yea.. I don't think this is going to be good at all.. with the election coming up and everything else going on. I think they are looking for more and more example s to make of people

Which election are you referring to? A FL election?

SOME FACTS ABOUT MAX THAT NEED TO BE NOTED

1. He has never been indicted by the feds...until now

2. He was indicted by L.A County and no he didn't beat them, he settled with a guilty plea.

On the one hand he brings unwanted attention to the industry, most people in the biz do not want to be associated with his version of porn and inevitably thats exactly what happens.

On the other hand if he can beat this charge what chance do the feds have of taking down digital playground or even anabolic....

The good news is this. If Max can beat the obscenity charge, then it's likely to be the last federal obscenity prosecution EVER.

If content like his can pass muster then the rest of us can sleep much better at night in regards to obscenity prosecutions.

I just read the formal charges. Over and over and over it reads "in the middle district of Florida"

Think they're trying to define the scope of the local community?

Not hardly. All you need is one jury to convict anyone. Like I wrote to MS, if they dont get Max on this or Black, I fully expect them to pass an actual law forbidding photographing any genitalia or sexual act.

Right now it is too easy for both sides to win. This isnt about right and wrong or justice. This is about one way of belief against another and sadly, our way of belief is heavily out numbered in modern society.

Theres no way that 12 normal civilians will look at Max's stuff and vomit in their own mouths a little bit. This has conviction written all over it. Same with Black and JM. But to think the USGOV will ever stop is absurd. As long as there is a religious right voting for politicians, they will continue to prosecute.

Anything anyone says, writes, films, photographs, etc... can be obscene...you just have to find a jury to agree with you...This is FL. In Tampa. Not Miami.

Heres one thing that interests me though...how can you charge someone with mailing something obscene when a court has to first declare a product obscene?

Sadly, we would be much better off if we actually had a REAL law that defines what obscenity is so those that are trying to keep from breaking the law can continue to do so.

And this is why we should be voting Ron Paul!

He should hire the lawyer that won Steve Sweets case PKS aka The Iceman is one of the best out there ;-)

better to return the cash.

fraud is against the law in USA also.

ah it aint so bad to live in almost europe... :)

yeah, in Los Angeles. Juries there tend to be quite liberal. I'm surprised the feds didn't pop him with a wire/mail indictment in some very conservative jurisdiction... Best of luck to him.

Exactly! :thumbsup:thumbsup Freedom and free markets, baby!

Be honest, we all like his movies :)

And cases like these are how the line is drawn.

I'm pulling for freedom of expression, myself.

I think the Miller v California standard for Obscenity will be REDEFINED by the 'borderless' Internet. It's definitely going to get real interesting.

For them to pick Tampa as the venue,they must feel his stuff is so overboard they can win. For those who haven't been to Tampa a sex store or a strip club on almost every other corner. Ive been telling people who feel its their god given right to make fisting and pissing videos this was going to happen. The feds move very slow. To have a chance of winning they have to go with the over the top stuff,they need a reaction from a jury.

Maybe he and his buddies would like to come here and repeat their "fuck the FBI" BS for us one more time as they did when he got arrested?

Yeah, for the mailed product I can see them being able to nail the community down to the greater Tampa area, but for the internet stuff it will be interesting to see what the court defines as the "local community"

it was inevitable

what took them so long?

This is what you get when you vote for people like Bush. Anyone here think that if Gore or Kerry were president this would even be happening? Nope. I highly doubt they would be using precious time, money, manpower and other resources going after porn when we are in the middle of a war on terror.

Max needs a motion for Change of venue.

Hardcore.

i find it rather disturbing that it ( the warrant ) was signed by "child exploitation and obscenity" the 2 issues arent related.. then agian neither are "alcohol tobacco and firearms"

To where canada? lol

It sounds serious but I can bet it'll be knocked down so far that all he'll do is have to pay a fine and go on probation or something.

There are too many dangerous precedents to tangle wth here regarding Constitutional rights.

I don't know what he was producing but it must've rubbed someone the wrong way. ( no pun intended ).

He can either fight the charges and get them tossed out or reduced or he can negotiate and get them reduced.

Going after his home is ridiculous. That sounds like predatory presecutorial procedure. Somebody wanted his house, they get it on the down-low confiscation and sell it to the highest bidder.

No. This is going to go the distance. I don't know him, I vaguely know his material don't know what he sold to whom but the confiscation of his home and business is a bit extreme. Considering every day thousands of illegal immigrants enter the country, we have terrorists worldwide, bizarre diseases, and other global problems, using those resources to go after a guy with a sex site is curious indeed.

However, if he's been deliberately futzing with the law and being a general pain in the ass I can see the justification.

Two sides to every story so that's why we have courts.

That's why I use toons. No problems with em'.

Okay, why does the indictment have two attorneys that are with child protection? Was there something in the content warranting the actions of a child protection division? Were the DVDs sent to minors?

Something doesn't make sense here.

Possibly. Pornographers have no friends in politics. Stop kidding yourself.

Oh stop they arent a friend but its not a priority. If Clinton hadnt been president during the internet boom,most of the big fish here would be working day jobs.

You have no idea what might have happened so it's ridiculous to speculate. I'm simply saying the possibilty for an obscenity prosecution is always there no matter who's in office.

The People vs. max hardcore coming in a theater near you on summer 2009

good luck to max

Number of obscenity prosecutions under Clinton.... ZERO.

That doesn't mean it could not have happened under a Gore or Kerry presidency. Particularly a Gore presidency, with that harpy bitch wife of his.

Guh. :Oh crap

...ditto to what he said...

seriously :pimp

Thats BULLSHIT

The only way this will happen is in the case of political grandstanding, with the full expectation by such legislators that their new "law" would immediately get shut down and then killed by the judicial process.

I do agree that Max is going to be really rolling the dice for a jury trial. He has to know that the vast majority of any jurisdiction will find his work extremely disturbing. Once a jury doesn't like you, and in Max's case, they might quickly learn to hate him, it becomes very difficult to get an full acquittal at trial. IMO, Max Hardcore should seek to settle with the gov't and then move his business to another country. With all the heat he has had on him throughout the years, I'm honestly surprised he has not already moved offshore. Too late now I guess.

EU - approval of kidney show
USA - prohibition of porn
...It is bad dream...

Hoppin' catfish!

I just heard the morning news mention this story! I wonder if it's on the Drudge Report.

No it's not.

Here's what's really got me curious. The gov't isn't asking for any jail time? Only surrender of property and cash?

Or will the jail time come later?

The government doesnt ask for jail time in an indictment. jail time will be a part of the sentencing after the verdict is in. But they have to file for seizure from the start otherwise they will not get it during sentencing.

The government doesnt ask for jail time in an indictment. jail time will be a part of the sentencing after the verdict is in. But they have to file for seizure from the start otherwise they will not get it during sentencing.

Name them I will wait.Janet Reno herself said I didnt go after obscenity because if it is consenting adults, there were more pressing priorities to deal with.

i can't believe he's 50 - i thought he was 50 twenty years ago when i first saw Max Hardcore.

well i think it sucks - what consenting adults do sexually, be it in private or intended for private viewing should not be any business of anybody else, most definitely not the governments.

BUT that's not the way it is, in a country where you know there is an obscenity law on the books and the measuring stick is 'community standards' - you are insane/arrogant to think the material he shoots will be tolerated by a large segment of any community. so I can't feel too sorry for him - he gambled and he probably will lose.

I've been bitching about obscenity laws and debates for years. The reason I started my toon site.

Mind you, look at the insanity of the world's entertainment industry. India, Muslim Countries, U.S... You can show all the mayhem, murder, death, genocide you like and then some on the evening news no less BUT show ONE naked person and people literally go out of their minds!

That's psychotic with a capital PSYCHOTIC. At least Europe has a different take on things. They've lightened up alot and don't have anywhere near the sex crime rate of the U.S..

It's very dangerous to start tossing around obscenity charges and you can turn on YouTube and watch people being beheaded.

for all the grandstanding about "free expression" etc;

BUSINESS 101:
if you design a business model that to be successful must contantly push the limits of societal sensibilities don't plan for longevity.

because even if you "win" after being pinched you ultimately lose.

in this world you can pay "consenting adults" to do anything and the curious and depraved will certainly pay to view.

you can degrade them, get them drunk and have them beat the shit out of each other (bumfights, et al) shove things up their ass, get them to drink piss and eat shit.

but is this even "erotica". does it in any stretch of the imagination make the world a better place?

me thinks not.

this is not really about obscenity. civilized folks all over the planet will generally put thumbs down on exploitation way before they will put thumbs down on sexuality.

convictions and investigations take a while, here's one initiated during the Clinton years:


U.S. Department of Justice

United States Attorney
Northern District of Texas

1100 Commerce St., 3rd Fl.
Dallas, Texas 75242-1699






Telephone (214) 659-8600
Fax (214) 767-0978


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
DALLAS, TEXAS

CONTACT: 214/659-8600
www.usdoj.gov/usao/txn
MARCH 13, 2006




FEDERAL JURY CONVICTS TWO MEN IN OBSCENITY TRIAL

Defendants Sold Rape/Torture Videos on Internet

Two defendants, Clarence Thomas ?Tom? Gartman and former Houston Police Officer Brent Alan McDowell, were convicted today by a federal jury in Dallas for their part in the operation of a business that sold obscene videos on the Internet, announced Assistant Attorney General Alice S. Fisher of the Justice Department?s Criminal Division and U.S. Attorney Richard B. Roper of the Northern District of Texas.

U.S. Attorney Roper said, ?With these convictions, six defendants in three different cases have been convicted in the Northern District of Texas in recent months of distributing obscene material. We will continue to work closely with the Criminal Division?s Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section and Obscenity Prosecution Task Force to ensure that those who traffic in obscenity are brought to justice.?

Gartman, 35, was convicted on one count of conspiracy to distribute obscene materials and one count of mailing obscene materials and aiding and abetting. McDowell, 37, was convicted of one count of mailing obscene matter and aiding and abetting. The third defendant on trial, Lou Anthony Santilena, 32, was acquitted of all charges. All three defendants had been charged in an indictment returned by a federal grand jury in Dallas in May 2004.

Gartman faces a maximum statutory sentence of 10 years imprisonment and a $500,000 fine and McDowell faces a maximum statutory sentence of five years imprisonment and a $250,000 fine. Gartman and McDowell are U.S. citizens who were living in Canada at the time of the indictment. They both currently reside in the Las Vegas, Nevada area. Both Gartman and McDowell remain on bond. They are scheduled to be sentenced by the Honorable Barefoot Sanders, United States Senior District Judge, on June 15, 2006.

The government provided evidence at trial that beginning in 1998, Gartman, McDowell and others maintained a website on the Internet, "forbiddenvideos.com." The "forbiddenvideos website was used to advertise and distribute obscene videos by VHS cassettes, CD-Roms and streaming video, including videos depicting rape scenes, sexual torture and excretory functions in conjunction with sex acts. The government presented evidence at trial that the defendants posted graphic descriptions of the obscene materials on the "forbiddenvideos.com" website. The obscene videos ordered from the website were initially sent by U.S. mail and United Postal Service from locations within the Northern District of Texas. Later, the defendants also distributed the obscene videos through a collection of websites managed from the Northern District of Texas and elsewhere, which enabled customers in the United States and throughout the world, to download obscene digital video images or to view digital streaming video. Customers of the "forbiddenvideos.com" website, or related websites, would place orders and pay for the obscene videos by check, credit card, or through a PayPal account.

The defendants? website operation was identified during an investigation into similar activities of Garry Layne Ragsdale and his wife, Tamara Michelle Ragsdale. Gartman and the Ragsdales were partners in a business distributing obscene videos until a dispute arose between them in early 1998 which dissolved the partnership. The Ragsdales were convicted in federal court in Dallas on October 23, 2003 on obscenity charges related to the obscene video business they conducted after their partnership with Gartman ended. On March 5, 2004, the Honorable Sidney A. Fitzwater, United States District Judge, sentenced Garry Ragsdale to 33 months in prison and Tamara Ragsdale to 30 months in prison. Their convictions were upheld by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals last year. The U.S. Supreme Court declined to review the Ragsdales? case in February 2006.

In order to prove a matter is ?obscene,? the jury was required to satisfy a three-part test: (1) that the work appeals predominantly to prurient interest; (2) that it depicts or describes sexual conduct in a patently offensive way; and (3) that the material, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. An appeal to ?prurient? interest is an appeal to a morbid, degrading, and unhealthy interest in sex, as distinguished from a mere candid interest in sex. This three-part test is a result of rulings by the United States Supreme Court in 1973 and 1976.

U. S. Attorney Roper praised the investigative efforts of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the U.S. Postal Inspection Service, the Dallas Police Department Vice Squad, along with the Canadian Border Services Agency and the Lethbridge, Canada Police Services. The case was prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorney Linda C. Groves and DOJ Obscenity Prosecution Task Force Trial Attorney Richard D. Green. The task force was established last year by the Justice Department Criminal Division to focus on the prosecution of adult obscenity nationwide.

The government doesnt ask for jail time in an indictment. jail time will be a part of the sentencing after the verdict is in. But they have to file for seizure from the start otherwise they will not get it during sentencing.

Thanks Steve... nice of you. I'll remember to show similar respect to whatever things you're promoting or pushing.