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 <stillwateris...@gmail.com> wrote: > From: Stillwater Rising <stillwateris...@gmail.com> > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Legal requirements for sexual content -- help, > please! > To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <foundation-l@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 > (ask...@usdoj.gov > <ask...@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, <m...@marcusbuck.org> > wrote: > > > > > wjhon...@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@lists.wikimedia.org > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > > > _______________________________________________ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
