DMOZ Supports Child Porn?

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.

Orlady - Admin in DMOZ

It is funny that you always like to talk about my credibility, I have trust in people and let them to be the judge of that and it seems they have already made a judgment about your credibility.

I think it was the fact that you do not care about the welfare of minors and are supporting organizations that are breaking the law and possibly hurting minors through the production of porn was a give away about your motives and credibility.

 

The Effects Doctrine of Internet Law

(1) intentional actions
(2) expressly aimed at the forum state
(3) causing harm, the brunt of which is suffered--and which the defendant knows is likely to be suffered--in the forum state.
(4)a preliminary injunction may be based, at least in part, on every entity physically present or registered in the United States.
(5)all entities that are registered or physically present in the US are covered by State and Federal Law.
(6)effects and harm are covered by state law, en masse to federal law.

I just wish that the FBI would be reading this forum statement as the editor defending such action would be liable to a State and Federal prosecution. I just don't understand why he seems fit to defend Child Porn. These are some of the reasons why DMOZ is a secretive organization, to avoid prosecution. But in any case, I have sent this thread to the proper authorities and Child Organizations so that it could be further read, evaluated and studied. Leaving this here would not constitute to any actions. I leave it to them.

 

Yes, I am sure there are a number of organizations that would love to get involved in helping to prevent DMOZ from supporting child pornography.

 

If you want to help the cause and you believe in the protection of children please report it to these sites. All reports are treated confidentially.
http://www.antichildporn.org/
http://www.cybertipline.com/

 

It's good this issue is expanding.
Forgive me if by some stretch that we are completely wrong for questioning this highly "questionable" material, but when there are children at stake, I think it is important to question until we are sure they are protected.

 

I gave you a multiple choice question, sid - have you never seen one of those before? Hell, I even left you a "fill-in-the-blank-with-your-own-selection" option to make it easy for you.

By the way, sid, have you any concept of what the old saying "Live by the sword, die by the sword" means? Or perhaps "what goes around comes around"? Or how about "he can dish it out but he can't take it"?

 

What is a mystery to me is the fact that adult editors need to support illegal sites. It is not like that there is a shortage of legal porn sites.

 

dvduval, IMO this was a very good thread to start. Since the start of this thread, for the first time, many editors have been made aware of listings that we all felt were unacceptable even though they were not illegal, they were dangerous and immoral. Since then we've accomplished a lot.

I agree that when there are children at stake we have a duty to do anything we can to protect them. That's why I put myself through an emotional hell over the past several months to work on the pedophilia categories. That's why I continue doing it. I'm sorry no one here seems to have noticed the changes, but I'm personally secure in the knowledge that there have indeed been major changes.

It's a shame that the thrill of the fight seems to be driving some posters here to ignore those accomplishments. The first time around I took it seriously. If we ignore what's been achieved and start over at the beginning then I can't help but wonder if those arguing are doing it for the thrill of the fight rather than a real concern for children.

A valid topic in its own right. Why not start a topic about it if this is really something you care about? Why try to mix it up with child pornography and pedophilia? You can't make a logical arguement tieing the topics together. Even if records are kept, child porn is illegal and wrong. Heck, even if it wasn't illegal I think we can all agree that it would be immoral and wrong and dmoz wouldn't list it with or without a 2257 statement.

It's a separate fight.

 

From the justice department:

Minors are incapable of consenting to perform in sexually explicit depictions and are often forced to engage in sexually explicit conduct. For these reasons, visual depictions of sexually explicit conduct that involve persons under the age of 18 constitute illegal child pornography. The record-keeping requirements, codified at 18 U.S.C. § 2257, are crucial to preventing children from being exploited by the production of pornography.

2257 is not merely a book keeping procedures, it ensures that models used in production of porn are not minors by forcing the porn producers to keep records that certifies the age of the models. I can not understand, why is it so hard for you to see that 2257 is a tool in fighting child porn.
Do you believe that child porn only covers a certain range of ages or those children who get involve in porn, do not deserve the protection of law or our concern?

 

Gworld, you know this is a silly question to ask me. Have you forgotten how hard I worked on the pedophilia issue?

If you want to play like a hamster in a wheel and take this thread on an endless loop, be my guest. I think I'll sit out the replay since there's real work to do.

 

I am not questioning your work on pedophilia issue but we are all different and have different opinions, so I am trying to understand why you don't think the issue of 2257 is important in fighting child porn. For example some people might think that sex with a minor of 14, 15 or 16 is not a child porn because they are old enough to consent. Some people can think that children who get involved in porn deserve what ever happens to them. As I mentioned before, just trying to figure out, why you can not see the importance of this law for fighting child porn.

 

I haven't. But that doesn't mean the job is done or that the pressure to clean up the rest of those sites should be dropped.

This isn't about you personally or the work you have done to date, and no one is asking you to do any more than you've already done (I realize it was a difficult task for you). It's about acknowledging that the sites removed so far are only the beginning of what needs to be done. And it's about calling people like sid and others, ALL others, who are trying to defend sites LIKE the "lolita" sites (and note sid that I am using that one as an example only - the principle should be obvious).

Note also that, for the hundredth time at least, this is NOT solely about whether something is illegal or legal - it is about social and moral responsibility, which an organization the size of DMOZ and with the influence or presence of DMOZ should have been paying a lot more attention to a long time ago.

 

mavahntooth, portprophesy, Las Vegas Homes, and dvduval - If you're so concerned about child pornography in the ODP. Then PLEASE SHOW ME WHERE IT IS so that I can remove it and report it to the authorities! Surely there are dozens of child porn sites listed the way you are going on. Where are they? I can't find them, but I want to get rid of them as soon as possible.

It's obvious that minstrel and gworld are just here to troll and stick their heads up each other's asses, but you guys seem like you might actually care about the topic at hand. If you do, please help us get rid of child pornography. Show us where it is so it can be removed.

 

I'm not one of those people. The children do not deserve anything that happens to them and a person under 18 fits the defination of child porn. If you're interested in opinions, my opinion is that the age should be raised to at least 21. I don't think an 18 year old is mature enough to be able to make that kind of decision either.

If we went on my opinion we wouldn't list anything that would even make you wonder if the model is too young, 2257 documents or not. I don't have a lot of faith in the honesty of porn producers to properly document the subjects of their photograhps. I suspect anyone who would be evil enough to make child pornography wouldn't hesitate to falsify 2257 documents.

Why would you trust producers of child porn to be so honest as to not falsify the 2257 documents?

 

And for those of you who are wondering how sid can continue to ignore what's in front of his face, here's a recent photo of him actively editing:

 

Yes Annie I can tell you it is a real concern for me. I have a 7 year old child who is becoming very good at navigating through a computer. So yes it concerns me when this type of material is available to anyone with a computer and access to Dmoz.

Lets face it, Dmoz is about money for several editors. Porn is a big money maker. Last figures I heard was porn was a 9 billion dollar a year industry. You may be one of the good editors at Dmoz Annie but there are 100s or 1000s of others there that dont have the passion or moral fiber you do. All they are concerned with is how much money can they make from their position at Dmoz.

By The Way..Its The Real Estate Section My Site Should Be Listed In

 

I don't have that kind of faith, Annie. That's part of the reason I believe the question of legality is a red herring. DMOZ should not be listing ANY sites that are even questionable. It's not an issue of whether the law is bening broken. It's an issue of whether DMOZ is willing to take the high road, the socially and morally and ethically responsible high road, in spite of the fact that Adult editors like sid have a vested interest in not allowing that to happen.

 

This is one of the most popular thread EVER on DP. If you can't seem to understand there are links to material that has a high probability of containing child pornography, then I'm not sure you are qualiified to help solve the issue. There have been countless references to site, laws, and examples of sites that are not complying with the law.

 

If DMOZ decides to remove the whole adult section, that is totally fine with me but as long as adult editors and DMOZ is pretending that they only list legal sites, they can at least try to obey the law and list only sites that are legal according to US law.

Even if we accept your argument that porn producers can falsify the 2257 documents, how is listing sites that do not even make an effort to have 2257 document is improving the situation?

 

I'm glad we agree on this much. Because its not reliable, I see no point in wasting time debating 2257 and I hate seeing the social, moral and ethical points of the issue being smothered by endless harping on the lack of a piece of paper that we agree can't be trusted.

Minstrel, I understand your lack of access to internal dmoz forums keeps you from knowing the truth about sid, but certainly gworld should know better. Certainly he could tell you that sid has led this fight like no other editor ever has, that more changes are coming and that it's due mostly to sid's perserverance. He's kept up the push to clean up adult image galleries for over a year. There's no way he has a vested interest in keeping things the same.