DMOZ and Extreme Pornography

Gworld, I didn't say "I think so" I said "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."

I was trying to be polite, sorry if I wasn't clear. The point I was trying to make is that US criminal code cannot make anything illegal in the UK. The US lacks jurisdiction to make UK criminal code.

It is typical of you to misquote the sources you give.

 

This is exactly the point, since you or shygirl CAN NOT show any criminal code that makes it illegal then both postings are just excuse and nonsense. The only purpose that kind of posting serves, is as a desperate try to confuse the issue of legality of sites and give an excuse to DMOZ editors to list illegal sites.

The issue is very simple:

Is a site about practicing midwifery in UK illegal according to US federal and state law? NO, it is not and CAN be listed.

Is a site without 2257 declaration illegal according to US federal law and is considered child porn? YES, it is and CAN NOT be listed.

 

Let's apply your line of reasoning to reality:

Q: Is a site [insert_topic] illegal according to US federal and state law?
A: NO, it is not and CAN be listed.
A: YES, it is and CAN NOT be listed.

Would mean:

• Is a site [of an assasin for hire in the UK] illegal according to US federal and state law? NO, it is not and CAN be listed.
• Is a site [promoting cock fighting in Mexico] illegal according to US federal law? NO, it is not and CAN be listed.
• Is a site [offering to sell handguns in Canada] illegal according to US federal and state law? NO, it is not and CAN be listed.
• Is a site [that buys stolen credit card information in Germany] illegal according to US federal and state law? NO, it is not and CAN be listed.

US law only applies to the US. Your answer is too simple to be useful in the real world.

Shygirls questions reflect the confusion caused by your oversimplification. If you feel you have a valid point, could you please stop using insults to avoid the discussion and just answer the questions? Of course, if you know you don't have a valid point that would explain why you're chasing your tail again.

 

Any editor that really wants to know the answer to this question, search the internal forums for keyword 'illegal' and author 'rdkeating25'.

 

I am not engaging in a nonsense discussion with you that is designed to confuse the issues and partly is the result of your lack of knowledge about legal issues. When you have taken the time to study the issue and can show example of the sites that you want to discuss or the part of criminal code that you want to use, then we can discuss it.

It is useless to discuss with someone who uses I think so as the only source in the discussion about legality or illegality of different web sites, especially when the "I think so" changes on the hourly bases.

 

How on earth do you come to that conclusion? That makes no sense whatsoever.

DMOZ is located in the US and subject to its laws. Promoting murder or other illegal activities is illegal no matter where those activities may be occurring. Additionally, US and most other nations have agreements with and uphold international law. I cannot think of a single nation in the world where murder for hire is legal.

 

I know gworld is an editor and he should do as you say ish, but the poor guy's very confused. Seems he just can't get past the simple parts. Have some compassion.

 

Post it here too, there seems to be A LOT OF EDITORS who do not understand this issue. In their mind, the US federal and state law are irrelevant. DMOZ legal obligation as an American corporation is irrelevant and the only thing that matters is "I think so".

You really don't get it. He meant you don't understand it, otherwise ishfish would love to prove me wrong. Look at his previous post in this thread, he has already supported what I am posting.

 

Gworld said only US laws apply. You're right, it makes no sense whatsoever, it can't work that way.

[Added] Gworld, you know there are no DP members here, editor or not, that can speak for DMOZ as a corporation. We're only people and we are allowed to say "I think so" and have opinions of our own.

I followed your simple formula and got some bad results, anything you care to add to the formula to bring it more in line with how DMOZ guidelines really work? Or should we just dismiss your reasoning in this case?

 

Let me rephrase that, Annie:

Is a site [of an assasin for hire in the UK] illegal according to US federal and state law? YES
Is a site [promoting cock fighting in Mexico] illegal according to US federal law? PROBABLY
Is a site [offering to sell handguns in Canada] illegal according to US federal and state law? YES
Is a site [that buys stolen credit card information in Germany] illegal according to US federal and state law? YES

 

If that's the case minstrel, then I am mistaken. I'm not a lawyer so I can only say what I think (sorry gworld) but I don't see how US Federal laws could apply to activities in another country as long as it stays out of the US so I'm not convinced that it's US laws that make those activities illegal in other countries.

International law and the laws of other countries do not fit in with Gworld's formula, only US/California law. He said if it isn't illegal under US/California law, then list it. Maybe he didn't express himself properly, but he did say that, several times with really big colorful letters. And it doesn't make sense.

 

The problem is not with the formula, the problem is with your obvious lack of capacity to follow the simplest instructions. Legal matters are usually complicated and there is a need for basic understanding of the subject before engaging in such discussion which you obviously don't have. Take ishfish advice and read the DMOZ guideline and any other material related to basic knowledge about legal issues before making comments that are totally irrelevant.

It won't help. It will be like discussing Freud with someone who is in the kindergarten, no amount of rephrase will help.

 

Gosh gworld, it seems way back where this started you really meant to say the Answer is C
Answer is C) only some categories are because (fill in the blank here)

That would make more sense, wouldn't it?

 

The answer is still A, other than that refer to my posting before your post, at least read the basic and minimum amount of literature about this subject and everything becomes clear to you.

 

Thank you for the good advice, I've read at least the basic and minimum (probably more) about this subject. The problem with your answer is that the whole thing falls apart when you rely ONLY on US/California law, it's just not that simple. Under certain circumstances we HAVE to consider more than US/California law. We have editors globally, they all have to obey the laws of their country. You should go back and read what rdkeating wrote about it, I already have it memorized.

You're saying A but you really mean C.

 

I mean A. It is possible that you have memorized what rdkeating wrote but it is a very very big difference between MEMORIZING something and UNDERSTANDING it. You have obviously failed in the second part.

 

ODP as an organization needs to follow US federal and California state laws.
Individual editors need to follow their local laws.

Editors are expected to know their local laws. If it is illegal for you to view/add/edit/whatever a site about TopicX, then you should not do it. If it is illegal for ODP to list a site (Nintendo ROMs and child porn are two example in the guidelines), then you should not list them.

I really don't understand what you're arguing about.

Heh. I don't think so, not without his permission.

 

I hope this clears it up for all the editors that come up with nonsense excuses. If you don't want to post it, may be you can reworded, so it will be easier for some editors to understand and post it here or send it to them by email.

 

Jesus christ, gworld is still going on about 2257 laws??

Look, this is so simple that a mentally handicapped rhesus monkey could understand it.

The US has a law that requires Adult sites from the US to have 2257 statements on them. That's it. The law does not apply to sites that are not from the US. Therefore, a site from Germany that is in compliance with German law but does not have 2257 info on it is not breaking any laws. How could it!?

gworld - if you have it in you, I'd like to see you make a direct reply to this post and explain EXACTLY how I am wrong. Please explain to all of us how US laws apply to other countries. Silly tactics such as twisting what I said, mis-quoting, insulting, ignoring the post, or replying with an answer that has nothing to do with the question will be proof positive that you are up to your chin in BS.

 

Thank you for the reality check sid, I was afraid gworlds world was trying to take over the real world.