DMOZ and Extreme Pornography

YES.

YES.

YES.

YES.

 

Well now we might get somewhere then ?

A few posts ago you were saying that UK medical sites were legal in in UK, Asian in Asian etc.

Only Health cats aren't country specific are they you as an editor would know that ? Nor are Adult cats, Kids 'n' Teens cats, Science, Society, Arts, News or anything else except Regional, Business and World. ( I think ?).

Problem there ? Complying with Californian law ?

Yes, No ?

 

Definitely true.

 

You have to look at the location of the service. A person, even a licensed UK doctor can not practice in USA without certification in USA. If this person practices medicine in California then this person is committing a crime but the same person can practice medicine in UK and it is fine.
In regard to adult sites, the US law doesn't make any such distinction. It will not mean that they can prosecute a person in Timbuktu but the site is illegal anyway.

 

You have both Internal forum and resource-zone if you don't like it here, why do you feel the need to censor everyone else?

 

LOL @ gworld, I don't try to censor anyone. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but as an editor you also have resource-zone and internal forums.

btw, do you realize how much you're flip-floping in your discussion with shygirl?

 

You have consistently and emphatically said that we need to look at the location of the DIRECTORY not the local of any 'service' or 'act' provided. Many, many times you've said this and quoted laws you feel should apply and made references to;

You've been very consistent in your stance as has Minstrel.

But you cannot have it both ways, you've said repeatedly that all sites listed within a directory that falls under US/Californian law must comply with it.

I asked you a few posts ago if it was only Adult you were referring to and you pointed me to a basic education link trying to make fun of me instead of discussing things properly.

UK/ Asian/ Timbuktu listed sites either should be governed and complicit with a directory operating under Californian law as a whole,... or do not need to be complicit. Simple enough question ? Which is it.

There is no , yes but no but, it's a straight down the line answer. You said you'd given it. Have you changed your mind ?

 

I wasn't trying to make fun of you, if you still can not understand this subject after I have explained this for you in so many different ways and with so many different examples, you really need to consider talking a course to help you with reading comprehension.

I will try again:

1) DMOZ is an American corporation and therefore definition of legality is based on American Federal law and State law.

2) Is the site illegal according to US law or not?

A) If yes, don't list.

B) if No, then list.

Can you show me any US law that states a midwife practicing in UK is committing an illegal act according to US law?

Do not start typing again, show me an actual US criminal code that makes it illegal to act as midwife in UK.

 

Oh please, this just keeps getting lamer. I can't show you an actual US criminal code that makes anything illegal in the UK, yet I suspect some things must be illegal in the UK? Your logic is flawed.

 

No, The law is not made up by some editors, if it is not in US criminal code then it is not illegal in US and can be listed. That is the difference between my postings and yours, I rely on logic and law and you rely on, I think it is so.

 

As gworld said, shygirl, the answer to your very limited and blinkered question is:

A.

The other answer is that legality is only part - a small part - of what's wrong with DMOZ. Please do a search for all my posts on social responsibility for the rest of the answer.

That is most definitely true. please stop doing it.

 

Gworld, I never said the law is made up by editors. You aren't replying to anything I said, are there voices in your head?

Never mind, you don't have to answer that question either. I'll just run away laughing now. Thanks for the entertainment.

 

Gworld, You're wavering, splitting hairs and have changed your mind again about all listings being legal under Californian law.

Unlicensed midwifery legal ? No, not under Californian law and many other US states as well as many other countries. Practising midwifery in the Uk independently, perfectly legal as in most European countries.

Owing a gun in the Us legal ? yes, in the Uk, definitely not. 3 years minimum for possession of a firearm. Thats the whole point !!!
What is an illegal 'practice' or 'act 'in one country/ state is NOT in another. I've given you simple and non-adult examples above.

And here's the killer Gworld. I'm afraid to say that Dmoz listings WILL reflect that. Get it ? And they do. In all Dmoz categories Adult and otherwise. The listings reflect the diversity.

No it is not illegal to list a uk midwifery site in Dmoz, as it is not illegal to list US gun retailers although illegal in many other countries in the world. Therefore Californian law being quoted ad finitum to us ( me anyway) is tedious.

Illegal acts and extreme pornography was the question. Illegal acts and practices mean many, many different things in many different areas of the world. And they mean different things to different editors in different areas. It's absolutely impossible to quote laws for every single one, especially as most categories are NOT country specific.

Therefore, a set of common and conservative guidelines for all is the best and only way to go. Unless you can enlighten us with anything else ? ( but please, no law links, you keep changing your mind).

Bear in mind I am not talking about the morality, or the stomach churning factor of listings here, just the legalities of site listings in all areas.

Minstrel :

Go and start another thread on the above dearie, there's a good boy. We were and have actually been discussing legality for the last few posts. He said 'A' then changed his mind several times. You didn't read through obviously before throwing in your usual 'nice but dim' responses. As for trawling through your past posts ? No thanks, they were boring enough first time round.

 

I agree, I am laughing like hell Compostannie, but it might be the beer!

The editors are working hard to dump adult as we speak guys, NBC is tailing the administrators looking for an interview!

 

DMOZ can do whatever it wants. We can all agree on that.
People can sue DMOZ for whatever they want.

So far, site about Bestiality have been tolerated, despite the cruelty to animals. DMOZ chooses to all sites that advocate cruelty to animals. Do we need to start a thread about this as well?

What is more important? Protecting free speech? Or stopping cruelty to animals? Who decides?

Again, DMOZ can do whatever it wants, just as people who care about animals can create web pages (like this thread) discussing the issue of animal cruelty and DMOZ listings.

DMOZ can choose to allow sites that contain pornography to use the phrase "teen boy", and pretend that redefining a word now makes the site anti-pedoplhilia. Which words are okay to redefine, and which are not?

DMOZ can do whatever it wants, just as people can continue to believe there can be a better way, and even make more widely known the policies DMOZ advocates, like accepting sites about "teen boys" and bestiality.

 

Your failure to understand the issues is not my concern, shygirl, as I've said more than once before. And your failure to understand something does not make either the point or me "dim". Quite the contrary.

As for gworld's points, he has not changed his mind or his stance, not in this thread and not in the last couple of dozen threads here.

 

At the risk of trying to engage you in a sensible discussion what you say is true, but you need to take a step further back than that. The ODP is a directory built by a community. If that community were given the option of having a code of social responsibility then what do you think the outcome would be? I think they would choose at least some social responsibility

At the moment the situation is that the representatives of directory owners have said that listing certain types of sites is OK, presumably based on some sort of legal advice.

The difficulty would be, and will always be; where should the line between "covering the full breadth and depth of human knowledge, representing all topics and points of view on those topics" and "Social Responsibility" be drawn.

 

Well, an idiot can see that "Bloody Rag Sex" is insanity to list

Do we really need to list the other descriptions?

You can find them on your own!

 

The record of DMOZ does not bear you out on that opinion.

 

I asked you before, show me the US or California criminal code that states practicing midwifery in UK is illegal or stop making excuses. If you can not find any laws in criminal code that makes midwifery in UK illegal then it it is legal and can be listed. It is typical of you and Annie to never give a source for what you are claiming and only rely on I think so.

If you can not show any source for your claim then stop making these ridiculous claims.