DMOZ Supports Child Porn?

Now don't be giving Annie a hard time, gworld. She made a valid point: Junior editors can't do what they want to do if they want to continue to have any influence at all on DMOZ policies. Without a specific statute to cite (and in DMOZ that seems to mean a DMOZ statute), she would simply have been reprimanded or dismissed and her actions undone.

 

No, I'm not a lawyer. We don't need to cite a criminal code to delete a listing in ODP. I was simply trying to find anything that was obviously illegal in my limited knowledge because that is the most that I personally can do.

If I can find anything obviously illegal I can delete the listing. Otherwise I cannot, according to current guidelines. I want to delete the listings and would be grateful if you or anyone could point out the URL to any page on any of those sites that has anything obviously illegal so I can justify an immediate deletion.

If I were a lawyer, I might have an easier time of identifying anything criminal, but I'm not so I personally have to go looking for the obvious.

 

So you are not a lawyer and you couldn't find anything illegal to delete the sites. Can I ask how much do you know about the laws in this area, did you at least look at the references about criminal codes in this area in a law library or consult with a lawyer?

If not, how are you suppose to find something illegal or do you mean that an Admin said it was not illegal?

 

I am not giving Annie hard time, my problem is that many editors repeat the same lines. "We can only delete listings that are illegal but we are not lawyers, so we don't know what is legal or illegal."

Does this sound logical to you?

I know that junior editors can not do anything but repeating the same lame excuse provided by meta and admin doesn't help the situation.

 

In the case of metas and senior editors, I would agree. I don't see the point in jumping all over Annie for accurately describing the situation she finds herself in.

She's on the same side here, gworld. Save your attacks for the bafflegab experts - lord knows there are plenty of those.

 

That question is fair enough. The only knowledge I have on this area of law beyond the obvious would be what I learned during the criminal investigation and prosecution of the pedophile that victimized my 13 year old step-daughter.

The nearest good public law library in my area would be at U of D Mercy Law School in Detroit. I haven't gone there to research this issue because it would take me weeks, maybe more to get a good understanding of it. Then I would have to go back and pour through those sites to make use of what I'd learned. To me that seems pointless because this issue will have been settled by then so the time spent in the library will have been wasted.

I haven't consulted with a lawyer regarding this because although I have friends who are lawyers, none practice criminal law.

Gworld, have you researched the laws in this area? Maybe you can point out some specific illegal content on those sites so I can do something about it. After all, we're both part of humanity and are therefore equals in this topic. What can you do?

 

From what I have heard, there is enough sample of such materials in DMOZ internal forum provided by editors to form a solid base that this has got nothing to do with free speech according to decisions that I provided from supreme court and it is also a form of verbal action which makes the conspiracy laws to commit illegal act applicable. You need no more than look at my previous postings in this thread to find applicable laws and link to actual criminal codes.

 

Agreed. But here's the problem. I have been unable to find any discussion in those forums where they talk about commiting crimes or how to commit crimes, or how to get away with it or any of that. Yes, we'd be stupid to think they don't do it, but they aren't doing it openly, where we can see it and delete them. For example they call the children young friends, but come on, we all know what they mean. Please read the forums, you'll see what I mean. It's all very frustrating.

 

Read my post here.

"conspiracy law usually does not require proof of the specific intent by the defendants to injure any specific person in order to establish an illegal agreement. Instead, usually the law only requires the conspirators have the agreed to engage in a certain illegal act."

It also makes DMOZ editors guilty of criminal recklessness:

"Criminal law recognises recklessness as one of the mens rea elements to establish liability.....................
The test of any mens rea element is always based on an assessment of whether the accused had foresight of the prohibited consequences and desired to cause those consequences to occur."

After looking at your own post, I don't think that any editor can deny that they had foresight to prohibited consequences.

Why is there such high standards regarding legality of pedophile sites but not those sites that editors think is a warez sites?

 

Read their forums. They have not agreed to engage in an illegal act. They are careful about how they post. In fact, they specifically deny doing anything about their urges.

Please, read the forums to see what we're dealing with. This has to be dealt with at the highest levels, we editors are not allowed to take action as it stands. We want to, but we can't. Just like my husband and I wanted to kill the guy that abused our child. Boy, we wanted to, but we were not allowed.

btw, I'm not technologically savvy. I don't know what a warez site is so I can't answer your question about that either. I do what I can, but I have limits placed on me, just like everyone else.

 

Annie, I am not blaming you and I understand that you need to believe your fellow editors but many of the things they are feeding you is far from the truth. Who was the person who originally made these categories? Is that person still an editor and if not then why? Look at quotes provided by other editors, you will see the "agreement" to engage in illegal activity.

Warez are sites that provide serial number or crack(hack) so people can use commercial softwares for free, many of these sites don't provide the actual software hack or serial number and only links to where it can be found but it doesn't stop DMOZ from not listing it.

I understand your frustration with your limits and I understand that those feeling are shared by many other editors but ask yourself while you or any other editor can delete many less disgusting or illegal sites without raising an eyebrow, why can't you do anything about pedophile sites?

 

Thanks, but it's still over my head. I've never actually installed software, my husband does that.

We can't just delete any listing, disgusting or not, unless we have a very good reason. If editors could go delete anything they wanted, all the wild claims of "the editor must be my competition" would suddenly start coming true. As it is there are limits on what we can delete and that's a good thing most of the time. Just not this time, but that's the way it is.

 

gworld, we have to take it from there and wait for the forthcoming decision from admins of DMOZ which to me seems overdue.
Next, I personally think, that whoever is participating/contributing in these alleged chats and forums, in the meantime is also well aware of the fact that these are under close scrutiny.

 

gworld - have you read through the forums in question? Yes or No. From the way you are talking, my guess is "no".

If you haven't read them, then you have no idea whether there is anything illegal on them or not. Posting a bunch of laws is completely meaningless if they are not applied to specific posts in the forums.

If you read the forums, and find specific content that breaks US laws, then please, by all means let us know! I'm with Annie, I'd love to find a bunch of illegal content on the sites - that would make it a simple task to get rid of them.

Re-read this paragraph a dozen times. Let it sink in.

It is fairly common practice on the DP forums (from what I have read so far) to accuse dmoz editors of abuse. The rule you want us to break so bad (deleting the sites out of hand) would actually be abuse! Irony?

The category is going to be moved to test (should go through in a day or two) until the discussion is complete and a final decision is made. This is the absolute best scenario possible (assuming the final situation is to delete the sites...lol). The sites are out of view right now, and the time can be taken to create a policy that makes sense, covers all the variables, and is workable.

Of course, it's too bad that when I moved the category to test I was viewed (in dmoz) as abusing my privileges and over-stepping my boundries. A week later it is suddenly a good idea...go figure.

 

What part of this sentence you don't understand?

LOOK AT DMOZ INTERNAL FORUM AND QUOTES PROVIDED BY DMOZ EDITORS.

Look at: take into consideration for exemplifying purposes.

Internal: Located, acting, or effective within the body.

Forum : A medium of open discussion or voicing of ideas

Quotes: To repeat or copy the words of (another), usually with acknowledgment of the source.

Provided: To make available

Editor: One who edits

 

What part of this question do you not understand?

Have you read through the forums in question? Yes or No.

 

I think the answer is obvious to everyone here, once again the emperor is naked but pretends that everyone who doesn't see his new fine clothes is stupid.

 

The obvious answer to me is that you have not read the pedophilia forums. I'd rather hear it from you though, instead of just believing my opwn assumption.

 

I don't need to discuss if I have read it or not because I think the answer is obvious but are you denying the existence of quotes from these forums in DMOZ internal forum that shows the illegal nature of pedophile forums?

 

gworld, I am doing my utmost to understand and follow your argumentation. IMHO, it does not help though, to twist and squeeze everything how it fits in your picture.