You are dreaming again. It is illegal according to US law and US law is the only thing that matters in DMOZ when considering the legality of the site. Are you suggesting we should list illegal sites, like the Meta does? If a server is offshore, it doesn't mean it is legal, it only means that US law is not enforceable and FBI can not arrest these people. My second post was to clear that even from moral point of view, you don't have a leg to stand on either. Why do you want to list a site that can have minors in it and breaks the law? Why don't you care about the welfare of minors and would like to list sites that can exploit minors? I have nothing against you listing porn sites but why can't you hold yourself to legal sites? To show what a nonsense sidjf postings about different countries and laws is, this is directly a quote from an Admin in child porn thread: In applying this charter, editors should remember that the ODP is based in the United States, so the definition of "illegal" is based on United States law. Anybody like to guess who this Admin is? It is orlady.
Ah, yes. The old "disgruntled webmasters" ploy. Tired and lame, just like sid. The fallback when none of the other smokescreens are working. You of all people are accusing someone of "clouding issues"? That's rich, sid.
Excellent! I am not an expert "Digger", but I have added my comments and I think I have made my first Digg! Yippee!
Certainly if a group of us really wanted to put some resources behind it, we could digg this story into public awareness. It would be interesting to see how such a story would be reacted to by the genreal public if we could get it on the digg front page.
Wouldn't you be embarrassed when people started checking and found there is no child porn? I agree that it would be interesting.
News Flash...if you are a US corporation you must abide by US laws. According to those US laws it is iilegal to show nude pics of anyone under the age of 18. Forget the 2257 or anything else. Dmoz is owned and oporated by a US corp, therefore they are bound by US law. Hosting has nothing to do with this. The reason these people host out of country is to keep the US goverment from shutting down their sites for violating these laws. The US can not go in to another country and enforce US laws to shut down these sites. As an example look at the online casinos. Not a one of them is a US corp...why? Because it is against US law to gamble in several US states. Read their disclaimers, if your country/state prohibits gambling your are violating federal and state laws by placing wagers on this site. Since Google uses this data from Dmoz it is subject to those same US laws as is AOL. Dmoz is facing an uphill battle with this subject. Google is now going to be facing the same battle since it uses Dmoz data and this may change Googles stance for using data from ODP. With all the recent attention Dateline has brought to this subject matter there will be more pressure placed on those who promote Child Porn. I have personally sent a letter to our congressman here to point out this issue with a link to this thread. I would recommend to all those on this forum who agree Dmoz is promoting Child Porn to do the same. You can find your state representatives HERE
Try reading, sid - it's already been answered. What term would you prefer to describe "lolita" sites, Annie?
Any porn site that does not have 2257 declaration is against US law. it does not matter if it is legal in another country, it does not matter that the US law can not be enforced in that country. The site is illegal. Now you can answer my question. Why are not you concerned that such sites, that do not have 2257 declaration can be using minors in production of porn? Why don't you care about if minors can get hurt? Why is there any need for DMOZ to list sites that can be participating in porn production with minors instead of listing legal sites? Why is it so important for you to list sites that are breaking the laws at least in US and even more important can be hurting under-aged children?
If there is a site listed in the ODP that claims to have underage models, please let us know immediately so that it can be removed and reported. Hopefully they tax you extra next year for wasting their time. As has been said repeatedly. Dmoz does not and never has listed child pornography. If you find a site listed in dmoz that has child pornography or claims to have child pornography please point it out to us so that it can be removed and reported. Can you find any?
Let's make it a little easier for sid, gworld - how about multiple choice? 1. sid likes those sites and needs to have them at the ready when he's in a smut-surfing mood 2. sid is making money from promoting those sites 3. sid owns some of those sites 4. sid would one day like to own all of those sites 5. sid holds the rights to the images in those galleries 6. {add your own option here, sid}
lol, back to the old tactic of accusing people of being pedophiles or producing child porn and beastiality when your silly arguements fail. Predictable and pathetic. Minstrel - is it possible for you to debate a topic without crazy allegations against people? Or is that really all you have to work with? Or maybe it's that you know the arguement you are trying to make is so weak that it's not even worth the time to come up with real points, so you just make up accusations instead. Weak chum.
No actually sidjf, one of my employees worked for John Ensign as his exec asst. So she contacted him and put me in touch with him and he wanted to have me send this in writing to his office. As for the extra tax LOL I would kick a few more bucks to the goverment to rid it of the likes of Dmoz. Maybe once Dmoz is gone you wont have to long of a wait in line at the unemployment/welfare office. To be honest thats where my tax dollars will probably go anyway. SIDE NOTE Annie I expect my site to be listed by end of the week I know that you might not want to go against Hutch but hey a deals a deal
The best you can come up with so far is a site that has the word "lolita" on it. A site that expressly claims not to have any underage models on it. It's just a word... What would be the point of someone creating child pornography and then selling it as normal pornography??? Wouldn't it make more sense to just use legal models?
2257. Record keeping requirements (a) Whoever produces any book, magazine, periodical, film, videotape, or other matter which— (1) contains one or more visual depictions made after November 1, 1990 of actual sexually explicit conduct; and (2) is produced in whole or in part with materials which have been mailed or shipped in interstate or foreign commerce, or is shipped or transported or is intended for shipment or transportation in interstate or foreign commerce; shall create and maintain individually identifiable records pertaining to every performer portrayed in such a visual depiction. ................................... (f) It shall be unlawful— (1) for any person to whom subsection (a) applies to fail to create or maintain the records as required by subsections (a) and (c) or by any regulation promulgated under this section; .......................... (i) Whoever violates this section shall be imprisoned for not more than 5 years, and fined in accordance with the provisions of this title, or both. Whoever violates this section after having been convicted of a violation punishable under this section shall be imprisoned for any period of years not more than 10 years but not less than 2 years, and fined in accordance with the provisions of this title, or both. Why do you think so many adult sites closed after this law came out last year, if it is not such a big deal as you claim? You still haven't answered my question: Why don't you care about the welfare of minors? Why do you want to help web sites that can even hurt 1 minor? What is wrong with legal porn that you are so supportive of web sites that do not care about the law and possibly can use under-aged models in porn production?
I asked about sites in Denmark. You showed me laws that apply to US sites. This may come as a shock to you, but US laws only apply to the US. Sites not from the US need to adhere to whatever laws in the country they are from. Furthermore, it still wouldn't be illegal to view a site from the US that did not have 2257 info on it (providing it was not child pornography). The only person breaking the law would be the owner of the site. Read your own post again: It's illegal for a webmaster in the US to fail to create or maintain 2257 records. That's it. It doesn't say anything about viewing the sites or about other countries. You just proved my point. Thanks. Umm, because a lot of the sites were hosted in the US? I didn't see any non-US sites closing due to this law. Stick to the moral arguement. The legal arguement is too easily proven false. I've answered it quite a few times actually. I do care about children and child pornography. If you find a site listed in the ODP that claims to have child pornography, then please let us know so that it can be removed from the ODP and reported to the authorities. All this excitement about child pornography in the ODP and you guys can't find any. Your credibility is somewhere just below zero right now.