<<<< The names they left, e.g. "ass.com", should then be blocked from registering
and a notice should appear:
"You can access this site under ass.sex" >>>>I
am amazed at people calling for this kind of restriction.
Are you guys thinking
this one out?
What about the grey areas?
What about assed.com?
What about
booty.com?
What about virgins.com?
What about cummings.com?
What about GrabThis.com?
Masturbation.net?
HotWomen.com
WomenOnWomen.com?
TenderThighs.com?
GettingItOn.com?
What
about freedom, for crying out loud?
What about a legitimate domain name that currently
has porn? Does that get forever banned then?
What about a porn word that is used
for non-porn purposes?
Friedrich, you think the word "ass" is pornographic?
The
day you tell the government or any agency in control of you, that they can create
these kinds of restrictions on people---rest assured, we're headed for trouble, in
a global sense. Because they will take more and more over the years--and so slowly,
you won't even notice. This is not paranoia. This has happened plenty in this world.
And the funny thing is: each time it does, there are people who call those concerned
over it, "paranoid."
And then what? Try reversing extreme restrictions without
some kind of revolution (in a political sense).
<<<< The ones, who do not use
this free-change period run the risk that .sex becomes more profitable than .com
and their competitors buy their name after the free-change period ends, so litterally
they would slowely get out of business. >>>>
Why? Won't they be able to buy the
domain in .sex too? And a bunch of others? Or do you want more restrictions here
too?
<< The only law needed would be that you have to give back your .com or
dot whatever gtld name that corresponds to your newly registered .sex within lets
say 6 month. >>>
Why would they need to surrender the domain? If you have made
it illegal for them to own it, you can just take it from them.
I have seen so many
ill-thought out posts in this thread.
Sorry, but it is true.
When has the world
ever benefitted from this kind of legislation? --Legislation that had so many technical,
logistical, legal, ethical and pragmatic pitfalls--and in the end hurts more people
in a more fundamental way, than it can ever help.