If your application of the law was not faulty - then why is the FBI not pounding on the doors of all the porn web site owners in the US and filing charges against the lot of them? Maybe we should write our congressmen and have them urge the judicial branch to apply the law under gworld's translation of it - then we wouldn't have to worry about multiple listings in Adult or any other problems in Adult because it wouldn't exist anymore. That would be a happy day (for me anyway).
Because as I mentioned before and sifjf confirmed, most porn web site owners and none of major porn producers won't touch with 10 feet pole the kind of underground porn that DMOZ or it's editors try to market. There are many crimes that are never prosecuted and there are many criminals that are never punished but it is enough with one diligent prosecutor and it will be bye bye DMOZ. In the mean time, you can enjoy being a DMOZ editor even if it means protecting pedophiles and other illegality since it seems that is the only thing that matters for you.
Don't be upset, I am sure the Admins and Metas reading this thread will be impressed by your tireless defense of pedophiles and bestiality web sites.
lmocr, I think that's wise. This thread is getting silly, I mean really, aren't we getting into the mythical here? I know if someone tried to rape my dogs all they'd get is bit. And horses? C'mon, really! Have you ever seen the size of their teeth? or hooves? If you tried to rape a horse he'd step on you. These are just silly stories. The kids are real. Lets not get distracted.
DMOZ is kind enough to provide picture galleries for you. If you don't believe it, all you need is to go to DMOZ image galleries and look at the pictures. This is a link provided by "unselfish volunteer" work of DMOZ editors, so users can have "highly selective quality unique content". archive(.)beastmoviez(.)com/videos/index2.html Thank you, DMOZ editors.
gworld, you don't really believe everything you see in movies, do you? I have a book with photographs of unicorns. They look so real, yet I don't believe. I've seen pictures of dragons too. And who the heck took all the photos of dinosaurs we see?
There is no laws against unicorn or dinosaurs but there are obscenity laws against describing bestiality as I mentioned before. I wonder what is more interesting as mystical imaginary figures, unicorns or "volunteer" DMOZ editors in adult section? This is a link to real life bestiality that is mentioned in Seattle times, it was couple of months ago. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002384648_farm16m.html
If you're still hung up solely on whether those listings are illegal and nothing else, lmocr, may I suggest you get some help in banging your head a few more times into the wall? Because you clearly are not getting it yet. Annie, I'll agree that the priority issue now is the pro-pedophilia listings. But let's not assume that it ends there because clearly it won't and it shouldn't - it shouldn't for anyone that actually cares about the integrity of DMOZ.
Here is the difference for me. I'm sure it applies to others here, then can agree or disagree as they please. If a child is being harmed, or might be harmed, or anything related, then I care. If a site listed in the ODP has a very real chance of leading to the harm of a child (in a direct and intended way), then I am concerned about it and will fight to remove it. If someone is sucking a horse dong...I don't really care. If some guy is letting a horse bugger him...although it is slightly funny when he gets buggered to death...I don't really care. I can't worry/care about everything that happenes in the world, so I'm going to concentrate on the things that truely matter to me - like children being hurt. If people here want to continue making an effort to find absolutely anything possible within the ODP to complain about, they should be able to come up with a very long list (and will basically get nowhere). Personally, I have always wondered why the ODP has a beastiality image category. But I'm fairly confident that, no matter what barely relevent laws gworld posts, the pictures themselves are not illegal in California. So, I'm not going to bother myself worrying about it.
The laws I mentioned are Federal laws, so unless you have moved California out of United States and declared a new country, those laws are relevant. By the way, what is happening with Admins discussions about pedophilia? Are they still unsure if child molestation is good or bad?
If you still care at all about the integrity of DMOZ and/or the public image of DMOZ and/or being exploited by DMOZ editors to promote sites that you personally would never allow yourself to be associated with, then I am confused by these statements. Why don't you care? Why don't you worry about it? To remain silent is to give tacit approval to a policy which endorses and promotes sleaze in the name of free speech. As I said earlier, I agree that the worst are the pro-pedophilia links, but that is far from the end of the list. Are you saying that you will fight to rid DMOZ of sites promoting child rape but you won't do anything to rid DMOZ of sites promoting rape of adult women or men? or animals? That strikes me as a remarkably selective and blinkered viewpoint...
When I first moved to my current location about 17 years ago now I went for an induction at the main office in a market town some miles away and quite isolated. Talk of the town was the local farmer who was currently on trial for having sex with a cow. The main complaint was that he had fallen for a neighbour's cow and not one of his own. I believe he got 5 years in klink. I always wondered what he would have got had it been one of his own. Most little piggies are under 18 You wouldn't want to make one pregnant... They normally go for my leg... Californian or any US state law is irrelevant. The illegality policy is to prevent editors listing sites where they would be committing a criminal act by reviewing it. Virtually every site is illegal somewhere if only on some technicality. A Turkish editor was jailed for listing sites supporting Kurds but that does not prevent non-Turkish editors from doing so. Half of DMOZ is illegal in China and Pakistan, other countries where DMOZ editors have a tough time. Think of it as an AOL get out of jail free card - if you tell an editor not to list illegal sites where they live and they do and are caught then AOL has no responsibility or duty to assist in any way. You are reading the policy incorrectly as suggesting that no editor may list a site that is in some way illegal in California (or the USA), a practical impossibility. Since most editors are not Californian or even US citizens that would be a crazy policy. The universal constant is pedophile acts and it seems that is even a variable. As do I and I don't condone or support the listing of sites about bestiality. But it is an entirely different issue to pedophilia - the horse and the dog and probably the pig and the cow were not psychologically damaged by their experience. It is sick, it would be my preference that such sites were not listed, the webmasters should be reported to the authorities not rewarded with some free publicity for their sites, but it is simply not in the same league. Absolutely, 100%. Get away from the legality/illegality arguments - they are red herrings for lawyers and courts and have zero effect on DMOZ listing policies or there would not be Kurdish sites listed and others denying the holocaust, and Australian real estate agents with no ABN number on them, or sites advocating gay rights (illegal in some Arab states) etc. etc. DMOZ policy on illegal sites prohibits most Americans from listing bestiality sites, Austrian editors from listing holocaust denial sites, Turkish editors from listing pro-Kurdish sites, Zimbabweans from listing BBC owned sites, and so on. That is the extent of it. It is futile and impractical to argue these points on the basis of US statute. Even if you could show bestiality is illegal in every country you then have to show it is illegal to publish photos of it on the Internet in every country, and finally it is illegal in every country to publish a link to a site with such photos. You are going to fail at one of those hurdles. Same even with the pedophile chat room and forum sites. I think those chat rooms and forums are illegal where I live but whether it is illegal to publish a link to those sites I would very much doubt. Links have been published on this site. So I do not believe DMOZ has done anything it could be prosecuted for. That is why arguments MUST revolve around what is RIGHT as minstrel says. Dismissing legal arguments is not giving comfort to the supporters of listing these sites whatever the subject. Quite the reverse since in the end it comes down to whether publishing a link is illegal, and clearly it isn't so the argument is immediately lost. The strength of the arguments against listing lie in the moral and social responsibility arenas where it is impossible IMO to lose the argument. The main problem with the legal approach is that the sites might be illegal but publishing a link isn't illegal. That is where stalemate occurs - it comes straight back at you. And only a very few specialist lawyers are knowledgeable enough to have valid opinions on the fine technicalities. On the other hand giving support to pedophiles by publishing a link to their site might conceivably lead to a kid being raped and regardless of what lawyers think it is 110% wrong wrong wrong and everyone regardless of legal training has a valid opinion on that bit.
I think everyone except DMOZ admins and imocr already knows that pedophilia or bestiality listings are 110% wrong wrong but since they usually try to wrap themselves in "free speech" and "legal" flags, I was trying to show that such sites are both immoral and illegal. For some strange reason neither immorality or illegality is a deterrent for DMOZ to list such sites.
You must not have children, whether it doesnt offend you as an adult, does this mean you would want your child to see this? I say forget the laws, forget the free speech, do what is moral and what is best for our children. What I do in my own home in private doesnt affect the rest of the general public, what DMOZ does in public affects all those that see it. I dont expect most of the DMOZ editors to understand this cause I would guess most of you are young and dont have kids, but those of you that do have kids ask yourself, is this something I want my child exposed to. Those DMOZ editors that have children and still fight to keep this on DMOZ, should have your kids taken away from you, because your child doesnt stand a chance with your lack of moral fiber. There have been studies that show kids exposed to this type of garbage develope anti social behavior and end up having low self esteem issues, which leads to other social behaviors that society deems inappropreiate. Then you have the obvious, you are doing nothing more than perpetuating pedophiles desires of those wishing to do harm to children. I would bet and god forgive that one of your kids were molested by one of these pedophiles, you would be screaming to high heaven demanding this type of smut be removed.
*<insert sound of broken record here> If you think it is "illegal" - Call the police If you think it is "child porn" - Report it - http://www.asacp.org/ - http://www.fbi.gov/ If you think DMOZ should change it's policies - Become an editor and make an case/argument If you think it is immoral - Write to your local minister or congressman .. banging on about it here does nothing except waste bandwidth, increase DigitalPoints ad views, and stroke the egos of some posters. W
How do you know it hasn't been done? It has already been suggested and done. Is this the same way that brizzie, alucard and many others made a difference? It is more effective here to rattle DMOZ editors chain and force Admins to pretend that they want to do something. None of your business. This is not resourceless zone and you don't have anything to say on how this forum is managed. P.S - What are you worried about, losing your pedophile, bestiality or adult deep links?
Once again DMOZ editors cant silence opinions or delete comments as the do in the resourceless zone so they try to red rep you. The editor that left this note after repping me, you must be a sad individual to leave this comment when we are dealing with a serious issue such as this. One day when you get out of puberty and have kids you will understand, until then get your kicks from all those nice DMOZ listings you defend.