As addressed in the First Amendment of the Constitution, we the people of the United States have certain freedoms, two of which are the freedom of speech and press. So where does censorship fall? This week I examined an article from BBC.com. The article, titled Internet porn ‘name change plan,’ by Jim Reed, addressed internet censorship pertaining to pornographic websites.
Recently, members of Icann, also known as the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, have been working on a plan to change net addresses. Instead of using the standard .com, .uk, or .org, Icann would like to implement further specifications of net addresses. For example, if enough Icann members vote to pass the plan, X-rated adult sites will have to use .xxx alongside .com. Advocates of internet safety largely support this plan because they think it will make it easier to track and block pornographic websites. On the opposition, the boss of UK’s largest adult website, Jerry Barnett was quoted as saying, “I think it’s yet another attempt at censorship…why should one particular business be pushed out of the mainstream because some people don’t like it?”
In my opinion, this is an attempt at censorship. Icann is attempting to make it easier for people to block adult websites. I disagree with this attempt at censorship. It violates the First Amendment’s freedom of speech which is also interpreted as freedom of expression. Implementing the .xxx system is unfair to the entire adult web industry. It unjustly puts their websites at a disadvantage to viewers. Also, up until recently, the internet has been vastly uncensored. If Icann were to start censoring something why should adult websites be first? Clearly, there are more harmful things on the web that are not being censored.
If the .xxx naming was enforced by Icann then other websites that include violence, racism, or other potentially harmful material should be named in a similar fashion. Maybe .xxx should go along with the .com for any website that is deemed as ‘unsafe.’ Furthermore, I think there is a reason many censorship attempts on the web have failed. The worldwide web is a place for anyone to display anything they desire and they have a constitutional right to do so. The article states that less than 17% of the possible web addresses in the world are currently being used. If that is true, why not start censoring most things on the internet? Why not make a different web address for different levels of ‘unsafe’ content like the rating we see before movies or television shows?




