www.cheerleadersgettingspankedandlovingit.xxx
Running out to register that domain right now. :). The problem with an xxx TLD is what gets in there and what doesn't? Who decides? The government? Maybe it becomes overly inclusive and otherwise educational stuff gets put there (just as filtering software likes to block breast cancer sites). Then once the government has it all bottled up into one place, it blocks the whole TLD.
And even then anyone can put up sex sites at any of the country code TLDs since the US doesn't control those, so the whole thing's ineffective anyway. It'll only serve to give the pornographers more possible addresses and make whoever the registrar is a LOT of money.
Lol!
The registrars already make money registering domains, and I don't begrudge them that. They provide a valuable service.
Is it a perfect solution? No. But it could be a start, and the same 1st Amendment that currently protects adult content providers using whatever TLD they now use would protect them if they were required to register under a specific TLD. It could even be to the provider's benefit, since their popups and other online advertising could be targeted to only those who's filtering software is set up to allow the assigned TLD. That, and it surely must cost them money to fight the court cases they alreay are routinely involved in.
The non-US TLD's would still be a problem, as you point out. I don't have an answer for that.....perhaps diplomatic pressure could be brought to bear, maybe as a condition of trade agreements or something.
gotta go to a meeting, back soon.
Much like the X rating system (which was not copyrighted, and XXX was nothing but an ad campaign dreamed up by David Friedman -"too much sex for just one X").
X (and .xxx) could be self-imposed. If you decide to classify your website as ".xxx" then you could be protected against prosecution for providing pornographic materials to minors. Since parents would easily be able to block out the domain (or even purchase a "junior" account from their ISP that does not permit such traffic) the responsibility to prohibit access to .xxx would reside with the users and not the operators (purchase would still require "age" verification).
Right now there is no "catch all" test to find websites that identify themselves as "adult only". NetNanny and other monitoring services are not complete. Also porn spam and porn popups would be able to be blocked under this approach.
Sites that identify themselves as .xxx would not be automatically protected against "obscenity" suits (beastiality, scat, violence, etc.) but adult only sites that do not classify themselves as .xxx would be more open for prosecution.
Why can kids not read Playboy (which has articles in addition to the photos of nekid ladies) if they can can watch HBO which sometimes airs full frontal she-male transexuals in sexual situations? Both content providers are offering some content that is acceptable for all ages and content which is for "adults only".
If the DOJ wins this, I don't think it'll take too long before some of the national NOCs black-hole western Pennsylvania or Iowa or any other "conservative community values" areas.