AdultContentPolicyNotes
11-JUL-2007
Gary You guys gotta grow up. Pie-in-the-sky arguments about free speech and the "rights" of people to post potentially objectionable material is bullshit. What matters is this: you guys run the site, you're gonna be held responsible for what's on it IF (1) you set policy to limit it, and (2) you enforce that policy through proactive evaluation of content.
Once you 'agree' (by doing it!) to monitor the content and to weed out 'illegal' 'objectionable' 'whatever' content, you become responsible for the content!!! If you simply state "we do not monitor, censor, or otherwise limit content donations" with the CAVEAT that "we do remove materials which are illegal *if they are brought to our attention*" gets you off the hook.
Of COURSE you should remove kiddie porn. It's illegal (and sick). But... if you aren't AWARE that it's on a particular page, you aren't responsible. If however you BECOME aware, you HAVE to remove it IF you know it's illegal, else you are guilty of aiding and abetting.
This is where it gets sticky. Seeing a 6-year old in a sexually explicit position is obvious; but how many of you can tell the difference between a naked 17-year old and a naked 18-year old without ever making a mistake??? At 18, it's legal; at 17 it is not. YOU CAN'T TELL. Don't lie; and think about what the implication is of removing a bunch of pictures of young (under 10) kids is, but NOT removing a bunch of 15/16 year old pictures...
What it comes down to is this: there is always a burden of reasonableness. If you *think* the picture should be removed, remove it. But don't set a policy that requires YOU to be vigilant and responsible and monitor everything. So, once again:
0. set a policy that you DO NOT MONITOR OR FILTER CONTENT.
1. set a policy that NO ILLEGAL MATERIAL may be posted.
2. set a policy that IF YOU BECOME AWARE of illegal material, it will be removed.
3. have a statement of liability that says "we are NOT responsible for other's postings"
4. HAVE AN ATTORNEY REVIEW THE ABOVE BEFORE YOU DO ANYTHING.
As soon as you start actively browsing pages LOOKING for things to remove, and acting on that, YOU ACCEPT RESPONSIBILTY FOR POLICING THE SITE and you can be held liable for NOT doing it in a specific instance. This has NOTHING to do with morality or the first amendment; it has EVERYTHING to do with protecting yourself against a lawsuit which is based on YOU not taking some action to remove something SOMEONE ELSE posted that you DIDN'T EVEN KNOW EXISTED. Cover your ass. (Hey, that's an anti-porno pun!).
Just one of your reader's thoughts...
- posted by Anonymous on July 11, 2007
25-Apr-2007
Notes from meeting: we have decided to continue with the process of ConsensusPolling.
Is illegal content AdultContent a subset? Should we deal with illegal now or later?
John believes ALL porn is illegal.
Which should we tackle first??
Should we create a second page for Illegal Content?
We have decided to created a second page for illegal content.
Brandon concerned about Adult Content- mom, relatives, et al.
Johns's wife encountered porn on the site; she belives it is wrong. He is concerned about reputation, of his job choice, and of the company. Ray has some questions about the details...
Tak's concern is the opposite of John's concern- free speech, friends who like porn, are involved in porn.
Where is the line.
Porn is NOT our focus. (of the company)
Chris- does not think that we are a 'porn' site, we include but we are not defined by it.
Thumbnails- do we keep them, what is the line: sexual suggestiveness, nudity...
Isabel- What about the descriptions of the pages: they are often very explicit, chock full of references to, ahem, body parts.
no thumbnails include but not facilitate no links to these pages? but would it be useful if we did not have links- would we just be filling the internet with noise?
Tak- if we've edited a page, then we acknowledge the content of the page.
Vinh- what about tweaking the user preferences so that they could choose to see the thumbnails, one step further then the walled garden.
What about thumbnails with child porn? Or ones that show children in sexual poses? We should
make sure those never show -MIsha
Misha - Concerns about pedophiles and their obvious interest to promote pedophile lifestyle. Some of the links I have encountered have thumbnails of opbvious child porn. Also some of the description and the keywords say sick things like "boys" "pre-pubescent" "legal" "nude" "sex" "boylove" "diapers". I think people who have pages that are pro-pedophile or poss. child porn should have the keywords, links to child porn sites and descriptions of sex with children deleted. Like Nambla.org.
