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

[Andreas Kolbe]

Sounds like a good idea. It would put drafting the Sexual Content policy on a more solid footing, and maybe avoid problems later on.

Andreas

--- On Thu, 20/5/10, Stillwater Rising <stillwaterising at gmail.com> wrote:

> From: Stillwater Rising <stillwaterising at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Legal requirements for sexual content -- help, please!
> To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
> Date: Thursday, 20 May, 2010, 21:11
> 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
>