Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: zahc on February 10, 2010, 09:42:41 AM
-
Basically, WTF? How does this happen? How did those judges get their jobs, the classified ads? Obviously not; no lay person could possibly rule so badly.
"Obscenity" laws, in which judgements are based on the prevailing "community standards of decency", are already very thin ice IMO. The first ammendment is only applicable if what you have to say is up to "community standards"? And now you can be convicted under the obscenity standards of ANY community in the US? This guy is now doing 2 years in prison after being convicted in a state from completely across the country.
http://www2.tbo.com/content/2010/feb/03/convictions-upheld-resentencing-ordered-max-hardco/
TAMPA - Pornographic materials sold over the Internet may be considered obscene in one community and perfectly acceptable in another.
A federal appeals court says communities that find the materials objectionable are within their rights to prosecute the pornography producers, even though the items were not specifically directed at those communities.
Ruling in the Tampa federal prosecution of Paul F. Little, also known as Max Hardcore, the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals says the law doesn't recognize a national community standard for Internet-based material.
The Atlanta-based court rejected arguments by Little's attorneys that applying a local community standard to the Internet violates the First Amendment because doing so means material can be judged according to the standards of the strictest communities.
In other words, the materials might be legal where they were produced and almost everywhere else. But if they violate the standards of one community, they are illegal in that community and the producers may be convicted of a crime.
The court upheld the 2008 convictions of Little and his production company on 10 violations of federal obscenity laws. But it ordered that Little be resentenced, ruling that the sentencing judge should not have considered the profits from sales of the obscene materials, whether or not they were sold in the Tampa court's jurisdiction.
Little, 53, is in a minimum security prison in Texas serving a 46-month sentence handed down by U.S. District Court Judge Susan Bucklew in January 2009. He has a projected release date of May 29, 2012.
Little is from California but was tried in Tampa after investigators here ordered his videos through the mail and downloaded them over the Internet.
Jurors in Little's trial were told to judge the materials on the basis of how "the average person of the community as a whole – the Middle District of Florida – would view the material."
Little's lawyers maintained that standard was unworkable when dealing with the Internet.
Federal courts are divided on the issue, which could mean it will ultimately be addressed by the U.S. Supreme Court.
The ruling in the Little case applies only in Florida, Alabama and Georgia.
A federal appeals court in California ruled in another case three months ago that a national community standard must be applied when regulating obscene materials over the Internet.
A three-judge panel of the 11th Circuit, however, wrote that they "decline to follow the reasoning" of the California court.
Because the materials in the Little case were ruled to be illegal only in the Middle District of Florida, the sentence had to be limited to the defendants' activities in the district, the Atlanta-based appeals court ruled.
Therefore, Bucklew should not have increased Little's sentencing level under federal guidelines, which penalize defendants for financial gain over $30,000. Little and his company made $40,000 selling the disputed materials.
But the appeals court said there was no evidence of how much of that money was generated in the Middle District of Florida. The panel ordered Little be resentenced at a lower level.
The court said Bucklew acted appropriately, however, when she increased Little's guideline level because the videos were sadistic, masochistic or violent.
The videos featured scenes of vomiting and urination, depicting women being forced to ingest various bodily fluids.
-
The ruling is horryifying to be honest.
It basically means that if I write a book that a 'community' finds obscene, I could be charged from some place in New England or something. If I went on public record using a cuss word, I could be charged with a crime somewhere I have never been. What this could lead to is very bad. However, I would like to hope that this does get moved up the chain and overturned.
Granted, also possible that there is more to the story.
-
Well, when we all get to be one big cozy global community, then the Caliphate can bring us all into Shariah court for kissing our girlfriends in public. :facepalm:
Sheesh.
I love how some detectives with nothing else to do in a sleepy little Florida town, decided to prosecute some guy 3500 miles away rather than look for some real criminals (beating, mugging, raping, murdering, stealing, etc).
-
Yuck. I don't get obscenity laws in the first place, and this seems to be a rather horrifying application of them.
-
A federal appeals court in California ruled in another case three months ago that a national community standard must be applied when regulating obscene materials over the Internet.
A three-judge panel of the 11th Circuit, however, wrote that they "decline to follow the reasoning" of the California court.
The 9th circuit says no localized standards for obscenity.
A sub-court of the 11th says "nope, we don't agree with that."
That's a recipe for further appeals. Either Little wins at the 11th circuit and the Florida town will appeal to SCOTUS (who may or may not grant cert), or Little loses at the 11th circuit and we have a split that SCOTUS will definitely want to resolve.
Because the materials in the Little case were ruled to be illegal only in the Middle District of Florida, the sentence had to be limited to the defendants' activities in the district, the Atlanta-based appeals court ruled.
Therefore, Bucklew should not have increased Little's sentencing level under federal guidelines, which penalize defendants for financial gain over $30,000. Little and his company made $40,000 selling the disputed materials.
Little could open his books and shipping manifests. Look for all zip codes inside the town's jurisdiction that ordered his videos (minus the nosey police department that started the whole mess). Prove his financial gain to that area is less than $30k. After all, he only made $40k selling across the entire country according to this article. How could 1 town represent 75% of that?
Unless... the town's "community standards" aren't as high as some judges might claim. =D
However, doing so is a kind of admission of wrong-doing and shouldn't be done until appeals actions are exhausted to get a ruling compatible with liberty and freedom of association.
(No, I don't like puke/vomit/feces smut... but if "actresses" are willing to perform and people are willing to buy, I don't have a problem with videos being sold as long as I'm not forced to watch it.)
-
I have no problems with "community standards" & such. It smells very much of federalism to me.
I think the idea was inappropriately applied in this instance, though, for many reasons.
BTW, Tampa is not some sleepy little burg. It is a large city and has way too many serious problems to waste LEO time/effort by ordering naughty stuff off the net.
-
Jurors in Little's trial were told to judge the materials on the basis of how "the average person of the community as a whole – the Middle District of Florida – would view the material."
The problem is laid bare in this line.
-
Little is from California but was tried in Tampa after investigators here ordered his videos through the mail and downloaded them over the Internet.
So, why aren't the investigators being charged for purchasing and possessing indecent material in Tampa. They are the ones who brought said material into their locality. Honestly, he didn't sell them in Tampa. He didn't mail them in Tampa. He didn't upload them in Tampa. In truth, the videos were packaged, and went to a delivery company. After that, wherever they go, who really knows. Likewise, the videos uploaded from his server, probably to another server beyond his control in California. Where they go from there, who knows. The buyer and end user should be held accountable for the products that they purchased and possess if having those products violates their local laws.
So, if I buy beer in Ohio on Sunday, but drive it over the Indiana border because beer sales are a no-no on Sunday, should the liquor store or brewery be held liable for my attaining beer on Sunday?
-
But he's a pornographer. Porn! Sex! Think of the children!
-
Does this mean that if I built an AR I risk being convicted in CA? ???
-
Does this mean that if I built an AR I risk being convicted in CA? ???
Yep. You're altering the harmonics of interstate commerce in pre-ban/post-ban supply chains. Every AR you build in free America makes a pre-94 (or pre-Cali-ban) AR worth less. You're hurting California's economy.
I've sent a note to the CA extradition teams. They'll be along shortly. =D
-
Aw, crap. And I have class in half an hour... =(
-
But he's a pornographer. Porn! Sex! Think of the children!
How can they legitimately categorize this stuff as obscene? Urination and vomiting in a porn context appeals to a very very small portion of the population. More people get aroused by well-prepared meals, tbh, and I don't see any political movement to ban those.
Ban cheesecake and chocolate! For the Childruhn! Iron Chef will bring about the downfall of civilization!
-
Urination and vomiting in a porn context appeals to a very very small portion of the population.
This is EXACTLY why they can ban it.
-
Redacted.
-
First they came for the scatological porn and I said nothing!
-
In effect we have here a symptom of a greater disease.
-
Various states have been trying to nail this guy for rather distasteful things for years. I'm rather happy they got him.
O hai there Mr. Morality. Let's hope nobody ever finds your habits distasteful.
(Along the lines of "Sign here for your paycheck, hon. Yes, it's a contract. Don't bother reading..... Oh, thanks for signing, we're going to rape you now. You agreed via contract.")
You must have a very strange definition of rape. I can't find any reference to Max Hardcore producing BDSM porn, but even if he did, BDSM does not work the way you described.
-
Fine. I'm wrong, you're right. I'll edit my post now. Leave yours if you wish.
-
There's some more background with choice quotes from some jury members in this NSFW AVN link (purposely not hotlinked) below (from the trial verdict in Summer '08)
http:// business.avn.com/articles/30615.html (NSFW Adult Video News link)
The jurors indicated that while the five movies, which contained scenes of urination, fisting and vomiting, were not to their taste, they didn't see anything wrong with others watching them if they wanted to, with the foreman commenting, "After all, that's why we have the First Amendment."
"I'm sorry those jurors didn't have the guts to stick to their beliefs," Sirkin said later. "It's a sad day in this country when even if you believe a person didn't commit a crime, that you can be badgered into changing your vote just because some other juror tries to bully you. That's not the way Americans are supposed to react."
One of the jurors said that as soon as the jury had entered the deliberation room, nine of them had been ready to find guilt on all charges before any discussion had even taken place.
"It was a travesty but we had no choice because of the way the law is written," the foreman declared. "If just two words in the law had been different, I think we could have held out longer for acquittal, and maybe even convinced the rest of them."
The two words: "Reasonably foreseeable," in the statute making it a crime to mail obscene matter, or aiding and abetting such mailing by another person. (See judge's comment above.)
Bad law + no awareness of jury nullification
-
O hai there Mr. Morality. Let's hope nobody ever finds your habits distasteful.
You must have a very strange definition of rape. I can't find any reference to Max Hardcore producing BDSM porn, but even if he did, BDSM does not work the way you described.
If you have a free afternoon and a wife that won't murder you google up some Max Hardcore videos. There are a few where the girls are crying saying they want to stop and he won't... it's not acting, if it is these girls need to win some awards. I'm very open minded sexually and have no problems with people doing whatever they want with their bodies, but this guy is a bad, bad person, I don't feel bad for him at all. He tricks young girls (who were probably raped as children) into doing horrible things. He also portrays them all as 10 year olds. In my opinion someone decided he was a bad guy and wanted to take him down, fine with me.
(not that... ummm..... I have any expertise in adult movies... well at least not of that variety)
-
There's a whole variety of videos that look that way, by a variety of producers. Film =/= reality.
-
there are time when folks espousing a cause rally to defend the wrong guy. and in so doing they matginalize if not completely discredit their cause, this is one of those times. i'd go to a human sacrifice if it didn't keep me up too late and this guys stuff crosses my line.
-
If you have a free afternoon and a wife that won't murder you google up some Max Hardcore videos. There are a few where the girls are crying saying they want to stop and he won't... it's not acting, if it is these girls need to win some awards. I'm very open minded sexually and have no problems with people doing whatever they want with their bodies, but this guy is a bad, bad person, I don't feel bad for him at all. He tricks young girls (who were probably raped as children) into doing horrible things. He also portrays them all as 10 year olds. In my opinion someone decided he was a bad guy and wanted to take him down, fine with me.
(not that... ummm..... I have any expertise in adult movies... well at least not of that variety)
If I understand you correctly, the actresses are actually being raped and not acting. Is that your point?
-
There's plenty of porn where actors ask the other guy to stop, or scream out in pain. That doesn't mean they're being raped - even though some of the stuff they do probably has to be physically uncomfortable, they're no more being raped than boxers are victims of assault. Anybody can go to several free-to-access porn sites and enter certain keywords (no, I will not reveal neither the keywords nor the URLs in an all-ages forum, PM me if you feel like checking) to find giant amounts of it. Had these actresses been raped, they'd be filing charges.
-
Re: the above.
Googling brought up posts (on various web boards) that Max Hardcore was engaged in some form of legal trouble at one point with an actress named Olivia who participated in a scene and then wanted it cut from his films. Some posts claim she was raped, others claim she didn't like the scene. Reviewers say her acting is horrible and that the scene isn't believable. So it's quite possible he did it.
Further I note that he specializes in films where the characters are humiliated in various ways - not in the usual sense in which left-wing feminists claim that porn is 'humiliating', but in the sense that Max insults them, and performs various humiliating activities while having sex with them.
Did he rape Olivia? I don't know. If he did, he should be on rape charges. Not obscenity charges. If he didn't, he should be out and making Maxed Out 21. The process of slinging made-up victimless-crime charges at people because you are 'very sure' he did a real crime at some point is not morally acceptable.
I am sure there are other producers of the same kind of creepy porn that aren't rapists, and there's no reason to create precedent for them also to be imprisoned.
-
they're no more being raped than boxers are victims of assault
A boxer has a referee in the ring to stop the fight when he's KO'd according to a predefined set of rules.
I wonder if the contract between Little and the actresses was made part of the evidence?
Nevertheless, the trial wasn't about rape or breach of contract.
-
A boxer has a referee in the ring to stop the fight when he's KO'd according to a predefined set of rules.
I wonder if the contract between Little and the actresses was made part of the evidence?
As I've already said, it's possible that this man is a rapist. From what I've discovered since I've made that post (and already posted here), it's quite possible.
It's also beyond likely that he's personally... very, very unpleasant.
But the trial wasn't about rape charges, nor was it about whether Max Hardcore is a nice person.
-
they got capone for his taxes
-
they got capone for his taxes
Not really a correct analogy.
-
There's plenty of porn where actors ask the other guy to stop, or scream out in pain. That doesn't mean they're being raped - even though some of the stuff they do probably has to be physically uncomfortable, they're no more being raped than boxers are victims of assault. Anybody can go to several free-to-access porn sites and enter certain keywords (no, I will not reveal neither the keywords nor the URLs in an all-ages forum, PM me if you feel like checking) to find giant amounts of it. Had these actresses been raped, they'd be filing charges.
Unless there is proof of a script, and a written agreement the actress has signed, how are we to believe that when they say "no", they aren't being raped? I'm pretty damned open minded, but that crosses a line that can't be uncrossed. No is No. I've seen a few max hardcore clips. My opinion of them or the people that enjoy them is not favorable.
But this trial isn't about that. Its about some pissant little jurisdictions deciding that material being distrubted through the mail and internet violates thier community standards. These obscenity laws are a joke. One person's obscene is another's friday popcorn-and-a-movie night.
-
I'm not about to research the case here at work, but Little's alleged obscenity was "under investigation" for some time. The prosecution (feds?) decided they had one shot at him, so they decided to charge and try him in the locale that offered the greatest opportunity for conviction, thus the Orlando trial.
We had a high profile trial in our county about 20 years ago, and at that time an obscenity conviction hinged on "community standards" and what an average person found offensive. (Renting porn videos - No conviction)
It's all we have at this time, and frankly, knowing what I know about the videos in question, I'm glad we have something.
humorous comment deleted due to inaccuracy
-
Unless there is proof of a script, and a written agreement the actress has signed, how are we to believe that when they say "no", they aren't being raped?
Have you seen Jason Statham's contracts? Did you spend the entire Transporter series on the phone to 911 reporting all the assaults?
I've seen a few max hardcore clips. My opinion of them or the people that enjoy them is not favorable.
I feel the same way about a lot of movies these days.
-
The jurors indicated that while the five movies, which contained scenes of urination, fisting and vomiting, were not to their taste, they didn't see anything wrong with others watching them if they wanted to, with the foreman commenting, "After all, that's why we have the First Amendment."(1)
"I'm sorry those jurors didn't have the guts to stick to their beliefs," Sirkin said later. "It's a sad day in this country when even if you believe a person didn't commit a crime, that you can be badgered into changing your vote just because some other juror tries to bully you. That's not the way Americans are supposed to react."
One of the jurors said that as soon as the jury had entered the deliberation room, nine of them had been ready to find guilt on all charges before any discussion had even taken place.
"It was a travesty but we had no choice because of the way the law is written,"(2) the foreman declared. "If just two words in the law had been different, I think we could have held out longer for acquittal, and maybe even convinced the rest of them."
The two words: "Reasonably foreseeable," in the statute making it a crime to mail obscene matter, or aiding and abetting such mailing by another person. (See judge's comment above.)
The juror(s) in question are nincompoops.
(1) The COTUS & 1st Amendment was not instituted for the sake of pornographers. Its purpose was free political speech and free practice of religion. Anything else is gravy. To mention pornography as the purpose displays ignorance as well as swallowing the left's propaganda.
Claiming pornography as the object of the1st Amendment also trivializes it, the rest of the BOR, and the COTUS.
(2) Jury nullification, dude. Man up, shoulder your responsibilities as a citizen and do your duty.
-
I don't neccessarily approve of the law being used this way... or even the law existing. But if they can enforce a law such as this, I'm glad it was Little who was on the recieving end.
If I understand you correctly, the actresses are actually being raped and not acting. Is that your point?
Yes, and one of the actresses has claimed that, although she backed down from her statements soon afterwards.
Obviously most of you don't believe the 1st amendment is "absolute", if it was you would need to argue for the legalization of child pornography. So the government CAN draw lines as to what is acceptable and what isn't. As far as I'm concerned I'd rather have my neighbor watching 16 year olds strip nude than watching Max's 18-year-olds dolled up to look like 10 year olds getting raped. (even if it is a simulation, which in some cases I don't believe it is)
-
Uhm. I don't know how to break it to you, but the Supreme Court has in fact ruled that as long as no children are actually being abused (actors portraying children are entirely okay, as well as animation etc.), then this is covered by Constitutional protections. You shouldn't be able to ban stuff because it "creeps you out".
-
Uhm. I don't know how to break it to you, but the Supreme Court has in fact ruled that as long as no children are actually being abused (actors portraying children are entirely okay, as well as animation etc.), then this is covered by Constitutional protections. You shouldn't be able to ban stuff because it "creeps you out".
Stripping erotically would not be protected. We had some college kids (18-20 year olds) near here arrested because they took a video of a 15 year old flashing her privates at them, she wasn't doing anything sexual. They had to settle on it and ended up with some extensive probation.
Portraying a child IS illegal. Looking at the Missouri Criminal code handbook right now. Chapter 16.6 It specifically states that obscene material that "PORTRAYS what appears to be a child as an observer or participant of sexual conduct" is child pornography.
You shouldn't be able to ban stuff because it "creeps you out".
Wanting to ban something because it is promoting the rape of children isn't banning it because it "creeps me out". Frankly I've seen enough crap that nothing "creeps me out". As I've stated, if you support a ban on child pornography then there are exceptions to the 1st amendment. And if we are going to start putting exceptions in I think that portraying young girls being raped should be under a similar umbrella. Especially when said girls are quite possibly actually being raped.
-
Uhm. I don't know how to break it to you, but the Supreme Court has in fact ruled that as long as no children are actually being abused (actors portraying children are entirely okay, as well as animation etc.), then this is covered by Constitutional protections. You shouldn't be able to ban stuff because it "creeps you out".
In my understanding of the law (IANASCJ), something can be banned because it creeps out "more than half of a community".
-
Have you seen Jason Statham's contracts? Did you spend the entire Transporter series on the phone to 911 reporting all the assaults?
;/ Easy on the ad hom. The trial isn't about rape. Max Hardcore's stuff appears to be rape, but until someone actually charges him with going to far, it isn't.
-
Uhm. I don't know how to break it to you, but the Supreme Court has in fact ruled that as long as no children are actually being abused (actors portraying children are entirely okay, as well as animation etc.), then this is covered by Constitutional protections. You shouldn't be able to ban stuff because it "creeps you out".
um let me break it to you that guys are in jail for kiddie porn that was computer generated this isn't a white paper theory iu know the names of the guys
-
It's difficult to find people, even within the porn industry, who are willing to rally behind the three websites that have been targeted since the obscenity squad was formed. Max Hardcore's site still peddles his trademark "sexual mistreatment." NowThatsFuckedUp.com, another targeted site, offered free porn to U.S. soldiers in exchange for photos of dead Iraqis—until its operator was arrested by local authorities and charged with over 300 counts of obscenity. (Though local authorities are responsible for that investigation, the NCSF believes it was inspired by the new federal emphasis on obscenity prosecutions.) And Red-Rose-Stories.com, the third targeted site, allegedly trafficked in written accounts of pedophilia (or "intergenerational stories," as Susan Wright, spokeswoman for the NCSF, prefers to put it) until the FBI took the site's computers and threatened its operator with obscenity charges.
-
As others have said, if it was rape or whatever then it should have been charged with that. If one community can decide what is immoral, then we're all at the mercy of whatever fundamentalist baptist/mormon/muslim/scientologist/whatever community decides to poke their noses into our business. Prosecute harshly if something is a violation of another person's freedom and/or rights, but until they cross the line between fantasy and reality, leave it alone...everyone is screwed up somehow.
-
If one community can decide what is immoral, then we're all at the mercy of whatever fundamentalist baptist/mormon/muslim/scientologist/whatever community decides to poke their noses into our business.
The standard for determining obscenity applies to people in that community, and it has to be a general community standard, not one segment of that community. And it has to have no redeeming social value. I'm not sure I agree with the conviction, or the law as it stands, but I'm definitely sure that the kind of slippery slope you are picturing here is not an issue under the analysis the court applied.
(But I haven't read the whole thread. Hope I'm not being too repetitive.)
-
The standard for determining obscenity applies to people in that community, and it has to be a general community standard, not one segment of that community. And it has to have no redeeming social value. I'm not sure I agree with the conviction, or the law as it stands, but I'm definitely sure that the kind of slippery slope you are picturing here is not an issue under the analysis the court applied.
(But I haven't read the whole thread. Hope I'm not being too repetitive.)
This was a decision made by a segment of the Floridian population, based on material sold nationally, created outside the state.
If this is OK, then a court in Utah could apply morality on the entire nation, or a court from Texas, or heck, a court from California could tell the people in Alabama what they can and can't do. Obviously that is not tennable.
-
This was a decision made by a segment of the Floridian population, based on material sold nationally, created outside the state.
Oh, I see. Yeah, I probably should have read the whole thread. Sorry 'bout that. Just using the forums to try to stay awake while studying today. =|
I agree that that is a serious problem.
-
um let me break it to you that guys are in jail for kiddie porn that was computer generated this isn't a white paper theory iu know the names of the guys
I find it difficult personally to sympathize with the people who consume that. That's, however, not the issue.
-
I find it difficult personally to sympathize with the people who consume that. That's, however, not the issue.
Oh come on, don't you know that any EDIT: moral issue is an excuse to think about the children??
-
I believe that quite recently a legislator proposed a bill which would make it a crime to market (in any state) a video of an activity that was considered animal abuse in that state. People at the time were concerned that it would enable Federal prosecutors to 'shop' for venues until they found one where a given activity was illegal, and charge the producer there.
The problem with this form of thing is that, in the age of the Internet, online sales, and Amazon.com it requires a person to comply with the laws of all fifty states even if his business doesn't ship there.
-
Oh come on, don't you know that any more issue is an excuse to think about the children??
Like the children who are being prosecuted on CP charges? :D
-
I've seen some of his stuff and I can't stomach it myself. I wouldn't try to lock him up for it though.
-
I went through this same sort of moral dilemma when my ex-neighbor got arrested.
From my libertarian ethical viewpoint, the stuff he was selling should not be illegal as long as all the actors/actresses were participating voluntarily.
But I had serious doubts about that, especially considering the known felons that he was hosting at his place, and the apparent attempted abduction of my teen age daughters (dogs scared them off).
In the end, he pled guilty to a conspiracy charge. Apparently he didn't want jury members to appreciate his video artwork. ;)
And he is gone from this neighborhood =)
-
Good. I'd hate to live next to that, myself. =)
-
Good. I'd hate to live next to that, myself. =)
You have no idea. It was hell for a while.
Worst part was the neighbor had a legal easement across my land to get to his land :(
I still don't like the legal means used to put him away for a little while, especially considering that I suspect that he and his buddies were guilty of far worse crimes. I would still like to get a cadaver sniffing dog to check out the place some time.
-
(1) The COTUS & 1st Amendment was not instituted for the sake of pornographers. Its purpose was free political speech and free practice of religion. Anything else is gravy. To mention pornography as the purpose displays ignorance as well as swallowing the left's propaganda.
I believe that statement was meant in a broader context; the First Amendment protects speech that other people don't like.