DMOZ Supports Child Porn?

Firefox, the German version gives me the site in German, whereas when using IE-(US) the site shows up in English.
Nevermind

 

What the hell is going on ??? I am again completely lost.

1) Sid is one of the good guys and I agree wholeheartely with Annie and Dogbows.

2) You're seriously thinking that US law applies throughout DMOZ and thats it ? Thats a bit of a pisser if you're a UK editor like me. Midwives aren't even recognised in the US or Canada much as practioners, whereas in Europe I'm regarded as, in fact, 'the' authority.
If I had to go by US law in an international category I wouldn't be listing much that applies really. Docs and medicalisation stuff rule the roost there. Midwives in sole attendance break the law in a lot of states and countries if a doc hasn't authorised it. In fact midwifery as a profession isn't recognised in many states TBH. So if categories within Dmoz all went by US law, I'd be, ( how to be polite ? ).. snookered ? buggered ? Up shit creek ? Bear with me there is a point to this..

Perhaps the proper thing to do would be to bin all non-us editors then ? Adult and elsewhere because if the US entity/law thing was impletemented, it would (by law) have to apply in all areas. And I don't know any ( being a UK gal) ... and it would muddy the waters greatly for me in other categories as well.

However,

3) The Lolita thing is REALLY iffy. I absolutely cringe at the thought of any of those girls being underage. I'm really torn.

4) Then there's the 'young' and 'how do you know for sure' definition thing. I don't know about anyone else but being quite small in stature ( and rather fresh faced if I do say so myself )... The last time I was stopped from entering a club and accused of not being 18...Was on my 29th bloody birthday ! Looks are down to personal opinion when it comes to pics and first impressions. I can from personal experience say that just from looking at a pic or or meeting someone that 'age' is in no way verifyable by that method. Going on look's alone is far, far too subjective. But again, am torn by the fact that there may be someone who slips through the net..

( I'm a haggard, wrinkled old fart now after a few months posting here, thanks guys !).

There has to be a line drawn somewhere. Is it applying US law across the board in Adult as many insist is the case ? Well mabye, but it wouldn't be particularly good for international editors as anything that wasn't applicable under US law Dmoz-wise, in theory, could not be listed in ANY category if it doesn't come under it and that would be that.
Then there's the next phase where a law in one state regarding the practice of 'blah' is not the case in another. Where does it stop once you go down that route ?

Anyway, my heart really aches at the thought of underager's somehow slipping through the net within Dmoz somewhere in some category. But I don't think that Child Porn is what is being discussed in essence here. Just US law and the legislation concerning it, which at the moment AOL doesn't seem too arsed about.

So the mantle falls on an international group of editors to deal with it at their moral and social discretion. Questionable pictures, yes, but really, what else does anyone have to go on unless you have pics of the girls holding up their passports on the first page fully clothed ? You tell me ?

 

You are confused.

Let me explain. You are totally right that only US law applies to DMOZ and nothing else, for a simple reason that DMOZ is an American corporation.
American corporation must obey US law, English corporation must obey UK law, German corporation must obey German law and so on.

On your second part of your post, you are totally confused. What you are doing is not illegal according to US law. US law does not regulate the medical practices in other countries, if you were doing it in US and advocating to break the law then your site would not be list able.

Publication of a website without 2257 regulation is illegal according to American law, independent of the owners nationality or location of the server or the other country legal system.

In your case, you are not breaking the American law and your sites are list able and in the other case they are breaking the American law and are not list able.

I hope this makes it more clear.

 

Yes, but in the same vein then US porn laws also do not apply in other countries. That, you're absolutely right, is what I am getting confused about.

 

On medical profession regulation, the law makes a distinction. You are not criminal because you practice your profession in UK, you would only be criminal if you practice in USA. The people who make these web sites are criminal according to US law independent of their location. For example, it is legal in Holland to import and distribute weed and hash but US law makes no such distinction and if you set up a web site that discuss drugs, import or distribution it is illegal and can not be listed.
US law makes tax evasion illegal for Americans any where in the world. Tax evasion is not a crime is Switzerland but you can not have a web site there advising Americans on tax evasion and get listed in DMOZ.
The important part that you should look at is: does US law makes any distinction depending on jurisdiction and country or is it illegal in any case.

 

Shygirl's confused?? I think you're confused friend.

Shygirl - as gworld has just pointed out, US law does not regulate the medical practices in other countries, the same as it does not regulate anything in other countries. 2257 laws only apply to US hosted sites and the webmasters of the sites.

There is no law in the US that regulates midwifery in the UK - so the compliance with US laws of a UK midwifery site is a moot point.

There is no law in the US that regulates porn sites in other countries - so the compliance with US 2257 laws of a porn site outside of the US is a moot point.

Once again to clear it up.

Gworld is intentionally combining two seperate laws in an attempt to 1) troll and 2) cover his ass for previous statements that were shown to be incorrect.

2257 laws apply to the owners of US websites. They do not apply to surfers and they do not apply to non-US website owners.

What gworld is twisting into this is the fact that it is illegal in the US to view child pornography no matter where it is hosted or what the laws are in the country it is hosted in.

The difference is easy to see: 2257 laws apply to webmasters and the creators of pornography. Child pornography laws apply to viewers and basically everyone.

Gworld - According to your logic, it would be illegal for a person in the US to look at a porn site from another country that did not have 2257 information on it. Is this what you believe?

 

Another quote from the site provided by gworld (thanks for the info ):

 

Yep, sidjf is one of the good guys.

On other matters, ODP and its editors are not police in any country, and thus are not in the business of determining whether webmasters comply with laws of any jurisdiction, tell the truth, brush their teeth regularly, or drive within the speed limits. Just as editors do not contact state medical licensing boards to determine whether the "doctors" who own websites are licensed to practice medicine, nor contact local authorities to determine whether the owner of a business website has a business license in the city where he is located, editors are not required to attempt to enforce the 2257 provisions for adult websites regardless of the country where we think the site might be hosted. If a webmaster is foolish enough to publish a noncompliant site that happens to be listed in dmoz, I figure the dmoz listing makes it easier to find the site and prosecute the webmaster. We do try to keep all manner of bad content out of the directory and we do cooperate with legitimate requests regarding legal issues, but the directory is not legally liable for the misdeeds of website owners whose sites are listed.

It should go without saying that ODP has a policy against child porn. Furthermore, the definition of what we do not list is broader that that of the loophole-ridden legalistic 2257 code, which does not apply to simulated sexual activity, images acquired before 1995, etc. ODP simply will not list any site that depicts an underage person in a sexually suggestive manner. Among other things, that policy excludes a lot of legal sites, such as sites with suggestive photos of 11-year-olds who pose in swimsuits for so-called "modeling portfolios." Sure, we can't prove the age of the "models" on websites, but editors are expected to use good judgment and staff has the final say.

I'm personally proud of the efforts of volunteer dmoz editors who not only exclude child porn from the directory but have detected illegal content and reported it to the authorities. Compostannie deserves special mention for her discovery that a virulent anti-pedophilia website (reminiscent of some threads here) was actually a facade for a large collection of child porn links -- you can bet she reported it!!

If you should find a site on dmoz that you think depicts underage models, please report it at dmoz (use the abuse-reporting form). Creating thumbnail images and posting them here may win you the admiration of forum trolls, but it does nothing to fix the problem.

 

Ohhh, snap. Good find lmocr! It will be interesting to see how gworld dances around that.

 

I see that you are not confused. Always looking for smallest opening to try to find an excuse for listing illegal sites.

I have asked before, why are so determined to list illegal sites that can put in danger even 1 minor? I suppose you care about child porn as long as it doesn't cause a deep in the profit?

Is there a shortage of legal porn in the world or do you have other motivation?

 

And I answered:

Feel free to answer my question any time:

Also, when you can work it into your schedule, please read

and then explain how this fits in with your theory that US 2257 laws apply to the entire world.

 

Why am I not surprised that lmocr needs to cut the texts in the middle to support the porn sites? May be because her record of supporting questionable activities speaks volumes by itself. It is funny that other supporter of questionable websites, sidjf jumps on the band wagon in desperate attempt to save the beloved affiliate programs in DMOZ.

Let's look at what that text states in complete form before lmocr cut it in the middle to suit her needs.

As a general matter of law, the laws of Congress are not generally presumed to have an extraterritorial effect, and a law will not be construed to work outside the country unless Congress makes it clear that the effect of the law is intended to extend outside the territorial limits the United States. It would therefore appear at first blush that Section 2257 imposes no duty on foreign producers of explicit materials that are created outside the country to acquire identity information and maintain records, to make disclosures, or to make the records available for inspection. Although the American webmaster purchasing images and streams already made can argue that he is not a "producer" under the holding of Sundance (taking the associated risk that this case will not be followed outside the Tenth Circuit and that he may be convicted of a crime), and if his position is accepted by the court, it would appear that there would be no Section 2257 duty to maintain records on anyone with respect to that content. But that may not get him off the hook: The domestic distributor of the images may run afoul of Title 18 United States Code Section 2257 (f) (4) which establishes a crime when materials which have moved in interstate or foreign commerce are distributed without the notice required by the Statute. Moreover, there is cause to suspect that Section 2257 will apply to foreign producers and distributors of content aimed at the American market: In reversing the trial court and in upholding the validity of Section 2257 in 1994, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia rejected the plaintiff's contention that the law was unreasonably burdensome because it would apply to overseas content. Reading the Statute as though it would apply to foreign content, the court said: "Foreign producers who wish to peddle their products in the United States should be expected to abide by our laws no less than domestic producers.". American Library Association v. Reno, 33 F.3d 78, 94 (C.A.D.C., 1994). Accordingly, American webmasters should have no involvement with foreign content that is not Section 2257 compliant.

Any more excuse for keeping these dear dear web sites listed in DMOZ?

 

Nothing in there disagrees with the fact that 2257 laws only apply to US sites gworld. Are you high?

The part you bolded at the end says:

As though - meaning it doesn't.

gworld - According to your logic, it would be illegal for a person in the US to look at a porn site from another country that did not have 2257 information on it. Is this what you believe?

 

Wow, so I guess if child porn is legal in another country you are saying its fine to publish it on DMOZ?

It defintely sounds like you are saying that

It also sounds like you are saying that it is fine to link to a site that contains material that may specifically contain child pornography, and than if you can't really prove it one way or the other, just list it.

There is clearly enough evidence here that someone could at least make a case in court. I hope that DMOZ editors are ready to show their editing history and sites owned to a judge, and have their email searched, because it may come down to that.

Regardless, this being one of the most infamous threads ever on DP just shows what an outrage this is!

Just take a moment and think about the underaged children that are exploited for the sake of profit (in and outside the US), and how you are defending their right to continue this exploitation.

You can sit their and argue about laws all you like, but the bottom line remains that you are defending a site owners right to exploit underaged teenagers, and possibly even children, and you are helping to feed the desires of people that are fantasizing about "Lolitas" and "Cherry Boys".

It's sick, and some of you are a part of it!

 

As I explained 100 times before it is not about looking, its about the site is illegal by itself but you know that already.

It is a difficult choice for you, honesty or saving the affiliate programs? I think we know the answer.

 

dvduval - Are you high too? Quit trolling.

It has been made quite clear that the ODP does not list child pornography. You, like your mentor gworld, are trying to twist the laws around in order to troll. Please take it somewhere else as the topic of this thread is quite serious.

Orlady just said the exact opposite!

Actually, I'd prefer if you and gworld and LVH would stop trying to argue the legality and concentrate on the morality because morality will impose much stricter rules than the law. Arguing about 2257 laws will accomplish nothing in regards to child pornography. Us discussing child pornography and the ODP can accomplish a lot.

dvduval, please answer - where is the child pornography in the ODP that you keep talking about. Don't sidestep and ignore as you have been doing. Show it to us so that it can be removed and reported.

 

gworld - According to your logic, it would be illegal for a person in the US to look at a porn site from another country that did not have 2257 information on it. Is this what you believe? Maybe you need minstrel's maze?

 

It seems you have failed in that department also since you are defending to list sites that can have minors as porn models as long they are outside of USA or without any shadow of the doubt is proved that they are underage which you know is impossible.
It is interesting that you want to take away the legal control, list sites that can have minors and in the same time talk about morality.

 

Please show me and everyone else where I said that. Prove that you aren't a liar and a troll.

gworld - According to your logic, it would be illegal for a person in the US to look at a porn site from another country that did not have 2257 information on it. Is this what you believe? It's a simple yes or no question, why won't you answer?

Obviously you won't answer because you have two choices. Answer yes to something that is clearly not true or answer no and contradict your previous statements.

 

Surely you're not trying to say that just because someone slaps a 2257 statement on their website that this proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the models are over 18?