DMOZ Supports Child Porn?

I've said before internal DMOZ threads can make anything here seem tame by comparison. Strong debate yes, the occasional insult and condescending comment yes, but I give as good as I get normally. Telling me to shut up is a red rag to a bull, as certain to be counterproductive as is possible and most editors who know me know that. Besides, I wasn't alone. And my beef with Adult isn't really about having an Adult section, live and let live. As long as matters that involve kids are dealt with responsibly and I don't just mean various content issues. And the appearance of corruption is removed by cleaning up the galleries and rewriting the guidelines (which at one point I would have volunteered for hand in hand with one of Adult's most ardent supporters).

Then it might be acceptable but as it stands it is a sleazy mess, a carbuncle that brings the whole of DMOZ into disrepute by association.

 

Very true, and it's not all bad . For this reason you'll never see 'adult' removed from dmoz and I agree with that.

The good thing about this is that we are talking about 100% human based reviewing, meaning there will be accountability. Hopefully this is an opportunity for a solution and is used to improve the ODP.

I have been reading many threads over the last year here at DP that eventually lead to comments such as 'global authorities needed' or some reasonable facsimile. As crap like this continues to surface I begin to see the need for such an authority. In Canada if your are caught with this crap (even in your cache) it's criminal and is swiftly dealt with as such. Here we have the web's number 1 source directory with it .

 

Or make me a meta editor and put me in charge of Adult. I'll let you know if I get the invitation but don't go holding your breath.

 

Which sections of the Adult category would consider "not all bad." There is the lovely "Death and Gore" section that has some questionable things listed (corpse mutilations, favorite suicide methods), and then the Recreation > Drugs category certainly poses no legal probelms, does it? Please, point to me to the "good" Adult sections. I want to check them out.

 

Good try to limit the discussion to one specific chapter in criminal code but just because a crime does not break one rule it does not mean the act is not illegal. Let's look at the text from US Supreme court:

"1. Obscene material is not protected by the First Amendment. Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 , reaffirmed. A work may be subject to state regulation where that work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest in sex; portrays, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law; and, taken as a whole, does not have serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. Pp. 23-24. "

sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law- This means that this section can cover child rape, sex with animals, sex with a corps or anything else that is illegal by state and federal law.

"2. The basic guidelines for the trier of fact must be: (a) whether "the average person, applying contemporary community standards" would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest, Roth, supra, at 489, (b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law, and (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. If a state obscenity law is thus limited, First Amendment values are adequately protected by ultimate independent appellate review of constitutional claims when necessary. Pp. 24-25. "

whether the work depicts or describes-

Depicts = To represent in a picture or sculpture.

Describe = To give an account of in speech or writing.

I think this makes clear that both pictures and texts about illegal acts are illegal.

4. The jury may measure the essentially factual issues of prurient appeal and patent offensiveness by the standard that prevails in the forum community, and need not employ a "national standard." Pp. 30-34.

standard that prevails in the forum community- Do yo know of any state or any jury that suggests child rape is fine and does not have any laws against it?

Why DMOZ editors are interested in such narrow interpretation of law to justify such listing while ignoring other criminal codes in order to be able to do so?

 

Doesn't it just show that law is open to interpretation? And since DMOZ is international, quote the Canadian law, the British law, the Dutch law, etc. Law won't answer this question unless DMOZ or an editor has committed a criminal act by listing the sites, which may or may not be legal. And once again, law shouldn't determine the answer because somewhere there will be a get-out clause that would need to go to court for a ruling. This is about universal rights and wrongs.

 

The majority of nations in this world have laws against sex with minors, sex with animals, and sex with dead people.

 

No, it doesn't show that law is open to interpretation. To show what DMOZ editors are doing, let me give you an example:

Lets imagine Mr. X has committed a murder. His defense attorney walks in and quotes the criminal code about armed robbery and then asks the cops, if his client has committed armed robbery. The cops of course say no he hasn't. Upon this answer the lawyer asks the cops to release his client because he is not guilty of armed robbery.

There are specific criminal codes as I posted that makes these sites illegal. I was thinking that you wanted to discuss criminal code in USA because that was what being discussed here. But I have heard from editors before that what law should apply because these sites are international. The Canadian law is even more strict regarding this matter and AOL executives and DMOZ editors would be under arrest by now and DMOZ shut down if they were located in Canada. I do not know of any country that does not have laws against child rape, do you?

Independent of universal right and wrongs, this activities are illegal and are against DMOZ TOS. Editors can discuss this as much as they like but it does not change the facts.

 

That's true but here we are talking about sites designed for adult erotic pleasure with stories about spanking children, and about child rapist networking sites that don't necessarily contain any pedophile material but which are nevertheless sick and encourage the bastards. And not just that but whether it is legal to link to such sites. Leave it to the authorities and courts to work out if there is illegality or criminality because this forum and the internal DMOZ one won't solve that. So its a distracting argument from the main one - that listing such sites is just plain wrong. So wrong there is no justification. And a secondary one that it breaches DMOZ guidelines and rulings.

 

Well, I'll try to tackle this one. How bout this. There are certain people that chose or can't afford the time for relationships .

Seriously, there are some acceptable forms of adult related products that could bt tastefully categorized and regarded as such, IMO.

 

Will you just stop your insulting and offensive insinuations for just a little while, you are attacking the wrong targets. Again. No editor here has attempted to defend these sites, they have just pointed out that your weapon is no use in the fight. Thanks but it has no bullets, find something else that will work.

 

Thanks for that link. I've been lonely lately. I might purchase me a "real doll".

 

What part of my post was wrong. I Think it was a very accurate description of what has happened. The editors has already decided as Pagode informed us that child rape web sites are not illegal by using the wrong section of criminal code.

Did you discuss the sections of criminal code that I referred to? Did pagode discussed it? Did any other DMOZ editor discussed it or everybody just found an excuse to justify listing of such sites?

Why there has to be any discussion about this at all, none of you has argued that child rape or molestation is legal and as such illegal activity can not be listed according to DMOZ TOS? Why none of editors who are reading this thread like to give us their opinion about these clear and indisputable facts? What is worse in editors opinion, warez and illegal software download site or child molestation sites?

I can only imagine that for many editors being a member of the club is much more important than what is right or wrong. I think you are the one who should start with positive attitude and instead of blaming me for editors failure start to discuss the questions and face the truth.

 

An update:

UGAS is not a content provider in a webmaster's sense. They do not provide content (images) to webmasters which the webmaster can build a site around. They provide content to people who wish to surf porn.

UGAS affiliate sites provide their own content. The affiliate relationship exists to share the income generated by member sign ups. It's an AVS affiliation not a content sharing affiliation.

Once again, the same person continues to provide misleading and incorrect information in an attempt to manipulate the DMOZ to harm his competitors.

 

Amazon, clickbank, ebay is not a product provider is a webmaster's sense. They do not provide (book, softwares, auction items) to webmaster which the webmaster can build a site around. They provide book, software and auction items to people wish to surf shopping.

Amazon, clickbank, ebay affiliate sites provide their own content. The affiliate relationship exists to share the income by member buying products. It's an affiliate not product sharing affiliation.

Please one of the web masters here provide DMOZ with 200 page of Amazon store, click bank store or ebay store, so they can listed for you in DMOZ.

 

Pagode said nothing of the sort. Stop twisting things and associating people with things they didn't say, it doesn't help the case. It is trolling, nothing less, and it is inappropriate when most people here are on the same side.

 

gworld - you claimed the sites were doorways to UGAS and that the content on cherryboys was not unique due to this affiliate relationship.

Cherryboys provides adult images, they password protect their content using an AVS, in this case the AVS they use is UGAS. For someone to access cherryboys' unique content they must become a UGAS member.

An AVS does not provide content to webmasters. It provides access to content for people that want to surf porn. The webmasters need to come up with their own content. So long as that content is unique, the site can be considered for a listing in the DMOZ. As with many other types of affiliates, so long as a site provides unique content, and the content adds value to a category, the site will be considered for a listing. An affiliate relationship does not automatically preclude a site for a listing.

 

I said:

What part of my post was wrong. I Think it was a very accurate description of what has happened. The editors has already decided as Pagode informed us that child rape web sites are not illegal by using the wrong section of criminal code.

Pagode said:

What part am I twisting things?

 

I didn't claim that. It was the information that was on entry page of UGAS(.)com and accessible to public as I posted here and viewable to everyone.
If you have other type of relation with them and they provide you with information that is not accessible to public and only known to DMOZ editors then I can not comment on it.

 

What are we fighting about here guys

Are these child porn sites still listed?

If so contact Federal agents and simply report them, it is simple, there is nothing to fight about here!