Feeds

back to article Saudi royals seek ban on .virgin, .sex, .catholic, .wtf and 159 MORE

The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has objected to the proposed new top-level internet domains .virgin and .baby – applied for by Virgin Group and Johnson & Johnson respectively – on the grounds that they will encourage pornography. The bizarre claims are among 163 complaints about new dot-word gTLD applications that the Saudi …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

Silver badge
Mushroom

"Many societies ... consider homosexuality to be contrary to their culture [or] morality"

Well, that's funny - my society considers the oppression of women to be contrary to its culture and morality. It's a big world, and if you don't want to live in it then you don't have to. Just don't tell US how to live our lives.

I would also be looking askance at whichever member of that commission is automatically associating the word "baby" with pornography. I think it says a lot more about him than it does about "the decadent West".

91
1
JDX
Gold badge

Re: "Many societies ... consider homosexuality to be contrary to their culture [or] morality"

So in that case you won't be telling them that oppressing women is wrong, because it's their business not yours and you want to set a good example?

4
27
Silver badge

Re: "Many societies ... consider homosexuality to be contrary to their culture [or] morality"

I doubt that Jedit meant that. Personally I'm fine with telling Saudi Arabia oppression of women is wrong whether they keep their noses out of our business or not. There's a point where minding your own business becomes looking the other way.

18
1
Silver badge
Thumb Down

@JDX - Re: "Many societies ... consider homosexuality to be contrary to their culture [or] morality"

There's a difference between saying "I don't like this and I don't think you should do it" and "I don't like this, so I want a law to *stop* you from doing it".

27
0
Bronze badge

@jedit

"I would also be looking askance at whichever member of that commission is automatically associating the word "baby" with pornography."

I imagine (and hope) they were thinking more of the popular music sense of 'baby' than that which Johnson & Johnson had in mind.

Or maybe they just object to all things Johnson & Johnson as it might encourage men to rub cocks.

3
1
Anonymous Coward

Re: "Many societies ... consider homosexuality to be contrary to their culture [or] morality"

I have to agree, it's appaling that they treat women in the way they do, perhaps like how Japanese porn has their genitalia hidden, perhaps they should work on face recognition to ensure women have a hijab or burqa covering women's faces.

I couldn't give a hoot what they object to, perhaps they will just firewall any websites they object to and perhaps they will firewall our Government website to stop them seeing our Sex discrimination law websites, in the same way Chinese people are prevented to find out about what happened in Tieneman square.

If you want sharia law in your own country, but don't expect US to follow those laws, this is the UK and women are actually allowed to drive a car over here! or allow people to drink alcohol! etc etc

If a guy wants to poke another guy or do anything else gay, if they aren't doing it to you and your not being raped, then it doesn't concern you!! If two guys wanna do something gay, then it's up to them, not YOU! Keep your nose out of other people's business.

I seem to remember a heterosexual couple getting into trouble for holding hands or giving each other a quick kiss and ending up in jail, FFS what is you acutally do in your boring country?!?

8
0
Bronze badge
Coffee/keyboard

@AC

Sorry, couldn't help a little LOL at "do something gay". I'm determined to slyly slip it into my next conversation with a gay and see how it goes down.

2
0
Joke

Re: "Many societies ... consider homosexuality to be contrary to their culture [or] morality"

"FFS what is you acutally do in your boring country?!?"

Camels, mostly.

2
1
Happy

Re: @AC

Hey, I try to do something gay every day. Puts a shine on the day. :)

1
0

Re: "Many societies ... consider homosexuality to be contrary to their culture [or] morality"

"Camels, mostly."

But only the female ones.....

0
0
Silver badge
Pint

Re: "Many societies ... consider homosexuality to be contrary to their culture [or] morality"

"FFS what is you acutally do in your boring country?!?"

I got drunk and hung out with Irish nurses, as a rule.

Honestly; there's not much to do in the evenings. No theatre, cinema, bars, clubs. The redeeming fact is that the shops are open until 10:30 at night (but close for the various evening prayers), and there are plenty of restaurants. It's far too hot to hang around outside too much, with temperature in the 30s even after dark. There's no culture, as such. Religion is the culture there. Local cuisine is dead sheep on rice, and not recommended.

Saudis shop, or go and see family generally. Young Saudis wander around malls, dropping contact cards onto members of the opposite sex walking by underneath, or leaving bluetooth connections open in order to contact boys/girls.

0
0
FAIL

Re: "Many societies ... consider homosexuality to be contrary to their culture [or] morality"

They actually do a lot of the stuff they pretend to dislike.

It's called Hypocrisy and it's ok as long as you don't get found out.

0
0
Paris Hilton

Why doesnt someone apply for .anonymous

or maybe .tory or .idiot

of course el reg should apply for .reg .vulture and maybe .lohan

0
0
Silver badge
Trollface

.dot?

or .forwardslash, just to mess with some brains.

9
0
(Written by Reg staff) Silver badge

Re: .reg, .vulture, .lohan

It costs $185,000 a pop to request those. In total, that's 100,000 pints of Soho-priced beer!

C.

3
0

Re: .reg, .vulture, .lohan

Blimey, where do you drink in Soho for £1.20 a pint? Come on, spill the beans!

6
0
Silver badge

Re: .reg, .vulture, .lohan

You're not from London, are you? ;-)

EDIT - AAAAAAAaaaahhhhh got it - 100kilopints for *all three*, that's more like it ;-)

1
0
Gold badge
Pint

Re: .reg, .vulture, .lohan

$185,000 across 6.6 million readers is ~$0.028 per reader.

So where's the kickstarter for .reg?

0
0
Happy

Re: .dot?

aitch tee tee pee colon slash slash slashdot dot forwardslash ?

1
0
Anonymous Coward

so long as Saudi is OK with it

I'll have .prophet, .mohammed and .islam

0
0
Silver badge

Re: so long as Saudi is OK with it

it's .goat for me!

0
1
Happy

aitch tee tee pee

LOL

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Nice

Pretty typical. We love using your technology, as long as it suits our means.

Just for reference, remind me what "freedom of speech" is...

7
0
Silver badge

Re: Nice

"We love using your technology, as long as it suits our means."

I wouldn't even go that far. Internet was only introduced publicly in Saudi in about 2001.

2
0
JDX
Gold badge

remind me what "freedom of speech" is

something which is decided on a nation by nation basis, not some world utopian ideal.

4
18
Silver badge
Big Brother

@JDX - Re: remind me what "freedom of speech" is

"something which is decided on a nation by nation basis, not some world utopian ideal."

Ah, so you think Freedom of Speech means "you have the right to say things that *we*, the Government, agree with".

11
0
Gold badge

Re: remind me what "freedom of speech" is

As a matter of fact, it is a world ideal. Defined in the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights. Signed by the overwhelming majority of nations in the world, it defines your rights as a human being, regardless of the government you live under. These are fundamental rights that are innate to being human, not rights "granted" by a government.

It is our duty as citizens the world over to uphold and defend these rights. It is through our collective defense of these rights against all who would attempt to suppress them – governments, corporations and individuals – that we as a species give these rights their meaning.

This isn’t a “Utopian Ideal.” This is the legacy – and duty – passed onto us by our forefathers. If we wish to remain free, to free others and to see our descendants enjoy freedom then we must indeed remain eternally vigilant. The rule of governments – and their laws, lawmakers and so forth – are granted by the governed. The rights outlined in the UDHR belong to every human being, no matter what any tin pot dictator – elected or not – chooses to say on the matter.

I am willing to die, if necessary, defending the above. What kind of person are you – how self important and entitled must you be – that you would not be? What must you believe that you would tell someone – anyone – that they are aught but chattle, granted rights as a whim, to be retracted just as effortlessly?

If that is what you truly espouse sir, then I think you are a terrible human being who is actively engaged in attempts to undermine one of the only great things our species has ever achieved…even if you are only doing through speech.

As a fundamental human right, however, I would still defend your right to air your opinion. No matter how contemptible I believe it to be.

20
1
Silver badge

Re: remind me what "freedom of speech" is

I agree with the vast majority of what you say, but the practical implementation of the freedoms differs somewhat from the original intention.

Freedom of speach except in cases on libel, fraud, defamation, racial hatred etc etc. The vast majority of what I mention is quite sensible, giving people the right to open their mouth but making them responsible for what they say. The problem is who draws the line and where it is drawn. It isn't abolsute nor is the right to free speach. I'm not sure it should be because that would divorce people from being responsible for their actions. We have an ideal, but in practical terms we do not have free speach just as we do not have a true democracy. For as long as the line is drawn by vaguely sane, well motivated people it is not entirely bad that people be allowed to say what they think but are made responsible for untruths and hate, but if the line is manipulated by vested interests then there is a problem.

Right now I can pass comments on our political leadership. say for instance there is a party called the pachyderms, and say perhaps they haven't put forward a presidential candidate in 20 years that could string together a coherant sentence. Now say their current leader (G Shrub) is involved in some shady things. I can pass comment on his leadership under most circumstances without fear of retribution. I cannot, without very strong evidence, suggest he has commited a crime or any other defamatory comment that isn't covered under exemption. In times of war the line is moved further. One view is that allowing people to speak but making them responsible for that speach is a way of keeping things honest and fair. However, truly free speach it is not.

With rights come responsibilities, this is no bad thing, but it isn't fashionable these days to make people responsible for their actions.

3
1
Silver badge
Thumb Up

@ Trevor Pott

Excellent post, Trevor, and sentiments I absolutely support. I also admire the measured and rational manner of your response to JDX, since what I felt like saying to him in response to his idiotic comment would not have passed moderation. Well said.

2
0
Anonymous Coward

What's with the sadface Saudi Arabia?

Not keen on stoning-children.wtf ?

20
0
Mushroom

Oh wow

They have internet in Saudi Arabia, and people actually know how to use it? Will wonders never cease?

1
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: Oh wow

Question is are Saudi women allowed to use the internet?

2
0
Silver badge

Re: Oh wow

Yes, for certain restricted values of "internet", "know" and "people".

1
0
Silver badge
Thumb Down

Re: Oh wow

"They have internet in Saudi Arabia, and people actually know how to use it? Will wonders never cease?"

Yes. They are the same species as you. You do realise that, right?

Given that thick bastards can 'use Internet' enough to update Facebook and watch TOWIE on streaming media, I think it's a bit racist of you to for a moment consider that it's beyond the capabilities of someone born in a different country.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

This from...

...control freaks who believe in imaginary friends.

26
1

Re: This from...

But only the right sort of imaginary friends. Imaginary friends that come from a different magical book are offensive and must be banned.

26
1
Bronze badge

Re: This from...

Imaginary friends who cannot ever be portrayed in any image whatsoever, ever!

7
0
Gold badge
WTF?

Re: This from...

Actually the one that can't be portrayed was very much a real person and not imaginary at all.

If you want to see what he looks like, you'll just have to use your imagination.........<HEAD EXPLODES>

2
1
Bronze badge
Thumb Down

Objections

I don't understand why the people in the societies that object to these Internet Domains don't just apply some self control. e.g. If it is morally wrong for you to look at a web site that has a suffix '.virgin' don't look?

Is it that either the believers of these religions question there own beliefs, or is them some valid reason for these objections? I really can't see the objections being for any other reason than my first suggestion.

FYI. If you happen to live in Saudi Arabia the last time I looked Virgin runs airplanes, and trains.

4
1
Big Brother

Re: Objections

The problem is that these people aren't questioning their own force of will, but that of their neighbours (of course in the event that these domains are registered, they will need to monitor them to ensure that they remain pure *cough* *cough*). As no one is of more pure soul than they are, and as such need to have an eye kept on them at all times.

10
0

Re: Objections

"The problem is that these people aren't questioning their own force of will, but that of their neighbours"

Would these be the neighbours visited every weekend by Saudis in their droves, in order to drink, gamble and fornicate?

8
0
Silver badge
Angel

@Titus Technophobe - Re: Objections

"I don't understand why the people in the societies that object to these Internet Domains don't just apply some self control."

Ah, but you see it's not *their* self-control that they're worried about, because they're all morally upright and pure-of-mind people, it's *our* self-control they are worried about because we are weak-willed and morally bankrupt and cannot be trusted to see/ read/ watch all of this corrupting material without wanting to go out and do bad things!

Oddly enough, the Government run by the Vicar of St Albions had similar views...

5
0

Re: Objections

Actually that raises a good point; rather than objecting to these TLDs the Saudi's should be encouraging them. Then they can just block the site with the undesired addresses with relative ease.

Personally I have no time for their opinions. With their lavish wealth what exactly do they contribute to the world these days apart from bigotted opinions.

2
1
Silver badge

Re: Objections @ stratman

But it's the men drinking, gambling and fornicating so thats ok. It's the women that need protecting.

Presumably from the hypocritical, sadistic mentalist men. How they can keep a straight face when they say women are week and need protecting when the men are so easily swayed by any and every vice is beyond me.

9
0
Mushroom

Re: Objections

"With their lavish wealth what exactly do they contribute to the world these days apart from bigotted opinions."

They are exporting Wahabism.That´s the most conservative interpretation of the Quoran.

They where,and are setting up thousands of Madrasses (Quoran schools) in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Brainwashing boys from 3 years up who then end up being blown to pieces whereever there superious send them with a belt of explosives. Bringing dead and destruction to who ever happens to be nearby.

IT angle? There´s a guy in safe distance who sends the explosive device a SMS.

5
2
Thumb Down

Hmmm?

Could this lead to a situation were countries end up blocking a whole TLD? Funny if it did, I think the whole TLD auction is a cynical attempt for ICANN to bring in more money anyway.

5
0
Silver badge
Flame

Re: Hmmm?

It shows that "unrestricted" TLDs was badly thought out in the first place.

In reality we should be getting rid of all non-geographic TLDs (including .com, .net, .org, etc) so that all domains can be tied to a geographic country whose laws they will comply with. Registrants can choose which jurisdiction they want to have registrations in (no limit, just comply with the laws of the country of each registration for all content related to that registration no matter where it is hosted).

Cuts through this messy "you've got a .com so you must be a Merkin" when you claim to be offering services elsewhere. .us - comply with us law. .gb, comply with UK law. Etc

5
4
Silver badge

Re: Hmmm?

Should make a few quid for ICAN as well as Google.co.uk,

We need Google.co.england.uk, Google.co.Wales.uk. Google.co.ni.uk, Goolge.co.Wales.uk.

Then of course if it effects any local bylaws you might have to have Google.barnsley.co.uk

1
1
Anonymous Coward

Saudi...

Such an advanced nation of forward and free thinkers.... I'm surprised we don't take more advice from them. They are so wise. Maybe then our country could be as free and fair as theirs.

Ah... if they didn't happen by blind chance to find themselves standing on oil, we wouldn't even know who they are.

19
1

Re: Saudi...

Correction : if they didn't happen to be standing on oil, they would have been absorbed into another country by now.

9
0

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.