Max Hardcore

[AaliyahLove]

with your "hate for whores" aside, blaming this on talent is another stretch of the truth. what max did, he did alone, do not try and blame the talent. ive known many girls whove done shoots for him... and talked to them about their experience. blaming them for his legal troubles is hilarious.

actually, I could be wrong so correct me if I am, but I heard not ONE of the models testified against him. Some of them were quoted saying things like how bad the shoots were or whatever, but girls complain about shoots all of the time.

[AaliyahLove]

My thoughts exactly... Max is no martyr... he is a fucking dumbass who made his money catering to sick fucks. There is plenty of money to go around... he chose his own path. Nice guy my ass.

How many of you on this board "MAKE MONEY BY CATERING TO SICK FUCKS"?
I certainly do. ;)

[dyna mo]

actually, I could be wrong so correct me if I am, but I heard not ONE of the models testified against him. Some of them were quoted saying things like how bad the shoots were or whatever, but girls complain about shoots all of the time.

it was an obscenity trial, not max is an asshole trial.

[AaliyahLove]

it was an obscenity trial, not max is an asshole trial.

well obscenity is in the eyes of the beholder isn't it?

I get emails almost daily from Jesus freaks telling me my little solo girl site is just as OBSCENE as beastiality or prostitution and that I am going STRAIGHT TO HELL! I'm sure if some of these fuckers had their way, I'd be in jail too.

[AlienQ - BANNED FOR LIFE]

well obscenity is in the eyes of the beholder isn't it?

I get emails almost daily from Jesus freaks telling me my little solo girl site is just as OBSCENE as beastiality or prostitution and that I am going STRAIGHT TO HELL! I'm sure if some of these fuckers had their way, I'd be in jail too.

Hell has alot of layers
You just goto decide which one is most comfortable for you

[dyna mo]

well obscenity is in the eyes of the beholder isn't it?

I get emails almost daily from Jesus freaks telling me my little solo girl site is just as OBSCENE as beastiality or prostitution and that I am going STRAIGHT TO HELL! I'm sure if some of these fuckers had their way, I'd be in jail too.

obscenity has nothing to do with what a model thinks, hell, models will drink each other's vomit for cash or slurp on a johnson fresh out of some stranger's butthole.

it's what the jury thinks, and in the eyes of that beholder, he was found guilty.

[donnylong]

actually, I could be wrong so correct me if I am, but I heard not ONE of the models testified against him. Some of them were quoted saying things like how bad the shoots were or whatever, but girls complain about shoots all of the time.

you are not wrong, you are 100% correct, and like I said before if it was up to a group of men or even women who were not closet whores that are against porn max wouldn't be in jail!

[donnylong]

obscenity has nothing to do with what a model thinks, hell, models will drink each other's vomit for cash or slurp on a johnson fresh out of some stranger's butthole.

it's what the jury thinks, and in the eyes of that beholder, he was found guilty.

right here you can read that a fucking WOMEN aka judge didn't want to hear shit other than max is wrong when the attorneys try to ask her questions that pertain to the case.

http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts/...icle607836.ece

[dyna mo]

right here you can read that a fucking WOMEN aka judge didn't want to hear shit other than max is wrong when the attorneys try to ask her questions that pertain to the case.

http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts/...icle607836.ece

the only thing that resembles what you are talking about in that article is the judge telling the jury to use their common sense in regards to the terms

"morbid and degraded," "unhealthy interest in sex," and "candid interest in sex."

i don't see a problem with that. i wasn't there but i don't see how that would sway a jury in the slightest.

[MsCheyenne]

Originally Posted by Brujah
Does anyone have the actual video footage that got him in trouble? I'd like to actually see it for myself before I make any judgement like most people in this thread are probably doing.

From what people who were at the trial have said, a scene in which a young woman was beaten by man was played. The man told her something to the effect of "this is why you shouldn't talk to strangers." The jury was said to have looked particularly uncomfortable during a scene that showed the woman vomiting and the man continuing to beat her. At least this is what I have heard from a few people who were present at the trial.

Cheyenne

[JP-pornshooter]

obscenity has nothing to do with what a model thinks, hell, models will drink each other's vomit for cash or slurp on a johnson fresh out of some stranger's butthole.

it's what the jury thinks, and in the eyes of that beholder, he was found guilty.

are you really so dumb to think that there is not a reason the content was shipped to a county in florida, a county which is one or possible the most conservative and religious views on porn (ie community standards), a county where all distributors will absolutely not ship any content to, a county which max himself had informed anyone NOT to ship anything to, and yet jaded video did ship content to this county and they did plea bargain themselves in exchange for full collaboration with the prosecutors.
By shipping the content they were able to have the hearings and pull the jurors from this county and the result is evident... had they had this court trial in almost any other county max could easily have walked away from it..

[dyna mo]

are you really so dumb to think that there is not a reason the content was shipped to a county in florida, a county which is one or possible the most conservative and religious views on porn (ie community standards), a county where all distributors will absolutely not ship any content to, a county which max himself had informed anyone NOT to ship anything to, and yet jaded video did ship content to this county and they did plea bargain themselves in exchange for full collaboration with the prosecutors.
By shipping the content they were able to have the hearings and pull the jurors from this county and the result is evident... had they had this court trial in almost any other county max could easily have walked away from it..

there's really no reason to refer to me in this manner. if you want to have an adult discussion about an adult topic then you need to realize that you are speaking to adults and to maintain some modicum of respect.

nevertheless, i assume you are unaware that john stagliano's obscenity trial is being held in the disctrict of columbia. i'll trust you can sort through why i am letting you know this.

[donnylong]

Originally Posted by Brujah
Does anyone have the actual video footage that got him in trouble? I'd like to actually see it for myself before I make any judgement like most people in this thread are probably doing.

From what people who were at the trial have said, a scene in which a young woman was beaten by man was played. The man told her something to the effect of "this is why you shouldn't talk to strangers." The jury was said to have looked particularly uncomfortable during a scene that showed the woman vomiting and the man continuing to beat her. At least this is what I have heard from a few people who were present at the trial.

Cheyenne

Even if that was the case what makes that any worse than fear factor and or tons of movies and TV shows with violence????

Shit I have seen worse shit on cable in mainstream than what max produces . This is a matter of women that don't like porn and wanted to nail max to the wall for exposing how far women will go for a buck and that's bullshit. When some whore vomits covered in worms or spiders that they made her eat of cable TV or when you see a rape scene in a movie in the theater you dont see them going to prison WTF

[DatingGold]

when you shoot porn and girls run to the cops saying you raped them.. things might turn bad.

[donnylong]

when you shoot porn and girls run to the cops saying you raped them.. things might turn bad.

that never happened so i dont see how that has anything to do with what we are talking about? Also if a girl did cry rape it would be pointless be there are records on paper and video of her consenting to wanting to do a porn scene for money.

[fuzebox]

Obscenity is the only law you do not know you've broken until you're in jail.

[JP-pornshooter]

there's really no reason to refer to me in this manner. if you want to have an adult discussion about an adult topic then you need to realize that you are speaking to adults and to maintain some modicum of respect.

nevertheless, i assume you are unaware that john stagliano's obscenity trial is being held in the disctrict of columbia. i'll trust you can sort through why i am letting you know this.

i was not aware of this, but why is important for you to mention? most likely in DC people (jurors) are much more "urban" and can distinguish between obscenity and freedom of speech. i doubt he would be found guilty by a juror but if he is, then the DOJ will have succeeded in "scaring" most pornographers away from producing/distributing as no one will feel "safe"...

[kmanrox]

you'd think Larry Flynt would intervene on something like this..

[Paul Markham]

And I will disagree with you.
Clear cut rules can easily be fought and have shit stopped before you loose every penny you own fighting it. Vague ones just allow them to fuck with you for as long as they wish.

We agree on something.

Clearly defined rules are easy to stay within and if you cross them you know the risks. Also banning sites that cross those lines is also a good thing to protect those who stay on the right side of the law. The US does what China does and blocks the domain, the financial pressure will force people to conform or lose the US market.

Also unless you stop men from jerking off there will always be a porn business. When the line was drawn at exposed nipples guys jerked off to that. When it was redrawn it was moved up. You don't need to show extreme porn to get a guy to buy material to jerk off. If this were not true Playboy would never had sold. This can apply to the Playboy end of the market and the Amateur end.

As for Paul Little. I met him in a shooting environment in the early 90s and long before he could do what he was doing 10 years later on film. I also spoke to him and models who worked for him. He did not do what he did for free speech or profit. IMO he did it because he likes abusing girls. He is no champion for free speech.

[Paul Markham]

Here is the big problem with Max's conviction.

You can argue that Max pushed the enveloped, fucked with the bull and got the horns. I personally don't like his content, but in that area I find most hardcore stuff kind of nasty and prefer the more softcore stuff. Call me old fashioned, but jerking off to a hot naked girl is fine by me. If it is hardcore I want at least the illusion that she is having a good time.

But this isn't about what I want to jerk off to.

Some of the things Max got convicted for were videos of his that were on the internet. Those videos were also simply trailers for other full length videos. Now the law says to find something obscene you have to take in the work as a whole, not just small pieces of it. That didn't happen here. They saw a very short trailer and used that to make their decision and toss him in jail.

COPA is gone, but some of the rulings of COPA linger. One of those rulings by the US Supreme Court is that you can use local standards when judging something that is on the internet. What this means is that if the convictions Max received for the movie trailers on his website are not overturned during his appeal any small conservative town in the nation can go to any MPG gallery you may post, watch your 30 second video clip and drag your ass into court, get a conviction and lock you away.

That is wrong.
The US Supreme Court was wrong with their ruling. Local community standards should not apply to the internet.
The court that handed Max convictions based on his movie trailers was wrong as well.

If those convictions are left to stand it could open a can of worms that could make things very ugly for this industry.

Love or hate Max. Love or hate his content, this is something everyone in this business should be paying close attention to.

Very true they bent the law to get a conviction on a guy who was well warned and chose to ignore it. I would bet a cent to a dollar that after he got off the previous charge his lawyer warned him to keep inside the boundaries.

As for the Internet crossing country, State and county lines and showing illegal material for that region. If I set up a shop in a town in Tennessee, or any other Conservative State, selling Scat videos and end up in prison who's fault is it?

Do we have the ability to look at States and block them ourselves? AFF seem to know exactly where I am. Or is it because we are on the Internet we can ignore any law Tennessee decides to pass?

The voters of Tennessee have a freedom to vote for the local Government and laws they want. Where does our freedom impinge on theirs?

[Paul Markham]

Just because a video camara is in the room does not make the shit that goes down legal.

Spot on, but some people disagree with that. Do they disagree because of the Freedom of Speech issues or profit or personal desires?

Donny you are such an idiot and personally I feel you should not be near girls with a camera. The law was written to protect them from people like you. No you do not have the legal right to abuse someone to make money. And I hope you never will have the right.

Just because I pay them does not take my employees rights away. Anyone got any better ideas is welcome to post them here.

[kane]

Very true they bent the law to get a conviction on a guy who was well warned and chose to ignore it. I would bet a cent to a dollar that after he got off the previous charge his lawyer warned him to keep inside the boundaries.

As for the Internet crossing country, State and county lines and showing illegal material for that region. If I set up a shop in a town in Tennessee, or any other Conservative State, selling Scat videos and end up in prison who's fault is it?

Do we have the ability to look at States and block them ourselves? AFF seem to know exactly where I am. Or is it because we are on the Internet we can ignore any law Tennessee decides to pass?

The voters of Tennessee have a freedom to vote for the local Government and laws they want. Where does our freedom impinge on theirs?

This is how I feel about it.

If I want to go into a town in Tennessee and open up a porn shop the people of the community I am going into should have a right to say whether they want or don't want my business in their community. The business is in their community. They will be driving by it on a regular basis. The other businesses near it will see it and have to deal with it. I feel this way about every business. If someone wants to open a restaurant that serves dog and the people don't want it they should be allowed to deny them. It is, after all, their community. I understand this can be taken to extremes, but I feel (within reason) a community should at least have a say in what type of businesses it has in it as well as what laws and standards they want to live by.

That said, the internet has nothing to do with the community. The internet is a paid for service. You have to buy a computer then pay for service from an ISP and in many cases have that ISP come to your house and set things up. Once connected Max's site doesn't magically then appear on your screen. You have to go looking for it. Sure, porn is easy to find on the internet, but that doesn't change the fact that you went searching for it. If you went looking for it you can't then claim to be offended by it. The only people that know I am looking at it are me, anyone I choose to tell and to some degree the site I am looking at. If I purchase a DVD online and have it mailed to my house then watch it, again, no community is involved. Nobody knows I am watching it but me, anyone I choose to tell and the DVD company the mailed it to me.

When I sit at my computer and surf the web, my neighbor's don't know it. They have no say in what I look at or where I go. There is no building or physical business in the community that they have to see/deal with. They are simply not involved and their lives are not effected. If they are not involved, then the community standard cannot be allowed to be applied. No community involvement, not community standard.

For the community to tell me what I can look at on my computer or what type of DVD I can order and watch in my house it is no different then me now having to ask them if the book I want to read is community approved or the CD I want to listen to is okay by them. I don't ask those things because they are not involved and what I do in my house is my business. If they don't want to see Max's porn, no problem, don't go looking for it. Problem solved.

That is just my take.

[Paul Markham]

When the porn shop opens you have to go into it to see what it's selling. Even if all the people walking into the shop want what the shop sells, still does not make it legal. That's the law of the land.

The law does not allow you to sell cocaine, even if everyone who buys it wants it. Same with the Net.

Paul Little was convicted of a crime he did not solely commit, I believe it was for mailing a DVD. The company mailing it should of been convicted because it's their job to know where they can sell or not sell a product and if they don't know ignorance is no defense in the eyes of the law. No matter how it effects profits.

But Paul Little was guilty of allowing a company who would break the law to distribute his products, all in the name of profit. So he should of been standing alongside the company in the dock. They copped a plea to get him sent down, all legal and this industry has shown it's collective disgust and boycotted that company. And pigs just flew pass my window.

[kane]

When the porn shop opens you have to go into it to see what it's selling. Even if all the people walking into the shop want what the shop sells, still does not make it legal. That's the law of the land.

The law does not allow you to sell cocaine, even if everyone who buys it wants it. Same with the Net.

Paul Little was convicted of a crime he did not solely commit, I believe it was for mailing a DVD. The company mailing it should of been convicted because it's their job to know where they can sell or not sell a product and if they don't know ignorance is no defense in the eyes of the law. No matter how it effects profits.

But Paul Little was guilty of allowing a company who would break the law to distribute his products, all in the name of profit. So he should of been standing alongside the company in the dock. They copped a plea to get him sent down, all legal and this industry has shown it's collective disgust and boycotted that company. And pigs just flew pass my window.

Sure thing, you still have to go into a porn store to see what they are selling, like you said even if everyone in town already has a pretty good idea. And yes, they do have to follow the law of the land. But this is because they are part of that community. The internet is not part of that community. It is part of the globe.

From what I understand some of the convictions Paul got were for sending obscene material through the mail. Others were for movie trailers he had on his site.

I would argue in both cases there is no community involvement. With a porn store you still see it. You see people coming in and out of it. Some might say it is an eyesore or that it attracts "undesirables." With the internet there is none of that. If I go to the Max Hardcore website and order a DVD, it is sent to me and I watch it, there is no community involvement. They don't see a building, a business is not operating in their city, they simply are unaware of my actions. With that type of situation there should be no community standard applied. If they want to outlaw certain types of porn then you can argue that people are buying illegal material online. In this case it would be no different than buying cocaine or a fully automatic machine gun. These things are illegal and there are clear cut rules to this. That doesn't go with porn. With porn you don't know you are breaking a law until it is broken. Sure, now you can say that if you produce something like Max does that you could end up in trouble, at least in that community.

IMO unless they could prove that Max knowingly had these DVDs sent through the mail he shouldn't be blamed for how or where they were shipped. As for the internet stuff, as I said before I don't think a community standard rule should apply. If the federal government wants to define in exact terms what they think is obscene, fine. They will never do that though.

[Paul Markham]

Sure thing, you still have to go into a porn store to see what they are selling, like you said even if everyone in town already has a pretty good idea. And yes, they do have to follow the law of the land. But this is because they are part of that community. The internet is not part of that community. It is part of the globe.

From what I understand some of the convictions Paul got were for sending obscene material through the mail. Others were for movie trailers he had on his site.

I would argue in both cases there is no community involvement. With a porn store you still see it. You see people coming in and out of it. Some might say it is an eyesore or that it attracts "undesirables." With the internet there is none of that. If I go to the Max Hardcore website and order a DVD, it is sent to me and I watch it, there is no community involvement. They don't see a building, a business is not operating in their city, they simply are unaware of my actions. With that type of situation there should be no community standard applied. If they want to outlaw certain types of porn then you can argue that people are buying illegal material online. In this case it would be no different than buying cocaine or a fully automatic machine gun. These things are illegal and there are clear cut rules to this. That doesn't go with porn. With porn you don't know you are breaking a law until it is broken. Sure, now you can say that if you produce something like Max does that you could end up in trouble, at least in that community.

IMO unless they could prove that Max knowingly had these DVDs sent through the mail he shouldn't be blamed for how or where they were shipped. As for the internet stuff, as I said before I don't think a community standard rule should apply. If the federal government wants to define in exact terms what they think is obscene, fine. They will never do that though.

How the law should be and how the law is are two different things. What is for sure is Paul Little should of known it before, maybe he did and chose to ignore it to make a buck selling videos of him abusing girls.

He should also of made sure the company distributing his goods knew the law and stuck to it. Maybe he did and chose to ignore it to make a buck selling videos of him abusing girls.

He had a very good warning the authorities had him in their sights and should of been very careful. Maybe he did and chose to ignore it to make a buck selling videos of him abusing girls.

Now it's all about Freedom of Speech. He had the freedom to make a choice and stay withing the lines that would of kept him safe. Maybe he did and chose to ignore it to make a buck selling videos of him abusing girls.

As for Paul Little and his fight for the First Amendment, please that's not even funny. When did he ever campaign about it prior to being in the porn industry and being able to make a buck selling videos of him abusing girls?

And that is how you change laws, not crying out you're a victim after you have been convicted in a court for doing something you should not of been doing.

[Fletch XXX]

YES, its the mailing thing , but it was NOT mailed by him, it's just his product.

as i said, Tommy Chong went to jail for being part owner of the company his son owned and mailed a glass bong.

you dont have to be the one to mail it.

anyone mailing max hardcore videos to that state is asking for it.

[C_U_Next_Tuesday]

Even if that was the case what makes that any worse than fear factor and or tons of movies and TV shows with violence????

Shit I have seen worse shit on cable in mainstream than what max produces . This is a matter of women that don't like porn and wanted to nail max to the wall for exposing how far women will go for a buck and that's bullshit. When some whore vomits covered in worms or spiders that they made her eat of cable TV or when you see a rape scene in a movie in the theater you dont see them going to prison WTF

wow.. I can say I have seen nothing on mainstream that comes even close to Max dumbasses vids. You must have different cable shows than the rest of the usa.

If anyone is the stupid whore, it would be you. Jesus has left the building

[TisMe]

Sad to see people in this business applying the same logic to our business that the moralists and religious nuts do: If I don't like it then go ahead and make it illegal.

First Max, then fetish, then gay porn, then all of porn.

Shouldn't be about what you like, it should be about protecting the rights of others to enjoy the same freedoms that you do.

The freedom to make and sell content that others don't like.

[dyna mo]

i was not aware of this, but why is important for you to mention? most likely in DC people (jurors) are much more "urban" and can distinguish between obscenity and freedom of speech. i doubt he would be found guilty by a juror but if he is, then the DOJ will have succeeded in "scaring" most pornographers away from producing/distributing as no one will feel "safe"...

you stated that i was dumb enough to not see that

there is reason the content was shipped to a county in florida,... had they had this court trial in almost any other county max could easily have walked away from it..

yet the DOJ is trying another obscenity case elsewhere, disproving your comments- and assumptions. if the DOJ had a slam dunk attitude about obscenity trials and winning them in FL, then the stagliano case would also be tried there, it's not and it's again presumptous of you to assume what jurors in D.C. will decide as well.

[Joshua G]

It's unjust what happened to Max. Some people in the Feds were determined to take him down, so they shopped for a venue that would be most likely to apply a very vague law against him. This demonstrates the tyrannical power of government. a key reason the bill of rights was created was to protect the rights of the people from this power. & its sad that the legal system has continuously upheld an obscenity law that clearly violates the letter & spirit of the 1st amendment freedom of speech. Nobody should go to jail for producing "patently offensive" speech. its absurd.

Its doubly absurd to convict a man of obscenity for distributing said work on the internet. As Kane rightly argues, its impossible to apply a local community standard to a world wide web. Thats exactly what happened in this case.

With that said, we all should feel somewhat lucky the court system makes a distinction between obscenity & constitutionally protected porn. People in this thread thinking the obscenity law should be more clear are asking for a hanging. The government is run by people that hate us. They passed COPA by large margins. To say these people should clarify the obscenity law is to ask them to ban us. We are just 1 conservative supreme court justice away from the govt having cart blanche over our freedom of speech. All porn laws are based on the idea of "protecting children" & i assure you the feds would ban our entire industry if not for the courts. COPA tried to do exactly that.

theoretically, the govt could stake out that florida community & try to apply the obscenity law to every adult website on the net. But it always comes down to resources, & even under the Bush white house, the justice dept did not see the wisdom of applying large resources to prosecuting patently offensive speech. So they go after only the most obvious targets. That is why Max sits in jail today.

[Fletch XXX]

Its doubly absurd to convict a man of obscenity for distributing said work on the internet..

again, isnt this specifically ABOUT MAILING items, and nothing to do with the internet?

[Azoy?]

I mean really what did he expect ?
You shoving it to the government in their face and thought he can get away with shit ?
Just shows you that you need to be careful when the government says not to do something.

[Paul Markham]

I think some of you must be very young. Because if you were over 30 you would realise porn is becoming more acceptable all the time. Porn stars in mainstream films, HBO has a program called Weeds that recently had full frontal nudity and the sight of boobs in movies today are so common place they hardly gets noticed. Porn with or without the "Freedom of Speech" lobby becomes more acceptable day after day. And more acceptable to sell.

Yet if there were more like Paul Little's it would become less acceptable. He is the stick those who want to roll back our freedoms use to beat us with. Like the anti gun lobby use the nut who walks into a school to ban guns, the anti porn lobby use Paul Little. Be careful of who you champion in the Freedom of Speech fight. Choose the wrong guy and you could easily lose.

What is right is not always what wins.

[kane]

again, isnt this specifically ABOUT MAILING items, and nothing to do with the internet?

Actually no. Some of his convictions came from movie trailers on his website. This means he was convicted on short movie clips that are only available online. That should scare anyone that puts any kind of edgy hardcore stuff online.

[GregE]

that guy would be myself!

I know.

But, that wasn't the question.

[Iron Fist]

you'd think Larry Flynt would intervene on something like this..

and be an actual bro? You are you trying to fool anyways?

That would be like the CEO of Coca Cola helping out the CEO of Pepsi.... just not going to happen.

[Michaelious]

The UK is making it an offence to have hardcore porn on your computer.

[GregE]

The UK is making it an offence to have hardcore porn on your computer.

Sad but true, the UK and Australian governments view China nowadays as their role model re the world wide web.

[PAR]

After seeing this list I have to wonder.. I have personaly picked over/looked at some 25,000+ boxcovers form +1000 studios and
I'd say a good majority would not pass if these were what would qualify someone as having obsine content.

Not to mention the number of members tours and websites that target these niches..

The Cambria List:

Box-Cover Guidelines/Movie Production Guidelines

Before selecting a chrome please check facial expression. Do not use any shots that depict any unhappiness or pain.


Do not include any of the following:

No shots with appearance of pain or degradation

No facials (bodyshots are OK if shot is not nasty)

No bukakke

No spitting or saliva mouth to mouth

No food used as sex object

No peeing unless in a natural setting, e.g., field, roadside

No coffins

No blindfolds

No wax dripping

No two dicks in/near one mouth

No shot of stretching pussy

No fisting

No squirting

No bondage-type toys or gear unless very light

No girls sharing same dildo (in mouth or pussy)

Toys are OK if shot is not nasty

No hands from 2 different people fingering same girl

No male/male penetration

No transsexuals

No bi-sex

No degrading dialogue, e.g., "Suck this cock, bitch" while slapping her face with a penis

No menstruation topics

No incest topics

No forced sex, rape themes, etc.

No black men-white women themes

[topnotch, standup guy]

After seeing this list I have to wonder.. I have personaly picked over/looked at some 25,000+ boxcovers form +1000 studios and
I'd say a good majority would not pass if these were what would qualify someone as having obsine content.

Not to mention the number of members tours and websites...

Yeah, no shit. If you eliminate all that, there ain't jack shit left.

[tony286]

I got to tell the people saying they shopped venue, I dont think there is a venue max could win. Tampa is not a uptight place by no means. There are strip clubs and it seems a adult books store on every other corner plus two large swing clubs.

[tony286]

you'd think Larry Flynt would intervene on something like this..

why would he do that ?