DMOZ Supports Child Porn?

Sid, can you not see however where the 2257 would apply to Dmoz? Dmoz is listing sites and not verifying the 2257. These sites are being submitted by webmasters of these sites. IMHO I would think Dmoz would be liable for verifying these 2257s. Dmoz is listing these sites for public view and they therefore should be verified as having the 2257.

Just to make a point. Now I dont know what became of this but I know that the National Association Of Realtors was looking to file suit against Dmoz for describing some of its listings as agents being Realtors, when in all reality several of them were not. The same principle applies. If you are going to list these sites you have a duty by Law IMHO to apply the same legal standards as it relates to the 2257. Just my 2 cents.

 

Here is a link to the Code - you can read for yourself who it applies to.

 

LVH - The point you are either missing or ignoring is that 2257 laws apply to webmasters - not surfers. It is not illegal to view a site that does not have proper 2257 info on it. This is not the same thing as child pornography laws that apply to the surfer. 2257 regulations apply only to US hosted sites and only to the owners of those sites.

I know nothing of this suit, but there is a difference between this and the 2257 regulations. If the ODP were describing sites as being 2257 compliant when in fact they were not, then this would be comparable. However, the ODP does not describe sites as being 2257 compliant. Dmoz is making no claim as to whether sites comply with these regulations or not as compliance is between the website owner and the US government.

2257 regulations are a red herring being used by gworld to divert attention from the real topic - child pornography. Don't let him fool you into falling for his game LVH. Look at the text of the regulations that gworld already posted. They state quite clearly that the laws apply to webmasters - not surfers. It's no fun for gworld when people actually sit down and have a rational discussion about important matters. He only gets his jollies when people are riled up and fighting because that's when a troll is at his best.

LVH - let's stay on topic and make sure that there is no child pornography in the ODP.

I personally am strongly opposed to child pornography anywhere in the world, on the internet, and especially in the ODP. Dmoz has never listed child pornography and if a child pornography site is listed, then either an editor was not following the guidelines when they listed it or the site changed its content after it was listed. If you find a child pornography site listed in the ODP then please report it immediately so that it can be removed from the ODP and reported to the authorities. This is not a game. If you know of a site then it needs to be dealt with promptly - not used as some sort of leverage in a battle against the ODP.

 

So what?
I don't have any idea how many of the editors are lawyers, for my understanding, if these record keeping requirements are violated, sites violating them are automatically illegal, and as the ODP does not list illegal content, where is the problem?

 

I think it will be good that everybody reads it and judge by themselves but since I suspect this is going to be used as part of the latest excuse 1) it is where the company is 2) it is where the server located 3) It is the webmaster and not the web site, they can also read this:

"The prudent content producer will maintain redundant, duplicate off premises copies of all required records so that he or she is not compelled to blaze a new trail in litigation concerning the unexplored frontier of Section 2257 or to alternatively risk criminal sanction by publishing a web site without the required records."

Attorney J. D. Obenberger - Primer on 2257


So if publishing a web site without this declaration constitutes an illegal act, how can the website itself be legal?

Can Sid or anyone else who like to ignore 2257 tell us, why do you want to do that? Don't you think that a law that forces porn producers to keep record of model's age is a good and positive law?

 

Gworld, please refer to this post by minstrel for the answer to the first part of your comment.

I'll ignore the second part since you already know what I think about it.

 

We are not talking about if it is illegal to look. We are talking about the site by itself is illegal.

How about the sites that have bomb making instructions? Do you have any idea if it is looking at it is illegal or not for the surfer?
Should we also list those sites because it is not illegal to look at and only the webmaster is guilty of publishing those materials.
How about Warez sites? It is not illegal to look at, even they are supporting an illegal activity by providing illegal software, should we list warez sites?

No, I really don't know. we can have different definitions of child porn, so I really like to know what do you define as child porn.

 

Please read the guidelines .

A site that is not required to comply with US law, is not an illegal site simply because it doesn't comply with the law.

I'm going to repeat what sidjf said - because it's very important (not to mention that I feel the same way).

 

The guidelines specifically address these types of sites - if you want to include 2257 compliance as a part of the guidelines, then work on changing the guidelines.

 

It is illegal according to US law. From DMOZ point of view illegality is defined according to US law.

In applying this charter, editors should remember that the ODP is based in the United States, so the definition of "illegal" is based on United States law.

Orlady - Admin in DMOZ

How about pedophile sites? What happens if someone set up a pedophile site in an unknown country that doesn't have laws against pedophilia, should we list it?

 

http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=891341&postcount=1850

 

Why I am not surprised with your answer. If there is a loop hole in guideline, let's drive a truck through it and damn the legal and moral aspects.

I don't see how you call it agreement. Minstrel said that questionable sites SHOULD NOT be listed independent of legality. Sid says that questionable sites SHOULD be listed because there is a loop hole in legality is his opinion. I don't call that agreement.

 

Ok, but you already asked me this today and I already answered you, did you miss it?

 

So please explain for me why listing sites that do not even pretend to be serious and legal by providing 2257 declaration is necessary in DMOZ?

Is there a shortage of legal porn that I am not aware of and if we don't list illegal sites, it decreases the quality of DMOZ?

 

Annie, would you please send this site to unreviewed, the description is in English, for me the site shows up in German.
dmoz.org/Adult/Image_Galleries/Teens/Hardcore/Members/
Lolita Sex - Features photos, videos and live chat with girls from around the world. [Membership]
http://www(.)lolitasex.com/

 

Why don't you post that in the Adult QC thread - that way Annie doesn't have to review an Adult site if she doesn't want to.

 

Sure vulcano, I'd be happy to. Thanks for catching that.

Added: It shows up in English for me. I'll have to leave it for now.

 

While writing this post Annie was still online, no better/other editor available here, (1)why change the forum (2) this site does not need to be reviewed, it is obviously in a language that does not match the description, it only needs to be sent to unreviewed.

 

Imcor its not a matter IMHO of changing Dmoz guidelines to include the 2257. In my opinion it is illegal for Dmoz to even list those sites without a copy of the 2257 on file with ODP/Dmoz.

What the bolded section of this statue says to me is that since Dmoz is the content producer, on their directory they are required by law to keep on file these documents (2257), since they list this type content on their directory.

This is so simple legally but with all the twist I am seeing no one wants to admit it. If I was Dmoz I might not want to admit it either. Since Dmoz is owned and operated by a US corporation they are require to follow US law....
PERIOD There is no middle ground on this, no loop holes, no nothing.

I dont care if Dmoz has 1 million categories that dont break Middle Eastern laws and 1 US category in the whole directory but if they are a US company registered as a US company they are govern by US Law. If Dmoz violate US Law, pertaining to its listings on Middle Eastern subjects, Dmoz is liable for violating those US Laws.

It does not matter where the website is hosted, what country it comes from or whether what is listed is legal in all countries but the US, it is illegal for Dmoz to list such sites if they are a US company govern BY US LAW

Stop twisting the subject, it is this simple.

 

If it changes to German for Vulcano, they are using something that is called Geo-targeting. The site changes depending on the IP of the user which shows what area of the world, user is located in.