ALL porn/smut should have a .SEX extension so it would be easy to block.
I forget that makes toooo much sense.
ALL porn/smut should have a .SEX extension so it would be easy to block.
I forget that makes toooo much sense.
And by what authority would congress and SCOTUS be able to enforce this law on site outside of the US, which can be looked at just as easily as a site based in the US?
It makes sense, but where would you derive the authority to mandate a .sex or .xxx extension? I have doubts about the legitimacy of such an act in the USA, let alone across the WORD WIDE web. We do tend to forget that the internet isn't American.
There are over a hundred other top level domains that aren't under the control of the U.S. courts. But then you get to try to define porn/smut. Can a granny who doesn't like this picture or this one complain? I think they're hot, they appeal to my "purient interests." Maybe she doesn't think it's artistic so it's not protected. But what about others who think Playboy is artistic? How about the myriad artistic B/W nude photos out there? An exception for art in a bad law is stupid. The last thing we want is the government defining what is art.
The idea of applying community standards to something not tied to any one community is rediculous. The idea of applying to the Internet the standards of some stuck up old hag who hasn't been laid in 40 years is rediculous.
