DMOZ still listing pro-pedophilia sites

Back on February 14, 2006, in my article, AOL-owned DMOZ Directory promotes child pornography?, I said:

There is a very long thread at DigitalPoint Forums running to some 60 pages and almost 1200 posts as of this writing with the title “DMOZ supports child porn?“. The thread discusses the listing in certain DMOZ categories of websites which promote child pornography and pedophilia via pro-pedophilia forums and chat rooms, and in the course of those almost 1200 posts includes debates with several DMOZ editors who support the practice in the name of free speech as well as several DMOZ editors and ex-editors who express disgust with those among their colleagues who support it.The appalling thing about this debate, to me, is that it exists at all. How anyone can justify, on the basis of free speech or on any other grounds, endorsing and promoting sites dedicated to justifying or rationalizing (“neutralizing” as the criminologists term it) child molesting is astounding. I can only assume that to date the parent company, AOL, and Google, who between them prop up and legitimize the DMOZ Directory, are unaware of some of the practices of its editors.

The DigitalPoint thread referred to began on January 26, 2006. Since that time, various DMOZ editors have actively sought to remove such listings and to change internal rules to prohibit the listing of such sites in the future. Several DMOZ editors have assured us that progress was being made and that they were optimistic that the problem would be corrected.

Here we are a full two months after my previous article on the subject – and three months after the initial DigitalPoint post – and, sadly, I must report that I don’t see a lot of progress. DMOZ continues to list and thereby to promote and endorse such sites in its Adult cartegories.

Here are some of the current listings in the DMOZ category Adult: Society: Sexuality: Activities and Practices: Pedophilia:

Discrimination Against Minors – A pagan discusses the problem of age of consent laws, how they discriminate against children, and how children, if properly educated, can make decisions about their own bodies.

Pedaloog – Advocacy of adult-child relationships. Authors attempt to counter commonly accepted beliefs through a series of articles.

The Pedophilia Smear – Moralists are condemning pedophilia research out of hand without cocnsidering the possibility that the findings of researchers may be valid and should be considered objectively.

Steve Perry: The Candy Man and Other Myths About Pedophilia – A review of Judith Levine’s controversial book “Harmful to Minors”. Discusses how Levine debunks two popular myths, that the typical sex offender is a stranger, and that teens are not sexual beings.

On Boys and Boylovers – A scholarly article by Benjamin Jarod regarding the phenomenon of boy love. The paper attempts to refute commonly held beliefs and explore alternative aspects of man-boy relations. (January 1, 1997)

Pedophiles Argue Their Case in the Journal of Homosexuality – Synopses of several articles published in 1990, all supporting tolerance for “Male Intergenerational Intimacy.” (1990)

Now DMOZ does also list what it blandly calls “Opposing Views”, but

The DMOZ pro-pedophilia category currently has 42 listings as of today.

The DMOZ anti-pedophilia category has 22 listings as of today. 

That’s it? DMOZ Adult editors can find 42 sites worthy of being listed, endorsed, promoted by the “Open Directory” which are pro-pedophilia, but they can only find 22 “opposing views” sites worthy of mention?

Something is terribly wrong with this picture.

There is some potentially good news in another post at Threadwatch noting that Google is being criticized for listing such sites, although it isn’t yet clear whether this refers to Google’s Directory, which is a DMOZ feed. Google’s influence could be considerable here, not only because they are still the biggest and most influential internet search engine but also because they have recently negotiated to purchase a financial interest in AOL, the owners of the DMOZ Directory.

AOL, DMOZ, ODP, Open Directory, pedophilia, pedophiles, child molesting, child sexual abuse, Google

4 Replies to “DMOZ still listing pro-pedophilia sites”

  1. I’m glad you compiled a current sample of the most offensive dmoz listings, as most people won’t take the time to read the huge DP thread. The descriptions are shocking, and should hopefully wake some people up.

    A frequent defense is free speech, basically claiming that DMOZ is completely unbiased, and does not judge sites. However, every day the editorial decisions made at the ODP reflect the morals of the individual editors and higher-level decision makers:

    Does a site contain too many advertisements, or might the information be covered in another site listed(according to the editors’ judgement)? Denied.

    What about a nice site that promotes pedophilia, or anorexia? That’s the kind of section that deserves 42 site listings! Oddly enough, both the pro-anorexia and pro-pedophilia section both have 42 sites listed. I’d guess that’s above average for categories that deep.

    Speaking of which, nothing ever came of the Pro-Anorexia Dmoz piece I posted on DP back in Sept 2005. Almost, but not quite as offensive as this other notorious section.

  2. I too, find it astonishing that these sites are listed at all. What I would like to know is who authorised the categories and reviewed the sites in the first place?

    Perhaps they serve as trackable sites where visitors are quietly logged? That is my only hope for there being any kind of reasoning behind listing them.

  3. Hackers have declared war against NAMBLA:

    NAMBLA was built on system of ideals that were false from it’s inception. The foundation of any system requires a certain amount of integrity for it to be able to stand. This integrity comes from a disciplined set of values based on the precise integrity of the metal any organization’s ideas are forged with.

    What has happend to NAMBLA and it’s members as a result of the apparent lack of a basic solid moral foundation? Since NAMBLA’s foundation was built on this permeable surface of lies and genuine evil, how can it stand?

    This foundation is reflected in their business practices. I have just cancelled years worth of NAMBLA casino organizing efforts in less than a week, armed with a keyboard, and a bad attitude… How? By unveiling the truth behind their associations and business dealings.

    Men are now in prison, children have been raped, murdered and tortured. This is the result of a system based on lies. Throughout history empires have fallen from within due to the deterioration of the values that maintained the fabric of those ancient societies. From Sodom to Rome, if the excesses of human depravity are left unchecked, it always leads to violent State wide demise, always from within. We cannot dictate unless we check our own health as a society and prove it worthy of leadership in a world desperately lacking in it.

    — NAMBLA is based on such ludicrous assumptions that adults should copulate with children as a human right.

    NAMBLA quite simply threatens our very existence, due to the fact it will be destroyed, one way or the other, either by public outrage, or by those who will not tolerate the abuse of minors under the protection of those who created this species we call man. I would sooner cancel NAMBLA in the court of public opinion, then to wait for boulders to start falling on us all. History has proven what happens when we allow this type of practice to become acceptable in our modern society. It has nothing to do with GOD and everything to do with common sense.

    If we allow NAMBLA to prosper when we have a moral responsibility to protect children, and are not exercising it under law, then are we not encouraging it? It’s time for a reality check.

    Now society has a choice. We can ignore these groups, and hope for a better tomorrow, or we can act today, and bring clarity back to the apparent confusion that would allow groups to exist such as NAMBLA under a banner of “freedom” when so many innocent children had their freedom robbed from them before they were even old enough to vote for a chance at proper human development.

    What’s wrong with a system that would protect the rights of those who seek to kidnap and murder our children?

    What about a law that forbids people like David Thorstad and his ‘Origami friend’ Joe Power to associate for the purposes of sharing information and communication for the purposes of harming a child?

    Such a law would immediately cancel these internet groups and their participants on the web and elsewhere.

    It would be illegal to communicate for the purposes of comforting others who may be considering harming a child as many of the captures below will attest.

    I think there is more than enough for a case against the continued existence of this group NAMBLA, or any similar group that openly promotes the notion that raping someone’s child is their damned RIGHT.

  4. NAMBLA is a problem but it certainly isn’t the only problem. Remember that girls as well as boys are victims. And while male abusers far outnumber females in the sexual abuse of children, there are also female offenders.

    Targeting NAMBLA is a start but even if you were successful in eradicating that group you would still need to be vigilant.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.