[Foundation-l] Legal requirements for sexual content -- help, please!

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
I have largely turned off on this subject. It has hardly a relation to what
I consider as relevant. Asking the Assistant Attorney General to me will
bring us just another opinion with recommendations. In practical terms less
relevant then Commons being blocked by the Iranians because we are good at
ignoring opinions and recommendations.

I would love to know if we have any clue on how and why this block came
about. I would love to know if there is a way that would regain us access to
Commons for the Iranian students.

On a different subject I think we all agree that Mr Sanger would earn
himself a permanent ban if he were one of our own. His trolling and the
trolling by that media conglomerate have proven effective. It is sad that
when Private Musings exhorted us on the same subject, he was not given the
same attention. When the board was considering measures at that time, it
would have been nice if he was told that it was under considerations and
would take some time. Now he looks like a martyr of this cause and sadly so
given what recently transpired.
Thanks,
       GerardM

On 20 May 2010 22:11, Stillwater Rising <stillwaterising at gmail.com> wrote:

> There's been many legal opinions presented in this forum, but the one that
> really matters is that of the Office of the Attorney General. I would
> suggest that Mike Godwin contact Assistant Attorney General Lanny A. Breuer
> (AskDOJ at usdoj.gov <askdoj at usdoj.gov?subject=USDOJ%20Comments> or (202)
> 514-2000) and report back to the Foundation as to what his recommendations
> are.
>
> *Legal Resources:*
> DOJ 2257 Compliance Guide:
> http://www.justice.gov/criminal/optf/guide/2257-compliance-guide.html
> National Obscenity Law Center:
> http://www.moralityinmedia.org/nolc/index.htm
> Florida obscenity  law:
>
> http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0847/SEC0135.HTM&Title=-
> >2000->Ch0847->Section%200135.htm<
> http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0847/SEC0135.HTM&Title=-%3E2000-%3ECh0847-%3ESection%200135.htm
> >
>
>
> On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 1:41 PM, <me at marcusbuck.org> wrote:
>
> >
> > wjhonson at aol.com hett schreven:
> >
> > > You are missing the key point.  The pivot upon which the issue turns
> > > is not whether or not a site is non-commercial or educational.  The
> > > pivot is whether the site itself creates the content, or whether it
> > > merely hosts the content.
> > >
> > > Wikimedia Commons is more likely to be viewed as a host agent like
> > > Flicker or Facebook, and not a creator.
> > > A host does not have a legal requirement to maintain any records of
> > > this sort.
> >
> > I am not a US citizen and I do not know US laws. But if law requires
> > record keeping for explicit content so that it is possible to verify
> > that the content is legal, it's meaningful that re-users also keep the
> > name and contact info of the person who keeps the initial USC 2257
> > records. That way the content stays traceable. So I agree with what
> > Stillwater Rising said:
> >
> > > To clarify, I did not then and still do
> > > not believe OTRS should be directly handing Personally Identifying
> > > Information (PII) for sexual content, but should have a way of
> verifying
> > > that it exists by at least keeping on file the name and address of the
> > > individual(s) who are keeping the records.
> >
> > Marcus Buck
> > User:Slomox
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>