Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

PETA To Launch Porn Site
NewsBusters ^ | August 20, 2011 | Noel Sheppard

Posted on 08/20/2011 9:43:55 AM PDT by SanFranDan

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals has always known how to use sexual imagery to advance its political agenda.

According to Reuters, the animal rights group is planning on taking this further by actually launching a pornographic website:

In preparation for a new triple-x Internet domain that will launch in December, lawyers for the most storied brands in the United States are scrambling to prevent an x-rated rip-off of an invaluable asset: corporate Web addresses.

The domain operator administering the .xxx domain is accepting early applications from brand owners who want control over their names. ICM Registry says it has received over 900,000 "expressions of interest" from companies that want to preregister their trademarks or block others from snapping them up to create, say, a Barbie.xxx or Coke.xxx. [...]

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals also signed up. However, instead of blocking its name, said PETA spokeswoman Lindsay Rajt, the organization will launch peta.xxx as a pornography site that draws attention to the plight of animals.

Not surprisingly, the folks at the Huffington Post were very excited by this:

(Excerpt) Read more at newsbusters.org ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society
KEYWORDS: peta; petanorth; pornography

1 posted on 08/20/2011 9:43:58 AM PDT by SanFranDan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SanFranDan

Beastiality?


2 posted on 08/20/2011 9:44:45 AM PDT by null and void (Day 938. The mob is decisive when the law is not.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SanFranDan

Leftists. Go figure.


3 posted on 08/20/2011 9:46:17 AM PDT by Hoodat (Yet in all these things we are more than conquerors through Him who loved us. - (Rom 8:37))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SanFranDan
now isn't that a marvel. no matter how clean you are, you still need a porn domain to protect your clean image.

just when you think things can't get any more twisted...

4 posted on 08/20/2011 9:47:09 AM PDT by the invisib1e hand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hoodat

People for the Erotic Treatment of Animals...


5 posted on 08/20/2011 9:48:02 AM PDT by null and void (Day 938. The mob is decisive when the law is not.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: SanFranDan

Maybe they’ll have a Lindsey Lohan type be their poster child for this site? She’ll probably do anything for a money gig here?


6 posted on 08/20/2011 9:48:19 AM PDT by zbogwan2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SanFranDan
Yep. I am sure people who are interested in porn are also interested in the plight of animals.
People Eating Tasty Animals
7 posted on 08/20/2011 9:48:26 AM PDT by svcw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SanFranDan

This could create a different vision of “People Eating Tasty Animals”.....


8 posted on 08/20/2011 9:48:28 AM PDT by G Larry (I dream of a day when a man is judged by the content of his character)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: the invisib1e hand; Lazamataz

Yeah. Laz needs to sequester Laz.xxx and Lazamataz.xxx to protect his reputation...


9 posted on 08/20/2011 9:49:49 AM PDT by null and void (Day 938. The mob is decisive when the law is not.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SanFranDan

Fat or skinny liberal chicks are no turn on, but I bet people look.

Sex sells


10 posted on 08/20/2011 9:51:55 AM PDT by mylife (OPINIONS ~ $ 1.00 HALFBAKED ~ 50c)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: the invisib1e hand
now isn't that a marvel. no matter how clean you are, you still need a porn domain to protect your clean image.

Whose boneheaded idea was the .xxx domain int he first place? Yay! More porn on the 'net! Just what we need! Now we can have "typicalpornsite.com" and a mirror over at "typicalpornsite.xxx" as there is nothing to force pornographers to remove their .com sites.

11 posted on 08/20/2011 9:52:49 AM PDT by Gena Bukin (Perry/Rubio 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SanFranDan

Weirder things have happened.
Explain this **** LoL

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFUDEmMjC-c


12 posted on 08/20/2011 9:53:45 AM PDT by mylife (OPINIONS ~ $ 1.00 HALFBAKED ~ 50c)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SanFranDan

*keyword* petanorth

OMGLMAO!


13 posted on 08/20/2011 9:54:51 AM PDT by mylife (OPINIONS ~ $ 1.00 HALFBAKED ~ 50c)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SanFranDan

Somehow that makes sense.


14 posted on 08/20/2011 9:55:14 AM PDT by SuzyQue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SanFranDan

Naked sheep?


15 posted on 08/20/2011 9:55:26 AM PDT by ilovesarah2012
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SanFranDan

PETA - Porn for the Erotic Titillation of Animals


16 posted on 08/20/2011 9:56:49 AM PDT by Bon mots ("When seconds count, the police are just minutes away...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gena Bukin

Without Pron, there would be no internet LoL

Even in the usenet days pron was the driver of internet growth and innovation

When the printing press was born, it wasnt refined through the idea that politics or religion could be furthered, It was refined because we wanted a better look at girls bottoms.

Its a sad fact but it’s true.
The entire evolution of the modern word is based on getting a look at girls bottoms.


17 posted on 08/20/2011 10:00:19 AM PDT by mylife (OPINIONS ~ $ 1.00 HALFBAKED ~ 50c)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: SanFranDan

PETA - loves animals, hates people.


18 posted on 08/20/2011 10:01:05 AM PDT by PGR88 (I'm so open-minded my brains fell out)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: null and void

Does this mean that DU will grab www.freerepublic.xxx?


19 posted on 08/20/2011 10:01:14 AM PDT by ken5050 (Should Christie RUN in 2012? NO!!! But he should WALK 3 miles every day.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: SanFranDan

And we are supposed listen to these swine and do what they want?


20 posted on 08/20/2011 10:02:57 AM PDT by jmaroneps37 (Conservatism is truth. Liberalism is lies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: null and void

Does this have something to do with Mexico, and donkeys?


21 posted on 08/20/2011 10:07:09 AM PDT by Dr. Bogus Pachysandra ( Ya can't pick up a turd by the clean end!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SanFranDan

PETA.xxx, because showing bestiality really drives home the point that people = animals.


22 posted on 08/20/2011 10:09:32 AM PDT by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SanFranDan
So does this mean People Eating Tasty Animals can get the peta.org domain name back?
23 posted on 08/20/2011 10:11:13 AM PDT by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Bogus Pachysandra

Naaahh, they’re just horsing around...


24 posted on 08/20/2011 10:13:21 AM PDT by null and void (Day 938. The mob is decisive when the law is not.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: SanFranDan
Two slogans for their site they might try:
"make love to animals not war"
"Eat out animals don't eat animals"

OH boy these are bad.

25 posted on 08/20/2011 10:15:02 AM PDT by Steve Van Doorn (*in my best Eric Cartman voice* 'I love you, guys')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SanFranDan

The woman who runs that organization is really mentally ill. (I can’t think of her name right now.)

I read a long piece about her and PETA years ago, written by a basically sympathetic author.

He may not have stated it explicitly, but by the end it was pretty clear he was convinced she was nuts. He certainly made her insanity plain to the reader.


26 posted on 08/20/2011 10:21:18 AM PDT by jocon307
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SanFranDan

Has Peter Singer commented on this yet? Have they consulted him? I think he would strongly approve of this.


27 posted on 08/20/2011 10:21:59 AM PDT by CPO retired
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ken5050; Jim Robinson
Does this mean that DU will grab www.freerepublic.xxx?

Hopefully Jim got it first.

28 posted on 08/20/2011 10:23:24 AM PDT by Gena Bukin (Perry/Rubio 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Gena Bukin; the invisib1e hand
>> now isn't that a marvel. no matter how clean you are, you still need a porn domain to protect your clean image.

> Whose boneheaded idea was the .xxx domain int he first place?

As usual, follow the money.

The domain registrars and their friends at ICANN realized that by creating a TLD called ".XXX" they would be printing money as millions of "clean" companies and individuals rushed to claim and neuter "{clean_name}.xxx", and millions of "{dirty_name}.com" porn sites rushed to claim and link to "{dirty_name}.xxx". It is legal blackmail, pure and simple.

Reasonable people saw this many years ago as the scam it is.

But ICANN shrewdly co-opted the anti-porn crusaders, telling them (lies) about how this would "protect the children". So they got support from all over as naive people and organizations rushed to support the idea of ".xxx".

That's not the end of it, either. The ".xxx" scam is so successful they've already launched the even bigger followup.

Recently ICANN announced that they would also open *ANY* TLD with any company or individual name or initials. What is (say) Microsoft, going to do, ignore the abuse potential of "{anything}.microsoft"? Of course, they have to buy the TLD that bears their name before someone else does. And the TLD's don't go for the $20-50 per year of simple domains -- they go for upwards of $100,000 each!! What a racket. Legal blackmail.

Follow the money.

29 posted on 08/20/2011 10:24:28 AM PDT by dayglored (Listen, strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: PGR88

PETA doesn’t love animals, either. PETA simply wants to control people who own animals or eat animals or wear animal fur.

All of these campaigns were originally part of the communist agenda. The anti-fur campaign began as a union organizing method. The communists hired a bunch of thugs to break into shops where fur coats were made and cut up thousands of dollars worth of fur. They were trying to make the furrier worker part of the needle worker unions.

The anti-meat eating campaign was just a control thing.


30 posted on 08/20/2011 10:30:03 AM PDT by Eva
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: dayglored

at some point trademark violations become actionable.


31 posted on 08/20/2011 10:40:57 AM PDT by the invisib1e hand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: SanFranDan
They acquired the rights to Bin Laden's kid porn stash...

Photobucket

32 posted on 08/20/2011 10:40:57 AM PDT by FatherofFive (Islam is evil and must be eradicated)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mylife

Oh you jerk! I saw that befor and never wanted to see another second of it ever again. I think it will make you retarded if you watch it in it’s entirety


33 posted on 08/20/2011 10:47:25 AM PDT by nerdwithagun (I'd rather go gun to gun then knife to knife.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: SanFranDan

Is the .xxx domain voluntary for porn sites? Seems to me that having .xxx domains will make it easy to filter them out, I don’t think that porn site operators are going to be to thrilled about that, why would they want to use the .xxx domain in the first place?


34 posted on 08/20/2011 10:50:49 AM PDT by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SanFranDan
Likely want to have young starlets show their breasts to save the animals. Those bulimic starlets will probably think they are.

Pray for America

35 posted on 08/20/2011 10:57:26 AM PDT by bray (The Country Club opens in prayers against Palin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mylife

Indeed. It is a sad commentary on Fallen Man, that just as technology in general advances most rapidly in the service of war, the advance of media technology has largely been fueled by pornography: many of the first printed books with large press runs and profit margins for the printers were salacious, most of the photographic supplies sold in Victorian England went to pornographers, VHS beat out the arguably superior BetaMax video format due to the preference of the porn industry for the cheaper medium, and yes, the internet is largely used for and paid for by pornography.


36 posted on 08/20/2011 10:59:26 AM PDT by The_Reader_David (And when they behead your own people in the wars which are to come, then you will know. . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: The_Reader_David

It’s all true!
How many people have read he Canterbury tales?

Now, how many people have looked at female tails in print?


37 posted on 08/20/2011 11:05:16 AM PDT by mylife (OPINIONS ~ $ 1.00 HALFBAKED ~ 50c)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: nerdwithagun

Sorry! LoL

Actually this is more apropos to the subject.

http://www.hulu.com/watch/177554/coupling-inferno


38 posted on 08/20/2011 11:09:26 AM PDT by mylife (OPINIONS ~ $ 1.00 HALFBAKED ~ 50c)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator
Is the .xxx domain voluntary for porn sites? Seems to me that having .xxx domains will make it easy to filter them out, I don’t think that porn site operators are going to be to thrilled about that, why would they want to use the .xxx domain in the first place?

There is no requirement whatsoever that porn sites be restricted to .xxx domains. As such, most porn sites will continue on unchanged at their present .com addresses.

39 posted on 08/20/2011 11:11:04 AM PDT by Gena Bukin (Perry/Rubio 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: SanFranDan

PETA = People Eating Tasty Animals


40 posted on 08/20/2011 11:19:36 AM PDT by molson209
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator; Gena Bukin
>> Is the .xxx domain voluntary for porn sites? Seems to me that having .xxx domains will make it easy to filter them out, I don’t think that porn site operators are going to be to thrilled about that, why would they want to use the .xxx domain in the first place?

> There is no requirement whatsoever that porn sites be restricted to .xxx domains. As such, most porn sites will continue on unchanged at their present .com addresses.

Correct, all the existing ".com" porn sites will continue unchanged.

The ORIGINAL (misguided) proposal for a ".xxx" domain was to REQUIRE porn sites to move over to it, abandoning their ".com" sites. They could still own the ".com" domain, but they couldn't post material on the ".com" site other than a redirect to the ".xxx" site, which could then be filtered.

In theory this could allow for content filtering to "protect the children". Anti-porn advocates were thrilled and lined up to support the proposal. But of course, the proposal immediately ran into the predictable trouble on the definition of "porn" even within the USA, and the larger fact that the internet is international and countries do not agree AT ALL on what is and is not porn. Do you want your viewing controlled by an Islamic cleric?

So the proposal had to be modified to drop the REQUIREMENT and merely make ".xxx" voluntary. So to speak.

Then it became manifestly clear that this ".xxx" domain proposal was in reality a monetary shakedown on EVERY EXISTING DOMAIN, porn and non-porn, every business and individual domain, pure and simple. See my comment #29 above for the story on that aspect.

41 posted on 08/20/2011 1:31:47 PM PDT by dayglored (Listen, strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: the invisib1e hand
at some point trademark violations become actionable.

Yes, *after* the damage has been done. And good luck with 'making whole' from some fly-by-night operation. Trademark owners will be forced to spend big bucks to make the nuisance go away. Only the legal profession will profit from this.

42 posted on 08/20/2011 2:53:41 PM PDT by Moltke (Always retaliate first.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: dayglored
Then it became manifestly clear that this ".xxx" domain proposal was in reality a monetary shakedown on EVERY EXISTING DOMAIN, porn and non-porn, every business and individual domain, pure and simple.

This is the type of scenario that makes one go, "Damn! Why didn't I think of that!"

And it was all for the children... LOL!

43 posted on 08/20/2011 3:24:39 PM PDT by Gena Bukin (Perry/Rubio 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Moltke

concur.


44 posted on 08/20/2011 3:41:53 PM PDT by the invisib1e hand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: null and void

Perverts for the Erotic Treatment of Animals


45 posted on 08/20/2011 3:45:48 PM PDT by Rocky (REPEAL IT!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Rocky

Much better!


46 posted on 08/20/2011 3:48:07 PM PDT by null and void (Day 939. The mob is decisive when the law is not.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Moltke

Actually, if ICANN is trafficking in Moltke.xxx then ICANN is your defendant. Don’t care what their disclaimers say.


47 posted on 08/20/2011 6:45:31 PM PDT by the invisib1e hand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: the invisib1e hand

Yes and no (mostly No, I’m afraid).

You can get ICANN to block and remove the contested .xxx domain.

But ICANN is NOT responsible for any damage-causing or illegal content published at such a domain (think ‘kiddy porn’). Even the webhosting companies that store the content on their servers are not. Otherwise there would be no more ICANN (or ATT, or Comcast, or...) today.

Damaging (or illegal) content is the responsibility of the domain owner. Who is the one that must be sued for damages. Sorry, but that’s just the way it is, and - for practical reasons - rightly so. (Or would you expect ICANN et al to scourge through millions and millions of websites (every day!) to make sure that there is not one shred of damaging/illegal content published? How could they possibly do this?)


48 posted on 08/21/2011 11:16:22 AM PDT by Moltke (Always retaliate first.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Moltke
But ICANN is NOT responsible for any damage-causing or illegal content published at such a domain (think ‘kiddy porn’). Even the webhosting companies that store the content on their servers are not. Otherwise there would be no more ICANN (or ATT, or Comcast, or...) today.

well, icann or not, anyone who profits from libel is liable, to some degree.

No lawyer (thank God) but would posit that a case could be made...in a just world. But perhaps not in this one.

49 posted on 08/21/2011 11:41:28 AM PDT by the invisib1e hand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: the invisib1e hand

Assigning a domain name is not ‘libel’ (or, as such, even trademark infringement - a trademark only covers specific goods and/or services, and a domain name is neither under any legal system), and ICANN does not profit from any content posted on such domains. Let’s leave it at that.


50 posted on 08/21/2011 1:36:18 PM PDT by Moltke (Always retaliate first.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson