Tired of the prudes over at Apple (AAPL), who keep a tight leash on filth in iTunes? Well, it seems like the folks at Google (GOOG) are keeping an open mind. Even though its Android Market isn't playing in the adult space, Google isn't preventing adult-only content from getting on its devices, while Apple has made it a point to keep its iPhones and iPods clean from the start.

The latest entrant into the Android experience is a company called MiKandi (say it, "my candy"), which provides mobile access to the hot stuff you can enjoy on a screen of any size. MiKandi has no connection to Google other than the use of its technology.

It's wabbit season!

There's only good news for Playboy (PLA) when someone expresses an interest in buying it. Shares of the ailing men's lifestyle company shot higher on Thursday when word got out that Iconix is interested in acquiring it. Iconix owns and licenses brands to manufacturers and counts Candie's and London Fog among its holdings. A deal isn't a sure thing, but Playboy now has something it hasn't in a while: hope.

Iconix has been looking to acquire more brands. And Playboy has been looking for a knight in shining armor (and with a hefty war chest in tow) since at least June, when Scott Flanders took the helm. But it looked like acquisition bait well before then, thanks to a rough financial situation.

Penthouse Media Group has agreed to acquire the parent company of AdultFriendFinder, a website devoted helping adults find love -- or at least sex. The site is different from more mainstream (although AdultFriendFinder's traffic would seem to indicate its more mainstream that we care to think) sites like eHarmony in that the emphasis is on "hooking up" and there is little in the way of bragging about couples who met on the site.

According to the USA Today, Penthouse, which was acquired by Marc Bell and Daniel Stanton out of bankruptcy in 2004, plans to aggressively pursue acquisitions and possibly take itself public in the next few years.

Here's what's interesting: this is a company that owns social networking websites and was founded in 1996. It just sold for $500 million.

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.

Can you say "publicity"? Evidently, that's all Jeffrey Toback, a member of the Nassau County (Long Island) legislature knows. He's suing Google for the children, claiming that the company's search engine promotes paid ads for child pornography companies [*cough* EVIL! *cough*].

Naturally, Google says that it is not "the largest and most efficient facilitator and distributor of child pornography in th world." And that this is just a publicity stunt. What? No, not really?

Mike from Techdirt weighs in, explaining that "the law here is extremely clear: a service provider is not directly responsible for what people do on their platform" and calling the lawsuit "ridiculous" and "a misunderstanding both of the law and how Google works." Ridiculous it may be, but Jeffrey Toback's name is on everyone's lips today. Investors evidently agree with Mike; the stock is up $1.50 in intraday trading, to $396.25.

Apple has finally found a product, in the iPod, that is an unqualified profit monster. The company is morphing from niche hipster to provider of music to the masses. And as part of the transformation they're making moves that never before seemed possible, like using Intel chips and (horrors!) Microsoft software on their computers. New strategies indicate that Apple is willing to be creative and do some interesting deals, like the one where the Red Hot Chili Peppers are selling advance tickets to their upcoming tour through the iTunes store.

The obvious next step? Porn, says Mark Gilbert (no relation to yours truly). If iPod owners will watch films on their 2.5" screens, surely they'll watch movies of an, umm, more lascivious nature. It's a huge money business; if Apple could get just a sliver of that $20 billion in adult video sales each year, they might continue their finally-respectable growth. But is growth respectable if it's (literally) made on the backs of the naked and promiscuous?

I love profits and all, but for the same reason I wouldn't invest in cigarettes, I'd feel very different about an Apple (fruit of the tree of good and evil) sinking its strategic go-juice into porn. Mark Gilbert doesn't agree, with the (flawed) rationale: "A search on Google Inc. shows a bunch of companies willing to sell the content and software needed to view erotic material on an iPod. Apple may as well grab some of that revenue for itself." With this logic, you could justify anything. I, for one investor, will pass.