Live and let live. Love and let love. Surf and let surf.
These are just some of the philosophical principles that are not readily accepted everywhere in the world.
Currently, some of the world's heightened sensitivities are on display during the Application Comment period for new generic Top Level Domains (gTLDs). There are currently 22 of these, but ICANN wants to broaden the horizons to embrace different cultures and languages.
Running through the objections at ICANN's site is like running through thistle fields in your underwear.
Some of the argumentation would make even a politician think twice. Well, at least once.
Perhaps the most conscientious objector has been Saudi Arabia's Communications and Information Technology Commission. As the BBC reports, the Saudis have objected to a swathe of threatening, disgraceful, insurgent gTLD strings.
You know, like .wine.
Saudi Arabia objects to this heinous domain under the "Limited Public Interest Objection Ground."
The objection exclaims, in part:
The applied-for gTLD string promote substances detrimental to public order and morals and prohibited in a number of religions and cultures. In some countries alcohol is illegal and, further, in many other countries drinking alcohol in public places is also illegal.
You might imagine the Saudis have similar gripes against .gay.
But, of course:
Many societies and cultures consider homosexuality to be contrary to their culture, morality, or religion. The creation of a gTLD string which promotes homosexuality will be offensive to these societies and cultures.
And yet as you go down the list of Saudi objections, you wonder what the pattern might be: .casino, .virgin, .vodka, .poker, .hot, .dating (yes, you did read that right), .bar, .baby (really), .africamagic (a disgraceful reference to black magic, apparently), .adult, .tatar, .shia and .halal. Oh, and .catholic, of course.
All these objections have been made by someone with the handle "Abdulmjid," who states his (I'm presuming he's a "he") affiliation with the CITC.
One complaint that some might find especially perplexing is the Saudi desperation to ban .bible, proposed by the American Bible Society.
Oh, what now, Saudi Arabia?
Well, it's this:
It is clear that with a number of religions, and groups within them, disagreeing over the provenance and content of the Bible, one group or individual should not be permitted to define what the Bible is, or is not, on the World Wide Web.
If you really want to understand the human mind, the world it has constructed, and the amount of deep dedication that humans devote to intellectual thought, a slow, gruesome perusal of these objections should do the trick -- and prepare you nicely for a drop of .wine.