DMOZ and Extreme Pornography

If we can not convince DMOZ, not to list illegal sites then how are we going to convince them not list questionable sites?

It seems a site being icky as you describe it, never stopped DMOZ editors from listing the site and with a multiple listings for shit eating, rape, torture and bestiality sites, it seems icky is a kind of specialty for DMOZ adult editors.

 

Can you show us where DMOZ has made such interpretation in the guidelines or from lawyers? The only thing that I have seen in internal forum is a meta encouraging the editors to list illegal sites but I don't think you can call that official guideline.

Let's summarize what is clear and it is proved by quotes from sources:

1) site without 2257 declaration are illegal according to US law.

2) Site with illegal content should not be listed according to DMOZ own guideline.

Do you agree?

 

Repeating the same nonsense over and over (and over and over) again does not make it true gworld. Only the most feeble minded of people could possibly be buying into your arguement at this point.

 

Duh? Guidelines are guidelines, interpreting the guidelines is something an editor does. In the absence of debate or contradiction from on high, a meta statement can be considered to be the correct interpretaton of a guideline - you've been an editor for a long time, you know that.

If you say so.

Since a Portuguese site with 14 year old models and no 2257 declaration is completely legal, no illegal content, you are saying that DMOZ should list such a site? It is a good job there is an 18 and over policy in place to prevent that.

You are trying to make some link between the need for DMOZ itself to follow Californian and US law and so not commit a criminal offence - we have established that it isn't doing that - and what is considered unlawful content - which is generally a passive stance that leaves site legality to the appropriate authorities to determine except in a small number of specified examples such as child porn where a guideline or policy provides for rejection without action by appropriate authorities. In the absence of a guideline telling editors to actively reject sites without 2257 declarations then the decision as to whether such sites are illegal or contain illegal content is for the courts to decide, not for editors. If a court declares a site to be illegal then DMOZ will remove the link under its internal guidelines. Alternatively a site can be referred to the AOL lawyers as provided for in the guidelines as well.

 

Sid, run to DMOZ and list couple of illegal sites, this discussion is for those who are not involved in listing illegal sites and can have an open mind on this subject.

 

You spelled "argument" wrong, sid. You also got the argument wrong.

As was the case with shygirl, just because you can't or won't understand it doesn't make it incorrect.

 

Typical of a troll, when your argument falls apart you start changing the focus of the discussion...in this case to a typo...

 

Did you not read the remainder of my post, sid? Or did you not understand it?

 

Oh, I read it. But it was just your typical farfleglub that you spew out when you have nothing real to say and just want to see the pretty colors on the screen as you type - so I didn't feel the need to respond.

 

As you were then. Please resume your usual activities of listing dubious, borderline, or illegal pornography in DMOZ and ignore anything I say.

As I said to shygirl, I've given up trying to educate those who will not listen.

 

This topic may go on for years, because there are stong arguments on both sides.

Bestiality
"teen boys"
eating tampons
eating shit

I stand by the belief that DMOZ can do better than this. You call it trolling. I call it a belief that things can be better.

 

I don't call the discussion of whether dmoz should be listing such sites trolling at all. I think it's a worthwhile discussion for sure. The discussion of whether the sites are legal or not is not worthwhile. The discussion of 2257 laws has nothing to do with it and just a further attempt by gworld to hijack threads and derail threads that might actualy bring about improvement (why? Because he doesn't want to see the ODP improve). Trolling is what I call minstrel's attempts at redirecting discussions when he and his buddy are failing.

 

It can and it does. You entire initial list represents a miniscule percentage of sites listed. And listed by a miniscule percentage of editors out of the 70,000 who have passed through over the years. Whilst there are categories I would happily argue for banning your arguments have to have a solid foundation based on something more than personal morality and dubious finer points of law. Universality of legislation against an activity and the existence of unwilling victims (including animals and corpses) are far more effective as arguments than yuk factor which every editor knows will never be accepted as a reason to reject or remove a site.

 

I'm sure it was only a minority of Nazi officials who approved and ordered the Holocaust, too, brizzie.

You know full well in your heart that as long as there is rot in the directory it infects the entire directory. You know and so do all the other editors what is there. You either cut out the cancer or you encourage it to spread.

Cancer starts as one bad cell. AIDS starts with a single infection point. Eventually, they kill the whole body.

Part of the problem? Or part of the solution? You choose.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

 

I will actually side with sidjfon this one.

 

Do you ever read a whole post, sid?

My point was that justifying anything using the claim that it's only a minority is by definition rationalization - aka smokescreen and bafflegab.

I'm sorry if I interrupted your normally scheduled activities of adding more sites such as those referenced by David Duval. Then again, I did suggest you ignore all future posts by me, didn't I?

 

There is an official guideline that says illegal sites should not be listed. There is an admin post that states legality is based on US law and you chose to accept a Meta that encourages the editors to list illegal sites.
May be that is the reason you are becoming such spin expert.

It is not what I say, it is what US federal law says as it is quoted in my different posts and can be also looked at on Justice department web site.
Are you playing with your spin games again. Show me a US law that declares site with 14 years old are legal. The base of legality for a site is US federal and state laws and nothing else.

Answer me one question, by now we all know that these sites are illegal, why DMOZ editors fight so hard to keep listing sites that can involve minors in porn if it is not because they are profiting from such listing? What kind of human beings will fight every attempt that is trying to end exploitation of minors in porn industry?
Do really decent editors who care about the children, want to edit in directory side by side of people who are ready to sacrifice children for their own personal gain?

 

Show me a DMOZ guideline that declares a site with 14 year old's are legal ?

Waiting ? And tapping fingers...

 

For your own sake and to protect the sanity of everyone else in this forum, please take a class in reading comprehension. Your posting has nothing to do with the quote that you used from my post.