Quote:
Originally Posted by minicivan
No one has explained yet how federal government in the USA can mandate that all websites of some type can go under the direct control of a private company. With this stupid thinking, why not worry that tomorrow, all private business will need license from Walmart to operate?
|
To do it as a truly global measure would be very difficult, probably even impossible.
To require that all U.S.-based adult sites operate on .XXX domains, and those that have a "U.S. nexus" and/or enter into the U.S. stream of commerce to be displayed on .XXX or be blocked from access by Americans, on the other hand... that probably
is within the reach of Congressional authority.
Consider this: we do have, and enforce, laws in this country that come equipped with "extraterritorial jurisdiction." It is against the UIGEA to accept online gaming wagers from American citizens, for example. If you don't think citizens of foreign countries can be charged under that law.... well, just ask David Carruthers from BetOnSports about that.
Having said that, fear of .XXX becoming mandatory is not why I'm against ICM's proposal. I just tend to hesitate in offering my support for things that are entirely undefined, as the prospective rules and policies of IFFOR remain, to this day.
Want my support?
The first step is telling me precisely what you're asking me to support -- especially when you are asking me to spend $60/domain as part of "supporting" you.
It really doesn't seem like that much to ask, honestly.