DMOZ Supports Child Porn?

Have you ever heard, You scratch my back and I'll scratch yours?

It is an unholy alliance of money and kink, they need each other to keep the status quo but because of public pressure, it is a struggle too.

I am sure those who are only interested in deep linking and money side will be more than happy to get rid of these sites but for the other side money is of no interest but protecting these sites is.

 

Well, whoever it was that made that decision, it was a damn stupid one.

 

Stupid is a point of view. what seems like stupid to you, can be smart for the one who made that decision.

 

That sir, in undoubtedly true.

 

Ditto. Shameful. Disgraceful.

Ditto.

My question is, how many editors are willing to continue editing when such things can happen. Any editor who has strong feelings on this and hasn't commented so far please do add your comments internally - make them listen.

 

I have to make assumptions because I can't see logs. But I would also assume that if another editor saw a note I had left saying not to list the site because it wasn't listable, they would respect that. But we can play the you are assuming game forever more. My point from the start (internally) is the appearance of abuse and/or impropriety. Which is created by the deeplinking practices. After more than 3 very active years I found it impossible to tell the difference between abuse, sloppiness, and "normal" editing in Adult branch.

 

Exactly - this is a point I have tried to make repeatedly.

Even if DMOZ were successful in cleaning up ALL corruption and self-promotion and other unfair practices among its editors, it would not help the directory a bit if the public perception of corruption and arbitrary practices remains.

And before someone starts singing the old official DMOZ song again about disgruntled webmasters, that is NOT the issue.

 

Is there a difference?

I think this is the way it works, an outsider see it as ABUSE, a non-adult DMOZ editor explain it as SLOPPINESS and an adult DMOZ editor consider it as NORMAL, just another deep link for their affiliate programs, selling porn and earning commission.

 

In passing, that idea of making editing logs publically viewable is a very good one.

Gworld I'm pretty sure you did call me a paedophile, but since you admit you don't know me i'll take that as a sort of retraction, and move on... to answer your question, and for the record, I do find the idea of listing sites actually inciting people to commit crime very, very wrong. No matter what the crime. But there is a considerable difference between inciting crime and debating a law. Should I be silenced in my attempts to debate the legalisation of marijuana because someone listening could somehow feel inclined to actually break a law based on my arguments?

All laws and social stigmas should be under constant debate and vigilant review, don't you agree? Today, on the very day Abraham Lincoln was born, that principle should be more than obvious to you. It should be close to your heart and guiding your life. So whilst sites inciting law breaking shouldn't be listed, sites debating the illegality of an action should. It's an important distinction to make (though I'm sure you'll just flame me and say i'm 'repeating DMOZ free speech bullshit' rather than think this through. Furthermore I've never actually read or participated in any Adult-related or free speech-related discussion on DMOZ, and other editors here can confirm this)

Banning things that 'could perhaps make something seem more acceptable to someone so that they might then go and do it, even though it's not actually saying they should' is draconian and retarded. That dimwitted logic opens the door to removing categories like http://dmoz.org/Arts/Movies/Genres/Organized_Crime/ (let's all admit it, the Godfather is the IMDB #1 film of all time and could be construed using exactly your logic to be making organised crime, money-motivated assassination, extortion and racketeering seem more acceptable to someone) or http://dmoz.org/Arts/Music/Bands_and_Artists/5/50_Cent/

I'll come through and touch ya, walk out then cut ya
In case your dumbass wanna tussle
AR-15, co-exist to make the shell case muffle
Scope, ?? run you're still dead
Hit your calf, hit your ass, hit ya back, then your head
Contract killa, murder for the scrilla
Search, find a nigga, run up behind a nigga
Shoot car windows out to flatline a nigga
Gun pop, heart stop, homie this is heavy
You on your way to meet your maker, nigga are you ready
No exception to the rule, death is promised
Plus I just bought my niggas new macs and llamas
Got respect for you, ?? I will comodate you
One phone call and niggas will exterminate you
No future fuckin' with me, there's no tomorrow
niggas'll run up on you tonight and hit ya the hardest

When you avoided my question (If you were DMOZ, how would you define in your own words exactly where to draw the line) it was implicit you struggled to answer it. That's because either you do the puritan thing and remove any portrayal of violence, illegality or immoraility, since it wouldn't even have to portray something in a good light to inspire or encourage someone to do something - hell, even Charles Manson was convinced by The Beatles that there was a racial and nuclear war about to happen, how indirect a link is that! That's an extreme example, but is a useful markerpost for how extreme you could be in drawing the line in your misguided but well-intentioned attempt to protect people. The simple truth is, it's an 'all or nothing' decision. Either you opt for puritanism (see below for my thoughts on puritanism), or you admit that to ban things that aren't telling people to break the law or hurt people is three steps back for one step forward.

Puritanism and shying away from debating existing laws because it could make that illegal activity seem more acceptable to someone to the point where they'd actually go and break a law (hey, I think the US should scrap or tone down the Patriot Act. Quick, shut me up before some terrorist reads this and goes and blows up a building) is naive, ultraconservative, unfair, draconian and based on a fundamentally flawed interpretation of human behaviour. Flame away.

 

Let's put together a loving attitude about free speech, Abraham Lincoln, 50 cents, marijuana and patriot act in magic mixer and come up with conclusion that we should help and support the poor pedophiles.

1- freedom of speech is not an unlimited right. There are many limitation implied by courts, governments and society. I can not stand up in crowded theater and yell fire, are you going to complain that I am denied my rights because of that? I can not publish articles on how to produce nerve gas and how to release in public transport system to maximize the damage, are you going to complain about the limitation on my freedom of speech?

2- You are well aware that in DMOZ we are not talking about medical site or informational site about pedophilia, We are talking about sites that help pedophiles to connect, organize and commit crimes and that is the reason even DMOZ lists these sites in adult section and not in the general section since the primary use for such sites is by pedophiles.

3- Forum for pedophile networking has no justification such as social value or artistic value to qualify it for protection according to free speech rights and if we want to use the legal terms, it is only used for conspiracy to commit a crime which is a child molestation.

"Conspiracy has been defined in America as an agreement of two or more people to commit a crime, or to accomplish a legal end through illegal actions.
...............
A conspiracy does not need to have been planned in secret in order to meet the definition of the crime.................
Finally, and on a more technical legal matter, conspiracy law usually does not require proof of the specific intent by the defendants to injure any specific person in order to establish an illegal agreement. Instead, usually the law only requires the conspirators have the agreed to engage in a certain illegal act. This is sometimes described as a "general intent" to violate the law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_%28crime%29

4- Just by listing these sites, not only DMOZ is listing illegal sites which is against DMOZ TOS but also DMOZ and it's editors are also guilty of criminal recklessness.

"Criminal law recognises recklessness as one of the mens rea elements to establish liability.....................
The test of any mens rea element is always based on an assessment of whether the accused had foresight of the prohibited consequences and desired to cause those consequences to occur.The three types of test are:

1- subjective where the court attempts to establish what the accused was actually thinking at the time the actus reus was caused;
2- objective where the court imputes mens rea elements on the basis that a reasonable person with the same general knowledge and abilities as the accused would have had those elements; or
3- hybrid, i.e. the test is both subjective and objective. "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recklessness_%28criminal%29

I think any reasonable person can have the foresight that the result of helping pedophiles to organize and network among themselves will be the molestation of many children which makes DMOZ editors responsible at minimum for criminal recklessness and it's worst as a participant in conspiracy to molest children.

The question is why DMOZ editors are ready to list illegal sites, go against DMOZ own TOS and possibly be part of a criminal act to defend pedophile sites in the name of free speech and avoiding censor while the same editors based on their own opinion decide not to list many other sites on daily bases and censor those sites? After all, DMOZ editors are not known for their love of openness and democracy, are they?

What makes me and many others here confused is; what is so special about pedophiles that DMOZ editors are ready to take so much risk for them?

 

As I said, if a site is helping pedophiles commit crimes then we should immediately delist the sites. Why we haven't temporarily moved all of them to Test (our invisible category) whilst we decide what to do, I don't know. I would prefer to err on the safe side.

A lot of what you have said above, for example defining conspiracy, cannot be applied to the sites i'm talking about (in fact as far as I know, paedophiles don't usually 'network', 'organise themselves' or conspire to commit paedophilia?). I really appreciate the time you have put into researching these to back up your case but I get the impression you haven't visited the sites you are talking about. Like you though, I'm not comfortable with chat rooms and forums for paedophiles.

Again, your secong Wiki quote also doesn't apply - nobody (as far as I know) at DMOZ has ever 'desired to cause those consequences [i.e. any sort of law being broken] to occur'. mens rea means, literally, 'guilty mind'. I know a few posts back you were howling that we were all paedophiles (myself included) but I'm sure deep down you know that's not the case, and so would a jury.

All I said was that we should listen to counterarguments from time to time with an open mind in case we got it wrong (like Hitler did with the jews, the USA did with black people, Iran does with atheists and catholics, and so on). In light of the counterarguments we can still decide that paedophilia is wrong - I do. But letting someone make a counterargument is not and will never be the same thing as letting them encourage crime; like I said, it's not only a profound misunderstanding of the criminal mind to think they are the same thing, it's also a case of one step forward, two steps back.

Obviously if a site is illegal in most countries where editors reside, and it is against our own ToS, it should not be listed. You and I certainly don't disagree on that point. When it comes to these illegal sites (remember I said that according to your definition not many of these sites could actually be construed to be illegal) I think your time and mine would be better spent reporting them to the relevant authorities (FBI in the US, right?) since otherwise the sites will be still out there, DMOZ listing or not (remember how you guys are always telling us nobody uses DMOZ?)

 

1. that simply is not true - there have been some rather high profile examples in the past decade of where exactly that has happened - there is a current inquiry in Cornwall, Ontario, looking at this issue, just for one recent example, but there have been several others

2. if they are congregating in pro-pedophilia sites to encourage one other to accept neutralizations/rationalizations for molesting children, what else would you call that?

If you promote hatred against some racial or ethnic group and somebody is murdered or seriously injured as a result of that, do you think you will sleep well at night knowing you didn't intend for anyone to die? If you discover a week, a month, or a year from now that some member of one of those pro-pedophilia forums or chat rooms has just raped another child, do you think you will sleep well at night knowing you didn't intend for that to happen?

 

There is no if and but about it. The main user of these sites are pedophiles and it is a resource for them to molest children. It was moved to test for a couple of hours by an editor but was listed again very fast, which makes us again wonder, why these sites are so important for few editors that these web sites can not be in test section under the time being discussed and editors rather to take the risk of hurting children than not having these sites advertised?

Really, why not? Do you have an argument or you just don't want to accept it. In post #1114 I quoted the following from the statement for the record by FBI:

"Finally, on-line chat rooms, Internet news groups -- electronic forums that cater to special interests and topics -- and e-mail are used on a daily basis by pedophiles for trading and distributing child pornography. These sites are often filled to capacity by users throughout the day. The availability of low cost scanners and software that allows the capture of original still photographs and video images from television and video recorders as computer graphic image files has made it possible for pedophiles to take original pornography and facilitate its distribution to other users of the Internet and on-line services.

In July 1996, 16 members of a group that often frequented a chat room known as the "Orchid Club" were indicted in federal court on a variety of charges involving the production and distribution of child pornography, as well as conspiracy. A joint investigation by the FBI, the United States Customs Service, and the United States Postal Inspection Service determined that individuals used the chat room to arrange for and transmit child pornography. While in the chat room, they also discussed their involvement and desires in molesting children. What was especially significant in this case was that many of those conspirators later admitted active participation in child molestations within each of their own geographic locations.

One subject of the "Orchid Club" case admitted to having sexual attractions to girls age four to ten years old. He also admitted to writing diaries of his sexual desires for children and to secretly videotaping children at playgrounds. During a search of this subject's residence, investigators found approximately 700 floppy diskettes, 100 videotapes, diaries, writings, books, magazines, clippings, and related materials that indicated the subject's sexual interest in children."

Who knows more about this subject, you or FBI? I take the FBI opinion over yours if other like to accept yours is their choice.

There is no need to have a desire to cause the consequence for criminal recklessness, as long as it is reasonable to expect that consequence was foreseeable. A street racer who drives a car in a residential area at 100 MPH, doesn't have a desire to hurt anyone but if he does as result of his fast driving, it is a criminal recklessness because he should have known that he can cause an accident.
Let me ask you, as reasonable person, what do you think is the consequence of DMOZ editors helping pedophiles with marketing their site, so they can connect and organize?

Are you seriously suggesting that there is a social merit for discussions on why child molestation should not be illegal? Even if we as a society decide to be so crazy to seriously discuss this, how does helping child molesters to commit illegal activity has anything to do with discussion of this subject in law or moral? The only chat and forums for pedophiles can help in this regard will be that they molest so many children that society start to look at it as "normal" instead of illegal, is this DMOZ editors aiming to do?

It is illegal in all the countries that I know. Both the activity of these sites and description of these sites encouraging illegal activities are against DMOZ TOS which brings back the question one more time, why these sites are so important for editors? These sites and also DMOZ should be reported to authorities and in one my previous post, I even posted links to web sites that can be used for reporting.

ACPO (Antichildporn.org)- Link to reporting page

ASACP (Association of sites advocating child protection)- Link to reporting page

The problem with listing in DMOZ is that it help with search engine placement which in turn help with bigger marketing of these sites but I just love your last defense: "DMOZ is useless, so you shouldn't care".

I have answered your questions as best as I could, so I will be thankful if you could answer my questions:

1) what do you really know about a pro pedophilia editor, except his handle in DMOZ and an identity that editor provides in bit and pieces and possibly can be all fantasy?

2)There have been judges, doctors, policemen, politicians and priests who have been pedophiles, what makes DMOZ editors so immune that they can not be a pedophile?

 

You want to listen to pedophiles to see if you have it wrong about them and what they do? What if you come across a pretty eloquent one who convinces you that child rape is perfectly natural? You may not have any inclinations such that you would be open to such arguments but there are plenty of others just waiting for someone to convince them.

"Can"? There is an option? What about those who decide that in the light of the arguments it is OK to rape the little girl next door?

An educational site that explains the reasons why people commit this crime is not the same as a pedophile forum where they can get peer support for their behaviour. The latter does encourage crime.

...the editor must not list it.

...all editors must not list it.

And another one - no-one has yet explained why these sites are not covered by the AOL Staff ruling previously mentioned twice.

When it comes to these sites, I think it is worth spending as much time as it takes to make every editor aware that the organisation they volunteer for contains sites targetted at pedophiles as "customers". That DMOZ has endorsed these sites as meeting the quality requirements for listing. And take time to make sure the parents of every underage editor - those aged 12 and 13 are not only editing in such a directory but mixing in forums with editors who support those listings. The legality or otherwise is frankly a minor factor as to whether DMOZ lists the sites. Legalities are for lawyers and they can twist anything.

Straight forward - DMOZ lists sites targetted at pedophiles, not people who want to know more about the condition, pedophiles themselves. Are you as an editor, or the parent of an editor, comfortable with that decision such that you can continue to edit with those sites listed and alongside editors who have no problem with them being listed. I couldn't and I believe that a large proportion of the decent folk who make up the editor community couldn't either. If the argument to remove them cannot be won by debate and Admins continue to resist polling editors officially then that isn't the end of the matter by a long long way.

What sites are you talking about - the chat room forums? And there are two types of pedophiles, the ones no-one knows about who keep it in the family, and the ones who actively prey on kids. If the latter did not network then how do you explain the major issues with pedophile materials circulating on the Internet and the busting of pedophile rings?

 

Agreed. Educational sites about pedophilia shouldn't be listed in Adult, which is for adult-oriented web sites; primarily sites with explicit sexual content. Instead, they should be listed in a new pedophilia category under Society/Issues/Children,_Youth_and_Family/Child_Abuse/Sexual_Abuse or Society/Sexuality/Sexual_Addiction.

 

If people spent more time doing what they could to stop this than arguing to defend a point maybe there wouldn't be a problem.

You want a clear line? Pedophelia. Anything involving it. Get rid of it.

If you want another clear line in the future, I'll draw one for you then.

 

I've got a better idea: Just delete the damn things and be done with it

And then list a notice under Society/Issues/Children,_Youth_and_Family/Child_Abuse/Sexual_Abuse/Criminal Wankers in Favor of Child Rape/ that will simply say:

 

It seems quite clear that even DMOZ editors who were defending DMOZ in the beginning has realized what is happening and given up on defending DMOZ and trying to convince everyone that "AFFIRMATIVE VIEW" listings and "PRO PEDOPHILIA" editors are just simple mistakes.

From what I heard from some of editors, the situation inside DMOZ is also the same and the editors who don't agree with "PRO PEDOPHILIA" editors are more or less been told that they can leave if they don't like the "AFFIRMATIVE VIEWS".

I am glad that search engines use robots and are not "Human edited" like DMOZ since I have never heard of pedophile robots.

 

I don't think we need to go as far as that Gworld.

However, I do again fully agree with Minstrel's above post, just get rid...and sadly am seriously now considering my own editorship in light of this thread, the internal discussions and first and foremost, as a mother.

I can only applaud sid, brizzie and pagode for their endeavors internally in this matter, and for the Dp'ers who have brought this matter to the attention of those who otherwise would have been unaware.

 

How is it possible that a few corrupted (if not corrupt) editors or admins within DMOZ have acquired that mauch power that even when numerous editors are telling them their policies are unacceptable they can sy "if you don't like it, leave"?

I really do not understand how DMOZ has allowed a situation like this to evolve.