Re: .erotica or .sex ? Magaziner says _no way_.

[Will Rodger <rodger@worldnet.att.net>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

At 02:28 PM 2/14/98 -0800, Robert Snyder wrote:
>Is anything like .sex or .erotica planned for new TLD ?
>This could also contribute a lot the the problem of protection of
>minors from internet-pornography.
>
>Regards
>R.Snyder

Not by the US government. Magaziner told me last week the US 
government would absolutely not allow introduction of .sex as long as 
it maintains control over the root through IANA. Useful as a .sex 
might be, the specter of mandatory "self-rating" renews all the old 
concerns present in the all-but-defunct US Communications Decency 
Act. Among other problems: defining what is and isn't indecent, 
sexually explicit or obscene altogether. 

Some are skeptical, of course, that democratic governments would 
"force" us to rate our speech. Doing so would surely skew who could 
and couldn't read or hear our thoughts, dampening free discourse on a 
whole range of controversial themes. If you're one of those skeptics, 
check out ACLU's 15-page "Fahrenheit 451.2: Is Cyberspace Burning?" 
(http://www.aclu.org/issues/cyber/burning.html) and see if you still 
think it's so far-fetched.


Will Rodger
Washington Bureau Chief
Inter@ctive Week
1-202-508-7027
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0
Charset: noconv

iQA/AwUBNOhv4dZgKT/Hvj9iEQJGIwCeJ6tY8D1ioJfqT9+/UZpKAi4CTUsAoOP/
tFIi6EBJjLKIDBiLvXR/mu+D
=5feL
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----