Strong opposition to this idiocy
Dear all, I am writing to express my wholehearted opposition to this proposal. Firstly, ICANN is an American organisation, as, I imagine, are the vast majority of those calling for this. Therefore, I am assuming you are familiar with the first amendment of the Constitution. This proposal is simply censorship by the backdoor, which is something I can't believe people - who gladly use the same constitutional amendment to justify the practice of their beliefs (and let us not beat around the bush here - all of the supporters can be described as members of the Christian right) but somehow do not believe the same provisions apply to anybody else's views. The only cases where censorship can even remotely begin to be reasonable is in cases involving child pornography or information damaging to national security. Correct me if I'm wrong, in which case the way I've been having sex has been very, very odd, but two or more consenting adults having sex falls into neither of these categories. Furthermore, this group is obviously trying to further a religious agenda. It's blatantly obvious just from Googling for the source of the text in the dozens of form emails which are in this list. When we allow a group such power (*cough* inquisition *cough*), it will only be a short time before scope creep sets in, and other types of website are classed as "bad". Trying to keep a teenager away from porn is like trying to keep steak from a dog. You're just not going to be able to do it. Any parent who thinks their 18-year-old "child" is incapable of handling sexual material is seriously misguided. Sex is fun. People are going to have it no matter what you do. Next, this is far beyond the scope of ICANN. ICANN is an organisation which oversees the operation and delegation of IP addresses and TLDs. You do not petition the Post Office to remove the street address from a brothel, so why would ICANN be any different? I've also seen it said that ISPs should "block any countries which do not comply with this". Well, I'm sorry to have to point this out, but most of the world is not inside the United States. United States law and policies apply to the United States. I live in the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom is not part of the United States. Why should I follow anything the United States decrees? In addition, whoever wrote that clearly doesn't understand the damage (and the ease of circumvention for anyone with half a brain) of blocking most of the world from accessing US IP addresses, namely the loss of a lot of business for American companies. As for the argument that this is to "protect the children", well, this is fallacious at best and malicious at worst. The fact is that no studies have ever shown a link between pornography consumption and sex. In fact, particularly for sex offenders, pornography offers a release. I for one would rather have a rapist sitting in his basement looking at smut than out on the streets actually harming a real human being. There was another gentleman a long time ago who declared that protecting children was a good idea. I'll quote him here: "The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation." - Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf To conclude, religious wackjobs - stop trying to be fascists and forcing your views on the rest of the country and the world. When Americans do it, you're the Moral Majority. When Middle Easterns do it, they're the Taliban. Regards, Andrew Thorpe Managing Director Razakel Ltd.