CYBERSPACE – While often heated debate rages within the adult webmaster community about the merits and demerits of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) (www.icann.org) decision to release .xxx domain addresses, equally passionate opinions are being expressed by those who would prefer to see the entire industry shut down and its practitioners incarcerated. That groups such as the Family Research Council (www.frc.org) and Morality In Media (www.moralityinmedia.org) would issue statements on this subject is hardly surprising. What may be surprising to some is not simply that these groups oppose the new addresses – but why.

Patrick Trueman has long been an outspoken and single-minded voice of condemnation not only of pornographic materials as “obscene” but also material that much of mainstream would consider merely saucy. He was head of the U.S. Justice Department’s Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section for five years under both Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush. In late 2002 he spearheaded Morality In Media’s “Pornography Awareness Week,” with special energy directed toward its ObscenityCrimes.org website, which accepted complaints by those who had received unsolicited adult email or who “accidentally” found themselves on an adult website, and then reported those complaints to the Justice Department and the U.S. Attorney responsible for each reporting district. Trueman claimed that the site filed 2300 reports in October of 2002 alone. The following year he joined the Family Research Council as its Senior Legal Counsel and now serves as Senior Legal Counsel for the Family Research Council. The organization’s website claims that Trueman is responsible for a “record number of convictions against producers and distributors of child pornography and obscenity.”

When ICANN announced its plan to create and release .xxx domain addresses exclusively for adult content, Trueman promptly issued a statement in opposition, stating that the domains “would do more harm than good” because site owners would retain their .com addresses, thus only increasing the number of porn available to the online community. According to Trueman, “The ‘.com’ domain has been a cash cow for the porn industry and pornographers will not give it up and remove themselves to the ‘.xxx’ domain.”

Further, Trueman objects to the perception of “legitimacy” that he feels the .xxx domains will lend the adult industry. Apparently unfamiliar with the fact that Kick Ass Pictures porn politico Mary Carey will be dining at the White House, Trueman complained that, “The industry will have a place at the table in developing and maintaining their new property. Creating a virtual red light district may also discourage law enforcement from bringing obscenity cases on the notion that the problem is solved” as a result of the domains.

Therein lies the great difference between internal industry distrust of the proposed domains and that expressed by those who oppose the industry on principle. Other press releases from the Morality In Media and Family Research Council continue to label the .xxx addresses as “virtual red light districts” that will provide pornographers with a “safe harbor” from prosecution while diverting attention from what the organization perceives as threats to the safety and well-being of “children and families.” While the organization believes that “. .xxx domains should be discouraged,” it promotes the “Aggressive prosecution of the obscenity industry” as the “most urgent need” and encourages its members to order its $1.50 pamphlet, “Dealing With Pornography: A Practical Guide For Protecting Your Family and Your Community,” wherein Trueman outlines ways that Christian families can protect against “an infinite variety of sleazy permutations” that serve as a “gateway to adulterous thoughts, actual adultery, spousal alienation, divorce, family breakdown, and numerous other ills.”

Family Research Council is joined by Concerned Women for America (www.cwfa.org) in its opposition to the .xxx domains. According to Jan LaRue, CWA’s chief counsel, one of the major flaws in the new domain plan is that it is voluntary, does not require that access to minors be blocked, and that content feature only adults. “It legitimizes pornography and makes it even easier for kids to find it. It won’t make software filters any more effective,” according to LaRue.

She also insists that “Most of the porn sites offer hard-core porn that is prosecutable under federal law. Giving them a XXX domain makes as much sense as giving illicit drug cartels a domain.” LaRue did not explain why the allegedly illegal content has not been removed and its producers prosecuted in spite of the vigorous efforts of CWA, FRC, or ObscenityCrimes.org.

A press release from Robert Peters, President of Morality In Media, shows the extreme concerns possessed by neo-con opponents of both the adult industry and .xxx domains. According to Peters, “Like ‘red light’ districts in real space, the Internet’s XXX district will also attract other types of crime (e.g., child prostitution) and make it easier for predators to obtain the ‘adult’ pornography and ‘psuedo (sic) child porn’ they use to stimulate themselves and to entice, desensitize and instruct their child victims. Meanwhile we will hear over and over again that government has no legitimate interests in enforcing obscenity laws against Internet pornographers who utilize the XXX tag.”

Peters concludes his release with a stern warning to ICM Registry Chairman Stuart Lawley. “He should know that it is a federal crime (a felony, to be exact) not only to distribute child pornography on the Internet but also ‘adult’ obscenity,” which he insists composes the bulk of adult websites currently available.