DMOZ supports Child Porn?
 

There is couple interesting threads regarding child porn inside of DMOZ:

http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showt...highlight=dmoz

http://blog.psychlinks.ca/2006/02/ao...tes.html#links

Any coments?

My comment is that you're an ass for bringing this up.

The site mentioned in that 1st one clearly has a 2257 statement & while some of the words used are not the best of choices, the site is probably legal.

Based on this thinking, any site that uses the word "boy" of "girl" is CP?

http://www.penisbot.com/search.html?search=boy&where=

You have some links to remove.

No, I'm not about the "boy/girl" terms, I just read this:

"The thread discusses the listing in certain DMOZ categories of websites which promote child pornography and pedophilia via pro-pedophilia forums and chat rooms"
http://blog.psychlinks.ca/2006/02/ao...tes.html#links


"A collection of Haley's stories. Includes original fiction, non-fiction and fan-fiction. Stories feature the non-consensual or semi-consensual spanking of late preteens and early/late teenagers."
http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showp...25&postcount=3

"I am absolutely appalled by the description of some of the sites listed in Adult/Arts/Online_Writing/Fiction/BDSM/Spanking/Free/ especially the fact that one of them is "cooled" i.e. deemed the most comprehensive/definitive on the subject matter, is said to include child spanking stories"
http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showp...5&postcount=30

"Just scouting around for real evidence: if you want something to get worked up about try

Adult/Computers/Internet/Chats_and_Forums/Activities_and_Practices/Pedophilia/Affirmative_Views/
That is carrying freedom of speech just too far. I am just so glad I am no longer an editor, my blood would have boiled at the thought of being in the same organization as people who would create such a category and list such sites."
http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showp...2&postcount=80

.....

And I ask GG&J forum opinion

The people at the digitalpoints forum seem to have a gross misunderstanding of how the dmoz adult images area works - they are complaining that a domain has many entries, calling them doorways - but as we all know, each of those supposed doorways is actually a simple and traditional dmoz images site of the sort that has been being listed there for many years.

I'm not going to read 51 pages of bitching but so far I don't see any real evidence of cp.

Story sites have always gotten away with murder in that area.

I agree, too many dumb posts there, but some factsis more than serious, for example the Adult/Computers/Internet/Chats_and_Forums/Activities_and_Practices/Pedophilia/Affirmative_Views/ category and its content:

Sorry guys for quoting this shit, but I can't belive in fact that DMOZ editors collect this links in good feelings.

This the same Kit I know?

It's unfortunate that DMOZ is still used for anything :(

I was thinking the same

I'm with you. Like I have time to read thru all this crap from some boards I've never heard of.

As shitty as it might be, this seems to be all text/stories & that's covered by freedom of speech as far as I know.

Stories, that's what we are talking about here? What the fuck??? Some of the best books in literature involve incest, rape, torture and having sex with underage children. Even movies are the same. And that is just by the great author, John Irving. Who brough us such great novles as "The World According to Garp" (Underage Sex), "The Hotel New Hampshire" (Insest), and my latest read, "A Widow For One Year" (Again, Underage Sex). All three are also movies. Don't watch "A Door In The Floor" if you don't want to be offended by underage sex.

This entire conversation seems pointless.

Under Part V of the Canadian Criminal Code this sort of text material is declared CP. With that said the courts have never upheld this part of the Act as far as I know and many people would like to have it changed for the reasons Jim stated above. By its wording Romero and Juliet should become illegal material.