Application of 2257 to the ODP

I hate to agree with you gworld but I think there is some truth in that. The onus of changing that impression lies firmly with the Admins.

 

Yes, you need a reason. But let's face it - finding a reason to delete most of the sites we're talking about here isn't diffficult - it still seemed to take something like 3 months to get it done.

 

First, as someone who is involved in law enforcement, I am sure you know that ignorance of the law is not a justification. Sorry I just killed some one, I didn't know it was illegal.

If editor wants to know if an adult site that is located in different jurisdiction is legal, there are many resources available to them, among them Interpol web site with nice categorization of laws in this area among different countries.

Legislation of Interpol member states on sexual offences against children

I trust, you know what Interpol is?

Second- while you are still talking about all these countries and laws, I would like you to pay attention to the following from internal forum in the child porn thread:

It looks like either you don't know what you are talking about or Admin is talking nonsense, I let you two figure it out.

 

Well I haven't dished out a caution for 15 years or so, I only manage their IT projects these days. But I do recall having to make a judgement on "intent" to prove a case. Did the guy "knowingly" make a false statement. And I never made any assessment of guilt. That was for lawyers, judges, juries. I could offer fixed penalties in exchange for an admission, which I guess is a form of plea bargaining, usually used because there is a risk your case is not strong enough to get a full conviction. Even killing someone - can be accidental, self-defence, manslaughter, mitigating circumstances, pre-meditated. Sometimes there is no criminal case to answer, other times the penalties are less severe. Who decides all that? Ultimately the judges and juries, based on evidence presented to them. Certainly not the police.

With your predeliction for quoting out of context it is impossible to make a comment. However, the basis of the proposed guideline is US law - child porn sites are those with models under 18, not a lesser age that might exist elsewhere. And, as you know, a forum comment is not a guideline. http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=904975&postcount=111 explains more about the uses of the illegal material clause in the guidelines.

That is a great resource and has some excellent definitions in it. Unfortunately it doesn't mention 2257 requirements or define the jurisdiction of 2257.

What I also found disturbing was that in Portugal it appears child pornography involves children under the age of 14. And I wouldn't want to see any clause in a DMOZ guideline that gave any hint to anyone that a Portuguese site with models of just 14 years old is in any way OK to list. So you say follow the law - an editor sees a site owned and hosted in Portugal with 14 year old girls on it, and lists it. Sorry he says, I thought you meant no sites with models under 18 if they are illegal. This one is not illegal. DMOZ guidelines are too often ambiguous and that is what leads to the problems. When you introduce the need to assess sites against their national laws then it might well help prevent some sites whilst allowing much worse ones in. Therefore, IMO, it is far better to have a DMOZ "law" that says no sites with models under 18. That's it.

 

Actually my suggestion was that no model should be under 18 AND it should not break any laws but nice try to find a justification for an unenforceable guideline.

In regard to my quote being out of context, try to explain what else can it mean or even better why don't you ask orlady?

 

Incidentally gworld, I have no objection to a guideline that states for DMOZ purposes the definition of child pornography is that contained in http://www.interpol.int/Public/Children/SexualAbuse/NationalLaws/csaUSA.asp Section V. I don't believe using a definition of child pornography as contained in that section would be in any way contentious.

A definition such as that referred to is fine to use as a basis of a DMOZ universal guideline. Everyone can grasp that one concept or should not be editing in Adult. It is where you start asking editors to assess sites on every legal compliance aspect and those aspects are contentious that it becomes an issue of practicality. Does a site contain child pornography or not? There is the definition. Yes or no? Not a problem.

 

If orlady wants to explain it she visits here and is welcome to do so. Whether she wants to put herself in a position to have her words twisted in public is another thing.

Sorry but you are just trolling again. Several times I have explained that such a clause grants rights to editors to remove an offending site; not every guideline is designed to set traps for editor removal proceedings. And that other clauses in the proposed guidelines close every conceivable loophole.

LOL. You and I are on the same side gworld apparently - trying to find a set of guidelines to govern the prevention of child porn sites being listed. And we are locked into a loop where the same words are being said over and over. This is what kills DMOZ guideline improvements. Imagine if you have editors who disagree with the basic idea of what we are trying to do. And people wonder why guideline revisions take months if not a year or more.

Tell you what - all we are doing here is presenting a suggestion to DMOZ for a revised guideline. Nothing agreed here is in any way binding on editors obviously, and they will rip it to shreds and rewrite it anyway. So include your clause on illegal sites the way you want it - it'll be the first thing that gets thrown out but whatever...

 

I know this but it shows that preventing such listings are possible and if DMOZ decides not to then it begs the question, why not? This is the change through the public pressure. I think it is time to put an end to guidelines that are made of Teflon to insure that nothing sticks.

 

Oh for gawd's sake !

The issue here is PROOF isn't it ? Proof of underage girls being exploited. ( I am totally against this and would do anything to ensure this doesn't happen).

But, just how does one 'prove' beyond a shadow of a doubt that any site in question has either legal or illegal models taking part on any site ? Lets not get bogged down in all the legal stuff. And if that proof isn't readily available, then what ?

I'd be interested to know as would lots of others following this thread how exactly one accomplishes this ?
But I think editors and Dmoz detractors alike would have a really hard time proving beyond doubt either way.

So, if you could all just fill us innocents in as to what in the real world we can do to avoid and report, and be sure that 'questionable' sites have absolute verification that only over 18 models taking part are listed ? Comments which aren't based on subjective ' ooh she looks young' or tunnel visioned 'US law states blah', I for one would be grateful for.

And if you cannot prove things beyond any arguement, then please let me know what else I have to go on should I find myself editing there if the guidelines are as argued, completely crap.

What else can we do ?

 

This comment has been made wittier by the icon

 

Move on to how to verify age claims on sites. Gworld - over to you to kick us off...

 

To respond to something brizzie said, let it be known that orlady is not particularly interested in engaging in arguments carried on purely for the sake of argument (regardless of whether the topic is the number of angels who can fit on the head of a pin, whether "is" truly means "is", why it might possibly be illegal for British midwives to talk to Americans, the age of a person in a photograph, when gworld is going to quit beating his wife, or myriad other topics that could be invented), nor is she interested in putting herself in a position to have her words twisted in public yet again.

In fact, there are no DMOZ guidelines designed or intended for that purpose.

 

Do not list sites with models under 18 is unambiguous - if that is accepted (as it should be because it is there, hidden away, already) there is no way for any editor to slide out of it. I think your legal provisions actually do provide escape routes, which is why I would oppose a requirement to test a site for legal matters other than whether it contains underage (US legal definition) models against national laws - it is impractical and contentious and I don't know why you want to suggest something you know will be instantly rejected - find another way to achieve the same objective that stands a chance. But never mind. How does shygirl tell a site with models over 18 from those under 18? Brainstorm.

 

Well hopefully something constructive will come out of this thread for once and I trust its source, provided there are some good ideas, will not detract from accepting anything truly useful.

 

No surprise there.

It was just last week, that you were flirting with me, does this mean you don't love me anymore?

 

DMOZ editors can be so fickle...

 

I take it there are no comments on the proposal – other than wanting to put specific laws into it, which won’t have a chance at all in internal discussions. No grammatical changes or word changes, etc?

Moving on to the part about how to check for illegal/prohibited URLs:

Ideas pulled from comments made in this and other threads:

AOL (UK) is a member of the International Watch Foundation, which maintains a database of illegal URLs - this list is accessible to its members. Is it possible for the ODP to obtain that list and make a 'private' area with them in it but all automatically marked 'do not list – illegal site' so if an editor goes to review one they get told it's illegal?

http://empornium.us/doc.php?show=prohibited - is this a trustworthy site? What I mean is - they wouldn’t post a “prohibited site” just because they don’t like a person associated with the URL? I don’t know the site and wouldn’t want to suggest it internally if the site is biased.

Are there any other trustworthy locations that posters know might maintain these types of lists? I know Interpol was mentioned as a possibility, is there a URL that anyone is aware of?

On the flip site - are there any specific ways that posters are aware of to verify a good URL/manufacturer/registrar? Maybe there are also “good lists” to go along with the illegal/prohibited lists. Same question pertains to these types of sites - is this a trustworthy site? They wouldn’t post a “recommended site” just because they like a person associated with the URL? Again, I wouldn’t want to suggest it internally if the site is biased.

 

You're just never going to get it, are you, lmocr?

 

Oh no - I got it. You have one purpose - and it's not to improve the directory. Definitive evidence of that exists for any reasonable person to see, such as your blindly defending every post by gworld, no matter how asinine.

I hope I'm never on your "good" list.

 

I strongly urge you to carefully reread this thread and a few others on the subject, lmocr, before you embarrass yourself any further.