gworld, if you're trolling, I ain't biting. If you're serious, then it's time for you to read through this whole thread again.
Very simple questions: 1- Is bestiality illegal in California or not? 2- Is it against DMOZ policy to list sites that promote illegal activity or not? 3- How can Admins discuss anything relevant to this matter unless they are planning to make bestiality legal in California or change DMOZ policy so DMOZ can promote illegal activities?
I don't know. It is, but I haven't looked at that category so I don't know if it actually promotes the activity or not. This category deals with an illegal topic too, and one that I find very disturbing. I can't delete it though because the sites themselves are not illegal. To be perfectly honest my priorities lie with fighting the pedophilia fight first. The others can wait. Anybody can discuss anything they want, you and I included. Why in the world would Admins (who are human) not have the right to discuss any topic they like. Really gworld, I think you're starting to troll for fun and since I now have more respect for you than I did a couple months ago I'm not going to bother with this game. I'm sure another editor will come along, perhaps they'll be easier prey. Happy hunting... love and hugs buddy.
Beastiality is a Misdemeanor (Penal Code Section 286.5) in California. You can look the at the criminal code for other states in my previous posting. You are right about Admins or anybody else can discuss what ever they like, what I object to is Admins using the excuse of discussions as a delay tactic.
I don't believe they're using the excuse of discussions as a delay tactic. I believe they're taking this topic very seriously, which is the only reason that I'm not fuming mad that it's still being discussed. I imagine they're making very sure nothing like this is ever able to slide by within the guidelines again. The Admins are intelligent people who take the time they need to really research a topic thouroughly. I'm proud to serve under them and the day they let me down I will become a very nasty editor, I promise you. In the meantime, what about the puppy mills? Don't you agree that's much worse than beastiality? Here's a picture of my new puppy, and I assure you, he did not come from a puppy mill. So, what do you think of my puppy?
You mean to tell me DMOZ tolerates the listing of sites that depict sex with animals? This is just another example of a company getting corrupted by the porn industry. It is one of the great disappointments on the internet.
Why not remove these sites in the mean time while they are discussing it since it is clearly illegal and against DMOZ policy? I have not researched the laws regarding puppy mills but if it is illegal and a web site is promoting it then it should not be listed. I looked at the category in your link and it seemed to be links mostly to sites that are against puppy mills, this is very different from a site listed in bestiality category with following description: Zoophile Guides - Articles and guides on how to have safe sex with animals. or Animal Movies - Video clips of two women su*king a horse off and a lady being mou*ted by a medium-sized dog. How old is your puppy? It looks nice, What kind is it? No normal porn company will get involved in this things. It seems DMOZ editors won't hesitate to get involved in such low underground porn that will not be touched with 10 feet pole by main stream porn industry.
dvduval, I don't know if DMOZ tolerates the listing of sites that depict sex with animals. You'd have to go look yourself because I haven't checked, I'm not an Adult editor, and I'm more concerned with the pedophilia cats. I find all of this disgusting and offensive. If you expect me to take time away from fighting the pedophilia cats to investigate bestiality I can only say NO WAY! gworld, Ike is a Siberian Husky, he was 9 weeks old in that picture, he's 11 weeks now. My avatar is my 9 year old Siberian Husky, Auggie. He's a rescue dog, someone gave him up to the pound, papers and all. Hard to believe anyone could do that, but he's a real sweetie too. I also have a 13 year old Sibe. Going to see 8 Below today. So, do you like my puppy dvduval? He's very smart.
gworld ~ I personally recommend to stop posting samething again and again. We all now know the situation. Ofcourse they should not allow those kind of websites included, and remove any exisiting sites. Many people simply forget the good side of DMOZ.
I disagree, maldives. First, I have little doubt that the type of editors who listed those sites in the first place are hoping this will all blow over so they can go back to business as usual. Second, you say, "Of course they should not allow those kind websites included, and remove any exisiting sites" but you seem unaware that the problem and the solution seems far from "of course" to the editors and admins who have been debating this for over a week now. Third, regarding your comment that "Many people simply forget the good side of DMOZ", until the practices of the Adult section are cleaned up once and for all, the "good side" of DMOZ is cast in the creepy shadow of that section. To wish otherwise is to close your eyes to reality.
Explains why listings take so long. Some are typing with one hand However, they review thousands of sites, and so far we've only seen one so on the whole they seem to be doing a good job considering the time money, and resources. A big hand for all the DMOZ tem who undoubtely are as abhorrant about this as everyone else. They are no doubt infiltrated by those who do not uphold their high standards.
I know beastiality is illegal pretty much everywhere in the US (via direct or indirect laws), but are pictures of beastiality illegal? In the case of child pornography, the act of making the porn is illegal and the porn itself is also illegal. I don't know if it works the same with beastiality though. I do know that a lot of submission porn sites (like TGPs) ban beastiality as do other sorts of sites that deal in porn trading (bittorrent, etc). Does anyone know if (in the US) *pictures* of beastiality are illegal?
That's a good question sidjf... kinda like arson is illegal, but pictures of the burned buildings aren't illegal... A whole 'nother can o worms. I'm sure gworld will let us know.
It's an interesting question but not really a relevant one, is it? See my previous posts on this point: If you truly want to repair the damage done to DMOZ by these Adult editors, you MUST get beyond the issue of whether it is or is not ILLEGAL and get straight to the issue of what is RIGHT.
It is illegal according to Roth (Look at my previous post regarding US supreme court about Roth) test for obscenity which states: "whether to the average person, applying contemporary community standards, the dominant theme of the material taken as a whole appeals to prurient interest" (Roth v. United States, 354 US 476, 1). The question then is if pictures of bestiality are obscene? The court has ruled that portions of letters describing in detail "degenerate bestiality" were not only obscene but are also hard-core pornography In Armijo v. U.S., 384 F2d 694, you can imagine if describing is obscene what courts will think about pictures. It is also decided by court in U.S. V. Miller 455.2d 899 that even books describing bestiality are not mailable because of obscene nature of such books. Now that there is no argument such material are regarded as obscene under US criminal code, we can look at chapter 71 in US code that have following sections: 1461 Mailing obscene or crime-inciting matter 1464 Broadcasting obscene language 1466 Engaging in the business of selling or transferring obscene matter 1468 Distributing obscene material by cable or subscription tv Since DMOZ is breaking the section 1464 of criminal code by Broadcasting obscene language, in theory, AOL can be punished by using code 1467 which is a criminal forfeiture. What it means that all DMOZ servers, routher,... can be confiscated by court since DMOZ has forfeited them when the property was involved in obscenity law being broken. As you can see, there is only need for one diligent prosecutor and it will be bye, bye DMOZ.
United States Code TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PART I - CRIMES CHAPTER 71 - OBSCENITY -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- U.S. Code as of: 01/06/03 Section 1464. Broadcasting obscene language Whoever utters any obscene, indecent, or profane language by means of radio communication shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both. (Emphasis mine) Since DMOZ does not run a radio station - I really don't see how this particular section applies. If someone can find something that says that photos of this disgusting behavior is illegal, we can include that information in the internal discussion. Annie - your puppy is absolutely beautiful
At least you are consistent in being disinterested to protect children or horses in your desire to be a DMOZ editor but radio communication does not mean radio stations and Internet is included in Telecommunication act. Internet is also accessible by satellite and wireless which makes it radio communication. It is against 1468 which includes cable and I hope you know Internet is provided by cable providers also. Also as soon as a user or DMOZ editor has the pictures in their computer temporary files, it will be against 1462 ( Importation or transportation of obscene matters) which means user or editors personal computer can be forfeited according to 1467 (Criminal forfeiture).
Someone telling you that your application of the law is faulty means that they're disinterested in what they're actually interested in - that is a really interesting way to look at life. If you don't agree with one particular thing that this person is saying - then you must not agree with anything they're saying, so you're a bad person because you don't agree with them. Wow.
Very good point, and I think the popularity of this topic is ample evidence. If DMOZ is not willing to change, eventually the World will change and leave DMOZ behind. What we are seeing is "business as usual", and it IS "business", as in profit, that is causing this problem.
My application of law was not faulty as I showed in my previous posting but if someone tries to find a loop hole in a law, so the listing of bestiality web sites can continue, the act itself speaks volumes about that person priorities.