysogenist.... And the women who listen to it and like it don't give a fuck.... So why should you? No one forces you to buy rap music... no one forces you to buy porn.... I'd wager in this day and age there are very very few women making porn who don't want to be there.... I'll bet there are more people working crappy jobs like screwing on the tops to toothpates tubes or shoveling shit who WISH they had the skills to earn their living being filmed fucking... Exploited? The woman make all the rules and 85% of the money! How exploited is that?!?!?! "Ever notice that it's always ugly women who protest against porn ?" George Carlin said it.... Ya ever notice that most of the people who are anti-abortion are people you wouldn't want to fuck in the first place... Watch the HBO series "Family Business" for a good look behind the scenes of the porn world of Adam Glasser (AKA Seymore Butts)... |
|
08 Dec 05 - 04:19 PM (#1623092) Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Porn Triumph? From: Piers From Attorney General's Commission on Pornography (1986) If it is not possible to speak with certainty about the family backgrounds of the young women and men who become "models," it nevertheless seems clear what chiefly motivates their decision to appear in sexually explicit material: financial need. As one former model put it when asked why most women enter nude modeling: A lot of women are hurt or crazy women under stress. Yes, most women come in under a lot of stress. They're usually desperate when they first come in-maybe they need money for some emergency, like I did, or they've gone as long as they can doing odds and ends or working at (menial) jobs, and they finally just have to pay their bills. I met a woman whose kid was in the hospital, and I met lots of women who were financially strapped. There were also many illegal aliens there who couldn't work regular jobs even if they had the skills because they didn't have their green cards.... [T]hey certainly know how to get you to do what they want. Some women are so bad off that they just go immediately into hard-core films.[984] Witnesses attributed to pornography their having been coerced into pornographic performances, bound and beaten in direct imitation of pornography, and forcibly imprisoned for the purpose of manufacturing pornography. Although this Commission can neither conclusively determine that pornography caused these physical harms nor conclusively determine that it did not, it was the opinion of the witnesses that pornography played a central role in the pattern of abuse within which they were harmed. In addition to the myriad of other harms and anti-social effects brought about by obscenity[1175] there is a link between traditional organized crime group involvement in the obscenity business and many other types of criminal activity. Physical violence, injury, prostitution and other forms of sexual abuse are so interlinked in many cases as to be almost inseparable except according to statutory definitions "Prostitution is the foundation upon which pornography is built.... Pornography cannot exist without prostitution.... It is impossible to separate pornography from prostitution. The acts are identical except in pornography there is a permanent record of the woman's abuse."[1192] The damage and injuries range from those sustained by performers[1183] forced to engage in physically harmful acts which can often result in permanent injury, [1184] to damage to property,[1185] "knee-breaking"[1186] and arson.[1187] Narcotics are often distributed to performers who appear in pornographic materials to lower their inhibitions and to create a dependency.[1198] Profits earned by organized crime from pornography sales have been used to finance drug smuggling.[1199] Even though some performers state that they receive regular medical check-ups,[1028] the odds of contracting sexually transmitted diseases are very high-particularly because performers do not even have the option of using condoms or other "safe sex" techniques.[1029] Obviously the porn industry has expanded massively since 1986. Does that mean it is any better? I doubt it. From wikipedia: In 1949, the United Nations adopted a convention stating that prostitution is incompatible with human dignity, requiring all signing parties to punish pimps and brothel owners and operators, and to abolish all special treatment or registration of prostitutes. The convention was ratified by 89 countries, with the exception of Germany, the Netherlands, Australia, the United States and others. |
|
08 Dec 05 - 04:24 PM (#1623100) Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Porn Triumph? From: Clinton Hammond 1949??? 1986?? Holy ancient history Batman.... Wanna join us here in the 21st Century maybe? |
|
08 Dec 05 - 04:45 PM (#1623118) Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Porn Triumph? From: Thomas the Rhymer Here in the sacred domain of human nature, nothing's changed for tens of thousands of years, Clinton... Porn and Prostitution are amoung the most hideous of occupations... and are not tolerated in any civil society... It is the most obvious declaration that the society in question is condoning weak, abusive and compusive men. ttr |
|
08 Dec 05 - 04:56 PM (#1623122) Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Porn Triumph? From: GUEST You don't have daughters then clinton. Maybe one day eh? |
|
08 Dec 05 - 04:59 PM (#1623125) Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Porn Triumph? From: bobad "Porn and Prostitution are amoung the most hideous of occupations...and are not tolerated in any civil society..." Prostitution is LEGAL (with some restrictions that aren't that bad) in Canada, most all of Europe including England, France, Wales, Denmark, etc., most of South America including most of Mexico (often in special zones), Israel (Tel Aviv known as the brothel capital of the world), Australia, and many other countries. It is either legal or very tolerated in most all of Asia and even Iran has "temporary wives" which can be for only a few hours! New Zealand passed in 2003 one of the most comprehensive decriminalization acts which even made street hookers legal which is causing many concerns. I do NOT support public nuisance street hookers being legal unless in special zones. But PRIVATE consenting adult sexwork should be legal as it is in most of the world except the U.S. http://www.sexwork.com/coalition/whatcountrieslegal.html |
|
08 Dec 05 - 05:16 PM (#1623132) Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Porn Triumph? From: Thomas the Rhymer Seperation of sex and state. Decriminalization... of Immorality? I'm sorry, bobad... just because 'everyone'else' is doing it, doesn't make it proper and right. No thanks, I'll pass. ttr |
|
08 Dec 05 - 05:27 PM (#1623143) Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Porn Triumph? From: GUEST,Boab A couple shaggin' on a couch is porn. A guy sticking another with a bayonet while waving the flag of his country isn't. Sad, sad race, humanity,eh? |
|
08 Dec 05 - 06:02 PM (#1623176) Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Porn Triumph? From: GUEST I pity those poor fuckers of either sex who need porn to get stiff or get stiffed. Oh yes, it's an art form. I forgot. |
|
08 Dec 05 - 06:34 PM (#1623191) Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Porn Triumph? From: Clinton Hammond "Porn and Prostitution are amoung the most hideous of occupations..." Geee TtR.... you can still hear us from way back there in the 50's? That's surprising |
|
08 Dec 05 - 06:58 PM (#1623215) Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Porn Triumph? From: Donuel Boab - the pictures of US torture at Abu Graib seemed to have combined both porn and gore. |
|
09 Dec 05 - 12:04 AM (#1623401) Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Porn Triumph? From: goodbar porn's cool. |
|
09 Dec 05 - 12:27 AM (#1623414) Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Porn Triumph? From: Gurney For the last three days I've been receiving porn advertising in my spam, for the first time ever. Graphic pictures when I open the innocuous looking mail. It's you buggers! You're stopping it in the US, so they're sending it here! |
|
09 Dec 05 - 03:57 AM (#1623460) Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Porn Triumph? From: Richard Bridge Sexually explicit material and prostitution seem to have been part of human society since earliest times, and this suggests some sort of deep seated need rather than evil, surely. As to the financial aspect, there are many jobs one might wish to avoid, save for financial desire or need - but for some reason the economic coercion argument is largely confined to the sex industry. Some writers today seem to suggest female empowerment in some types of pornography, and for example Annie Sprinkles (the subject of my own daughter's degree thesis) is sometimes presented as a woman who has taken charge of her own destiny. I am often suspicious of the Gadarene rush to judgment, and the reaction to the sex industry often seems to me to be one such. The poor conditions sometimes found - coercion, exploitation, and so on - can be found in other economic activities (see, for example the exploitation of migrant workers in the UK, in farming, cockle picking, general labouring, and hospitality, to name but a few areas of endeavour), and are not an issue of the nature of the work, but of the unregulated work practices that arise because, I suggest, the activity is largely covert and therefore unsupervised. |