Strong opposition to this idiocy

["Andrew Thorpe" <andrew@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

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.