DMOZ Supports Child Porn?

Multiple deeplinks are common for reference sites. For commercial sites, a single link to the main page is the appropriate response. What has happened in Adult is that there are multiple deeplinks to content, many of which are on commercial sites. However, that content itself is either free or required a commonly held AV pass to see it (i.e. it is "almost free").

You could even argue that this practice is very bad for the adult sites concerned - the ODP has basically collected a range of free (or nearly free) content, which does undermine the commercial nature of the business to an extent.

So, the commercial vs content split seems a bit more difficult in Adult. I should imagine that there are very few completely non-commercial Adult sites on the web, so the content has been found elsewhere.

 

Gworld is not stupid brizzie and it is foolish for people like the Defraudinator/CBP/Birdie/WPW censor to come on here and insult Minstrel and this forum!

 

brizzie - The two affirmative view pedophilia categories were created by two different people, but most of the sites were listed in both cats by just one of the two. That person is no longer an editor.

 

Wow, it's the triumverate sticking up for itself again. You three are always right, eh? I don't think other people quite see you that way.

And again, you made no valid contribution to the thread. Just another waste of ones and zeroes.

 

Sort of like your entire life CBP and your censorship on WPW

PS: By the way, no one cares what a fraud and censor thinks CBP.....

 

A porn gallery is not a reference site so the comparison is complete nonsense.

The sites are there to generate cash via visitors and more links = more visitors. They aren't there for educational or artistics purposes. So that argument is nonsense too. Proof? Why would corrupt Adult editors list their sites multiple times before getting caught and ejected if it had not been to their benefit.

There is no justification for a content split at all. The galleries are Adult webmasters' products. Take a shopping site's galleries of products - you absolutely don't list each of their different galleries separately no matter how useful you think it might be for directory users. If you did you would find your account locked out and an invitation to take your services elsewhere.

Gworld trolls, spreads lies based on absurd conspiracy theories, and attacks people who try and understand his underlying points. But no, he is not stupid and the information he sometimes provides can be very useful for quality control purposes. And he has a record of being reasonably accurate on spotting evidence of abusive editing even if his conclusions of widespread conspiracy and corruption are way off the mark. As I said earlier, both sides listening more might benefit both sides.

 

Indeed. 150% agree.

 

Yes but why listen to propagandists like CBP who comes under false names and insults the entire forum

How can DMOZ employ editors like this man who is a censor and major propagandist

 

No, but a porn gallery is CONTENT. It's quite different from having a page of widgets or whatever, because the content is an end in itself.

 

OK so it is not reference material, so that red herring is outed.

So what "content" listed elsewhere in DMOZ is it comparable with?

http://www.dmoz.org/Arts/Visual_Arts/Galleries/Virtual/ maybe

Each site owner gets ONE listing of their galleries. Regardless of how many genres are represented. Let alone multiple listings from the same owner in the same category.

[incidentally - if there is an editall+ watching http://www.jarofinearts.com/ is misplaced, it should be in Shopping.]

 

Ok, enough with the attacks. Back to the real issue at hand. DMOZ and pedophilia. Check out what happened to Yahoo over similar content:

I think it's irresponsible to leave those pedophile forums listed in DMOZ. It's best to cut out those categories and save DMOZ and its editors from public embarassment.

 

By the way, guys. You think the entire world isn't watching what's going on in this thread? Go to http://www.digg.com and search "DMOZ child porn" and check out that site. It's new, I'm guessing from soneone watching this forum.

PS. You may want to digg it!

Uh oh!!

Check this one out too: http://digg.com/links/DMOZ_editors_in_support_of_Child_Porn_
It's not even one day old. The word is spreading...

 

One 7 day old story with 14 diggs and a 16 hours story with 3 diggs. Hardly big league stuff.

If you have actually found evidence of child pornography, then you should report it to the appropraite authorities... that might ACHIEVE something.

 

I just punched in on DMOZ search the word "porn" and this is what came up...

http://search.dmoz.org/cgi-bin/sear...=UTF-8&cat=Arts/Visual_Arts/Galleries/Virtual

Man I wish I would have known about this resource long ago.......

Now if any kid can go to DMOZ and put in the keyword "porn" like I just did he or she has a whole world of wonder available to them!

When clicking on the link to search for porn from the DMOZ page I got this page from AOL

http://search.aol.com/aolcom/search?query=porn

To think I had to rely on old boxes of Playboy's when I was young, kids have it made today......

 

Brizze;

The previous excuse for such sites was these sites don't have any image and therefore these sites are not illegal sites according to child porn act. My previous posting in this thread with reference to US supreme court decision clearly showed that these sites are illegal and in contradiction to DMOZ own TOS that prohibits listing of illegal sites. There was never any answer to the points of law that was raised by me in those posts by DMOZ editors.

Now, the latest excuse of people with "AFFIRMATIVE VIEW" in DMOZ is their pro freedom of speech views and their support of not censoring pedophiles. This view assumes that freedom of speech is absolute and protects anything and everything which is false. There have been decisions in this regard and let's take a look on the legal material available in this area:


Roth V. United States

1. In the Roth case, the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 1461, which makes punishable the mailing of material that is "obscene, lewd, lascivious, or filthy . . . or other publication of an indecent character," and Roth's conviction thereunder for mailing an obscene book and obscene circulars and advertising, are sustained. Pp. 479-494 . 2. In the Albert case, the constitutionality of § 311 of West's California Penal Code Ann., 1955, which, inter alia, makes it a misdemeanor to keep for sale, or to advertise, material that is "obscene or indecent," and Alberts' conviction thereunder for lewdly keeping for sale obscene and indecent books and for writing, composing, and publishing an obscene advertisement of them, are sustained. Pp. 479-494 . 3. Obscenity is not within the area of constitutionally protected freedom of speech or press either (1) under the First Amendment, as to the Federal Government, or (2) under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, as to the States. Pp. 481-485 . (a) In the light of history, it is apparent that the unconditional phrasing of the First Amendment was not intended to protect every utterance. Pp. 482-483 . (b) The protection given speech and press was fashioned to assure unfettered interchange of ideas for the bringing about of political and social changes desired by the people. P. 484 . (c) All ideas having even the slightest redeeming social importance -- unorthodox ideas, controversial ideas, even ideas hateful to the prevailing climate of opinion -- have the full protection of the guaranties, unless excludable because they encroach upon the limited area of more important interests; but implicit in the history of the First Amendment is the rejection of obscenity as utterly without redeeming social importance. Pp. 484-485 . [p*477] 4. Since obscenity is not protected, constitutional guaranties were not violated in these cases merely because, under the trial judges' instructions to the juries, convictions could be had without proof either that the obscene material would perceptibly create a clear and present danger of antisocial conduct, or probably would induce its recipients to such conduct. Beauharnais v. Illinois, 343 U.S. 250. Pp. 485-490 . (a) Sex and obscenity are not synonymous. Obscene material is material which deals with sex in a manner appealing to prurient interest -- i.e., material having a tendency to excite lustful thoughts. P. 487 . (b) It is vital that the standards for judging obscenity safeguard the protection of freedom of speech and press for material which does not treat sex in a manner appealing to prurient interest. Pp. 487-488 . (c) The standard for judging obscenity, adequate to withstand the charge of constitutional infirmity, is whether, to the average person, applying contemporary community standards, the dominant theme of the material, taken as a whole, appeals to prurient interest. Pp. 488-489 . (d) In these cases, both trial courts sufficiently followed the proper standard and used the proper definition of obscenity. Pp. 489-490 . 5. When applied according to the proper standard for judging obscenity, 18 U.S.C. § 1461, which makes punishable the mailing of material that is "obscene, lewd, lascivious, or filthy . . . or other publication of an indecent character," does not (1) violate the freedom of speech or press guaranteed by the First Amendment, or (2) violate the constitutional requirements of due process by failing to provide reasonably ascertainable standards of guilt. Pp. 491-492 . 6. When applied according to the proper standard for judging obscenity, § 311 of West's California Penal Code Ann., 1955, which, inter alia, makes it a misdemeanor to keep for sale or to advertise material that is "obscene or indecent," does not (1) violate the freedom of speech or press guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment against encroachment by the States, or (2) violate the constitutional requirements of due process by failing to provide reasonably ascertainable standards of guilt. Pp. 491-492 . 7. The federal obscenity statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1461, punishing the use of the mails for obscene material, is a proper exercise of the postal power delegated to Congress by Art. I, § 8, cl. 7, and it [p*478] does not unconstitutionally encroach upon the powers reserved to the States by the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. Pp. 492-493 . 8. The California obscenity statute here involved is not repugnant to Art. I, § 8, cl. 7, since it does not impose a burden upon, or interfere with, the federal postal functions -- even when applied to a mail-order business. Pp. 493-494 . 237 F.2d 796, affirmed. 138 Cal.App.2d Supp. 909, 292 P.2d 90, affirmed.

I think we can agree that sites that encourage pedophilia and sexual act with minors are not protected by first amendment and freedom of speech.

 

They have 15 and 4 diggs respectively. I dugg 'em. I hope everyone else who wishes to put the evil practices of DMOZ in the spotlight diggs them too. I think public outrage is the only thing that will get things changed.

 

gworld - Thanks for the "Roth V. United States" information.

 

Would you mind to tell us when that editor was removed and by what authority? After all we don't want people here think that editors have taken pro active action and actually removed some one because of this. Honesty is important, don't you think so?

 

You know we can't tell you more than just to say that the person isn't an editor anymore....

(Disclaimer: No one here has said that the editor was removed - only that they weren't an editor anymore. Many editors resign or time out.)

 

I feel like I am in a twilight zone, this can not be real.

Am I dreaming or former editor and DMOZ editall are agreeing with me? Someone should wake me up if I am sleep.