Oprano Adult Industry Forums - View Single Post

Carrie · 11-13-2003

John Beacock claims that his site is not a "porn site", but rather an educational site. Let's take a look.

Currently on his site there are many graphics that are showing up as red X's which have the text
Increase graphic sizes by turning on advertising banners. Get maximum size graphics with a FREE AVS Membership!
So his site is "educational", yet he is encouraging visitors to sign up for an Adult Verification Service where they will have access to thousands of porn sites.

He currently quotes many emails allegedly from children (and he states their ages). Here is one answer he gave to an alleged child of 11 years old:
Well, guess what ? Even infants masturbate. Huh ! Ya - that is right. Most boys and girls masturbate (play with themselves). They do not know the word masturbation but they know it feels good.

In fact us boys can get an erection pretty much the day we are born. So don't worry if you played with yourself before you say you started puberty. I am not encouraging this - just saying it will not harm you in anyway.

Girls do it too. Yes in the bath tub or have you ever seen a girl rocking on a rocking horse ? Is she going somewhere or rubbing herself on it ? You decide.

I don't know about you guys, but I do not plan to tell my sons when they are 11 that little girls on rocking horses are rubbing themselves for sexual stimulation. THIS is the type of responsible education that he is giving to children?

His site currently references background images and videos from unlicensed sources - ie: the "infamous Ally McBeal kiss" (video) and a fully scanned cover of Time magazine.

His site that is not "porn" did at one time feature videos from IDeepThroat.com. These videos were publically accessible and he claimed that he was using them for educational purposes.
This is a quote of him stating that his site is not porn:
Posting a generic blurb about 2257 on my homepage - gives a wrong impression on what the site is about. SexEducation.com is not a "porn" site - by any definition of "pornography"

I do not know how to link directly to a specific post, so I instead have hit the "Quote" button on those posts and will be linking to those 'quote' pages.

Here he admits to having a picture of a nude minor on his site, and claims that he does not need 2257 info for the picture because since she is underage, her parents cannot sign for her photo to be released.

Here again he admits to having a picture of a nude minor, and states that it was one of 16 that he downloaded "from several sources". He states that the child is "several years old".

In this quote, he reposts an article he had on his website entitled "Child Pornography - A Pictoral Essay". At the time of publishing, this article was enhanced, as the title states, by images of child pornography. They have since been removed. In the article he says:
At what age does the female body become acceptable to display?
Well at any age - duh : )
The real legal question is - at what age can a person sell their likeness for profit?
He then goes on to question whether a child "selling" photographs of themselves for candy or toys should be considered "legal".
He finishes this "essay" off by stating:
The answer is - YES : ) There is a legal basis for minors to sue for compensation and punitive damages, if their identity is used for commercial profit.
Note that he only makes a caveat for commercial profit, but not for the perverted personal collection that was never intended to be distributed commercially.

In this quote he is directly asked some very interesting questions, and gives his answers. He admits to NOT having the 2257 information for all models appearing in explicit images in his site, and then says that it is not illegal to post pictures of nude children in his home country of Canada.

In this quote he admits to having pictures of minors on his site that were nude, and that children and teens CAN access his member's section "with adult supervision".
1. Did you have kiddie porn on your site?
2. Did you have any pictures of minors on your site that were nude?
3. Did you have something on your site saying that children or teens can access your members section with adult supervision?
4. Have you ever been in trouble with the law about sex with minors or anything of that nature?

#1: NO
#2: YES
#3: Still do.
#4: No

-His "non porn site" has been banned for illegal content by SexKey - a well known ADULT verification service that allows access to explicit pornographic websites.

-His "non porn site" has been banned for illegal content by FreeNetPass - a well known ADULT verification service that allows access to explicit pornographic websites.

-He has submitted his "non porn site" to ADULT PORN DIRECTORIES and had it listed, such as http://www.freesitexxx.com/other/ .

His claims that he is not interested in child pornography, in spite of his own quotes above.
The Wayback Machine at Archive.Org tells a different story.
You can access the full list of its snapshots of his website here.

Just clicking on one at random (Oct. 18, 2000), here are the meta tags that I find:
META NAME="keywords" CONTENT="sex, oral sex, anal sex, safe sex, safer sex, teen sex, lolita sex, sex pictures,sex graphics, sex pix, sex videos, sex mpg, sex chat, sexual intercourse, yahoo, hotmail, icq, odigo, dick, porno, suck, fuck, penis, cock, vagina, tits, ass, cunt, pussy, cum"

Note the child pornography terms there.
On this same page, in the meta description, he states that his site is open to everyone - he even gives an age of 13, and goes on to describe the 'increasingly more sexually explicit material' that it has.
META NAME="description" content="FREE MEMBERSHIP - ALL AGES WELCOME (13+)
SexEducation.com is an E-Zine of sexual intercourse (discussion). There are three
viewing areas; VISITORS, TEENS & ADULTS. Each area presents increasingly more
sexually explicit material. Hundreds of pages, 5+ years in the making.
All areas are free to access. Sex Chat, full color graphics (pix/pics). COME VISIT OUR ONLINE STORE"

And as he's inviting in the 13yr olds, his site's title lets them know that they can find such things as teen sex, adult sex, and sex videos:
# SexEducation.com : ALL AGES (13+), E-Zine of Sexual Intercourse, Sexual Relationships, Sexual Techniques, Sex Chat, Sex Questions, Sex Answers, Sex Health, Oral Sex, Teen Sex, Adult Sex, Sex Techniques, Sex Pix, Sex Videos

Yet his site is not a porn site.
And his site does not cater to children - yet he gladly posts emails from children throughout his site.

Also, take a look at his email address. DAD @ sexeducation...

He is inviting 13yr olds to visit his site and view increasingly sexually explicit graphics and videos of teen sex. He posts video clips of a woman giving blowjobs from "IDeepThroat.com". He posts pictures of naked, underage children. He tries to encourage these 13yr old visitors to get even larger versions of the sexually explicit pictures on his site by signing up for an AVS service (where they'll also be exposed to thousands of adult porn sites).
And on top of that, when these children email him, he wants them to call him DAD.

Because of the fallout of his own admissions on GFY and other boards, he has removed most (if not all) of the images from his site. Using the WayBack machine, however, I was able to find an image of a man and a woman having sex, where the woman was rubbing her clitoris. There was no statement made about the couple's age, and yes, the picture was completely and freely accessible.

In spite of him removing these images, people do have screen captures of his site when he had them up. Lady Mischief is one of these people. She will not post the screen captures on any boards of course as they show child pornography. However if you contact her she has reams and reams of information on this man and would most likely send you the screen captures.

Now.
I have made no statements here which are not backed up immediately with posted proof from John Beacock himself, or with cached versions of his site from the completely objective site Archive.Org.

Make your own decisions.

SexEd, don't ever call me a fucking liar. I come with PROOF.

11-13-2003	#57
Carrie Eternal Newbie Respin bullshit press Your Comments Are Welcomed Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Inside your monitor Posts: 2,850	John Beacock claims that his site is not a "porn site", but rather an educational site. Let's take a look. Currently on his site there are many graphics that are showing up as red X's which have the text Increase graphic sizes by turning on advertising banners. Get maximum size graphics with a FREE AVS Membership! So his site is "educational", yet he is encouraging visitors to sign up for an Adult Verification Service where they will have access to thousands of porn sites. He currently quotes many emails allegedly from children (and he states their ages). Here is one answer he gave to an alleged child of 11 years old: Well, guess what ? Even infants masturbate. Huh ! Ya - that is right. Most boys and girls masturbate (play with themselves). They do not know the word masturbation but they know it feels good. In fact us boys can get an erection pretty much the day we are born. So don't worry if you played with yourself before you say you started puberty. I am not encouraging this - just saying it will not harm you in anyway. Girls do it too. Yes in the bath tub or have you ever seen a girl rocking on a rocking horse ? Is she going somewhere or rubbing herself on it ? You decide. I don't know about you guys, but I do not plan to tell my sons when they are 11 that little girls on rocking horses are rubbing themselves for sexual stimulation. THIS is the type of responsible education that he is giving to children? His site currently references background images and videos from unlicensed sources - ie: the "infamous Ally McBeal kiss" (video) and a fully scanned cover of Time magazine. His site that is not "porn" did at one time feature videos from IDeepThroat.com. These videos were publically accessible and he claimed that he was using them for educational purposes. This is a quote of him stating that his site is not porn: Posting a generic blurb about 2257 on my homepage - gives a wrong impression on what the site is about. SexEducation.com is not a "porn" site - by any definition of "pornography" I do not know how to link directly to a specific post, so I instead have hit the "Quote" button on those posts and will be linking to those 'quote' pages. Here he admits to having a picture of a nude minor on his site, and claims that he does not need 2257 info for the picture because since she is underage, her parents cannot sign for her photo to be released. Here again he admits to having a picture of a nude minor, and states that it was one of 16 that he downloaded "from several sources". He states that the child is "several years old". In this quote, he reposts an article he had on his website entitled "Child Pornography - A Pictoral Essay". At the time of publishing, this article was enhanced, as the title states, by images of child pornography. They have since been removed. In the article he says: At what age does the female body become acceptable to display? Well at any age - duh : ) The real legal question is - at what age can a person sell their likeness for profit? He then goes on to question whether a child "selling" photographs of themselves for candy or toys should be considered "legal". He finishes this "essay" off by stating: The answer is - YES : ) There is a legal basis for minors to sue for compensation and punitive damages, if their identity is used for commercial profit. Note that he only makes a caveat for commercial profit, but not for the perverted personal collection that was never intended to be distributed commercially. In this quote he is directly asked some very interesting questions, and gives his answers. He admits to NOT having the 2257 information for all models appearing in explicit images in his site, and then says that it is not illegal to post pictures of nude children in his home country of Canada. In this quote he admits to having pictures of minors on his site that were nude, and that children and teens CAN access his member's section "with adult supervision". 1. Did you have kiddie porn on your site? 2. Did you have any pictures of minors on your site that were nude? 3. Did you have something on your site saying that children or teens can access your members section with adult supervision? 4. Have you ever been in trouble with the law about sex with minors or anything of that nature? #1: NO #2: YES #3: Still do. #4: No -His "non porn site" has been banned for illegal content by SexKey - a well known ADULT verification service that allows access to explicit pornographic websites. -His "non porn site" has been banned for illegal content by FreeNetPass - a well known ADULT verification service that allows access to explicit pornographic websites. -He has submitted his "non porn site" to ADULT PORN DIRECTORIES and had it listed, such as http://www.freesitexxx.com/other/ . His claims that he is not interested in child pornography, in spite of his own quotes above. The Wayback Machine at Archive.Org tells a different story. You can access the full list of its snapshots of his website here. Just clicking on one at random (Oct. 18, 2000), here are the meta tags that I find: META NAME="keywords" CONTENT="sex, oral sex, anal sex, safe sex, safer sex, teen sex, lolita sex, sex pictures,sex graphics, sex pix, sex videos, sex mpg, sex chat, sexual intercourse, yahoo, hotmail, icq, odigo, dick, porno, suck, fuck, penis, cock, vagina, tits, ass, cunt, pussy, cum" Note the child pornography terms there. On this same page, in the meta description, he states that his site is open to everyone - he even gives an age of 13, and goes on to describe the 'increasingly more sexually explicit material' that it has. META NAME="description" content="FREE MEMBERSHIP - ALL AGES WELCOME (13+) SexEducation.com is an E-Zine of sexual intercourse (discussion). There are three viewing areas; VISITORS, TEENS & ADULTS. Each area presents increasingly more sexually explicit material. Hundreds of pages, 5+ years in the making. All areas are free to access. Sex Chat, full color graphics (pix/pics). COME VISIT OUR ONLINE STORE" And as he's inviting in the 13yr olds, his site's title lets them know that they can find such things as teen sex, adult sex, and sex videos: # SexEducation.com : ALL AGES (13+), E-Zine of Sexual Intercourse, Sexual Relationships, Sexual Techniques, Sex Chat, Sex Questions, Sex Answers, Sex Health, Oral Sex, Teen Sex, Adult Sex, Sex Techniques, Sex Pix, Sex Videos Yet his site is not a porn site. And his site does not cater to children - yet he gladly posts emails from children throughout his site. Also, take a look at his email address. DAD @ sexeducation... He is inviting 13yr olds to visit his site and view increasingly sexually explicit graphics and videos of teen sex. He posts video clips of a woman giving blowjobs from "IDeepThroat.com". He posts pictures of naked, underage children. He tries to encourage these 13yr old visitors to get even larger versions of the sexually explicit pictures on his site by signing up for an AVS service (where they'll also be exposed to thousands of adult porn sites). And on top of that, when these children email him, he wants them to call him DAD. Because of the fallout of his own admissions on GFY and other boards, he has removed most (if not all) of the images from his site. Using the WayBack machine, however, I was able to find an image of a man and a woman having sex, where the woman was rubbing her clitoris. There was no statement made about the couple's age, and yes, the picture was completely and freely accessible. In spite of him removing these images, people do have screen captures of his site when he had them up. Lady Mischief is one of these people. She will not post the screen captures on any boards of course as they show child pornography. However if you contact her she has reams and reams of information on this man and would most likely send you the screen captures. Now. I have made no statements here which are not backed up immediately with posted proof from John Beacock himself, or with cached versions of his site from the completely objective site Archive.Org. Make your own decisions. SexEd, don't ever call me a fucking liar. I come with PROOF. __________________ Need a kick-ass design done quickly? I recommend Sex Creator - they absolutely ROCK.