DMOZ Supports Child Porn?

Correct me if I'm wrong but suicide IS illegal, is it not?

The law just has a hard time punishing dead corpses...

So, wouldn't that be advocating a crime?

So ODP is commiting a crime by promoting those sites? Am I right? Or did I simplify it too much?

 

Not everywhere. But that isn't the point. It's never been anything but a small part of the point. The point has always been social and moral responsibility and accounatbility.

 

And let's start the book burning like they did in Fahrenheit 451, or like the Nazis did, or like ,,,,, here.

I can see that the illegal stuff is left out of the directory. I can not fathom the censorship that you are proposing. Let's start at eating disorders, then abortion, then suicide, and after a while, what will we have left? Will you ban nose-picking sites, also?

For Removing All ODP Nose-Picking Sites​

 

Oh, yes. Here we go again with the 'free speech" versus "censorship" card.

1. it's a totally bogus red flag
2. it's pure unadulterated smokescreening
3. it betrays utter ignorance of the well-established principle that one person's freedom ends when it begins to infringe on the rights and freedoms and well-being of another, which is well-entrenched in every democracy in history

Do you have any other utterly irrelevant and pointless comments you'd like to make, gboisseau?

 

Freedom of speech is irrelevant? What you are suggesting is not democracy - it is communism - pure and simple. Give me a break. How are someone's rights being infringed on by listings in the directory?

Your comments in these threads are pure, unadulterated smokescreening. You constantly insult the editors that work hard to grow the directory by pretending that you are superior to us. Why don't you get off your high horse and try being an editor?

 

Did you even read the discussions about freedom of speech and limitation to freedom speech in this same thread?
Can you also show me where in communism ideology says that it should not be any freedom of speech? It seems you are as ignorant about communism as you are about freedom of speech and democracy.

 

Why would I want to be an editor in an organization that openly promotes and endorses websites that are demonstrably injurious to the physical and psychological well-being of vulnerable members of our society, and even contribute to the preamture deaths of many of them? Indeed, why would anyone want to be an editor in such an organization?

Do you think that has anything to do with the fact that DMOZ editors continue to leave in droves?

 

Did calling me "ignorant" make you feel any better? Here we go again, trying to make others believe your point is valid by insulting those who disagree with you.

Try searching for references to communism and the limitation of freedom of speech. Here

or go to Tinanmen Square and see if they have "freedom of speech".

 

​

 

And what is China got to do with communism? Do you know how many new millioners have been in China in the last decade? America suppose to be Capitalist and free market to, then why they are punishing Canadian softwood lumber by protectionist custom duties?

The fighting words doctrine, in United States constitutional law, is a limitation to freedom of speech as granted in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution In its 9-0 decision, Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942), the U.S. Supreme Court established the doctrine and held that "insulting or 'fighting words,' those that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace" are among the "well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech [of which] the prevention and punishment of...have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_words

Dr. Elsebeth Baumgartner currently faces up to 109 years in prison in the U.S. state of Ohio for her criticism of, and accusations of corruption against, government officials in Ohio.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech

The right to freedom of expression is not absolute in any country; governments always prohibit certain types of expressions. Under international law, restrictions on free speech are required to comport with a strict three part test: they must be provided by law, pursue an aim recognized as legitimate, and be necessary (i.e., proportionate) for the accomplishment of that aim. Amongst the aims considered legitimate are protection of the rights and reputations of others (prevention of defamation), and the protection of national security and public order, health and morals. It is generally recognised that restrictions should be the exception and free expression the rule; nevertheless, compliance with this principle is often lacking.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech

Don't you think that it will be a good idea that you at least try to learn about these subjects before discussing it?

 

I think it's a waste of time and ammo, gworld. Discussing anything with people like shygirl and gboisseau is like trying to have a conversation with lumpy oatmeal. They're intent on holding onto their little delusions - it's what keeps them happy.

 

And the above statement is relevant in regards to the listings in the ODP? Give me a break. How about quoting the beginning of that article?

Quote

"Freedom of speech is the concept of being able to speak freely without censorship. It is often regarded as an integral concept in modern liberal democracies. The right to freedom of speech is guaranteed under international law through numerous human rights instruments, notably under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, although implementation remains lacking in many countries. The synonymous term freedom of expression is sometimes preferred, since the right is not confined to verbal speech but is understood to protect any act of seeking, receiving and imparting information or ideas, regardless of the medium used."

 

Spoken like a true healthcare professional.

​

 

I was just showing that you don't know very much about communism or free speech and just try to use these concepts in defense of DMOZ policies without really knowing anything about it.

 

Welcome to the "bad list" guys - sidjf, orlady, and I (among others) are very pleased to have you join us.

 

You argue about free speech while people suffer and die. And you pretend you have nothing to do with that.

Keep washing your hands. You're going to need a lot of water.

 

Wow! I didn't know that listing sites in the ODP is causing people to suffer and die. Where is Michael Moore when you need him? Maybe he could make his next movie called "Fahrenheit ODP".

 

The problem is that you and others know this but in your pursue of higher editorial rank in DMOZ and the benefits that you imagine it will have for you, just don't care.

 

gworld, I don't agree with gboisseau, although I think that your argument is way too simplistic. For myself, I hate hierarchies, so I give a s*** for climbing up any ladder there.

 

Editors have the personal right not to review or list sites they object to. An editor who believes that the site in front of them is socially irresponsible or is liable to promote suffering and death, is fully entitled and obliged by their conscience not to review or list it. But unless it breaches corporate guidelines they cannot reject or remove it because of their personal moral stance. Exercising that right has no impact on one's DMOZ "career" so you are trying to establish some spurious link that does not and cannot exist. Neither is any editor responsible for the moral and social stance of any other editor. You can argue with them, educate them, persuade them if you can - you might feel it is your moral duty to do so. But if they maintain their position then you either agree to disagree or leave the editing fold on principle. Gworld - you are an editor. If all editors are responsible then you are responsible. Why don't you resign on principle over these listings? Or do you think that whatever your purpose within DMOZ is overrides being personally responsible for death and suffering?