Application of 2257 to the ODP

Since the Open Directory Project is not a "producer of content" there is no requirement to maintain on file any documentation. A producer of content would be the original photographer and/or a purchaser of the photographer's work who publishes the work on a website.

Since the directory only publishes comments and links - there is nothing to maintain documentation on.

I strongly disagree that US Law should be required to be applied to non-US sites (whether in the Adult category or not). Many countries have much stronger laws than the US does - just as other countries have significanty less stringent laws - why not apply one of the other countries laws (Saudi law for example) to all the sites (of course there wouldn't be an Adult section, or many other categories for that matter if we did)?

I believe the only rule that can be applied across the board is that which is in the guidelines. If you want to try to come up with a suggested guideline for these types of sites - without trying to interpret or interject one country's laws on another - I'm willing to post the recommendation internally, with the caveat that it's a workable solution. For example if the recommendation is to remove Adult - I wouldn't post that because I don't agree with it and it wouldn't fly (been suggested before). If the recommendation is to require the models to be a minimum of 18, with information on how to ascertain that - I'll post that.

 

If you want to talk about law, again you seem to be forgetting that you will be governed by the laws of the headquarters of the company or organization that owns the directory, in this case DMOZ and AOL (and now partly Google), all of which are US orghanizations headquartered in the US. You come under US law, not Saudi law, and no, you don't get to choose which laws to abide by any more than a Saudi living in the US can argue that he is not subject to US law because he isn't a citizen.

Additionally, if I'm not mistaken, the servers are also located in the US and they would also come under US law.

 

That would be true minstrel, if we were talking about a law that the Open Directory Project had to abide by. However, in this particular situation - the law being discussed is applicable to webmasters producing pornography and is therefore not applicable to the Open Directory Project which does not produce pornography.

So -

 

I think it's the editor's job before listing an adult site to make sure they have the 2257 and all the age documents

 

You really are a total waste of time, lmocr. At the very least, before you open your mouth again about things you know nothing about, can you decide which dumb argument you want to champion? You've previously proven you know nothing about databases or web design. You're mow proving you are completely ignorant when it comes to matters of law governing corporations and organizations.

First you try to argue that the sites in question are not in the US and therefore do not fall under US law. When I point out the flaws in that argument, you drop back to the immensely dumb argument that since DMOZ doesn't own the sites the laws don't apply. You cannot even manage to keep your own precious DMOZ rules straight in your mind.

Seriously, lmocr, do yourself and the rest of us a favor. You are hopelessly embarrassing yourself and wasting everyone's time. Just stick to things you know about, whatever that may encompass.

 

So, minstrel, if you can't have an intelligent conversation, because you don't know how to interpret the law - or even understand the initial post - you resort to name calling. How very adult of you.

SVC - thanks for the comment. That will mean that only US sites will be listed in an International directory - is that the intention of your statement? What about the international sites that merely slap on a 2257 statement (after all US law doesn't apply to them)? That doesn't mean that the site is actually complying with the law. Do you have any ideas on what type of guidelines can be written to help ensure that a site containing questionable photos would not be listed?

I like brizzie's statement as a starting point: - "DMOZ considers child pornography to be websites containing images of models under the age of 18, regardless of the laws applying in the country where the site is hosted. Editors will not list sites containing images of models under 18 even if legal where they are hosted. In addition the site must comply with all the laws applicable in the country of hosting."

 

An intelligent conversation with you?

You do not seem to be capable of sustaining one.

It seems about the only thing you can manage is running around in circles racing from one indefensible illogical argument to another.

 

I think I understand what imocr is talking about and it is two issues.

First there is no legal obligation on DMOZ under 2257 to maintain records itself because DMOZ is not the content provider. Unless forced to do so by legal action this position is not going to change.

Second the sites it lists, if they are not under US jurisdiction, do not have to comply with 2257. Again, unless a court rules that US law dictates that a US based directory must not list non-US sites that do not comply with 2257 that position will not change.

On both these matters it is inconceivable that DMOZ, or more accurately its owners, would not strongly resist due to the knock-on precedents it would create. For example a US based search engine like Google could not operate if it had to maintain 2257 records or manually review all sites returned in its results to ensure all the results complied. The difference between a directory and a search engine is only in the format by which it displays the results of its database. The actual database itself is the same as regards the fundamentals - a link URL and a description.

To go a little further...

DMOZ has an non-statutory internal policy that editors should not to list sites that are illegal in the jurisdiction where they (the editors) are based. It can also be interpreted to include not listing sites illegal in the jurisdiction where the site itself is based but this is not universally accepted by editors (at least in non-Adult matters so one presumes the same applies in Adult). It also has a policy not to list child pornography sites.

The flaw is that child pornography sites are not tightly defined under DMOZ policy which gives elbow room to editors who may be less than scrupulous, or sloppy, or plain stupid. Nor are there strict guidelines yet developed to assess the credibility of the sites in question. These flaws need correction and in practical terms they can only be corrected via guideline and policy definition.

DMOZ must, of course, comply with all US State and Federal laws that apply to its business and what it produces. But it appears that 2257 does not apply to sites that link to sites required to comply with 2257. Logically where would that end anyway - if DMOZ was required to comply with 2257 then would any site with a link to DMOZ also be required to comply... and so on.

 

Well, that's my Midwifery categories buggered then ?? According to US law in a most states, there IS no such thing as a 'Midwife' recognisable professionally. No point in me listing the sites then ???? They must be 'illegal' if that IS that case and that is what is being argued here.

Either US law applies everywhere in Dmoz in all categories including Adult...or it doesn't. If it does then I am completely wasting my time listing 'illegal' sites promoting midwifery as a profession, as, according to the statute in many states, there is no such thing and it is against the law to act as one. US law ( or Canadian/Australian/Saudi law for that matter).. does not recognise the qualifications awarded.

C'mon everyone, let's get real. I've been honest so far in everything I've said. But you may as well get rid of all international editors if this really is the route you think is then best and make Dmoz the best 'human edited US directory'. That's what it will boil down to after all.

I am upset as anyone here about the fact that underage girls may somewhere be listed. But using the arguement that US law must be adhered to under all circumstances, makes me useless as an editor really, and in a quite unrelated and innocent category. Is that what you want ?

 

If I can explain this a little more for clarity. Sites that are pro-Kurdish are illegal in Turkey. An editor located in Turkey is prohibited under DMOZ guidelines from listing a pro-Kurdish site. Similarly holocaust denial sites are illegal in Austria and Austrian editors are prohibited from listing such sites. A DMOZ editor in Turkey has been jailed for listing pro-Kurdish sites BTW. I can't imagine many people thinking DMOZ should pander to repressive regimes by not listing sites they legislate against. So non-resident editors will list the sites instead and there is nothing in DMOZ regulations to prevent that. This means that this particular DMOZ policy cannot be relied upon to be a clear ruling against listing US based sites that breach US law, let alone non-US based sites that breach US law. And is why a separate and distinct set of guidelines have to apply where an international/universal rule relating to porn sites featuring underage models is needed.

 

I am just coming back from race track where we were driving in circle, so I am thinking to post my input about the DMOZ guideline in regard to legality of the sites listed.

It is DMOZ position that illegal sites should not be listed but some time illegal sites are not illegal in another country, therefore illegal sites can be listed because they are not illegal but some time legal sites that are well legal, can be illegal in another place, so we do not list legal sites because they are illegal. Therefore while DMOZ official position is that legal sites should be listed and illegal sites should not be listed, some time we list illegal sites but we don't list legal sites because in reality legal sites can be illegal and illegal sites can be legal or legal site can be legal and illegal site can be illegal.

I think I just made the best description of a DMOZ guideline ever in regard to to what site should be listed.

 

So gworld - are you saying that we should give up from the get go on identifying potential changes to the guidelines that would tighten up the loopholes now available? That was not quite what I would have expected from you.

Brizzie - thank you for expanding on what I am talking about.

Shygirl - I do not want to lose the internation flavor of the directory - you make an excellent nonAdult comparison of what I am talking about. Thank you.

 

Here is an example of a title 2257 compliance notice:

ODP is not the website that these images are being displayed:

How does this relate to whether these sites are listed, and what would ODP's culpabilty be? The ODP is neither displaying any visual depictions from these websites, nor is it required by 18 U.S.C. Title 2257 to maintain records as such.

Now, before the trolls start to flame me, let me continue. The following is my personal opinion about these sites:

I do not feel that any site that graphically depicts minors under the age of 18 in nude, semi-nude or sexual suggestive poses should be listed. IMO, any site that purposely uses models over the age of 18 to create the illusion that they are younger then age 18, and does not comply with title 2257 of 18 U.S.C. should not be listed.

It is not the moral responsibilty of the ODP to be the internet police. I have looked over other questionable sites that are listed in other directories and find them to be, in my moralistic opinion, quite disgusting. One in particular is owned by a frequent poster in this forum as well as the owner of the site listed in the 18 U.S.C. Title 18 Compliance Notice listed above. The site - gentlemenworld(.)com is a directory of escorts and escort services as well as other things. If you compare the ODP, how can gentlemenworld(.)com insure that the links that it lists are complaint? How can he be sure that one link - adultsad(.)com, for example, is not being used by pedophiles, the porn industry that targets these pigs, and other perverts? I am not saying they are, so don't get your panties in a knot.

If sites are questionable, the concerns should be brought to the proper legal authorities. Constantly arguing this over and over again in this forum serves no real purpose. If I had my way, there would be no adult section in the directory. But that would be censorship. Let's keep our kids safe, but not try to distroy the internet as a means to the end. Sort of like the book burning in Farenheit 451
​

 

I have answered your questions about this subject before, may be you missed it, please read it. Your profession is not illegal and therefore can be listed.

http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?p=891680&highlight=shygirl#post891680

also this one:

http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?p=891728&highlight=shygirl#post891728

Imcor is trying to make you concern about this without any reason, in order to make you support her defense of porn sites.

 

Sorry gworld - I disagree with your interpretation (wow who would have believed it )

It is illegal in the state of California to practice midwifery without the supervision of a licensed doctor.

Here's another category where the subject is illegal in California. And before you ask - no I'm not into drugs - as a matter of fact I'm a UPL. Along the same lines I have some experience with this issue - so I have some knowledge of international laws. If you feel the need to compare resumes - send me a PM.

Now can we move beyond the legality issues - and get an idea of what information would be available to determine whether an Adult site does not have models under the age of 18? What potential guidelines might prevent a questionable site, that complies with the trustworthiness guideline, from being listed?

 

Speaking of gentlemenworld(.)com, I see a bit of nudity on it, but I can't find any 2257 information. Does this mean it is child pornography? According to gworld, yes.

 

...providing an example of the irrational running in circles I mentioned earlier... did you not start this thread yourself, lmocr, not only with a post about 2257 but even with that in the title?

 

Proving that you really can't pay attention to posts

Do you not remember where I promised not to post about laws in the other thread? Do you not see the quote that started this thread? Why do you think that it's impossible for a conversation to fluctuate and develop - to the point that it may not have the same topic that it was started with? (Especially considering that you participate frequently in that activity - this post for example - what does it have to do with 2257 or Adult for that matter?)

Here's a very minstrel like order for you - if you can't stay on topic - or at the very least post without causing a distraction, then get the f*** out of my thread.

 

Hmm...not to keep picking on gentlemenworld(.)com, but once I started looking at their sites I see a lot wrong.

sheeztheone(.)com contains plenty of nudity and according to the site and the whois record is hosted and designed by gentlemenworld(.)com - in the US. However, I am unable to find any 2257 information on this site. Again, does this mean that it is child pornography, or just that the site is breaking the law by not complying with 2257 laws?

Personally, I don't think that it contains child pornography, but according to gworld it should not be listed and should be reported to the authorities because it might contain child pornography and appears to be breaking the law.

 

1. you do not "own" threads at DP, lmocr

2. you began a thread about legal issues and then requested that people "move beyond the legality issues" - how much sense does that make?

3. this thread is getting way too silly - you don't need disclaimers about being of legal age for models who are obviously adults, and no one, gworld or anyone else, has ever suggested that you do