Yes... I don't claim to know what the admins are thinking at all or what they can or cannot differentiate between. You said "People have already been arrested in USA because of their "free speech" was in favor of terrorism." I showed that the article you linked to did not not say what you said it did. You replied with "The sites listed in DMOZ also say that adult should show some man love to children, so there is the same call to action in both cases." I again showed that this statement was false - the sites do not say that. You completely avoided the fact that I had shown that your statements were false by changing the topic and replying with "Do you know something about what excuse the Admins are going to use? All this arguing about the wording, makes me wonder if "It is not illegal" going to be their excuse." Do you want to keep chasing your tail or would you rather work with editors in trying to get these sites removed?
Obviously you didn't read the article and you were only interested to find something to justify that DMOZ listings are not illegal. If you read the rest of the article, you could see that his lawyer was repeating exactly the same thing that you and some other DMOZ editors are saying in defense of pedophiles: Defense attorneys argued that the case was about freedom of speech and religion. "All this man has done is exercise the rights all American citizens have," MacMahon said in court. "He has uttered words, folks, mere words." As you nicely mentioned previously from the beginning of article, he was convicted. This part of the article is very interesting to: But Ruth Wedgwood, a law professor at Johns Hopkins University and a former federal prosecutor, said Timimi's words could make him as guilty as the people who followed his advice and flew off to the terrorist camps. "If one's demonstrated intention is to procure a violent act, that's not protected speech,'' she said. I think the words that man love to children should be "ALLOWED" can cause violence against children unless you also think that children will enjoy and benefit from man "love".
If you work with sex offenders, you learn quickly how they create and perfect their specific "techniques of neutralization" leading up to the actual commission of the sexual assault. This applies especially to pedophiles, who sometimes spend considerable amounts of time planning their offenses and "preparing" their victims. I suppose you can play with a semantic debate about what "immediate effect" means but I can assure you that hearing someone else say that child sexual assault is acceptable does have an "immediate" effect on the rationalizations of the offender and in due course that will be translated into another child sexual assault, make no mistake about it.
Huh? Please clarify. Listing sites with an "AFFIRMATIVE VIEW" on pedophilia does incite and increases potential abuse of children tremendously IMHO. For a pedophile to receive affirmation by a third party of his/her sick views is dangerous and increases the likelihood of transitioning between fantasy and reality. It is you sidjf that has failed to make a case on the legality of presenting such views in a positive light. Your points on "AFFIRMATIVE VIEWS" on pedophilia and terrorism are weak to say the least. DMOZ has a responsibility to NOT promote criminal or socially detrimental behavior. "AFFIRMATIVE VIEWS" on Terrorism, arson, genocide, rape and murder are just a few Categories we should NEVER see at ODP. I am still amazed by the fact we are even debating the issue. It would be bad enough if DMOZ were some obscure little directory tucked away in a small corner of the Internet. But we both know that is not the case. The DMOZ listings spill over into AOL and Google. Listings are duplicated in the Google Directory and have a positive effect on rankings in the Google Search Engine. I would hope the DMOZ Admins act responsibly and help stop the spread of this disease …….. or at least NOT help it. ~VegasMack
Damn I can't believe this thread is still going, and the DMOZ havn't removed the websites. What a crock. Nice to know that all the legit websites are in a "good neighborhood" :/
Yep. 80 pages of posts. Almost 1600 posts. Over a month (36 days) since the thread was started. And the Admins are still trying to make a decision. If you ran your business this way, how long would you stay in business?
This is not meant to be defensive of the listings in dmoz (I think I've made it clear that I would like for them to be removed). I'm just curious as to where you guys stand on this, or what ideas you have (especially minstrel). If dmoz should not list sites that have an "AFFIRMATIVE VIEW" of a crime because it will cause people to commit the crime, where do we draw the line? Do you think movies that make violence/murder look "cool" (an "AFFIRMATIVE VIEW") cause people to kill others? I'm thinking of movies like Pulp Fiction, Natural Born Killers, and a multitude of others like them. If so, should we not list any sites about these movies? What about music that encourages people to kill or commit suicide? Should we not list those bands? How about religions that encourage people to spank their children (considered child abuse by many)? Should sites about those religions not be listed? This is a serious question, not some silly "slippery slope" BS. Where do you personally draw the line on things like this?
I think there is a difference. I haven't seen either of the two movies you mention because I'm not a fan of violent movies but generally such movies aren't "affirmative views" of murderers and don't have happy endings for the killers - they may explore the mind of a killer but they don't generally (at least the ones I've seen) endorse or promote murder as a normative practice (except in a cartoon way). As an analogy, I might have difficulty coming up with a definition of spam that would be the same as your definition in terms of the words we use but I don't think either of us would have any trouble sorting spam and non-spam emails into piles with a pretty high degree of interrater reliability. Re: your example of music that promotes violence... "Should we not list those bands?" - if that's the entire musical output of those bands is pro-violence, maybe not. Re: your example of a religion that promotes spanking (actually don't all of them, with the exception perhaps of Buddhism?) - spanking children is not the sole focus of any religion that I know of - you can list religious sites without highlighting and endorsing/promoting sites that use religion specifically to promote child abuse, can you not? You can list a site about the Catholic Church and not list another site promoting child abuse in the name of the Catholic religion, no?
As an analogy of my own. The thread has gone too far. Point exactly is just take away the listing is what the majority here wants. It is not about the goodness of other listings. It is for the childrens sake. Just plain and simple and just like that.
If you are thinking about DMOZ situation then this question is not relevant at all. DMOZ is not exactly the big defender of democracy, free speech and openness and there are many sites that everyday will get deleted or not accepted on arbitrary bases. DMOZ can delete any sites that editors want as they are doing everyday at present time. If your question is more general and philosophical then may be the 1973 US Supreme court (Miller V. California) decision can be interesting for you: "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. 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." I don't think, any body can argue that having sex with 6 year old is not illegal or such encouragement has social, scientific or political value.
sidjf, I have stated my views as honestly as I can in Post #1584. Why are you not hearing us? ~VegasMack
I believe Incest is also illegal in most or all states. Why is DMOZ promoting Incest on their site? Also, what is the DMOZ stance on "smothering"? This is some sick stuff.
The Open Directory now has a new category description for http://dmoz.org/Adult/Society/Sexuality/Activities_and_Practices/Pedophilia/
Pedophilia is the condition of being sexually attracted to minors, particularly prepubescent children. The ODP lists sites dealing with this topic only in the Adult section. Sites listed in this category cover a wide range of views about pedophiles and pedophilia, including ones that are highly controversial. Sites listed in this category include articles, reports, essays, academic studies, organizations, and other types of material presenting various points of view. Material not to be listed includes sites that make available and/or distribute illegal materials; sites that solicit or abet illegal activity; links to image galleries that include children; sites that include visual or audio depictions of minors in explicit sexual activities (i.e., child pornography); visual depictions of children in sexually provocative poses; or any other visual or audio material that aims to sexualize children in a manner that appeals to prurient interests. Interactive sites (such as forums, blogs, and wikis) may be listed in the category, however they will be rejected or removed if they are observed to tolerate user-posted content as prohibited in the above paragraph. In addition, sites that promote access to members-only chats, forums, or similar areas will not be listed.
Nice cut and paste. I've read it in the meantime. So what business does this site have being in there? http://ww w.boylove.host.sk/reports/report.html
The new category charter is the first stage of reconsideration of this category, which is expected to lead to listings being removed and the 'affirmative views' sub-category being removed.