Unless the sites are to do with children and sex, in which case there is a top level ruling not to list regardless of legality. And lawful where exactly? Every country has its own laws. It doesn't say ODP endorses the views of a listed site but it is an endorsement of the quality of a website. A listing in DMOZ says that the site has been properly reviewed by an editor and is of high quality: We care a great deal about the quality of the ODP. We aren't a search engine and pride ourselves on being highly selective. We aren't talking about people with a shoe fetish or who endorse farting in an elevator. These are sites where child molestors and rapists gather and network. Where they convince one another it is normal to want to sexually abuse their niece/nephew/son/daughter/neighbour's kid. Encourage and promote sex with prepubescent children. That isn't a case of "goes against the "norms" of society" it is a case of the greatest obscenity that exists and the Internet is their primary method of operating. How can anyone defend their right to network? They have no rights. Except maybe to a cell in a maximum security prison after having "child molestor" tatooed on their foreheads.
Whoa! Go, brizzie! You are absolutely spot on there in all respects. There is no way to out it any better than that! Good job! At a certain point, I can feel (and have felt) some charity toward child molesters... but that point is when they are (1) off the street and unable to reoffend, (2) taking responsibility for the harm they have done to their victims and not trying to justify it through their rationalizations and "techniques of neutralization", and (3) in treatment for their sexual deviance. Unfortunately, many child molesters never get to that point and even for those who do the success rate is alarmingly low.
Here is my post quoting the ruling from US supreme court that such sites are illegal- Link to argument and case. Here in this post I show that illegality is not a matter of pictures or text- Link to argument This is the post which quotes the law that such material are not protect by free speech - Link to argument and case law The interesting point about above case is that since it mentions "to advertise" and since it is hard to argue that listing in DMOZ directory is not an advertising, it can be argued that DMOZ and it's editors can be charged with misdemeanor in regard to advertise material that is obscene or indecent. I have quoted US supreme court case laws that confirms such sites are illegal, can you or another editor tell us on what case law are you basing your legal opinion that such sites are not illegal?
Porn, the biggest business on the internet..... Digital Point members = dummies that don't understand that editors can make a fortune from these sites Sex Sells is the old saying on Madison Avenue
Please don't confuse the issues anthonycea - there is no commercial gain in listing pedophile networking sites. When it comes to those sites financial corruption won't enter into the equation. Moral corruption maybe.
Is there profit in listing the other sites I linked to in my prior posts http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=617048&postcount=758 Give us an honest opinion!
Well, if that is the case then they should be removed. However, that it not in the guidelines. So you have visited these sites? Any site that advocates statutory rape would be directly promoting a legal activity in any case and should not be listed. A site that wishes to DEBATE the issues is not necessarily illegal. Jurisdiction is an interesting and important point. Strictly speaking, the ODP is subject to the laws of the United States and California. There does exist, of course, the First Amendment which gives considerable protection to the ODP, but there are many other laws that are relevant too. If under the laws of California and the US, it turns out that linking to those specific sites is unlawful, then it should be raised with AOL Legal (rather than posting it in Digg). Child pornography is pretty much illegal everywhere, so that's almost a no-brainer. However, sites listed in the ODP do not have to comply with US laws - particularly 18 USC Section 2257 regulations, if those sites are hosted outside the United States. (However, no editor should carry out any editing function that would be deemed illegal in their own country or state.) If a site doesn't comply with Section 2257 regulations AND it is hosted in the US, then is it illegal? Probably. Should it then be removed? Probably. Although this is a nontrivial job which would actually benefit from a wider involvement rather than just ODP editors. Perhaps there are some people at DP who really care about this stuff other than just DMOZ bashing. I suspect that a few of the members here would really like to take down sites with illegal content. That's a noble cause - but that involves considerably more work that posting a couple of articles to Digg and coming up with paranoid fantasies about the ODP.
If the sites are illegal then they should not be listed. But are the sites illegal? You are just supposing that they are. Yes, the links you've posted are very relevant. But they have to be judged against the actual content of the site.
I am glad you are talking law now because you are going to need a team of lawyers to help you out real soon! Are you going to address the questions, can DMOZ editors can make money off of these vast listings of porn sites or are you going to now become an expert at law in a vain attempt to shield DMOZ from potential lawsuits If I start a porn directory and point a bunch of links to my sites, do you think I could make some money
Am I supposing? I have quoted the ruling from US supreme court (The highest authority in the land) that these sites are illegal and it is so clear cut that anyone can understand it. Do you have any case law that shows such sites are not illegal?
I've given you the quote, you know the source. Quotes from that source normally have the force of guidelines. Why do you insist on keeping referring to laws and legalities? DMOZ does not have a guideline to say you must list sites if they are legal. This is a moral question of rights and wrongs first. Secondly it is a community issue - continue to list this category and those sites and DMOZ will lose many editors. Thirdly it is a responsibility issue - DMOZ has underage editors. If you can't understand these points override US legal considerations then I feel very sorry for you and very pleased I no longer edit alongside you. You give comfort to those child molestors and rapists, actual and potential, and that is unforgiveable.
You know Brizzie if I ever said anything bad about you I take it all back. What you say is 100% correct and whether you are a dmoz editor or not this type of material and so far the reasonings we have heard from some Dmoz editors as to why these listings meet guidelines should turn your stomach with what they are implying.
Whoop whoop. It's that noise again. Why am I going to need a team of lawyers? Is it because I'm coordinating the vast AOL-ODP-Time Warner Child Pornography Cabal that you think you've spotted. Who did you say I was? Another waste of ones and zeroes, that post of yours.
So if there is a case law that robbing a bank is illegal and it is based on case that mentions the branch of Bank of America and some one goes and robs a branch of first national, we can not argue that he should be convicted because the case mentions bank of America and not first national.