Jenny S.

I did yesterday. Not the Max Case in particular, but the biased hypocrisy around it. I can name about 10 sites of long standing board members in here from the top of my head that I personally find objectionable, because they either overemphasize the teen (=underage) appearance of adult models, exploit drug addicts, or glorify violence. But my mind is not the measuring tool.

The measuring tool should be the question if the material shot is between consenting adults and if it promotes illegal activity. If an adult model was exploited by Max this should be tried in a separate rape or abuse case, and not in an obscenity show trial which only targets the adult industry as a whole.

Back to the tubes. We scan the internet on a daily basis for copyright violations and stolen stuff, and I know many tube and share sites. Fact is, Max's material is soft core compared to the nasty shit that's out there. Rape, snuff, scat, animals, torture, you name it. The only difference is that it's all free and non commercial? They wash their hands in innocence because supposedly 'customers' uploaded the sick and often stolen stuff. So how do they make money. I tell you how. On most of these sites you'll find a huge banner of some good old friends of ours on top, mostly Adult Friend Finder or their subsidiaries.

__________________
Jenny Seemore
Pornography is the bloody gladiator who stands guard over the First Amendment