On Mar 26, 2011, at 6:31 PM, John Levine wrote: >> Suppose, just for the sake of the argument, that a statute or >> precedent came about to the effect that a community which permits >> access to .xxx sites (by not censoring the DNS) implicitly accepts >> "that kind of thing" isn't obscenity under local law. > > If we're doing counterfactuals, let's suppose that everyone in the > world thinks that .XXX is a great idea, and ICANN runs itself > efficiently on a budget of $1M/yr. >
For some reason the aerodynamics of pigs comes to mind here. Having pigs fly is just about as likely as having ambitious Southern prosecutors give up the ability to bring meaningless, but newsworthy, porn prosecutions, ICANN's new TLD or no. Regards Marshall > R's, > John > >
