Ireland censoring .ie domains

by Missionary Position. Wed Oct 25, 2006 19:32

Living as we do in a satellite of the US of A , it is rather surprising that our
neo-liberal Tanaiste has not updated or introduced the porn laws- it is afterall
the one of the biggest money-spinners in America behind the religion and Arms
trade-

Saying that liberalisation would increase the conspicous consumption aspect of the trade- the
'underbelly' - which on a mass scale is exploitative.

The eclectic list of words above are not naughty or weird, they are far more
decriptive than the biological names of body parts- I mean imagine being in bed
and the other half asking if they can please , politely lick your vagina through
the hole in the sheet and of course the coitus interruptus method of birth control!

Like fuck-we all prefer the word cunt.

Now we must all say a decade of the rosary and promise to be good
boys and girls because God is alway's watching- and he is a boy.

by Filch & Gut, Solicitors Wed Oct 25, 2006 19:43

This is a textbook case of discriminatory practice with no legal basis whatsoever, fight it and you will win in the High Court, resulting in an order forcing them to register Porn.ie and damages to you for their delay.

This would set a useful precedent to prevent these idiots arbitrarily refusing and restricting domainnames in this country.

Post an email address if you want help to pursue this.

by Rocko Sense Wed Oct 25, 2006 20:29

At last the voice of reason to put the guttersnipes back in their place.

Not so long ago people knew how to define those who sat on their own and read dirty books. They were given a name that defined their actions and their attitude.

Now they pretend to be a new form of modernist, elitist, intelligentsia but I think the name given to them in past times was a lot more accurate especially when they try to retort to facts like the following.

1) All Pornography Desensitizes the Viewer:

The primary function of porn is to interfere with interpersonal relationships and personal moral judgment. Twenty Six separate studies have shown conclusively that the viewing of pornography definitely desensitizes people to extremely unusual, bizarre, and deviant behavior.

2) Pornography is Addictive:

Pornography is as addictive as drugs or alcohol. Numerous studies have shown that those who use porn over time need harder and harder material in order to maintain their previous level of arousal.

3) Pornography Degrades Marriages:

Pornography usually shows attractive women performing almost any type of act. This causes conflict in marriages in two ways. First, porn induced fantasies cause husbands to become dissatisfied with their wives physical imperfections. The result is many women begin to feel insecure and inadequate about their bodies. Second, husbands addicted to porn begin to expect their wives to perform perverted acts they witnessed in X- rated material. Most wives, of course, become disgusted and repelled by their husband's increasingly degenerate fantasies and behavior. Many times husbands turn to prostitutes or other women in order to satisfy their lustful and perverted desires.

4) Pornography and Crime:

Those naive individuals who cling to the quaint and outmoded belief that pornography is victimless should wake up and look at the facts. More than 65 independent studies have shown that dangerous offenders (child molesters, murders, and rapists) are not only more likely to commit their crimes if they use pornography, but they are likely to precede their violent acts with the extended use of pornography.

FACTS FROM THE FBI:
1) Pornography is a 12 billion dollar industry in the United States and is the third largest revenue producer for Organized Crime.

2) 86% of convicted rapists admit to regular use of porn and 75% of rapists admit to simulating acts they viewed in porn.

3) 82% of child molesters admit to imitating the sexual behavior they have seen in pornographic material.

4) 81% of recent mass murderers admit to using pornography extensively.

5) The crime rate increases 2 - 7 times where ever pornography is sold.

by Hotdog Thu Oct 26, 2006 00:58

Filch & Gut:

I know the guy who runs Sex.ie and I know he is interested in pursuing this using legal means.

Please e-mail him info@sex.ie (his name is Stephen Ryan) if you are interested in helping him. He is a nice fellow so I think he would appreciate the support.

Thanks

Andy

by anon Thu Oct 26, 2006 17:09

Originally the crowd assigned this task was some group based out in UCD possibly attached to the comptuer centre there. I think the present registray may have grown out of this.

As I recall they just used to make up the rules as they went along and tended to put up as many barriers as possible. If you were a commerical business, it was easy, but if you were some kind of club, they would demand that you supply letters with such and such headings and solicitors letters to accompany it. When it came to groups trying to object or protest against something, then it became even harder.

The result is that people would just go and get .com or .org names instead. A good example is that the present antiwar ireland are not an .ie. domain. They are .org. I can only presume they first tried a .ie domain but faced too many difficulties.

Another case is the website: VOICE of Irish Concern for the Environment. It's address is:
http://www.voice.buz.org/ Again not an .ie domain and I am sure they looked for one originally.

The same applies to numerous other sites. So if you dig abit deeper you will see there is a general reluctance to allow anything to be registered that these people instinctively seem to know the government will not like. They are probably pre-empting the flak that they would get and saving themselves the hassel of having to deal with it.

by Adnan Thu Oct 26, 2006 17:31

But surely this kind of behaviour is totally unacceptable? They are. in effect, a government organisation restricting people based on their own moral viewpoint.

by Harry Rea Thu Oct 26, 2006 23:46

Adnan said:

"They are. in effect, a government organisation restricting people based on their own moral viewpoint."

We should all consider points when made from any others 'MORAL VIEWPOINT' but...

What are we to do when the our state or government's viewpoint is IMMORAL?

Below are two important articles published today that outline the deep problem that now arises because family law has ceased to be moral or rational and no longer conforms with the basis of being considered law and therefore is now at odds with Canon law which is still moral.

See also http://www.family-men.com/news.htm for essay, "The moral divide between the Roman Catholic Church and civil law"

_________________________________________________________________________

Dad argues court has yet to prove jurisdiction
Wexford Echo June 7th 2006
Patrick O’ Connell

Following the rejection of his argument that the State has failed to prove it has jurisdiction to regulate his Roman Catholic marriage, the Wexford father-of-four who took the action says the courts have still to prove they are entitled to make orders pertaining to his marriage.

Speaking with The Echo, the man - who spent 14 days behind bars earlier this year after choosing to ignore District and Circuit orders which would have resulted in the separation of his children - said “any person is entitled to know before engaging in any court proceedings what jurisdiction the court has.

“In the case of a family law civil bill,” he said, “it must - according to circuit court rules - state its “basis of jurisdiction”

“No documentation that I have ever received has stated the jurisdiction.

“From the outset I simply asked that the court state its jurisdiction. I did this because, I as a Roman Catholic - who didn’t take part in any Civil Ceremony when I got married - couldn’t voluntarily take part in proceedings intended to regulate or terminate my marriage and interfere with my family.

“My marriage is governed under Canon Law. I have never rejected the Courts jurisdiction. I simply asked them to show it and, to date, no one has done that.

“My refusal to take part in proceedings without proof of jurisdiction led to my arrest and forced attendance in court - at which orders affecting my family were made.

“In the absence of jurisdiction I refused to obey these orders which resulted in my imprisonment despite the fact I was looking after our four children at the time and they were residing with me.
“The High Court on hearing my habeas corpus application stated that there were worrying features about the manner in which I had been imprisoned, that the matter of jurisdiction had been swept aside and orders made.

“Three High Court judges agreed on this on three different days despite the State arguing to the contrary.

“I was released from prison on condition that I apply for a judicial review which I did and leave for which was granted by Mr Justice Peart who stayed all proceedings and orders and the enforcement of all orders made by the circuit court.

“My position is that I was unable to secure the services of any legal practitioner to present my case and so I was left to present it myself.

“So traumatic did I find the events of the High Court on Wednesday last and the treatment I received - I was forced to attend a doctor on the way home from court.

“I was given Valium immediately, prescribed sleeping tablets, and given a certificate for two weeks rest.

“This information was communicated to the court and all parties concerned around midnight, advising them that I could not attend court the following day.

“The case was apparently heard anyway, without me, despite the fact that I was the applicant.
“The High Court has apparently stated that they have jurisdiction to dissolve Catholic marriages but no information for the basis of that jurisdiction has yet been provided.

“If this is true - then there is no such thing as a Catholic marriage any longer in Ireland. “Despite, there never having been any onus on me to prove or disprove jurisdiction - I have been subjected to the humiliation of being arrested, imprisoned, and now having these High Court costs awarded against me.

“It is ludicrous to think that I was released from prison by the High Court for disobeying orders made without proof of jurisdiction in proceedings in which I did not participate, and now my religious conscience still prevents me from obeying them and the matter of jurisdiction is not proven by the High Court, merely stated.

“The High Court is condemning me to continual imprisonment unless I renounce my faith.
“Canon Law clearly provides for separation. It has the relevant and full jurisdiction to regulate my marriage and family in that I was married according to the rites and ceremonies of the Roman Catholic Church - and it takes account of the innocent party.

“As I understand it, any spouse can apply through Canon Law for the Catholic Church’s permission to approach the Civil Courts, but the ecclesiastical court is the first port of call.

“In the absence of proof of jurisdiction my religious convictions still prevent me from participating in Judicial Separation proceedings. I could appeal the matter to the Supreme Court but I will also consider appealing to the Vatican for direction.”
___________

See also http://www.family-men.com/news.htm for essay, "The moral divide between the Roman Catholic Church and civil law"
___________

Case to be put before Vatican legal experts
Wexford Echo 26th October 2006
Patrick O’ Connell

In the wake of the High Court’s ruling that the state can and will regulate Roman Catholic marriages, Roger Eldridge of the National Men’s Council has stated his belief that the next step is for the Wexford man behind the application to approach the Vatican.

Stating his belief that the courts have, yet again, failed to prove jurisdiction, Mr. Eldridge said it now time to contact the Vatican so as Canon Law experts can be called in to examine the legitimacy of the argument.

“We will now make representations to the Vatican,” he said, “so that they might initiate a response to these findings that may be of assistance to people like this man.

“The National Men’s Council was set up to help people to protect their marriages. Married fathers are held by the state to be the head of the family. By definition, for a family to exist, their must be a husband or father.

“If the state then feels it can permit the ejection of the father from the family unit – even though no wrong has been committed by this person – the protection written into the constitution for the family ceases to exist.

“Instead, the state will become the replacement for the missing father figure and will dictate and decide what the family can and cannot do.”

Mr. Eldridge said it is his belief that jurisdiction has not been shown in any way, shape or form in terms of the courts right to make orders that interfere with a Roman Catholic’s family’s right to run its own affairs.

“This man was let out of jail on the basis that three High Court judges felt ‘there was questions to be answered’ as to whether the Court had the right to make orders relating to the placement of his children,” he said.

“He was subsequently given leave by the High Court to bring judicial review proceedings where the legitimacy of the court’s right to regulate the Institution of Catholic Marriage would have been examined.

“But last week; he was not afforded the opportunity to represent himself as he fell ill while simultaneously the court set aside the order that allowed him to test the law.

“Again, the court has not referred to the section of law that gives it jurisdiction over marriage. In fact, nothing has been resolved.

“At present, there are two options open to the man. He can appeal to the Supreme Court and he can bring his case to the attention of the Vatican.

“This man has had no opportunity to make his pleadings in relation to this matter. That, at least, should be the right of every citizen.”

by anon Wed Nov 01, 2006 12:03

A writes:

Attached is a letter threatening in tone that I received recently from the named solicitors for Britain's Daily Mail Newspaper group. It relates to a domain that I own and have registered in relation to the Irish postal service. The solicitors wrongly claims that my intention is to try and extract money from their clients for this domain name even though I have never offered to sell them the domain nor do I plan to do so in the future.

In my opinion the anti-Irish Daily Mail group have slipped up by not registering their domain and are trying to bully me into giving it to them, I dont see why I should.

May I also add that this letter is from an unidentified person and when I enquired as to who I was dealing with, the firm refused to identify the solicitor dealing with this matter. Why the big secret?

The Domain is being used for a website (“the Website”) which diverts to the Sunday Tribune website (www.tribune.ie), a competing newspaper.

http://cryptome.org/mos-threat.htm

by catherine sara Fri Nov 24, 2006 20:17

What is it with so many people making decisions on what we may see/hear/say etc.I thought we were supposed to be free. As regards porn..well different people have different views.Some are quite open and not offended in any way while others are still attached to the church thinking.However if we study the ancient texts there is plenty of mention of things that are deemed porn by the Church these days.It really ought to be up to every free thinking individual to decide.I mean it is not as if anyone is being forced to visit any of these sites. Looking at the facts now it is obvious that the catholic glasses are still being worn by many people.

by fleadh Sat Nov 25, 2006 11:27

Do you need specifically Irish pornography, or is it that Ireland needs to prove that it is "liberated" via pornography? Sad, very sad.

From elsewhere: You don't need a bunch of culchy fleadhanna going at it hammer and tongs in front of a peat fire, do you? On RTÉ or an Irish domain? Actually, I think RTÉ see this as their remit, as if a complete absence of sexual continence is a way of exorcising some horrid sexually repressed past. And you can buy "genuine Irish" pornography too - ask the Stringfellows protestors where to get some.

by Fred Johnston Sat Nov 25, 2006 15:31 sylfredcar at iolfree dot ie

Whatever about the argument around pornography - and it is complex - one has to throw up at the neck of any organ of the current Irish State accusing ANYTHING of being offensive and immoral, while our government continues to permit the US military to use Shannon Airport top conduct an illegal, offensive, immoral and murderous war in Iraq. Offensive and immoral might also be used to describe US and British support for the genocidal regime of Pol Pot in Cambodia; offensive and immoral might be applied to the UK government ministers who bare-facedly lied about it and permitted the SAS to train the wretched Pot's men in secret and deniably.
Offensive and immoral, surely, the rights-less treatment meted out by some of Ireland's Celtic Tiger employers to immigrant labourers; offensive and immoral the willingness of some Fianna Fáil politicos to take brown envelopes and give greed-maddened developers a leg-up; offensive and immoral the ruthless destruction of a whole street of Georgian buildings in Dublin years back to erect a bunch of offices; offensive and immoral the destruction of the greatest Viking site in Western Europe, at Dublin's Wood Quay, in the interests of building horrendous squat Hitler's Bunker-like office blocks - there was a Fianna Fáil connection here. Anyone remember the fund-raising organisation, TACA?
But words like 'offensive and immoral' come cheap.