DMOZ and Extreme Pornography

Pc glitch whoops !

 

How conflicting is that statement ? You cannot have it both ways ? Which is it ?

Which is it that editors, the foundation OF the entire organisation, should follow ?

I'll leave that to Minstrel to answer since he says 'thank god for some intelligence there' in that post ??? The statements above are in complete and utter contrast to each other in listing sites in Dmoz ? That the organisation as a whole does need to follow US law, yet editors individually listing sites don't ?

Huh ? Doesn't make sense to me.

Looking forward to a reasonable valid response.

 

Any site which is illegal according to US state and federal laws can not be listed, no matter what and who wants to list it. Editors from different countries are advised not to list a site that is against their local laws in order to avoid legal problems in their own country but other editors can list it. As an example is listing of Kurdish organization by a Turkish editor that got him in trouble while an editor from UK or USA could list those organizations without any problem.

No surprise there.

 

No you're not. You're either trolling, or not smart enough to understand the answer. I've told you how to find the answer for yourself (hint: search ODP internal forums), then I told you the answer (paraphrased from staff), and you still don't understand. I'm not sure there is anyone capable of explaining it to you if you fail to do a little research on your own, and you don't listen to those that answer your questions.

If you really want to know the answer, and if you really don't understand, then you should ask in the internal forums. Continuing to do what you are doing here is not leading anywhere.

 

Thank you again, ishfish.

Shygirl, there is no contradiction whatsoever in what ishfish posted. Zero. Either you can't understand or you won't. I don't know which it is and I don't care. Anyone else with a modicum of intellgence and a basic understanding of English should have no difficulty whatsoever in comprehending what ishfish said. It is the clearest statement I have seen to date of the solution to what seems to puzzle some DMOZ editors. And like ishfish, I cannot understand why it was ever an issue for debate.

 

LOL. Who would have thought that in the end we will be the ones who agree with each other.

The problem is not with understanding this, I am quite sure that adult editors understand it. The problem is with implication of this guideline when editors have to remove a lot of profitable web sites.

 

No am not trolling.

Just genuinely starting to wonder how difficult it is to get a straight answer round here to a straight question without being told I am lacking in the old grey matter dept.

Dmoz as an organisation should follow US/Federal Law right ? Yet individual editors should follow their own local ones ?

No-one finds that a tad condradictory then ?

 

No. Try reading the WHOLE post:

If your local laws say it's illegal, don't list it (let someone else do it for you if you like but don't break your local laws). If US law says it's illegal, then it shouldn't be listed at all in DMOZ - therefore don't list it EVEN IF YOUR LOCAL LAWS SAY IT'S LEGAL.

Where's the contradiction in that? Perfectly clear.

 

Try to think of it as complimentary rather than condradictory. We should follow US Law for the directory as a whole, but keep in mind that individual editors also have to follow their local laws. It's not enough to simply say we follow US Law and nothing else.

 

...only as a reason for NOT listing, not as a reason for listing if it contravenes the US laws applying to DMOZ as a US-based organization.

 

Yes, exactly.

 

Does this mean that everybody including the editors participating in this forum are in agreement that sites which don't have 2257 declaration and therefore are illegal according to US federal law should not be listed according to DMOZ guidelines or are you going to find a new excuse to defend the "norm" and "accepted" practices in DMOZ adult in order to allow them to list illegal sites?

 

No. I don't agree with that.

I do agree that editors have to follow first US/California laws, and secondly their local laws as has been outlined. But you're still, as usual, trying twist everything to meet your own preconceived ideas.

 

I know you don't but this is no surprise. You have stake in continuation of listing illegal sites, it would have been strange if you agreed with this.

The question is very simple, those sites are illegal and DMOZ should not list illegal sites. What part of this, is my own preconceived ideas?

 

Amazing, you stay away for a few days and exactly the same things are going round and round in circles with zero progress made. I don't think it is that difficult...

a) If a site is illegal where the editor is located then that editor must not list it. That is to protect the editor. Other editors may list the site unless guidelines say otherwise.

b) ODP as an organization needs to follow US federal and California state laws. If said law says that a US website cannot publish a link to a particular class of website regardless of location, then DMOZ cannot publish a link to a particular class of website. Full stop / period. Because it would then be committing a criminal offence itself.

This is not US law attempting to extend its jurisdiction worldwide, it is merely governing the activities of entities within its jurisdiction.

Thus, a website for a UK midwife may be listed because there is no law preventing a US website publishing a link to it.

If there is a state or federal law saying a US company cannot publish a link to a shit eating site then DMOZ cannot publish said link regardless of the location of the site.

So on the 2257 question the issue is whether US law specifically prohibits the publication of a link to a site without said 2257 declaration. If it does then DMOZ is acting illegally. If not then DMOZ is not acting illegally. Equally, as US corporations, Google, Yahoo, MSN are also acting illegally by publishing links because they would be covered by the same concept - US site, US owned, link. Note that this is not saying that the site itself is illegal as no matter what Americans might think they don't have jurisdiction over foreign nationals outside their own territory who have not committed an offence on their territory. Hence Guantanamo. A Portuguese site with 14 year old models is legal. Everywhere because the only jurisdiction is Portugal. Only the Portuguese authorities can close it down and prosecute. But there is likely to be legislation in many other countries that forbid their citizens to access that site, view it, link to it, etc. So if US law says US entities must not link to the site then DMOZ must comply. If US law only prohibits the site from being owned or hosted in the US then DMOZ could theoretically list it without breaking the law itself but fortunately it has adopted a universal 18 year old minimum standard.

It is clearly not the view of AOL/DMOZ lawyers, nor Google's, Yahoo's, nor MSN's, that the publication of a link to a porn site without a 2257 declaration is illegal. Should that view change as a result of legal opinion or court ruling then no doubt the change will be reflected. Arguing it with editors is a futile waste of time - argue it with the legal department as theirs is the only legal opinion that matters. If you can't be bothered to do that then report DMOZ to the appropriate authorities, and Google, Yahoo, and MSN while you are at it, and let the law decide. Either way this thread will have zero effect on AOL legal department's interpretation of US law.

 

LOL. A new spin from spin doctor.

Now the question is not that DMOZ should not link to the sites that engage in illegal activities but there should be a law that says linking to that site is illegal.

Are you claiming that DMOZ should list any site which encourages illegal activities as long as there is no specific law that prohibits having a link to it? Do you really think people are that stupid or you just don't know what you are talking about?

Show me a law that prohibits having a link to a warez site. Show me a law that prohibits a link to a site that advertises murder for hire. This is just BS and a new spin, you know and I know it.

New DMOZ guideline according to brizzie, DMOZ actively supports and advertises any illegal activity as long as there is no specific law that prohibits advertising that particular illegal activity.

 

If linking to a site is illegal, then it shouldn't be linked to. But the guidelines on illegal sites are broader than that. The guidelines clearly state - "Sites with unlawful content should not be listed in the directory". (see http://dmoz.org/guidelines/include.html#illegal )

It goes on to define some sorts of illegal sites that cannot be linked from ODP. And at the very end of the illegal portion it says,

"The evaluation of the potential illegality of a given site is often difficult and requires case-by-case review, particularly in cases of copyright and trademark infringement. We don't expect editors to be legal experts or the Internet police. Editors should consult with ODP staff about all legal issues. The ODP staff reserves the right to delete or modify site listings at their discretion."

 

Thank you. I was just on DMOZ site, so I could quote exactly the same thing when I noticed that you have posted this.

In this case with adult sites and 2257 declaration, nobody can claim they are not aware of the situation, the problem arises when a Meta encourages the editors to list the illegal sites against DMOZ guideline.

 

Gworld, why did you bring up the issue of 2257 declaration in a thread discussing extreme behaviour? Are you saying that the sites depicting eating human waste need a 2257 declaration? Because if you are, I don't think the 2257 issue is the strongest arguement we can come up with where those sites are concerned. They're beyond icky.

 

LOL - make it up as you go along but try arguing the points not rewriting my posts according to what suits your motives. I am not the one doing the spinning and I didn't say at any time DMOZ should link to any site on any subject, merely that legally it could unless specifically prohibited from doing so. You are trying desperately to show that DMOZ is acting illegally. It isn't according to the available evidence. Thus the whole argument about DMOZ being a US company, needing to abide by US law and implying that it isn't, is nonsense. It is abiding by US law. I have consistently said that relying on legal arguments is a futile dead end, my position hasn't changed.

In the absence of illegality on the part of DMOZ it is guidelines / policy that determine what is listable and what isn't and as ishfish says those guidelines are far broader. Thus, rightly, whilst DMOZ might not be prohibited by US law from linking to a Portuguese site featuring a 14 year old model, guidelines / policy dictate that the minimum age of models should be 18 and that is the DMOZ standard for what is considered child porn. I think there is a case for considering other sites that it is not illegal to link to and imposing similar bans - beastiality and necrophilia sites for example - because the content itself or the activity it portrays is illegal in the majority of jurisdictions. DMOZ bans many other types of perfectly legal sites - mirrors and affiliates for example - on other grounds.

However, I note that you are not saying there is a law that prohibits DMOZ from linking to porn sites without a 2257 declaration, and I presume therefore you accept that in so linking DMOZ itself has committed no offence under Californian or US Federal law and has not behaved illegally.

So what are you left with? Arguing policy and guidelines, which are not legally binding, and which are for DMOZ itself to interpret. DMOZ appears to have made that interpretation - sites with models under 18 are banned and a 2257 declaration is not a requirement for listing a porn site. Whether this is right or wrong is up for editor debate with a view to changing the guidelines (I have no opinion on 2257 declarations one way or another other). But it seems clear DMOZ is not itself acting illegally whichever way it goes and your claims that a meta editor was encouraging editors to behave illegally was incorrect. The only possible breaches here are of internal guidelines on the listing of unlawful content sites and the arbiters of whether that has happened are Admins and AOL staff who appear to have rejected your arguments that 2257 applies globally. Whether you think they are right or wrong is immaterial since they are not acting illegally in taking that stance.

Once more for the record, I oppose the listing of sites that portray or facilitate the commission of (universal or near universal) offences like necrophia, beastiality, rape, child porn, pedophilia, bomb-making, assassination. But that is not to say that I believe DMOZ is necessarily behaving illegally by linking to such sites.