DMOZ Supports Child Porn?

I can garauntee you that it would not be that easy. it would take the creation of a new permission level, which history has shown doesn't happen often. IMO, staff has made it abundantly clear that Adult will not be split off in anyway. You'd be better off concentrating your energy on aspects of this issue that are actually possible (IMO of course), like getting warning pages in place.

 

How do you know? Are you an Admin, staff or in management of AOL? It seems it is always a touchy subject for adult editors, separating the adult from the rest of DMOZ.

 

It is not so much about splitting it off - that is a dead duck - but about modifying editall and meta permissions to exclude access to Adult. You would then need to add cateditall and catmod permissions back in specifically for Adult - AEditall and AMeta in effect. Which you forbid underage editors from having, grant automatically to other editalls and metas but allow them to resign if they don't want them. It involves modifying and creating new permissions plus a written policy and guidelines, plus an age declaration for existing editors as well as new ones, plus some kind of transition period. Some of the tasks are clearly easy, some may not be, some require a lot of planning and organisation. I don't pretend to know the technical difficulties involved in creating and modifying permission levels though I would be interested in learning. In any case personally I think it is worth any pain it might cause to remove this embarrassing lapse in responsibility.

 

I don't suppose google would like to read this post on DP right now, would they?

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=2169&ref=y

 

I was reading it when I saw your posting. I am sure they would like to know about Google directory, DMOZ and AOL link to it too.

Did you find any contact information for the investigators so we can send them the link to this discussions?

 

And I would love to know how one would define a "schoolgirl" as shown in this category:
http://directory.domaintools.com/Adult/Image_Galleries/Teens/AVS/CyberAge/Preferred/

And if we are dealing with a "hidden" camera, how do we know the age of the person was verified:
http://search.dmoz.org/cgi-bin/sear...=Adult/Image_Galleries/Voyeur/Upskirts/Free/A

 

This is nothing. A meta in adult in internal forum openly advises the editors to ignore 2257 federal rule about the verification of models age and list the sites that do not have it.
It seems it is clear that adult section in DMOZ is not very concerned about the law.

 

Yes, and it is really great to see the use of the term "Lolita"
http://search.dmoz.org/cgi-bin/search?search=lolita&all=no&cat=Adult&t=b
which we all know refers to a book about an underaged woman having sex with an older man.

Google is getting sued for profiting from child porn, and site owners listed in DMOZ are profiting as a result of getting listed for topics that clearly allude to child porn.

What is wrong with this picture?

Wake Up!

 

I dont know if this has been posted or not but I did not feel like going through the whole thread again. It seems Google is in the midst of a lawsuit against them for promoting Child Porn. You can Read About It Here or read the full article HERE

Google has stated that they remove any child porn from all their products once they find it, so I wonder why they havent stopped using DMOZ as one of their products. Dmoz promotes child porn and Google continues to use them.

 

Apparently you didn't ever go through it the first time. Show me where dmoz promotes child porn. Oh wait, you can't because it doesn't. You're just spouting more canned DP accusations.

 

Lol @ Las Vegas Homes.

If you can show me where we list child porn, I'll risk my editor account and list your site. I only say it's a risk because I haven't reviewed it, I'm just taking your word that it's good. So go look, find just one listing for child porn.

 

Look here:

http://search.dmoz.org/cgi-bin/search?search=lolita&all=no&cs=UTF-8&cat=Adult

at number 5:

Lolita Sex - Features photos, videos and live chat with girls from around the world. [Membership]
-- www(.)lolitasex(.)com/ Adult: Image Galleries: Teens: Hardcore: Members (1)

now click on it. the site has no 2257 declaration that shows the age of the models and the girls certainly look very young. this is illegal and against American federal law. Any site that does not provide 2257 declaration is considered child porn.

Department of Justice

Minors are incapable of consenting to perform in sexually explicit depictions and are often forced to engage in sexually explicit conduct. For these reasons, visual depictions of sexually explicit conduct that involve persons under the age of 18 constitute illegal child pornography. The record-keeping requirements, codified at 18 U.S.C. § 2257, are crucial to preventing children from being exploited by the production of pornography. Violations of the requirements are criminal offenses punishable by imprisonment for up to five years for a first offense and up to 10 years for subsequent offenses.

WWW.USDOJ.GOV

I hope you keep your word and list his site now.

Edit- You can also read the internal forum where a Meta tells the editors to ignore 2257 regulation and list the sites that are against American law.

 

With all due respect gworld, child porn is not a topic we should play silly games with. Let's not confuse a lolita site with child pornography just because it lacks a 2257 declaration. If you belive that is a child, please report the site to the authorities.

Is that the closest you could come to child porn? If it is then the point has been made that DMOZ does not list child porn.

 

Did you read the text from department of justice? Any porn with some one under age of 18 is considered child porn. May be you think that DMOZ should decide about such things and for example admins can declare 13 is child porn while 14 is not. Can you tell me what is the age of those girls in the pictures?

I forgot that DMOZ Metas are higher authoraties than government and US federal law.

 

Sorry gworld, you're on a different topic now.

(ps. I don't see you on icq lately, do you plan to see this through?)

 

18 U.S.C. § 2257 makes it clear that

As www(.)lolitasex(.)com does not do this, I do not think it should be listed, as it violates US law.

 

Last time I checked, the United States does not own the internet.

2257 laws only apply to sites from the US.

Did anybody even check to see if this was a US site?

That's idiotic. A US site porn site that doesn't have 2257 information is breaking the law, but it is not immediately classified as child porn. You really will say absolutely anything that pops into your head when trying to cover up your previous lies. Get real.

 

IP Location: Denmark - Copenhagen

From the front page of the site:

The site does not claim to have underage models and in fact claims that the models are of legal age. The site is not hosted in the US, so 2257 laws do not apply.

Weak gworld...very weak - even for you.

 

www(.)lolitasex(.)com is registered to someone in Denver, CO.

 

From what I understand, the laws from the country that the site is actually hosted in are the laws that apply.