California pornographer charged (and convicted) under Florida obscenity laws.

[MicroBalrog]

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.

[Tuco]

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.

[MicroBalrog]

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.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

they got capone for his taxes

[MicroBalrog]

they got capone for his taxes

Not really a correct analogy.

[Jamisjockey]

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.

[Tuco]

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

[KD5NRH]

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.

[roo_ster]

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.

[jackdanson]

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)

[MicroBalrog]

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".

[jackdanson]

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.

[Tuco]

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".

[Jamisjockey]

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. 

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

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

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

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.

[mellestad]

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.

[BridgeRunner]

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.)

[mellestad]

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.

[BridgeRunner]

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.

[MicroBalrog]

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.

[mellestad]

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??

[MicroBalrog]

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.

[MicroBalrog]

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

[Cromlech]

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.