It's interesting that within the seriousness of business, where a majority are responsible types and people are aware so as not to offend or get into trouble that they have to tread oh so carefully, to the point of possibly not being able to run their site as they would like to and fear promoting something. Because of the mention of things like 911, it made me think of the comedian Sarah Silverman who although involved in a business too, although it being comedy, can make fun of allsorts of sensitive things, like 911, the holocaust, child lesbianism, race and lots more and not have to worry. I have my own opinion on how she is able to get away with saying what she says, i will keep that to myself though for fear of offending wow even im doing it now, lol There is an irony to a site though that promotes no need for government and things like that where in a way they end up doing the very thing that they claim to be against. They will promote things like freedom, by trying to rally people together and create their own controlling societies and organisations. Some groups promote the idea of peace too, by smashing everything that they dont like to peices. Its like parents who shout at their kids to be quiet you cant get them to see the contradiction though. Maybe what to consider first regarding sites of this type is not whether it would upset others, be illegal or lead to other troubles but rather if you feel the same or not about what the organisation promotes. Although with other average sites you dont have to judge and accept them down to personal tastes, with anti government sites and similar, just decide if you personally feel it should be in your directory before considering laws in your country. Think as an individual first then take into account the laws in your country or state even.
Seems to me, your last post answered your own question. It sounds like you believe the site goes beyond civil disobedience of a draft card burning level and rises to a really hurt people level. I would amend your TOS to include something about sites that incite violence or other unlawful acts or encourage others to do so will not be accepted. I would then update the listing with notes as to why you opted not to list and 'suspend' the site and leave it in the queue. Or just quietly delete it and move on. When I face those I don't like this site as a person decisions or a site just doesn't smell right, I think about Google's response to folks who complain about not being ranked well - there's no guarantee of being listed. I agree. At the end of the day it's your site and your values should not have to be left at the door just because you have built an advertising portal. There have been a number of submissions to my pet directory that I felt encouraged irresponsible behavior and felt justified in not accepting them. My site, my decision.
As did Ghandi and Martin Luther King. They definitely weren't in the political mainstream, cops hated them, and yes there was violence associated with their movements at times, not that they suggested it personally. Would we post their website if they'd had one? From a "legal point of view" people are guilty of a crime if they commit one, not if they sow seeds somebody thinks might lead to one. Maybe I'm biased because I grew up knowing too many people that didnt want kids to do this because it might lead to that which of course could precede to this other thing that could lead to lust. I'm not advocating anarchism, but in a directory it's a bad idea to eliminate items because they represent a political point of view with which I disagree. My two cents, YMMV.
I do have this clause in the directory guidelines 14) DO NOT submit sites that promote violence, terrorism or things of that nature. Talking about questionable stuff however, I'd not think twice before listing this site for example even though many may think of the idea as ridiculous. I just think that there are different "types" of free speech as there are different types of lifestyle choices
LOL. I gotta bookmark this thread. May be the only instance where I appear to be the flaming liberal in the group.
Yes I'd list a site on their movements now but if I lived in their times in England and I was running a 'printed' directory, I'd probably not list their stuff. Why? Because our perception and reaction to things at a given point of time are different than another. I think all of us respect Gandhi and Martin Luther King as social heroes. But the fact remains that we dont really know (if we lived in their times) how our reaction to their policies and belief would be then Our current stand on social history is often tailored by how our surrounding perceives and thinks of a certain event in the past. Moreover, History, from old publications to history books, from newspapers to archives, is something that most of us believe in without questioning, thereby creating a collective social opinion.
Ghandi and MLK, as far as I can remember never promoted violence. I suppose you could make a category with a disclaimer...something like the owner(s) of LinKernel provide the following links to present a complete and balanced representation of political, religious and other issues facing the world today. The opinions on these sites may not reflect the beliefs of LinKernel and their listing should not be construed as an endorsement. Or you could simply opt to make your site reflect your values. With my pet directory, I have refused to accept sites that encourage pit bull ownership. Many believe they make great pets. Others, myself included, believe their nature should preclude them from being considered as pets or being brought into homes with children. I simply made the decision not to promote something I do not believe in.
We do have a disclaimer: DISCLAIMER: LinKernel Web Directory does not represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any of the information, content or advertisements contained on, distributed through, or linked, downloaded or accessed from any of the services contained on this website nor the quality of any products, information or other materials displayed, purchased or obtained by you as a result of an advertisement or any other information or offer in or in connection with the service. You hereby acknowledge that any reliance upon any information shall be at your sole risk. LinKernel Web Directory reserves the right, in its sole discretion and without any obligation, to make improvements to, or correct any error or omissions in any portion of the service.The service and the information herein are provided by LinKernel Web Directory on an "as is" basis, and LinKernel Web Directory expressly disclaims any and all warranties, express or implied, including without limitation warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose, with respect to the service or any information and products. In no event shall LinKernel Web Directory be liable for any direct, indirect, incidental, punitive, or consequential damages of any kind whatsoever with respect to the service, the information and the products. I dont believe Gandhi promoted violence...He actually was a preacher of non-violence but many of his followers were prone to violence because many didnt believe that such a "soft" way to do things would ever work.
That's the point! It's NOT my political point of view that is set ahead of my decision. The directory is not a blog where I can "say" whatever I want to say but it involves users that come from different backgrounds and countries. Therefore, I believe it's safer to avoid listings that could hurt the general consensus.
My 2 cents worth is that I'd accept the site unless it promoted anything illegal or harmful. I don't know the 'concensus' of my visitors but I do know that a couple of erotic blogs and one which pokes fun at the UK police are always in my popular blogs page.
I agree there is nothing wrong in approving a site that doesn't promote anything illegal or harmful. Moreover, as far as blogs go, in most cases, they usually voice personal views of an individual rather than a collectivity, thereby somehow reducing the level of controversy as compared to threads in forums. Poking fun at the UK police is fine as long as the funny topic doesn't promote violence against the police. That's why, as I mentioned earlier every site deserves to be treated on its own merit because defining (the degree of) what is OK and what is "too much" is nearly impossible as far as the submission guidelines go!(...)
*COUGH* i REALLY AM THAT OLD ok, I wasnt around to see Ghandi, but was a kid in the 60's. I recall that every time MLK went to a town and preached non-violence and civil disobedience, violent race riots just happened to occur in that town. We're talking pictures on the news of flaming buildings and burning cars, people bleeding, the works. Scared the hell outta me, cause I lived close to Ft Worth and he was making his way our direction. My grandfather, an oldtime cowboy living his twilight years in a mixed race section of Ft Worth close to the downtown area, slept with a gun under his pillow in those days. Today we look at MLK thru the prism of history and see him as a non-violent social hero based on his words, not the actions others of lesser caliber took within the immediate timeframe of their utterence. At the time it was just a little too scary to see proximity of events as anything but "cause and effect". If we'd had the internet I doubt that respectable directories with a policy against sites that promote violence or illegality would give his site a second glance before hitting delete. Civil disobedience is breaking laws (in non-violent fashion), and there was clearly a concurrence of his speeches and violence. Similarly if there were internet in Colonial times that band of hoodlums & ruffians in places like Boston and Philly inciting treason against the King wouldve been a definite delete. I mean, Thomas Paine and "Common Sense" are no brainers when it comes to detecting "illegal sites". Anyway, just saying I truly do try to not filter my directory adds thru my political conscience. I have the benefit of being able to assign others to handle areas I dont like cause I'd suck at it personally, but in theory I dont delete sites for political reasons or because theyre a bit edgy. I don't think we even KNOW which oddball group is gonna turn out to be the basis of some worthwhile movement, and those that are pretty clearly just oddballs, well, let the readers make their call. Again, YMMV and if somebody wants to eliminate sites they find problematic in their own directory, thats the benefit of ownership. You can make that call, I was just explaining mine.
I understand your point of view. When I mentioned "general consensus", I didn't mean to define what is right or wrong. But I believe some of the guidelines in good directories are meant to support that consensus. I am certain that many general directory owners face issues like this when it comes to approving certain sites. For example, it's not always easy to define what is family-friendly because this notion would vary depending on the family in question. (Some families are liberal, others are not, some parents dont mind talking about sex with their kids, some do etc etc...) I am extremely thankful to everyone who participated in this thread. I will put the site in the queue for now instead of deleting the submission request altogether