200

and more to follow :glugglug

:Graucho

What is so unbievably scarry is htat this fucktard just doesn't get it. Stolen content, Illegal content, completelly immoral and unethical standards for running a site. The list is so damned long I can't even type it. Just shoot me..

Might as well talk to a brick wall, but this fucker is definitely an all-out perverted sicko criminal.

oh, you have read this thread? I didn't. sorry

Good Morning ...
I have approximately 45 minutes before I go to work.

NO - I have not read this thread either.

I am going to work backwards on a few posts.
If this doesn't turn into a curse match - I will answer any question to the best of my ability.

If it turns into a curse match - well - then cya ...

John E. Beacock
[email protected]
1-403-619-2739

SexEducation.com is a global magazine of sexual intercourse. It has always been a magazine of intercourse. The dictionary defines intercourse as "social discussion" and "sexual copulation".

There is no stolen content on my website.
I quote public made statements - whether those statements are one dimensional (text), two dimensional (graphics) or three dimensional (video).

There is no single graphic or video necessary for the website.

I do not go into the PAY/MEMBER area's of website and quote content. I will however - exercise my right as a magazine to discuss and quote "billboards on the information highway" when those "billboards" are being displayed to the public.

I have discussed "advertising" both in print and in electronically published medias.

When you stand in front of almost any corner store/ supermarket magazine rack - regardless of the publisher - and count how many times the word "sex" is contained on the cover of these magazines - you will be overwhelmed.

The presentation of sexual content like "ten ways to please your man", "food guaranteed to seduce her" and all the other crap ... is a fair topic for a global magazine of sexual intercourse. Quoting of the sources is absolutely necessary for fair discussion of those topics.

There is no stolen content - AND - there is no illegal content in the free countries of the world which have freedom of the press.

Dad@

I am not suggesting that Parents show minors explicit sexual content. On my website you can turn the graphics off - and you can block specific videos. You can also block specific articles which you find inappropriate.

There is content on my website (articles like "Let Teens Have Sex - The arguement of why Teenagers should be allowed to have sex." which in my opinion every teenager on the planet should read. Who would guess that a magazine of intercourse/discussion would publish opinions.

A person's sex education begins day one, minute one from when they are born. Girls rooms pink - boys room blue. You're "sexual identity" is not instantaneous - you learn it all through your child hood years , your adolescent years and your adult years.

NO - EVERY PARENT - HAS A RIGHT TO DISCUSS SEX WITH THEIR TEENS AS THEY MATURE. IT IS PART OF THE PARENTS JOB - TO TEACH ADULTHOOD. Leave it to the "professionals" is a cop out of responsibility. It's like saying - "only the schools ..."

50% of women never have an orgasm.
70% of men complain of premature ejaculation.
Obviously - the professionals are failing - when there is no need for either.

Dad@

The gorilla graphic above is a Corel Draw clip-art graphic. It was suggested that I "stole it" previously. The fact that threads like this make accusations without proof or any research - and feed on each other is an interesting topic.

However, it must be noted that you copied a picture from my website and posted it here in this newsgroup. Basically, you are doing for the purpose of discussion something you are saying I have no right to do.

If the shoe fits - where it.

Dad@

I notice that you like to repeat the same things over and over, without any relevance to the current line of discussion. Why is that?

First, a nitpick point: Text, graphics, and video are all two-dimensional.

Next, there is stolen content. If you want to claim that you are using the freedom of the press, and fair use, you would still be required to inform your audience of the source of the images you are using. You do not, you use them as site content, not for review or comment purposes. That makes it theft.

There is illegal content. Any sexually explicit photo on a website is illegal unless 2257 custodian of records information is provided on that website. You are breaking the law.

There is something more I need to say, and I am not sure quite how to say it. Here goes...

While it is true that many of us are disguested with you, and it causes bias in our posts to and about you, that is not all that is going on here. Some of us are genuinely trying to educate you about the laws that you are breaking. Every time one of us tries to explain copyright law, or 2257, or a number of other things, you are dismissing us too quickly. We are making valid points, and you *really are* in violation of a number of laws. I encourage you to open your eyes, and listen to the advice you are being given. Just because you can rationalize a behavior does not mean that the law sees it the same way.

You run a site that, by default, has a good deal of explicit content on it. You encourage parents to show that site to their children. Sure, they could change their browser settings, but you're still effectively encouraging minors to look at porn. Another rationalization.

Fine. Maybe your site has some interesting articles. If you want to show them to children, you should replace your pornographic images with anatomical drawings and less explicit material. You can't have it both ways. Another dodge.

So, the sexual education of children should be left to... A sex offended who likes the children he shows porn to to call him "Dad"? Sorry, I don't buy it.

About all posts regarding the "Police."

I have contacted the police.
My cell phone records prove that.
My cell phone number is 1-403-619-2739.

My contact was given as Seargent Houben of Calgary "Vice" crimes. I may have inappropriately called that the "Vice Squad" ... but like almost every article on my website - each and every word - is analysed and cross analysed - for imperfections.

That's okay with me.

I have never formally accused of, questioned for, asked for an interview over, required legal assistance for, been presented anything formal - at any time in my life - for ....
- child pornography
- child molestation
- fraud
or theft.

All statements regarding my direct involvement with the Police are complete fabrications. Utterly baseless - and without evidence, research or any factual bases.

There are those here that I understand have called the Police. However, truthfully - even the fact that others have called the Police has not been verified by myself. The posting of a phone number off of the Calgary Police Department website is not proof that a phone call was made to them. Quite frankly, I am unsure whether this has ocurred as you would think after I phoned them and to request an appointment to review and controversial content with them - they would have accepted.

They have not.

I wish to ensure that the content of my website meets both local and international community standards regarding the ethical discussion of a most controversial subject - child pornography.

There are approximately 3-5 articles OUT OF HUNDREDS of articles - which discuss child pornography. 50% of the graphics for the child pornography article were taken from screen captures from VIDEO RENTED AT THE LOCAL VIDEO STORE. So if the graphics are what is making the essay so controversial, and if the graphics are illegal ...
then we should also be taking BlockBuster Video, Rogers Video and another local privately owned video store to court too ...because that is where I got the graphics from.

Specifically ...

"Pretty Baby" with Brooke Shields.
"Blue Lagoon" with Brooke Shelds.
and the infamous film "Lolita".
These films are several years old - some of them DECADES OLD.

You are guilty of copyright infringement. Let's take a random example, the background of the first page of your tour:

http://www.sexeducation.org/sex/educ...gin/index.html

Where did you get that photograph from? Where is the credit, discussion, and/or review that would make your use of that photo legal under "fair use" laws?

You are guilty of showing sexually explicit photos without custodian of records information, as is requires by USC Title 18 Section 2257.

Let's take a look at this page:
http://www.sexeducation.com/sex/html...73912115754883

Where is the credit, review, or discussion of the original work that would make the photograph legal under "fair use"?

Where is the declaration that all models on your site are over the age of 18, and the address where law enforcement officials could go to view your copies of those models' IDs and signed model releases?

If you ask a specific question ...
and are prepared to discuss it - I will reply.
If this thread once again turns into a "cursing" and "swearing" match - I will once again ignore it.

On the internet - there are many types of "adult communities".
There are gay communities.
There are lesbian communities.
There are bondage communities.

SexEducation.com is an ADULT ONLY COMMUNITY where modern Parents can go do read ADULT DISCUSSIONS of sexual maturity questions.

The website does NOT target minors - who the hell would. They do NOT HAVE CREDIT CARDS ....so grow up.

I have a writing style not like TheOnion.com and not like WhiteHouse.org ....

My writing style is often intended to push your sexual prejudice buttons.

I have left my mistakes for critique because they show my own sexual prejudice as I continue to explore the world of sexual hypocrisy.

If you do not like the website - do not go to it - go to a different online community.

The SexEducation.com community has the highest levels of "protection" that are available - to my knowledge.

The tour gradually increases in "sexual explicitness".

Cleary states it is for adults only.

Is rated with ICRA.org as having the most extreme content possible. Just entering a password into the browsers content settings will completely disable the website for 90%+ of my visitors.

It uses Aestiva.com self expiring URLS and therefore interior pages can not be bookmarked and accessed directly later. All entrances to the website MUST come from the homepage.

In order to enter the website you MUST click past " I agree to the Access Policy" several times. That access policy is written in nice plain english - and not mumble jumble legal jargon.

Once inside the website - you can disable graphics.

Once inside the website - you can block specific videos.

Once inside the website - you can block specific articles.

The combination of all these Parental Control functions seems to still not be enough to placate the adult industry with regards to discussing the most - controversial and sensistive topics on this planet.

However - these topics must be discussed.

The failure of the discussion of these topics IS THE REASON why some of this world's worst perversions still exist.

The number one reason given for continuing to allow Female Genital Mutilation is "I did not want to look bad - with my neighbours and family." It is the discussion of how sick the practice is - which will terminate this act - which is the proof of global female sexual inequality. NOT discussing issues like this is contributing to it's continuation.


Dad@

I have to go to work ...
Have a good day.

John E. Beacock
[email protected]
1-403-619-2739

I have been asking specific questions. I look forward to answers.

GothWeb ...
I really do have to go to work.
And I really have not read every post in here.
Who would ...

Please ask your questions again.
And I will answer them to the best of my ability.

Gotta go ...

And just before I take off ...
The only reason I re-entered this thread is because the title of the thread itself - changed.

That's highly unusual for a message board. (changing the title of the thread.)

The fact is GFY changed the title of this thread to my proper and pure domain.

It used to be something like ( I can access my original PDF's to find the exact title) ... something like ... "sexeducation: time to defend yourself".

Now it is solely ... "Sexeducation.com"

I wonder if GFY has done this to other threads...
when?
why?

GONE ...
POOF

Re-post? I made them like 15 minutes ago, and they are on this page of the thread. It would be stupid to re post them.

The background graphic of my current homepage was a message stating the anger that adult webmaster have with 911. I agree with that anger - quoted the message - and how that message affect my anger over the event.

Specifically - every anniversary of 911 I intend to shut my website down and turn my homepage completely black.

I quoted a message - I express my opinion of that message ...
I really wish I had time this morning - but it looks like I am going to be late.

Sorry. If you follow my link, you will see that I mean the first page once you click to enter the site, not the entry page with the world trade center photo in the background.

I think the thread "...time to defend yourself" was started by someone else. This thread is an earlier thread that you started yourself.

GothWeb you can not use links to any page of my website because they are self expiring. The use Aestiva.com technology and I think the server is set for 90 minutes currently. So the link will self expire.

I can not follow it now - I am rushing ...
but really like the fact you are prepared to discuss things rationally.

Just describe the graphic ...
And I will reply after work.

I really don't understand why you believe that U.S. laws apply to people who are outside of the U.S.

2257 is a U.S. law - and for that matter you link to sites from your very own site that don't have 2257 statements on them...by your very own definition - these sites you link to are also breaking the law.

First i thought well i'll keep my self out of this thread but the i was looking at your front page and i realy just can ask my self how stupid one can be who want's to do a Global Sex Education but has content and warnings that

"The showing of reproductive bodily fluids and aroused genitals on any directly accessed domain name is a violation of the majority of the world to reasonable Internet access"

Which means if most Ppl. (Parents rofl) want's to even access your site the have to Brake the LAW first ???

With this disclaimer you have disqualifyed your self already.

:1orglaugh

BTW..some very nicely designed sites :)

I am happy to discuss things, because I am confident that you are breaking the law, and honestly want you to understand it too.

The image I have in mind is the background of the first page after you click the button to start the tour. A blonde girl. The same question applies for all of the backgrounds in that tour, though.

Really? I did most of my current designs myself, and am not super happy with them.

I don't think that US law applies to everyone. That would be stupid. However, check the registration info on his domains, as well as where he hosts. This is a lot more complicated than asking where he is located. He does business in the US-- not just sales to the US, I mean that he maintains a US presence. He s clearly covered by US laws.

I've said before - *maybe* his hosting service could be held liable for his not having 2257 up, but C'mon - GFY doesn't even have a statement to minors to keep out or a 2257 statement despite the fact I've seen pics here as explicit as women blowing horses -

my point being our justice department has plenty to do dealing with actual U.S. residents and I'd be hard pressed to believe they would go after this guy for having a few pics on his tour being that he is a Canadian citizen and outside the boundry of U.S. laws.

First of all, I think it invites all sorts of fallacies to conflate what is legal with what the law is likely to prosecute. Let's concern ourselves with whether he is breaking the law.

I do sortof see your point, but I think you are wrong. If I sell drugs via FedEx to someone in the US, I am breaking US law. FedEx is much less likely to be charged than I am. The same goes for this guy and his US host.

Precident has already shown that US laws can cover situations where people commit crimes outside of US soil, crossing international boundaries using the internet. The famous DeCSS case is one example. French censorship laws having an influence on the content of Yahoo is another.

This guy is breaking at least one US law. Because he chooses to use US hosting, and apparently has other US presence as well, he is accountable to US law. Likewise, because his site is visible to Americans, there is potential legal trouble there as well. (As strange as that sounds.) If he isolated his business to Canada, then he would be in better shape, but he doesn't.

Also, there are plenty of laws he is breaking that I am sure apply in Canada as well. Canada has signed international copyright treaties, right?

can someone give me a cole's note edition of whats going on?

Sure..the copyright stuff he could be taken to court over - but he isn't going to go to jail. Fined through the ying yang yes...but I think it would more than likely be a civil matter.

Canadas laws are very different from what I can tell. I literally cannot find anything related to proof of age of models. Their criminal code does not even have the word pornography in it according to this.

Here's the closest thing I've found relating to the subject:

Canada Response
Over the past several years, the Internet has grown in many ways. Along with benefiting the education system, the Internet has also provided a useful tool for research and collaboration. Access to the Internet has even spread throughout the world, allowing people from different backgrounds and ways of life to unite. On the surface this increased communication appears to have only positive benefits, however there are many negative consequences that are also connected to this issue. One such issue is the concept of privacy. How the United States views privacy is much different than how other nations view privacy. Even Canada, a country that is very close in proximity, has differing views on what rights citizens have with respect to Internet privacy. This section is going to discuss the Canadian response to the issue of Internet privacy.

In Canada, laws and regulations regarding privacy are very favorable to the citizens. Rather than the government having control over a user's online actions, Canadian citizens are given a full right to Internet privacy. In January 2001, the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act came into effect, providing laws to protect Canadian citizens' right to privacy. These regulations are mainly concerned with e-commerce, ensuring that users are informed about the data being collected, and are given rights to restrict its distribution. Canada also has differing policies in regard to online content. Whereas most countries restrict "inappropriate" content, Canada has very lax laws in this regard. One such example is Canada's laws regarding pornography. In the Canadian criminal code, there is no reference to the term pornography. The only related law governs the concept of "obscenity", stating that "any publication a dominant characteristic of which is the undue exploitation of sex, or of sex and one or more of the following subjects, namely crime, horror, cruelty and violence is deemed to be obscene" is not allowed. However this law is very open to speculation, and does not even apply specifically to Internet actions. Therefore Canada allows much more freedom to its citizens in their online endeavors; giving them a full right to Internet privacy.

Therefore it can be determined that the Singapore scenario would not have occurred in Canada. Forcing all users to log in through a single proxy server, retaining information on users and restricting their access to specific Internet sites would be considered a violation to the Canadian Privacy Commission.

http://courses.cs.vt.edu/~cs3604/lib...01/canres.html

Yes, but there are similar laws in canada.. in fact, in most cases the laws are MORE severe here, he is still in violation of the law.. ANd aside from that, he's HOSTING in the US, which makes him liable for 2257.

Why not go back over this thread.. He also has child pornography on his site, he ADMITTED to hacing images of minors on his site, and he's a known sex offender.. The bs he's spouting is blowing smoke up people's asses.. MULTIPLE people here and elsewhere have been and are in contact with the authorities about this fucker, and it's only a matter of time before he has to pay the piper.. If you want MORE background information hit me up on icq 3522039 or email [email protected] I don't want ANYONE going away thinking this guy is legitimiate, when all he is is a kiddie porn peddlar with a serious mental problem.

What are they Lady? I can't find anything that remotely resembles 2257 -

Must be nice for you guys up there :) No a-s-h-c-r-o-f-t to contend with

I'm not thinking that way at all Lady. I got into this thread because of the 2257 discussion. I love legal debates :)

Yes, but we have far different laws about hardcore images... in fact, they are more strict.. especially with regards to content. And as for the copyright laws, they are VERY tight up here as well.. Being a photographer by trade of both erotica and mainstream, I've actually sued and won several copyright violation cases up here, and they were VERY ugly for the other party.. there is also the "moral rights" issue with regards to use of images... that can bring in higher punitive damages than violations can. As for hardcore images, they need to be in either a) a loving context or b) an artistic context, and webmasters etc ARE required to have legal proof of age.. I will hunt up the specific statues.. And not only that.. anyone in Canada who hosts in the US is STILL subject to 2257, or they face the loss of their hosting...

This guy will never listen to a think you say. We've been trying to explain things to him for a month now, it started on another board.. he is a sick, twisted soul who needs to be in custody NOW.. unfortunately he's a slippery fucker. like I say, get in touch with me and I will give you more background. He says he hasn't been accused or anything.. He's full of shit.. he also figures he can use copyrighted materials and stolen hardcore images on his site without breaking laws too. He's deluded.

This is all I can find as to the law in Canada pertaining to what is obscenity:

Obscenity

The Code?s definition of obscenity is: "any material that contains the undue exploitation of sex, or of sex and any one or more of the following subjects: crime, horror, cruelty and violence."

http://www.media-awareness.ca/englis...ode_violen.cfm

As far as 2257 goes...yes, you're right - he could lose his hosting, but my argument was that it seems to me it would be highly unlikely the justice department would expend money to go after a guy in Canada for 2257 violations when they don't apply to people who live outside of the United States.

That code makes ME want to move to Canada :)

Gothweb, sorry to go off topic here...but I just had a quick question - I noticed under your name it says "american living in the UK"

How did you manage that? We've been thinking about living over in Europe, but it seems very difficult to get a VISA for a lengthy stay.

GothWeb: I appreciate the help ... I truly do.
If I have been "blinded" by the cursing ... I appologize.

Assuming you are correct ... that 2257 refers to "ALL websites" ... then I would say that 2257 is unconstitional as it forces a magazine to reveal it's sources. If 2257 only refers to "pornographic websites" I can see that ... but I have no intention of revealing the majoritiy of sources for "textual content". Now with regards to graphic content ... I do try to to state the sources ... there may be some old articles I do not ... but I will endevour as a result of recent feed back to be more aware of this need....regardless of whether it is "the law" or not as it makes my website more acceptable to the general adult community. I will work on this issue with expeditious due dilligence (after my other job ..)

CAVEAT: It is the continuous drop of AVS suppliers as a result of similar "charges/lies" that keeps my website broken.
And time in these groups ...

I think you are right too ...
Appologies to GFY ...
I never read the other read - and have no intention to.
I thought - the title changed - I am mistaken.

Hit me up I will send you links that might change your mind :)

You really need a fucking lawyer, you have NO fucking idea.. You host in the states, but you will have a host no longer.

If you didn't read it then how the fuck did you post in it, you idiot? You avoided all questions about child porn and posted about other shit. You need to take medication or something.

john be a cock?? wahahhahahahah

= = = = = = QUOTE BY GothWeb = = = = = = = = = = = =
You run a site that, by default, has a good deal of explicit content on it. You encourage parents to show that site to their children. Sure, they could change their browser settings, but you're still effectively encouraging minors to look at porn. Another rationalization.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

By "default" for many years the graphics were automatically off.
The viewer had to choose to turn them on - I go default all graphics to off again.

I try to keep the ratio of 50% teen (no explicit sex) and 50% adult. It is a "complete" sex education magazine. If I had the bucks and because of recent mis-interpretations - I see the need to split SexEducation.ORG into the non-explicit site AND SexEducation.TV into the explicit site .... once again ... I require a constant and consistent supplier in order to make those changes.

NO I DO NOT ENCOURAGE CHILDREN (THOSE WHO ARE NOT YET REPRODUCTIVELY CAPABLE) TO VISIT MY WEBSITE IN ANY MANNER FOR ANY REASON.

I DO ENCOURAGE ADULTS(PARENTS) TO REVIEW AND PRINT SOME OF THE ARTICLES ON THE WEBSITE.

I do not target children.
I do not target teenagers.

However, I am aware unlike other EVEN MORE GENERIC domains t hat teenagers would rather read about sex to learn about it - the discuss it with their parents. The link of this study is on my website some where.

Anys suggestions on improving the wording of my website is appreciated - but I would question whether stronger wording would actually be effective for the purpose of the "stronger" wording..