50 Shades of Censorship

Whatever your opinion of the film and books, the 50 Shades of Grey phenomenon is being treated as if it were the final victory over prudish sex censors. But the real answer is a bit more complicated.

For three decades, the Free Speech Coalition has argued that the government has no right to tell adults what books they may read, what films they may watch and what–if any–pleasure products they can enjoy. And while we’ve often been successful, censorship is cyclical. Historically, for every gain we make, we face a backlash that threatens to roll back those rights. The ubiquity of 50 Shades may be one of them.

So while adults in media centers like New York, LA and San Francisco can freely explore sexuality, many — at home and abroad — can not. While we’re often aware of restrictions in places like Iran, China or Malaysia, many are in our back yard. Below some important issues facing our right to read, write and watch what we want..

1. Public Libraries

At least four counties in Florida banned the 50 Shades book from their libraries, calling it “semi-pornographic,” and the book has been pulled from shelves in dozens others, from Georgia to Wisconsin. In many of these places, the waiting list was hundreds of readers long.

2. Pleasure Product Sales

While buying the 50 Shades book in Alabama is permitted, it is still crime to sell anything that might stimulate genitalia. Alabama’s anti-obscenity statute was challenged in 2009 by free speech advocates — but the ban was upheld by the state Supreme Court. Similar bans remain in effect in Virginia and Mississippi.

3. Erotic Writing

When we think of hardcore porn, we rarely think of written word. But Karen Fletcher, a 56-year old woman Pittsburgh was indicted on four felony counts over sexually explicit stories that she published on her personal website, Red Rose. Fletcher was attempting to process her own childhood sexual abuse, but Mary Beth Buchanan, a Bush-appointed anti-pornography zealot, decided the written material was so obscene as to be illegal — and Fletcher was arrested and found guilty. It was the first successful obscenity prosecution of a written ‘pornography’ since 1973, and set a dangerous precedent for similar prosecutions.

4. Banking Restrictions

Thanks to the Justice Department’s Operation Choke Point, many adult performers and businesses found their banks unceremoniously closed this past year. The DOJ’s Choke Point pressured banks to cut dealings with legal businesses, including porn that were “reputation risks.”

5. Limiting Performer Choice

If a proposed 2016 ballot measure passes, the production and sale of films shot without condoms would be banned within the state of California, limiting performer choice of health and safety options. Proponents of the measure say it as a public health issue, and that adult films should teach condom use. But adult performers are not sex educators, and have argued vehemently that condoms are less often reliable than the testing system currently in place, and that only they — not the government — should have ultimate control over their bodies.

6. Internet Service Providers

This summer, the UK made the production of visual material that includes many consensual BDSM practices, like squirting and caning, illegal. This comes right on the heels of another law that prohibits UK internet users from accessing adult sites unless they request explicit permission from their internet service provider. Given this, it’s unlikely that the 50 Shades movie could even have been made in the UK under these new laws.

7. Driver’s Licences

If Focus Features doesn’t abide by record keeping regulations (known as 18 U.S.C. 2257) for 50 Shades stars Jamie Dornan and Dakota Johnson, the producers could be prosecuted and even jailed. It’s unlikely to happen, since the law is usually applied selectively to adult producers, but in a conservative administration, that could easily change. During the Bush administration, adult companies were regularly searched for violations and even alphabetical misfiling of a driver’s licence could result in prosecution.

8. Zoning Regulations

Rather than censoring obscenity, many adult books stores, novelty shops and theaters have been shuttered under dubious nuisance laws, or through onerous zoning restrictions in conservative locales. While 50 Shades itself may be difficult to legally censor, censorship advocates have steadily stripped away the rights of merchants to sell pleasure products, videos and magazines to consenting adults. Paired with restrictions on shipping in more conservative states, and consumers can be left with adult ‘deserts’  — where access to adult material, not to mention educational material about adult sexuality, is severely limited.

9. Corporate Censorship

Google no longer accepts ads for adult companies, Apple won’t allow adult-themed apps, and sites like Facebook and Instagram regularly ban users who show so much as a breast-feeding baby. In some ways, corporate censorship (which need not abide by First Amendment protections) is more insidious than government censorship, especially as fewer and fewer companies control a wider and wider audience

10. University Bans

Academic discussions about sexuality are important and vital. And while in the past ten years we’ve seen important scholars like Linda Williams, Constance Penley and Dr. Chauntelle Tibbals approach the subject with nuance and rigor, others like anti-porn professor Gail Dines who have called for an outright ban on 50 Shades, comparing it to domestic abuse. Some universities, like Northern Illinois University, have blocked porn sties on their ISP all together.

11. Conservative Boycotts

Target is being boycotted for 50 Shades-themed items; theaters are being protested over implied sexual violence of BDSM. And thanks to pressure from anti-porn activists and morality groups, hotel chains like Marriott have pulled adult videos from their rooms all together.

The Free Speech Coalition has been fighting for the right of adults to make our own decisions about what we watch, read, write and if we can buy pleasure products. A donation to the Free Speech Coalition helps us makes sure that material with adult subject matter is legal and accessible, no matter who you are or where you live.

The Free Speech Coalition is only able to fight with your support. Please consider donating even $5, $10 or $25 to keep this important fight going.

FSC Congratulates UK Protestors

Free Speech Coalition applauds the efforts of Charlotte Rose, Jerry Barnett, Sex and Censorship and the coalition of free speech advocates that protested on the steps of the Parliament today. The protestors fought to protect the personal liberties and free speech of British citizens in light recent amendments to existing legislation that places a stranglehold on adult content created in the UK and viewed by British citizens.

“Rose’s face-sitting protest was not only the first of its kind, but also courageous and brilliant,” commented Diane Duke, FSC CEO. “She got her message across and managed to bring unwanted and embarrassing media attention to the prudish British Parliament. BRAVO!”

Rose’s protest was organized on Facebook after the legislation changed to outlaw the distribution of movies featuring sex acts including spanking and whipping and face-sitting, if filmed in the UK.

“I suspect that this is just the beginning of the backlash,” said Duke. “These free speech advocates not only have our full support, but also our undying gratitude for free speech is a global issue and impacts us all.”

Free Speech Coalition’s Duke Argues Against Censorship at UK Roundtable

Free Speech Coalition president Diane Duke argued forcefully against new UK censorship rules at a London roundtable sponsored by Virgin Media. The discussion, “Switched on Families: Does the Online World Make Good Things Happen?” was prompted by UK Prime Minister David Cameron’s campaign to censor content at the ISP level. The panel included government representatives, members of the press and supporters of an open Internet. A report on the meeting was printed in the Guardian on Wednesday.

“We applaud the Virgin Media roundtable for taking on a tough issue, and for the Guardian for acknowledging the extent to which these new government-imposed ISP filters can actually harm children,” says Duke. “The filters Prime Minister Cameron supports block sexual health sites, they block domestic violence sites, they block gay and lesbian sites, they block information about eating disorders and a lot of information to which it’s crucial young people have access. Rather than protect children from things like bullying and online predators, these filters leave children in the dark.”

According to a Guardian report, a majority of those participating came away from the panel opposing ISP-level filters. Under the conservative Prime Minister’s directive, internet providers in the UK automatically block any content it deems adult in nature. Internet users who wish to not have their content filter must make a special request to their internet provider.

“If government officials want to protect kids from predators and age-inappropriate material, there are proven and effective means to do it,” said Duke. “They involve parental control, monitoring and discussions. Unfortunately, none has the political appeal of a ‘magic filter’ that promises stop things like child abuse, teen pregnancy and sexual assault by merely censoring content.”

The panel included representatives from over a dozen groups including the UK Council on Child Safety, the Family Online Safety Institute, and Big Brother Watch. Also participating in the discussion was Member of Parliament Claire Perry, who has long advocated for filters at the ISP level, and whose own site was initially blocked by filters due to repeated use of phrases like “porn” and “sex.”

While Duke was optimistic about the discussion, she admits there was a lot of work yet to do.

“There is so much misinformation out there, and the stakes are high. It’s important for us to be at the table, and to refuse to let moral panics be used to limit speech.”

Censorship in the UK

Regulators in the UK are creating an unprecedented wave of censorship that not only pushes for filters at the ISP level, but also criminal prosecution for consumers of what government officials consider “extreme porn.”  I have had the pleasure to work with a group of anti-censorship activists in the UK who are standing strong to protect speech in the UK and curtail the crusade UK’s Prime Minister Cameron has waged against adult content. As is always the case, those who wish to control speech try to marginalize people and groups who stand up against censorship by labeling them extreme. That is why I felt compelled to ask Jerry Barnett – the founder of Sex and Censorship – to provide a brief overview of censorship in the UK.  Jerry has been labeled as extreme because he refused to crawl into bed with UK regulators and instead consistently fights for the rights of content producers and all citizens of the UK.  Thank you Jerry and your coalition of anti-censorship grassroots activists for your incredible work. – FSC CEO Diane Duke

From Jerry Barnett…

While we at Sex & Censorship are following – with increasing trepidation – the endless drift towards censorship in the UK, we’re sometimes reminded that many of our supporters can’t keep up with all the news and events. That’s hardly surprising: Britain is currently experiencing wave after wave of moral panic, and it seems that hardly a week goes by without more bad news for free expression.

So here is a brief round-up of some of the main issues comprising British censorship at present.

Of course, a short blog post can’t hope to explain everything that’s taking place. I’m currently documenting British censorship in a book, Porn Panic: please join our mailing list to be alerted when this is published.

Law

• The Obscene Publications Act: the granddaddy of all censorship laws, outlawing the distribution of content that might “deprave and corrupt” its audience.
• Video Recordings Act: since 1984(!) the BBFC (a private organization) has had the right to censor videos and DVDs, and they seem to have a particular problem with pornography, making UK video among the most censored in Europe.
• Protection of Children Act: originally designed to criminalize images of child abuse, but sometimes misused, even to harass viewers of legitimate pornography.
• Dangerous Cartoons Act: yes, you can become a sex offender for possessing a sexual cartoon featuring a character that might appear to be under-age – such as seen in popular Japanese anime cartoons.
• Extreme Porn Law: three years in jail for possessing images of what the government considers to be “extreme pornography” – even if they are images of yourself participating in consensual sex with your own partner.
• Rape Porn: a planned extension to the extreme porn law whereby you can be jailed for possessing an image of a sexual act that appears to be non-consensual (whether it is actually consensual or not). Quick, delete those bondage photos!
• Gagging law: no, it’s not about blowjobs: it’s a serious attack on the rights of political campaigning organizations to speak freely, disguised as a law to regulate lobbying.

Regulation

• Although they’ve never been mandated by Parliament or the British people to do so, Ofcom have consistently refused to allow hardcore sex on TV: even on adult channels at 3am. Almost all other EU countries, and the US, allow porn to be broadcast.
• A private body, ATVOD, has taken it upon itself to drive much of the online porn industry out of the country, or out of business, by mandating strict website guidelines that make profitable business effectively impossible. They claim an EU directive gives them this right, although strangely, none of the other 26 EU member states have taken this action, and erotic/sexual material continues to be sold legally elsewhere in Europe without such restrictions.
• Internet blocking: There were at least two attempts to introduce mandatory Internet censorship laws into Parliament last year; while these both failed, we expect similar laws to have more success in the near future.

ISPs

• Mobile networks: since 2004, mobile operators have voluntarily censored Internet access from phones until the owner proves they are over 18. This censorship covers all sorts of material, and many adults as well as teenagers are denied access to much of the Internet from their mobile phones.
• Broadband filtering: since December, ISPs have voluntarily begun to offer “porn filters” to home-owners, under the pretext of “protecting children”. However, these filters block, not just porn, but dozens of categories of content for entire households, and offer the bill payer a means of restricting Internet access for others in the same household.

Policing Speech

A raft of laws against “malicious communication” and “terrorism” have been used to jail people for speech alone. Increasingly, the important line between expression and action is becoming blurred in the eyes of the UK authorities. These days, writing can be considered terrorism, and jokes tweeted in poor taste can see you dragged into court.

Academia

There is a worrying trend towards increasing censorship within universities, which (one would have hoped) should be beacons of free expression, debate and discussion. For example, several student unions have banned the Sun newspaper, not for its dodgy news or political bias, but for displaying that most terrible thing, the female nipple. Atheist groups have also had material banned in case it offends religious groups.

Censored UK is a reality.

Free Speech Pioneer, Publisher Barney Rosset Dies at 89

We live in a country were, as Americans, we have unprecedented freedoms and rights. The First Amendment, which provides us with freedom of speech and expression, is first for a reason. Because great minds knew that without open exchange of ideas; the entitlement to civil debate; and the right to express in art and literature topics that some might find controversial – without these freedoms, there would be little opportunity for progress and freedom.

Barney Rosset was one of those great minds. Rosset, the one-time owner of Grove Press and editor-in-chief of the Evergreen Review, was responsible for the landmark Supreme Court ruling, in 1964, that allowed him to publish Henry Miller’s Tropic of Cancer, which up until that time had been consider “obscene.”

With the monumental amount of information we have access to in this Digital Age, it’s hard to imagine a time when words on a page could be consider so offensive, so subversive, so dangerous that they should be banned. But Rosset took a hard stand for authors like Miller, DH Lawrence, the Beat poets – all of them now required reading in colleges and universities.

Rosset was the American publisher for the erotic BDSM classic The Story of O. He went back to court in 1968, when U.S. Customs seized copies of the early Swedish erotic film “I am Curious (Yellow)” that Rosset meant to distribute. And he won.

Rossett fought, not only for the freedom of expression of controversial artists – he fought for people like you and I to be able to have access to strange ideas and concepts so that we might see different perspectives and take away from them valuable understanding – or whatever the audience chose to take away from an experience others might deem inappropriate. A true free speech advocate, he believed in freedom of expression, in the extreme. He trusted in the intelligence of the people who would read those books and see those movies, and upheld the right for those people to make up their own minds.

That’s what being an American is all about.

Sadly, especially in difficult economic and political times, there is a tendency toward the conservative, to seek safety and sacrifice some of our freedoms. We forget how hard certain individuals have fought so that we could have those rights. Rosset dedicated his life to that battle and we have all benefited from his pioneering spirit. If you have ever enjoyed a passage from Lady Chattterly’s Lover or Naked Lunch or Waiting for Godot, you owe Barney Rosset a debt of gratitude.

Rosset died following recent heart surgery. He was 89.

(Photo: Courtesy of the Criterion Collection)

Special thanks to FSC Board President Sid Grief

LA City Council Motions to Approve Film Permit Ordinance That Would Require Condom Use on Adult Sets

The LA City Council today approved a motion to create an ordinance that would require adult productions to show proof of condom use, in order to be issued a film permit.

AIDS Healthcare Foundation’s (AHF) recently gathered enough petition signatures to put mandatory condom regulation through film permits on the ballot for the Los Angeles City election to be held in June. AHF’s President Michael Weinstein also has stated that the HIV nonprofit organization would push to have the condom initiative placed on countywide ballots for the November election.

AHF’s relentless attacks on the adult industry have been orchestrated to portray rates of adult performer STIs as a “public health threat” and Weinstein’s grandstanding on the issues uses emotionally-charged tactics by calling the situation an “epidemic” and by quoting statistics that have been proven to be inaccurate.

FSC has led the opposition to AHF’s needless, self-serving anti-adult agenda and also has made every effort to cooperate with state health & safety regulatory agency Cal/OSHA.

“Performer health and safety is a priority for the adult film industry, which is why the industry’s standards and self regulations have been successful as represented by the industry’s low rate of STI transmission and no transmission of HIV in the industry in more than 5 years!” FSC Executive Director Diane Duke stated in response to today’s developments.

“Government regulation of film-making would likely undermine existing health and safety efforts and industry standards that are effective as well as take the government into dangerous new territory.

“This approach betrays our Constitution; it betrays the hard lessons we’ve learned in the 25-year fight against HIV/AIDS; and it betrays aggressive health and safety efforts in place that are proven and effective,” Duke added.

Speculation on actions taken by the City Council today suggests that the council may be taking preemptive steps to prevent the ballot initiative from reaching voters, in order to prevent cost to taxpayers from the election and – if the initiative was passed – any litigation that might follow.

The LA City Attorney had already filed suit to stop the ballot initiative from being considered for the election, citing that if the initiative were passed by voters, it would likely later be brought to court – and lose – on Constitutional grounds.

Two City Council members, Bill Rosendahl and Paul Koretz, have received generous donations from AHF’s Weinstein. Both men spearheaded the effort to quash the City Attorney’s lawsuit.

AHF has stated that they will protest tonight at the XBIZ Awards, to be held at Santa Monica Airport’s Barker Hanger, where Hustler founder Larry Flynt will be honored with the Icon Award, and where FSC’s Duke also will receive the Woman of the Year Award.

(Photo: Courtesy of NASA)

FSC Addresses Concerns on SOPA Internet Regulation

Free Speech Coalition (FSC) today sent a letter to the House and Senate Judiciary Committee, addressing concerns about the recently proposed Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) on behalf of adult industry businesses. Representative Lamar Smith (R-Texas) introduced the controversial bill, which proposes strict regulation of the Internet in an effort to curb online piracy and other cyber-crimes.

SOPA has been endorsed by mainstream entertainment companies and trade organizations in favor monitoring, prosecuting and penalizing “rogue” websites and users that illegally download content, in an attempt to control online piracy.

Many Internet companies and free Internet activist organizations have taken an oppositional stance to SOPA, which they fear would allow governmental regulators overly broad jurisdiction over the Internet and may lead to censorship and potential violations of user privacy, among other issues.

“FSC supports aggressive action to stop online piracy and is in favor of some of the components contained in Representative Smith’s proposed legislation,” FSC Executive Director Diane Duke stated. “However, FSC is concerned that some of the provisions contained in SOPA may lay the groundwork to abolish legitimate online businesses by oppressive governments wishing to suppress unpopular content, overzealous competitors wishing to squelch competition, and extremist organizations wishing to promote censorship.”

Included in the letter to representatives is a FSC position statement on SOPA, which can be viewed here – FSC Position Statment – SOPA.

The adult entertainment industry has been especially hard hit by content piracy, but also has suffered from governmental regulations that have had a chilling effect on adult businesses. On behalf of its members, FSC applauds legislation that would protect intellectual property rights.

However, FSC has suggested issues created by any far-reaching regulations that may allow censorship; limit controversial forms of expression; or would encourage overly broad prosecution of online businesses, should be taken into consideration by representatives. FSC encourages close examination of any legislative regulations that may prove burdensome for legitimate online businesses or violate the rights of Internet users.

FSC’s Anti-Piracy Action Program (APAP) also was mentioned as a model for effective strategies that protect both content producers and tube site operators. Several large adult content producers, as well as tube site operators, are participating in APAP, which uses advanced technology to monitor infringing activity and creates new revenue streams for participants.

For more information on FSC-APAP, contact (818) 348-9373, or diane@freespeechcoalition.com.

(Photo: Some rights reserved by Hannes Trapp)

Morality in Media Throws casting.xxx a Housewarming Party

On Tuesday night, the .XXX domain made a rather inauspicious debut with its first live website, casting.xxx. Please, feel free to visit the site on your own – or not.

Casting.xxx is the first site to roll out under the “Founders” program for the .XXX domain, which offered 35 webmasters the opportunity to get the jump on 1,500 addresses. The implied benefit of being a “founder” was that you would have an opportunity buy some pretty prime .xxx real estate and be the first to get at some good names.

Not sure what to expect, we visited casting.xxx. We didn’t notice any extra security measures for age verification – in fact, not even an RTA banner. There was the standard 2257 compliance, a rather long disclaimer instructing the viewer that they must be 18 to enter, and a rather simple mouse click allowed us into the site. Inside, a very clean-looking hardcore amateur site with a casting couch motif. The affiliate program was not yet available and the name of the registered owner was nowhere to be found.

But Domaincite.com found it. Here’s what they had to say about the parent company of the newest stop on the Internet:

“Casting.xxx is registered to a Really Useful Ltd, which appears to have been set up purely to build sites on .xxx domains, of which casting.xxx is the first of several.”

So, the company was created to build sites specifically for .XXX and it looks like they may be founding their own affiliate program.

What else should we say? What else can we say? Just what you need in this economy – more competition.

FSC opposes the .XXX domain and urges all adult webmasters to STAY .COM. The domain will fragment the Internet; put adult sites into a content-based category that encourages censorship by anti-adult entities; makes it easier for underage users to find adult content online; and will cost adult webmasters and trademark holders MILLIONS in unnecessary fees. Bad for the Internet – bad for business.

Ironically, just days after Casting.xxx moved in, ICM Registry received a housewarming gift on behalf of the entire .XXX domain. The folks at Morality in Media, today, called for a Federal investigation of ICM Registry and all those involved with the .XXX domain.

Welcome to the neighborhood, y’all.

And for the record; FSC also opposes Morality in Media’s month-long anti-pornography “Porn Harms” campaign. – jc

.XXXploitation, .XXXtortion and .XXXpletive Deleted

Three of us were standing around at the AVN Novelty Expo the other day, having a discussion about .XXX domains and the negative effects the new sTLD will have on adult online businesses.

One of our colleagues, a rather well-known adult performer, said he had pre-registered HisName.xxx for fear of squatters leeching off his traffic, but he wasn’t quite sure what to do with the address if he decided to purchase it.

“I understand why it’s so bad,” he said, “but I don’t want someone using my name…” His content, though, is very unique and he was reassured that he was very unlikely to lose traffic to an inferior web para-site. Still, the problems of squatting and price gouging do seem inherent to the .XXX business model.

“Well,” he said, pondering the problem, “What if I buy the address and put up a landing page that says the only reason I bought it was because I felt extorted into buying it, and I was afraid that someone would squat on it?”

There was a snort of skepticism, followed by mutual response, “Hah! ICM [Registry] will NEVER let you do that. Are you kidding? ICM is a private company – they don’t have to allow you any free speech. You’ve got to follow their policies and the policies of the IFFOR board. It will all be in the contract. There’s NO way they would ever let you do that… Besides, you can’t ever link it to your .com address because then that site has to comply with their policies, too.”

So, a private company like ICM Registry is under no obligation to allow freedom of speech on a piece of Internet property that they administer and operate? In fact, part of that $70 dollars paid annually for a .XXX address (projected to go much higher by the launch in September) will fund the IFFOR Advisory Board that will decide policy for the sTLD. This reality is somewhat precedent setting in an Internet where people have traditionally assumed a tremendous amount of freedom to put up and post whatever they want.

Goes without saying – ICM Registry is probably not going to allow a paying customer to put up content that defames them or is critical of their methods. Not when Facebook can pull your profile page without giving you an explanation of how you violated their policy –  nearly every adult performer knows about that.

So, the real question is: What else are they going to decide doesn’t belong on a .XXX site? And WHO decides that? And WHAT will the criteria be for controversial content?

The adult industry is nothing if not controversial. And what is YOUR recourse, if you violate policy by being controversial?

It’s like buying a house in a community that has an HOA. If you want to paint your garage door pink or own a pit bull, they probably won’t let you do that. Oh, and the .XXX HOA Advisory Board? None of them actually live in your neighborhood, but they get to make the rules. Better make sure you know where all the fences and easements are supposed to be, before you start planting that wicked garden.

New media has overgrown the boundaries of free speech; with the Internet’s boundless territory, it has redefined “community” as global. It has been referred to as the Wild West, where hackers and pirates make their own laws. In some quarters, that freedom is very, very scary.

And nearly 20 years after the rise of the Internet, regulation and restrictions have become a hot-button topic. Even as China builds its Great Firewall, with claims that it took down 1.4 million sites last year – Italy has decided that the government’s telecomm agency can seize websites without a court order. The U.S. claims its seizure of popular Spanish P2P site Rojodirecta.com is the same as confiscating a crack house or any other property involved in illegal activities. In Australia, a country literally populated with shiploads of outlaws, Internet analysts debate the filter that will block child pornography sites; are the protocols for the filter transparent enough and will it give lawmakers authority over other forms of content? And what about the new “six strikes” policy adopted by the U.S.? ISPs will send notices out to IP addresses where illegal downloading may have occurred; by the fifth strike, you’re almost out – will this sink the international pirate armada?

India and Kenya have already promised to block the .XXX domain and, presumably, so will all Islamic countries.

The Free Internet Posse wants the Internet to be free and accessible for all – but .XXX’s potential for regulatory oversight, mandated categorization, Internet fragmentation and wide-scale censorship must make them shiver in their boots.

And the conservatives? Well, they don’t want .XXX unless there IS legislation mandating that all adult online businesses be corralled in the .XXX “red light district” – the shadiest part of town. Classification by content is the only way to arrive at all-encompassing censorship of an unpopular form of speech.

And the Mormons? They’re are wondering why they have to pay to block Mormon.xxx.

In the past two weeks, two of the adult industry’s big guns issued their demands to ICM.

Manwin, operator of many popular adult online franchises (including Brazzers and Twistys) sent a letter to ICM Registry demanding that 57 of its domain names and various similar names be blocked from being registered by third parties – and Manwin does not want to pay the blocking fee.

“The misuse of our intellectual property will not be tolerated,” said Manwin Managing Partner Fabian Thylmann.

Hustler issued a similar challenge to ICM Registry to protect one of the most recognizable, iconic adult brands in the world.

“It appears that the .XXX TLD will do nothing but drive up costs to the adult community and will force us to fight infringement on yet another front,” Hustler president Michael Klein said.

Well, ICM Registry can’t rightfully do this for one adult brands without doing it for all the other adult brands, right? And all the other mainstream trademark owners out there, as well – right?

FSC opposes the .XXX domain and urges all adult online businesses to stay .COM. – jc

(Photo: Some rights reserved by Publik15)