Being that I'm a hale-and-hearty defender of the First Amendment, I always take special notice of occurrences which could have significant impact on the dissemination of art, literature, or other such things. Once again, ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) has quashed a request for a .xxx domain to be created for the registration of "pornographic" websites. I cannot blame ICANN for shying away from giving its approval when I understand that the position of responsibility that approval would place it in is unacceptable for it, and would take the group well outside the scope of what it was created for.

So, we are still faced with the heavy infusion of pornographic material within the mainstream internet, and whether or not something can or should be done about it. I myself am in favor of a designated domain for sexually explicit material, for the simple reason that it would make it easier for parents to have success in restricting those materials from being accessed by their kids. I'm not writing this because I want to debate the existence of porn. I'm simply stating that we still have a situation which, in my opinion, must be dealt with.

I find it rather odd that the Family Research Council applauds the decision of ICANN. FRC claims that to provide a designated domain for the lusty sites would legitimize their existence and create a virtual "red light district" within the mainstream internet. I guess they don't understand that the stuff is already entrenched. I ask the Family Research Council to answer me this: If you were trying to displace prostitutes from your neighborhood would you rather do battle with them on your front porch or send someone else to deal with them in their own home? Your short-sighted approval of the ICANN decision is lost on me. Would it not be better to suggest an amended proposal that would get the job done?

In my considered opinion, this is a matter that shall not quietly pass. What we need to do is create the conditions wherein ICANN can to provide porn its own top-level domain without taking the responsibility to police it. The issue of domain monopoly would also need to be addressed. Then, without involving the courts, porn site webmasters could be encouraged to migrate their content to the new domain. After a reasonable period of voluntary change, I suspect about 70% of the adult sites would have willingly moved to the new domain. Then, I think it would be appropriate for adult sites in other domains to be challenged to prove why they should be allowed to remain outside their available "proper" channels.

I don't mean to say that porn should be stripped from the internet. I'm too much of a constitutionalist for that. I'm just saying that if the porn webmasters wish to remain unmolested on the web, we should create the safe conditions to allow them to do that. We will never do away with porn, but we most certainly can do away with being assaulted by it.

For years, I have bought tons of things online – from big places like Amazon.com to small outfits. For the most part, service has been fine, especially from Amazon.com.

About a month ago, though, things went haywire. In one week, I had three bad experiences with online merchants.

The good news is that two of them were resolved very quickly. In fact, in one case, I knew the CEO. His company, VistaPrint Ltd. (NASDAQ:VPRT), is a fast-growing online printer.

Hey, even those companies that are built-to-last get things wrong. The important thing is how they respond. And VistaPrint was flawless. Impressively, I talked to the CEO a couple hours before his earnings conference call (and, by the way, his company had a blow-out quarter).

But my experience was much different with another company, Network Solutions. The company sells web hosting and domain names. I'm sure I've spent thousands of dollars – over the years – with this company.

The "Net Neutrality" debate is confusing, and I'm not the only one who thinks so. Andy Kessler from The Weekly Standard calls the issue "bizarre" and "hard to understand" and opines: "both sides are off their rocker." He argues that the answer is not regulation. The telcos and cable companies, he says, are loathe to upgrade their networks -- it's expensive, and, why would they without the government stepping in? They want neutrality regulations to be quelled because "without the ability to extract money from the webbies for the use of their not-so-fast Alexander Graham Bell-era wires (forget that you and I already overpay for this), AT&T or Verizon might not have any business model going forward."

Kessler's "modest proposal" is creative and a little diabolical (ergo: I love it). "Maybe the incumbent network providers--the Verizons, Comcasts, AT&Ts--can be made to compete; threatening to seize their stagnating networks via eminent domain is just one creative idea to get them to do this. A truly competitive, non-neutral network could work, but only if we know its real economic value. If telcos or cable charge too much, someone should be in a position to steal the customer. Maybe then we'd see useful services and a better Internet. Sounds like capitalism."

What does the blogerati think about the idea of seizing broadband in the name of eminent domain?