Segregate Net porn: Pence
p2pnet.net News:- Indiana congressman Mike Pence wants to create a .porn Net domain.
But not for nefarious purposes.
He believes one way to keep internet filth away from kids is to segregate it through a dot-porn designation.
“We’ve got to be creative within constitutional protections,” the Washington Times quotes him as saying.
“The Supreme Court seems more enamored with protecting obscene speech than with protecting everyday citizens.”
Pence was speaking at a summit sponsored by the American Decency Association, Kids First Coalition and other family values groups.
He also sponsored the Truth In Domain Names Act in 2003, which made it a crime for porn sites to be misrepresented as anything else.
Something you think we should know? tips[at]p2pnet.net
See:-
Washington Times – Pence wants dot-porn designation, May 24, 2005
May 26th, 2005 at 4:43 am
What is the criteria for determining if something is “pornography” or “not pornography”?
Who gets to specify what the definition of ‘pornography’ is?
Should one use a manual or electric can opener on a “Can of Worms?”
May 26th, 2005 at 6:38 am
There’s laws that determine what porn is….i don’t see how this is different.
May 26th, 2005 at 1:47 pm
I’m not familiar that familiar with the laws in Canada, but in the US there is no federal law that specifically defines pornography. We have laws that define ‘obscenity’, plus a somewhat murky Supreme Court decision from the 1970s called “Miller.” (Miller vs. California)
The three prong Miller test is that for something to be ‘obscene’ (and therefore not considered ’speech’ protected by the First Amendment (freedom of speech, religion, the right to assemble peaceably)) it must be:
1. Prurient in nature (as determined by “contemporary community standards” in the jurisdiction where charges are filed.)
AND
2. Patently Offensive (as determined by “contemporary community standards” in the jurisdiction where charges are filed.)
AND
3. Lacking in Scientific, Literary, or Artistic value.
I think it’s fairly obvious what the problem with these criteria are in the context of the internet: Define the “community” whose standards will be applied when evaluating the results of the Miller test.
Incidentally, pornography doesn’t necessarily have to be a depiction of an activity featuring exposed human genitals. There was a movement afoot a couple of years ago (thankfully shortlived) in California to ban so called ’squish’ videos as pornography. It seems that some people (predominantly men) got very sexually aroused by the site of a female, usually wearing some kind of fetishized footwear like a 6 inch stilletto, stepping on and ’squishing’ bugs, large insects, reptiles, small rodents, etc. Despite the fact that many of these ‘works’ had no bared boobs or other exposed genetalia, several legislators sponsored bills to ban this type of ‘pornography’. None of these bills ever went anywhere once it became apparent that there was no way to craft the bill such that it would even come close to being constitutional.
May 26th, 2005 at 11:16 pm
Why would other countries follow this law?
May 27th, 2005 at 1:17 am
touché random fellow, you’re knowledge on this matter is far more than my own. i suppose i can admit when i’m wrong.
May 27th, 2005 at 10:45 am
Shouldn’t it be .cum?