Application of 2257 to the ODP

Not bad.

References to 2257, other than as an example, are unnecessary since you have already mentioned a need to comply with local laws; this is an international directory. Point 3 is repetition of Point 2 - the law determines the jurisdiction of a site. Point 5 is unacceptable US bias. Point 7 you can stop at "...don't list it." Point 8 - repeats Point 7 at first then gets hooked up in "illegal" again - editors who breach these guidelines will be removed but you must take into account bait and switch scams so the usual investigations must take place.

Oh and what vulcano said. Though if you add a comma then it makes sense. "...uses models under the age of 18, or older..."

 

Correct. Sites with nude photos of models over 70 have to comply with 2258 which requires them to prominently display a banner that says, "WARNING! Wrinkles and saggy bodies inside!".

 

Now that has the be the funniest thing minstrel has written in a long time.

 

Nonsense. I say funny things all the time.

 

No, I meant older. The minimum is 18 but some countries can have higher standard for age such as 21. I meant the higher limit depends on local laws.

point 2- Why not be specific about 2257 for American sites, so no one can claim they didn't know or it doesn't specifically is mentioned in guideline?

Point 3- is not a repetition, it takes away the excuse that domain owner or server is located outside USA and it is not American site. The rule is simple, if domain owner or server is in USA, it is an American site, no if and but about it.

point 5 is not a bias, it will be in the guideline. If European sites want the advantage, they are welcome to have 2257 declaration. In reality all serious foreign sites already have this since they are marketing toward US market on Internet and don't Want to get in trouble. Also everybody keeps mentioning DMOZ is not a listing site and we don't care about webmasters but when it comes to porn, DMOZ becomes very concern what is good for webmasters.

Point 7- gives the editor the possibility to get proof of age and put it in the notes, if he really, really needs to list a site. Isn't this what everybody complains about that we should not close editors hand on choosing the sites.

point 8- There is always the possibility to look at a catch of sites to see what was originally listed but abuse should not be tolerated by simply telling editors don't do it again or continue listing of those sites.

 

You can, by using it as an example of a law that a site located in one particular country must also follow. But making it a specific point means that it is necessary to then mention every applicable law in every applicable jurisdiction. Isn't that pedantic? Yep, editors can be very pedantic when they want to find a loophole in a guideline. Hosted or owned? What about registered, or administered, or marketed? You are better off using a catch-all and not going off onto a US orientated tangent.

And a Namibian site hosted in Cape Verde? That's OK then. Or is it? I don't know. Previously you said sites must be compliant with their local laws. If US law says 2257 applies to sites owned or hosted in the US then it is covered by that. You didn't mention registered/administered/sourced/any connection with etc. so those are OK then. This is not about making guidelines for sites with American connections but all sites in this class. Another point is that the applicability of 2257 is contentious so the likelihood of such a clause being included in DMOZ guidelines is a nice round number, zero. Where something is contentious the way around that is to define the requirement you are trying to arrive at in the guidelines. Are you trying to prevent the listing of site containing models under 18 or sites that don't comply with US law? I presume you are on the same agenda as everyone else and the important thing is the former not the latter.

Point 5 is, and will be seen as, favouring US sites. It is not acceptable, it won't make any guideline because 99% of editors would reject it. Again what are you trying to achieve, preventing the listing of site containing models under 18 or sites that don't comply with US law? Easy way for a US webmaster with barely legal teen sites and a 2257 declaration to get rid of all their international competition isn't it, especially if that webmaster is an editor.

It muddies the water. If in doubt, don't list. The rest of it is waffle - if an editor wants to get proof of age then he/she can go to the nth degree to get it, is then not in doubt, and can list. There is no need to include it in a guideline. Trouble with including it in a guideline is the strong risk it will evolve into a you must contact the webmaster and ask for proof of age...

Yep. But that isn't what you said in your wording; it was sloppy. It said editors who listed an illegal site would be removed. First someone has to make the judgement as to "illegal" and without a court and a judge that isn't easy. Second there will be sites prohibited from listing that are nonetheless not illegal, e.g. where the applicable laws specify a lower age limit. I can imagine the arguments now - an editor removed for listing a legal site. Editors are removed for breaking guidelines so the guidelines must define the prohibitions, not reference to hundreds if not thousands of national laws that might or might not apply. Remember the aim is to close loopholes not open them.

In fact the aim of guidelines should be to avoid reference to legal matters altogether, except in passing. Because there are hundred if not thousands of them all with different provisions and different jurisdictions. Even the top lawyers could not possibly know them all. I noticed from some research that some countries do not even have statutory ages of consent and it is implied by other legislation. Avoid it, it is a quagmire, and the aim of DMOZ guidelines should be to avoid quagmires or you are back where you started.

 

Ok, let's fix it then.

1- Any site that uses models under age of 18 is considered child porn. If the local laws where the site is located requires the models be older than the age of 18 then all models should confirm to the higher standard.

2- All porn sites should obey by all their local laws. As an example of such laws, American sites must have a 2257 declaration.

3- For the purpose of this guideline, any site that is owned by an American resident or/and is hosted on a server located in USA is considered an American web site.

4- All sites that are not considered American, must have a clear description on the site stating that all models are over age of 18. In case local laws require older than the age of 18 then it should state the higher limit. Ambiguous descriptions such as age of consent is not accepted.

5- All sites must have an email address for contact which is not a free, disposable email address such as hotmail, Gmail, Yahoo or....

6- If there is any doubt in your mind that models is under 18, don't list it

7- If any editor list a site that is in contradiction of this guideline at the time that editor has listed the site, the editor will be dismissed and sites will be removed.

 

Those suggestions all look pretty good to me. At least it's a starting point.

 

Same here, how about a well deserved break?

 

Better, gworld.

Point 3 - you are still trying to relate this to America/Americans and impose your view of a legal interpretation on them. It will not be accepted by editors. Reference to the need to abide by all other applicable laws, as you have already done, is sufficient and covers all nationalities, countries, and possible relationships. It is also useless. A US resident can use a PO Box address in another country and a host in a third country. The important thing, not to be distracted from, is not to list sites with models under the age of 18.

Point 4 - that American thing again. Remove "that are not considered American," and you have the same result. The requirement for US sites and non-US sites in terms of a DMOZ guideline should be the same. You have already referred to the additional need for abiding by local laws, e.g. 2257 declarations, so there is no need to distinguish.

Point 5 - you can strengthen that one no end by referring to the new guideline I gave you a link to earlier about the need for verifyability. That goes further than a simple email account anyone with a domain name can set up.

Point 7 - the term is removed not dismissed. It goes without saying the sites will be removed - the editor would not be removed if they didn't breach guidelines.

Sorry if I sound pernickerty but I *want* these guidelines and if you can't get them through me you have zilch chance of getting them through serving meta and admin editors who will rip them apart if there are flaws.

 

Yes, I am sure that there is probably porn in other planets too but I don't know how to cover for that case if we are invaded by aliens and we need to list alien porn.

A regulation that tries to cover everything and anything will only cover one thing and that is : NOTHING.

How can we enforce a rule that American sites should obey by US law, if we have no definition of an American web site is?

I think instead of thinking, what things are accepted or not accepted by editors, we should ask ourselves, what is it in 2257 that scares DMOZ editors shit less and they will go to any length to avoid it? Why DMOZ editors don't want to obey by a law that is specifically designed to protect minors in porn?

A guideline should aim at what is good for DMOZ and more importantly what can we do, that helps to protect children and not what is good for editors.

 

Because that is not what we are trying to do. We are trying to devise guidelines that instruct editors not to list sites containing models under the age of 18. If you try and construct a rule for American sites then you must create an individual rule for British sites, Swedish sites, Canadian sites, German sites, Danish sites, Spanish sites, Czech sites, Mongolian sites, shall I continue. The guidelines must be generic and universal in applicability or they create loopholes - this site has no American connections, I can ignore these guidelines because they are clearly devised for Americans - this site complies with *my* (reviewing editor's) interpretation of 2257 and therefore it is OK - etc.

If you want to try and devise a guideline to define what an American site is then good luck to you but I guarantee you are wasting your time.

Off you go again. 2257 has loopholes and its applicability is both limited and contentious. The intention of 2257 is to prohibit US (whatever anyone thinks that means) sites from including models under the age of 18. A DMOZ guideline aims to do the exact same thing but must apply unambiguously and universally. In addition, if that guidelines also refers to the need for editors to ensure sites comply with local laws then any sites that are subject to 2257 must comply with it to be listed. Equally a British site must comply with British laws, a Czech site to Czech laws, and so on. Each country's laws will be different in scope and applicability, hence the need for a generic code as a minimum standard. DMOZ is not the arbiter of whether a site complies with legal codes - that is for the relevant jurisdictions. It is not competent, and neither is anyone here, to make judgements on the applicability of 2257 to American sites - that is for the US courts. Neither can DMOZ recruit qualified lawyers from every jurisdiction to list sites. The determinant of whether a site is illegal or not is whether it has been declared illegal by the appropriate legal authorities. Ah! Massive loophole!!! It is indeed. How do you get around this? By prohibiting sites with models under 18 regardless of the legal/illegal situation which no-one but a court is competent to decide. Inclusion of legal provisions as a test in DMOZ guidelines is the biggest possible hole you can create in a guideline. LVH believes DMOZ is obliged to maintain 2257 records, most others disagree, that is how this thread came about. So how do you test whether the site contains models under the age of 18? Well that is the next step and 2257 and other declarations would almost certainly be amongst the factors in that assessment. But before you move onto assessment of credibility matters it would be best to get the first bit sorted.

There is no point in thinking about things that editors will not accept - it just becomes yet another angry rant on what editors should do, leading precisely nowhere like so many threads before this one. I thought the purpose of this exercise was to be able to present something that achieves the goals and at the same time stands a chance of being adopted, at the same time proving DP posters can be constructive.

• Editors will not list sites that contain images of models under the age of 18.
• If the site is located in a jurisdiction that requires models to be over the age of 18 then editors will not list sites that contain images of models under that higher age.
• The site must contain a verifiable statement or declaration regarding the age of models used on the site. Such statements or declarations must be assessed for credibility (see guidelines on assessment of age declarations).

​

Those are generic universal guideline suggestions covering a couple (not all) of your points as a sample/example. They are far from meaningless and the absence of legal references removes the possibility of contention relating to those references.

 

I think this is the most important point of your last post. There is a need for guideline that is acceptable to the same editors that plan to break it and do not respect it.

Is there any chance in hell that if you want to commit a crime, you will approve a law that makes you criminal? I don't think so. That is the reason that internal discussions is such a waste of time and change can be achieved only by applying pressure from outside.

 

Acceptability to editors is based on practicality and enforceability. See the example I added to the foot of my previous post that I think would stand a chance of acceptance but achieves exactly the same objective as you are aiming at.

No doubt every legislature contains crooks. You are an editor who has admitted breaching guidelines so could be deemed a crook yourself in the DMOZ context. The arguments of crooks can be overcome by presenting the proposed laws in such a way that their criminal tendencies are exposed by their objection. Present a law with elements that are contentious amongst the non-crooks and the crooks can easily dismiss it without exposing themselves.

When it comes to detailed changes in guidelines pertaining to the definition and treatment of sites containing models under 18 the only people who will make that decision are editors internally. If your pressure comes over as ranting then it will be ignored. Coming up with non-contentious constructive suggestions might, on the other hand, achieve something.

 

I'll complete the list:

• The ODP does not list child pornography websites in accordance with its commitment not to list material designed to appeal to the prurient interests of pedophiles. Amongst material deemed to be child pornography are sites containing photographic images of minors. Whilst laws and legal definitions of child pornography may vary in different jurisdictions, the following guidelines apply universally to all listings of this type of material regardless of the location of the site's ownership, administration, or hosting. For ODP purposes child pornography sites include, but are not necessarily restricted to, those containing images of models aged under 18.
  
• Editors will not list sites that contain images of models under the age of 18 regardless of whether or not the site is considered legal under the jurisdiction governing it.
  
• Editors will not list sites that contain links to other sites that contain images of models under the age of 18 regardless of whether or not the site linked to is considered legal under the jurisdiction governing it.
  
• If the site is located in a jurisdiction that requires models to be over the age of 18 then editors will not list sites that contain images of models under that higher age.
  
• The site must contain a verifiable statement or declaration regarding the age of models used on the site. Such statements or declarations must be assessed for credibility (see guidelines on assessment of age declarations).
  
• In addition to the requirements above sites must comply with all legislation applicable to pornography sites in their jurisdiction. For example, US sites are required to display a 18 U.S.C. Section 2257 Compliance Notice.
  
• All sites must include a verifiable name and address or include industry-appropriate information about itself verifiable through a recognized third party.
  
• Sites must be reviewed thoroughly, including all links, internal and external, to ensure that images of underage or potentially underage models are not hidden or disguised.
  
• If there is any doubt in your mind that a model on a website is under 18, do not list it. Note that a single image of a model you believe may be under 18 is sufficient for this guideline to apply.
  
• The ODP takes breaches of these guidelines very seriously and an editor who through negligence or deliberation lists a site that at the time contains material deemed child pornography under the guidelines above will be guilty of abusing their editorial priviledges and removed.
  
• A report will be made to the appropriate authorities of any site submitted that contains child pornography, including all information relating to the submitter captured at the time of submission.

​

I think I have included all the points made by gworld, excluding provisions that discriminate between US and non-US sites which would not gain editor consensus, and included one or two additional loophole closures.

 

/me dies of boredom ...............

 

LOL, paidhosting. I think you understand the value of making guidelines that are simple and straightforward -- which is what ODP has tried to do in its current guidelines on this topic.

 

Well orlady (hmm interesting name) i dont know why people care so much about dmoz/odp. But anyways let the fight continue, dont mind me i will just come here again when i feel like its time to get bored again.

 

That will be fine, except we need a definition on how to define a jurisdiction for a web site to close the loop holes. For xample, if the owner of a site is American resident but the site is hosted in Denmark or vice versa, is this an American site or a Danish site?

Close that loophole and it is fine, if you think this will have any chance of to be excepted by DMOZ.

 

Which is fine as long as they are shown to work. When simple and straightforward means ambiguous because the detail wasn't there then it is a problem. Personally I think the suggestions I made are very simple, very clear, very straightforward. But if you think otherwise comments are welcome.

Personally I don't see that as a DMOZ function. The aim is to prevent models under 18 being on sites listed by DMOZ and thereby prevent the listing of sites deemed child pornography. Frankly as long as that is achieved in a verifiable manner then the rest is up to the authorities and courts in whatever jurisdiction the site comes under. The location of hosting and owners might be a factor in deciding whether the declarations etc. are credible but not in the initial decision.