The importance of DMOZ?

I can not recall, that the discussion referring to was focused, limited, or primarily about the question whether those links are legal or not.

 

Thanks, fathom. I do think that's best, don't you?

 

(Please excuse my Off Topic post.)

Aiding and Abetting ANY criminal activity IS illegal and the last time I checked pedophilia was a crime.

Get a grip!

~VegasMack

 

I think fathom either (1) has other personal priorities at the moment, even at DMOZ, that do not include worrying about DMOZ aiding, abetting, endorsing, and promoting pro-pedophilia sites; and/or (2) prefers playing silly-bugger to addressing the issue.

 

in his "opinion" posting here, is a good method to try to get new categories in DMOZ.

 

Continuing off topic - why not since every thread here is turning into the same topic

aid
: to provide with what is useful in achieving an end
Example: conspiracy to counsel or 1aid draft resisters -- K. A. Cohen (often used in the phrase aid and abet

abet
[e-'bet]

abetted
abetting
: to assist, encourage, instigate, or support with criminal intent in attempting or carrying out a crime (often used in the phrase aid and abet)

From Findlaw - http://dictionary.lp.findlaw.com/ - bolding is mine. Intent is the primary reason that IMO there is no criminal activity on the part of the ODP.

 

As I said elsewhere, you continue to post statements like this that indicate you either just cannot understand the issue (the "dumb as a stump" hypothesis) or that you refuse to understand the issue (the "lmocr has other ambitions and objectives that she feels are more important to her personally" hypothesis).

To the extent that DMOZ lists sites which directly or indirectly promote or encourage criminal activity, DMOZ is aiding and abetting those who engage in those illegal activities. In most jursidictions, that would be considered morally reprehensible at a minimum; in many jurisdictions, that would in itself be considered a crime.

 

Since we're already off topic, and to be honest I'm not sure what the topic was, I hope you'll all forgive me for taking us even further off topic.

I wish I could agree with you fathom, but free speech is not a right that everyone enjoys. Sadly the "major precedence to prove a 'link' and a 'description' is in fact an illegal activity" has already become a reality.

We have a Turkish editor who was conviced and jailed for listing Kurdish sites.

This is one reason that dmoz guidelines are only guidelines and that I truly understand why it's so important for the Admins to carefully consider everything, even if we think a decision is a no-brainer. All changes can be much more far reaching than we, in the comfort of our freedom, can comprehend without giving it serious thought.

While I do agree that what you say should be correct, in reality we can't rely on it. My main reason for posting this is to make sure that we never forget our fellow editor, who was jailed for doing nothing more than listing websites that help the rest of us find information about Kurds.

(We have a couple of internal threads regarding this issue if any editors wish to know more.)

 

If you knowingly aide or participate in a crime, there IS criminal intent.

Also check “accomplice”, (somebody who knowingly helps somebody to commit a crime or misdeed.)

~VegasMack

 

lomcr

You are a very well respected editor in DMOZ and I respect you.
The problem is not the law itself. It is between choosing RIGHT vs. WRONG.
The children's Rights to growing up free from these kinds of publications. A completely free innocent world for children. I don't mind about the scumbags and sex starved adults they can have it all.

Just the conscience. I can't do anything though but I am not blinded by the facts.

 

It seems you are enjoying the free speech in DP a little bit too much. It has started to open your eyes and change your opinion about DMOZ. I am happy for you but I am not sure your new attitude will be appreciated by powers in DMOZ.

 

Your missing the point gworld. I may or may not agree with postings. What I say is my own personal opinion. Please read my other postings.

 

I think everybody in this forum is expressing their own opinion (except fathom that doesn't have an opinion). As I understand, you have stated in your previous posting that in your opinion there are things which are right or wrong and listing of pedophile sites is wrong because children should be protected from child molesters. Did I misunderstood you?

 

No.
That is my personal opinion and children are supposed to be protected no matter what. See, we don't even include our own children in family adult discussions so why include them in adult.

 

Having a personal opinion is good but acting on it is even better.

 

If I only have a Magic Wand.

 

We all have one, it is called public opinion and it is used through forums like this. You just need to be willing to use it.

We have already used the magic wand to disappear 2 categories from DMOZ (Pedophiles Chat/forums & directories) and now we are working on the rest.

 

I thoroughly agree with you - unfortunately people keep spouting US criminal laws and US codes as if they apply in this situation. If there was some law that would keep these sites from being listed - then I'm positive the sites would have been gone ages ago.

The problem is that the sites are legal - the problem is that the guidelines allow them to be listed - the admins (hopefully, from what I've read between the lines) are working to amend the guidelines. Way off in left field - there is nothing illegal about drop shippers, yet they are specifically excluded in the guidelines. Hopefully, after the discussion is over, the guidelines will specifically exclude these other types of legal sites, as well.

Bringing up these different laws, that have absolutely nothing to do with what is listed - other than being remotely connected, is doing nothing to help - and is confusing the issue. Does the information that I'm putting out further cloud the issue - perhaps it does. But I can't just sit here and see nonsense put out as pure fact and not react to it.

 

No, it really doesn't confuse the issues for any one who can think but it is a nice try by you. I'll give A+ for your effort.

 

lmocr is dead on.

There is nothing illegal about these sites (nothing shown so far). And therefore, the arguements about aiding and abetting are completely irrelevant.

Just because a site is legal doesn't mean it is good, acceptable, or should be listed though.