|
Quote:
|
Quote:
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 :) |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
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 ... |
Quote:
Appologies to GFY ... I never read the other read - and have no intention to. I thought - the title changed - I am mistaken. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
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.. |
Quote:
I never knew about this ... However, it is irrelevant as it is my intention to obey the laws of my primary suppliers and credit card processors. However - I want a magazine where no sexual topic can not be discussed and that all members are 100% anonymous. Membership - being simply a "intellectual" test that you have the capability to understand that as you continue to enter the website - it's content tends to be more explicit and the WORDING of those documents are intended to push your sexual prejudice "buttons". Facts and stats - are - facts and stats. Sometimes lessons need to be discussed ... my website is more like a magazine or OPTIONAL INTERCOURSE methods ... different ways of handling situations - when the generic "medical websites" fail ... Father type answers ... Hence the handle "[email protected]" ... which clearly identifies my gender, that I am not a Doctor - and my person perspective of things ... |
Quote:
Do actually sexually explicit pics of kids under 18 exist on your site? The copyright issues are secondary to that. Posting sexually explicit pics of kids under 18 is a serious legal and moral issue. |
Quote:
= = = = = = = DOUBLE QUOTE : SEE ABOVE = = = = = = hahahaha A while back he said he didn't have any illegal stuff... I don't know about this second because it MIGHT have changed since, but I checked it out when he first posted over on the other board. I can guarantee you he had content from other porn sites (ideepthroat.com was one of them). Directories of content from Hustler, but I never even touched the stuff (or opened the folder called) ch*ld porn that was on his server. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Heather at iDeepThroat.com gave me permission to use her content she advertised in the newsgroups/usenet. In fact - back then I asked her if she wanted to write for the magazine. She said she had too much on her plate but would consider it another day. In fact it seemed to me that she was just getting used to some financial success. She is still on my ICQ list until this day. And everytime a member has asked about something she does ... I have posted a "capture" of her TWO videos I use and provide high recommendations. THE REASON I POST HIGH RECOMMENDATIONS ... IS FOR YEARS ... NOT DAYS ... NOT WEEKS ... BUT FOR YEARS ... Heather has not posted aroused genitals or reproductive bodily fluids on her homepage. Have fun Heather and "special guy" you are a highly recommended ADULT ONLY WEBSITE of SexEducation.com. You do something that is increasingly - asked about. Dad@ |
Quote:
I forgot ...EVERY SINGLE WORD SENTENCE AND GRAMMAR MISTAKE.... I make .... is jumped on... Yes I began to answer questions ... It turned into a "curse" match ... if this thread does ... it too will be ignored ... I need to fix my website ... I only have so much time in a day. But I see the long term importance of being accepted into the AVS community. It's a little tougher community ... but I will adjust things ... while still talking about the issues my magazine feels is important .. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
No way - under any circumstance would I post a picture of a minor having sex. ABSOLUTELY NOT!!! UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCE WOULD I PICTURE A MINOR HAVING SEX!!! I do have pictures of minors on my website. I got banned by SexKey.com (I would like another chance) because I posted the picture of a Canadian version of Time Magazine which contained a Mother & Daughter with AIDS. But ... and I do understand why ... their policy was absolutely no minors allowed ... the policy ... was probably correct then ... but ... SexKey.com is a business too ... I think it probably had to do with more of SexEducation.com being a "high maintenance" account ... then to do with AIDS. IMHO ... I don't believe it was because I was a high maintenance account - but that I had the potential to become a high maintenance account. Anyways just not logical to me ... |
Listen you dipshit... you are just not grasping reality....
Many people here have been in the 'adult' biz for a long time - they know the law because they 'NEED' to in order to stay in business, not get sued or go to jail. Try reading and taking in what people saying to you instead of coming back with meaningless crap which would never stand up in a court of law. Quote:
The part about surfers can disable graphics means shit... it's still visible. And the 'Dad' part I don't buy for one second. You're a freak. Mixing porn and the other topics is NOT sex education and you are NOT qualified to have such a site if you think it is. It's a waste of time discussing copyright or the above with you further...... you obviously think you are far smarter then anyone here and know more about the online business so fuck off. |
Quote:
Her page is not loading ... |
Oh... and
Quote:
|
Quote:
grrr .... The browser is showing (as it passes by) that the graphics are loading but they are not visible in the browser. Rebooting ... |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Her graphics on her homepage are not showing up. Can someone post a screen shot of her homepage... You never know these days if the server is adjusting the homepage for the community referring it ... Obviously from the anger of this room - I need to do something. I can not currently get her graphics to show. BUT I CAN TELL YOU FOR 3-4-5 maybe five years ...I am not aware of any instance she has displayed aroused genitals or reproductive bodily fluids. However, I will still back her even if she experimented with these types of "Google Gag Gah" algorithms ... I have. There is now way to know unless you test your hypothesis. If it is currently - I will chat her. To see why. |
Okay ...
I have to go ... If I missed your posts today ... Please - repeat your question. I will be back tomorrow. John E. Beacock [email protected] 1-403-619-2739 |
Quote:
|
HEre is where our little friend refuses to answer questions about his "tendancies". There are people here and elsewhere who HAVE reported him to authorities, etc... If anyone wants more info, contact me.. here is the first thread I referred to:
http://www.gofuckyourself.com/showth... cation+defend And here's our friend looking for more material (or trying to protect his interests): http://www.gofuckyourself.com/showth... cation+defend Listen, mister "Dad" (Dad is a COMMONLY KNOWN keyword in CP, coincidence? I htink not). I am NOT going to leave you alone until they ban you or you go to jail.. I refuse to allow anyone like yourself to maintain ANY credibility.. Why? Because I'm a mother, and those kids you victimize have mothers.. your thin veneer of respectability has worn off, and you've dodged too many questions. Someone needs to put you in jail, right now. |
Quote:
Please note that 2257 does not require you to reveal your sources. It requires you to keep documentation on file that proves the age of the models-- copies of their ID, and documents they sign stating they are 18 or older. You keep these on file. All your site needs to have is the name and address of the person who keeps the records. You are only required by law to show these in the case of a model-age investigation, and can't be asked to share them just because someone wants your source. This means that if someone tried to get a journalistic source from those files, you could fight it under a first-amendment defense. |
You all need to understand that 2257 has no relation to anyone living outside of the United States.
This law should not even be quoted except specifically as it applies to a U.S. company. Yes...maybe his hosting could get taken away. But that would be about the extent of it. The laws that NEED to be quoted to him are Canadian laws which may be similair to 2257. What are the Canadian laws as related to age verification? I can't seem to find them...does anyone have a reference? |
Quote:
What I see is someone who owns a business in Canada that owns the site domain, but who is himself also doing business in Arizona. Does he live there? Is he a citizen? Maybe. Certainly, he is using his US-based email to run a site violating 2257. There are all sorts of ways that this overlaps into US jurisdiction. How sure are you that this guy, as he has represented himself on here, is completely insulated? |
Quote:
|
This guy is fucking out of it!
what a waste of a perfectly good domain name. You should sell it and not even look back to continue in this biz since youd dont have the slightest clue. One more tip, dont get tricked into coming on a board where you will be ripped in pieces. Do your homework first. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
I like your style :winkwink: |
Quote:
Has anyone verifiably found sexually explicit pics of kids on his site? The 2257 argument is literally the most ridiculous thing I've seen going in this thread since most American adult webmasters don't even have 2257 posted on their site. An example: Adult Revenue Service...one of the BIG players: http://www.teenboyz2000.com/ see 2257 anywhere on there? |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
leave the moron be. |
The fact that lots of people are breaking a law does not make the actions of one person breaking that law more legal.
|
sexeducation:
Quote:
The second "absolutely not" is a blatant lie! Other more relevant people already have images from your website that prove my point. Their reaction was "it wants to make me puke". The admission the "I do have pictures of minors on my website" in conjunction with both lies above say it all. You are a CHILD MOLESTOR and your "hypothisis" on "sex education" for young boys and girls shows what a SICK FUCK you are! Now... :321GFY |
Quote:
Boards are boards ...there are all kinds of boards. The "F" of GFY probably ensures that Google algorithms do not high rank this site in general audience searches. However, GFY is exactly where the message ... No aroused genitals or reproductive bodily fluids on any directly accessed domain. ... should be posted. |
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:52 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
©2000-, AI Media Network Inc123