What should be the penalty?
Mr. Sam Sloan, a board member of the USCF, recently posted a link to a porn site to 5 different forums, including the official USCF forum where children do have full access to. He worded his post in a way to create curiosity to the readers to purposely get them to click on the porn link. Members would have no way of knowing that the link would lead to something bad because the name of the link is a chess name.
I wrote to the Executive Board and as usual, they have done nothing. Countless people have complained about this. What actions should be taken for a sitting board member promoting pornography to minors?
This was the original post by Mr. Sloan:
### Chess Foundation has new plan to improve its finances.
Having spent approximately one million dollars to finance ###, the ### Chess Foundation has finally decided on a new way to raise funds and improve its finances.
It is hoped that this plan will be successful and that the ### Chess Foundation will be able to start funding the ###.
To see the new plan of the ### Chess Foundation to improve its finances, just go to the ### Chess Foundation website, which is at: #######
posted by Chess Daily News @ 3/08/2007 03:08:00 PM
2 Comments:
At Thursday, March 08, 2007 4:45:00 PM,
Steve in TN said…
Re: Sloan's recent bad post
The claim by quite a few people that they either opened the link at work or almost did reminds me of a current situation involving a substitute teacher (Julie Amaro) who turned on a class room computer that immediately started opening popups for p*rn sites... The teacher in question had nothing to do with the popups being on the computer but she faces 40 years in prison because it happened while she was in control of the class.
Interesting read here:
http://windowssecrets.com/comp/070222/
When I clicked on the link in the same note Sloan posted to FIDE-CHESS I didn't see the p*rn because I have FireFox configured to block questionable content. I did get enough of the text to know I didn't want the page to stay open. Employees and students don't have the options I have to block objectionable content, and as we can see from the story about the substitute teacher, that lack and a post like Sloan's can land the victim in jail for decades.
Shame on you once again, Sam Sloan. Kudos to the moderators who erased this and many other objectionable posts by Sam Sloan.
At Saturday, March 10, 2007 9:50:00 PM,
Anonymous said…
This is the opinion of John Hillery about Sam Sloan:
Sam, I expect this to be removed shortly, so I'll be blunt. You are lower than pond scum, assuming there is anything lower than pod scum. I wrote nothing of the sort, but since the thread has been hidden you apparently consider yourself free to invent any lie that suits you. I can't think of anything more obviously a personal attack than this, and if the moderators have any guts they will impose at least a second-level sanction on you immediately.
John Hillery
Post a Comment
<< Home