Max Hardcore Obscenity Trial Update - GoFuckYourself.com

ShellyCrash · 05-27-2008, 12:44 PM

May 27, 2008
Pornographer's obscenity trial underway
TAMPA -- Jurors selected in the obscenity trial of a California filmmaker and his company will be asked to judge the local community's standards and values when it comes to viewing certain types of pornography.

To do so, they'll likely watch several hours of what prosecutors described as violent pornographic movies that meet the U.S. Supreme Court's standards of obscenity.

Paul F. Little, also known as Max Hardcore, is on trial today in a Tampa courtroom facing five counts of mailing obscene matter and five counts of transporting obscene matter by use of an interactive computer service. The case is being prosecuted in the Middle District of Florida because Little and his company, Max World Entertainment, Inc., are accused of mailing films to a post office box in Tampa.

Little's movies include footage of bodily functions and severe violence toward female actors.

Prosecutors say they intend to display several movie trailers in court that don't show explicit sexual acts. But Max World defense attorney H. Louis Sirkin said jurors should see the movies in their entirety to fairly decide if the depictions are obscene.

"The government must show the entire movie," Sirkin said while arguing several motions before jury selection began today. He said the defense can't rely on jurors viewing the entire movie or movies during deliberations, so he wants them to see the entire thing in open court.

U.S. District Judge Susan C. Bucklew did not immediate issue a ruling.

As part of the legal definition for obscene, the law requires the material being judged to be looked at as a whole, Sirkin said.

Bucklew spent the morning questioning more than 30 members of a jury pool. That process was slightly delayed because several potential jurors and the courtroom deputy got stuck on an elevator.

Most of the jury questions so far have been routine, with responses about employment, spouses and prior jury service.

No one raised their hand when asked if they had -- or knew a close relative or friend who had -- ever been employed in the adult entertainment industry. One woman raised her hand when the judge asked if anyone belonged to an organization that has publicly taken a stance against the distribution of pornography. She asked to speak with the judge about it in private.

At least two members of the jury pool identified themselves as volunteer youth pastors.

Jury selection will resume this afternoon.

Return to tampabay.com for updates.

Kevin Graham, Times staff writer

Link to Article

directfiesta · 05-27-2008, 12:55 PM

I personally don't like his stuff , but it should be legal to produce, possess and view by warned adults...

Let's wish him ther best

JFK · 05-27-2008, 12:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by directfiesta

I personally don't like his stuff , but it should be legal to produce, possess and view by warned adults...

Let's wish him ther best

I agree

Penny24Seven · 05-27-2008, 01:11 PM

so not fair though. of course some will think it is obscene. When I am shopping and I see a lady with hairy legs I think that is obscene but you don't see her in court. Who gives a fuck what 12 people think. They were never forced to watch it.

tony286 · 05-27-2008, 01:13 PM

I wish him the best, the lawyer he has he is in very good hands.

ShellyCrash · 05-27-2008, 01:15 PM

Tampa's a tough town, very diverse populace so it could easily go either way.

His stuff is not my cup of tea, so to speak, but I really wish him the best.

fuzebox · 05-27-2008, 01:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ShellyCrash

One woman raised her hand when the judge asked if anyone belonged to an organization that has publicly taken a stance against the distribution of pornography. She asked to speak with the judge about it in private.

At least two members of the jury pool identified themselves as volunteer youth pastors.

Scary thought

davecummings · 05-27-2008, 01:19 PM

Good luck, Max!

pornguy · 05-27-2008, 01:20 PM

He may be in good hands, but this has a lot more far reaching impact, than most people think. Just the fact that they are charging him with "transporting obscene matter by use of an interactive computer service" can put us all in a bad situation if he is convicted.

BusterBunny · 05-27-2008, 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davecummings

Good luck, Max!

notoldschool · 05-27-2008, 02:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ShellyCrash

That process was slightly delayed because several potential jurors and the courtroom deputy got stuck on an elevator.

montel · 05-27-2008, 02:11 PM

If the chicks in the jury convict him he can skull fuck them and then piss in their mouths. "I didn't mean to convict you mister".

tiger · 05-27-2008, 02:11 PM

Don't like his stuff either what little I have seen of it but it should be legal as long as its consenting adults. If you don't like it don't watch it, how hard is that?

Best of luck to you Max! Go kick some ass!

AlienQ - BANNED FOR LIFE · 05-27-2008, 02:22 PM

Sirken owns.

However I doubt many of you guys have taken a good look at MaxHardcore's stuff, otherwise you wouldnt publicly support em.

I am pretty jaded and I got little doubt that his content could be deemed obscene. His shit is incredibly brutal, he makes Danza look like a puppy or newb when it comes to demeaning chicks.

Honez · 05-27-2008, 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pornguy

He may be in good hands, but this has a lot more far reaching impact, than most people think. Just the fact that they are charging him with "transporting obscene matter by use of an interactive computer service" can put us all in a bad situation if he is convicted.

That is the thing that scares me as well.

topnotch, standup guy · 05-27-2008, 04:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AlienQ

I am pretty jaded and I got little doubt that his content could be deemed obscene.

Well . . . . let's just hope that you're wrong.

For everybody's sake.

Socks · 05-27-2008, 04:45 PM

does only one juror have to say it's not obscene, and not budge?

Dennis Rodman · 05-27-2008, 04:47 PM

I'm ON the jury! Shhhhh

After Shock Media · 05-27-2008, 04:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Socks

does only one juror have to say it's not obscene, and not budge?

Sort of but that shit rarely ever happens with human behavior.

SL|M! · 05-27-2008, 05:05 PM

good luck max!

Grapesoda · 05-27-2008, 05:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ShellyCrash

To do so, they'll likely watch several hours of what prosecutors described as violent pornographic movies that meet the U.S. Supreme Court's standards of obscenity.

At least two members of the jury pool identified themselves as volunteer youth pastors.

so people are going to be forced to watch porn.... another fucking brilliant by the gov!

GregE · 05-27-2008, 05:25 PM

I love your signature gif

I used to have a cat like that, only mine was even more aggressive. I remember how people would get all quiet and just look at me kind of funny like whenever I explained away the scratches by saying: "Oh, I was just playing with the cat".

As for Max, his stuff ain't my cup of tea either but I think a gentleman by the name of Martin Niemöller explained best why it is that we all need to support the Max Hardcore's of this world.

ShellyCrash · 05-28-2008, 06:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GregE

I used to have a cat like that, only mine was even more aggressive.

I love that gif, it's not my kit cat though. I just found it a while back and thought it matched my attitude pretty well

Quote:

Originally Posted by GregE

As for Max, his stuff ain't my cup of tea either but I think a gentleman by the name of Martin Niemöller explained best why it is that we all need to support the Max Hardcore's of this world.

I couldn't agree with you more. What everyone should remember is these are consenting adults and this isn't stuff 13 year old impressionable youths are probably going to get their hands on, they aren't airing it on Skinemax in the middle of the night, etc.

Justice Douglas of the 1973 Supreme Court wrote:

"The idea that the First Amendment permits punishment for ideas that are "offensive" to the particular judge or jury sitting in judgment is astounding. No greater leveler of speech or literature has ever been designed. To give the power to the censor, as we do today, is to make a sharp and radical break with the traditions of a free society. "

That's 100% in line with my personal beliefs. I feel it's important to stand behind the Max Hardcores and Mike Dianas of this world, personal taste aside. Give them an inch and they are going to take a mile.

xxxdesign-net · 05-28-2008, 07:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by directfiesta

I personally don't like his stuff , but it should be legal to produce, possess and view by warned adults...

Let's wish him ther best

I have never seen his vids, but I dont agree if women are beaten, choked or slapped with force without their consent... Look at the sig of blackIraqman i think... That woman was clearly slapped, hard, without her consent... But then again, that has nothing to do with obscenity id think..

directfiesta · 05-28-2008, 08:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bm bradley

so people are going to be forced to watch porn.... another fucking brilliant by the gov!

IN Quebec, we have a Government Board ( the Regie ) that classifies all films, including porn. They have to watch every movie ( gay, straight, weird, etc ..) and either classify them or refuse them because of some unacceptable content. WE then can edit and resubmit.

There are about 20 employees doing that all day ... viewing porn.

AS for the this topic and the presentation in court, I did the same in an obscenity case here. The Judge ( no jury ) wanted to view the film in his chamber. We forced the prosecution to show it in the courtroom ( I remember Ron Jeremy was in it doing funny shit ).
WE were hearing chuckles left and right ....

Phil · 05-28-2008, 08:06 AM

post some videos of his "art"

SykkBoy · 05-28-2008, 08:18 AM

I'm another of those who can't stand to watch more than 2 or 3 minutes of a Max Hardcore video, but believe he should be allowed to produce what he does...that whole crazy consenting ideas thing...

DonX · 05-28-2008, 08:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by directfiesta

I personally don't like his stuff , but it should be legal to produce, possess and view by warned adults...

Let's wish him ther best

Yep, I agree

rayadp05 · 05-28-2008, 08:26 AM

I wish max the best of luck.

payd2purv · 05-28-2008, 10:11 AM

Max is screwed people outside of Adult just won't understand.

Elli · 05-28-2008, 10:46 AM

Sounds like the jury is not very favourable to him. Two youth pastors? Come on. I hope there are a few folks in there with racier jobs than that.

AsianDivaGirlsWebDude · 05-28-2008, 11:01 AM

From this morning:

Quote:

May 28, 2008
Jury watches porn preview

TAMPA -- Jurors sat red-faced in federal court today as they watched previews of graphic and violent pornography in the obscenity trial of a Hollywood filmmaker and his company.

They could begin watching hours of full-length scenes as early as this afternoon.

U.S. District Judge Susan C. Bucklew has said she will take frequent breaks once the films begin playing in their entirety.

Producer and director Paul F. Little, also known as Max Hardcore, and MaxWorld Entertainment Inc. are facing five counts of using a computer server to sell obscene matter and five counts of delivering obscene matter through the U.S. mail.

The Justice Department, which announced its case against Little in May 2007, won't say why it decided to try the case in Tampa. But prosecutors said today in court that Little's Web site was hosted on a server in Tampa and investigators purchased MaxWorld DVDs and had them sent to a Tampa post office box.

In his films, Little inflicts pain or humiliation on women. Movie scenes include urinating, vomiting and defecating, often on adult actresses made up to look like young girls.

The judge spent Tuesday night watching portions of the films before requesting that prosecutors display the entire 8-1/2 hours of five pornographic DVDs prosecutors plan to use as evidence against Little and MaxWorld.

Defense attorneys objected to prosecutors' intent to only show 2-1/2 hours of the DVDs, saying the law required jurors to view the material as a whole in order to fairly decide if it's obscene by contemporary community standards.

The defense was concerned that jurors wouldn't watch the entire films on their own during deliberations and said that if prosecutors didn't show all 8-1/2 hours, the defense would. Bucklew asked prosecutors to show the films in their entirety so jurors would only have to see them once.

The judge also has placed a security officer outside the courtroom to keep juveniles out and stop anyone else from entering the courtroom once the DVDs begin playing.

"The tapes are graphic," Bucklew said.

About 15 minutes of previews were shown in court before the lunch recess. In them, Little is seen often wearing a white cowboy hat. He urinates on women, slaps them and calls them names.

James Fottrell, a Justice Department computer forensics specialist, navigated through Max Hardcore's Web site during his testimony. He read in court from a section on the site called, "Who the hell is Max Hardcore?"

In the description, Max Hardcore brags about his sexual exploits and how he "sexually sodomized" women.

The trial may last through the beginning of next week.

ADG

directfiesta · 05-28-2008, 11:09 AM

Thx for the update ADG

But :

Quote:

"The tapes are graphic," Bucklew said.

WTF is that judge talking about ? Tapes ? it is DVD's !!!!!!

B O B · 05-28-2008, 11:19 AM

I think he is fucked if he has a jury...

a jury of his peers would all be members of GFY and I dont see any of you on that jury

Sucks Max....

Tom_PM · 05-28-2008, 11:22 AM

The *ONLY* people on the face of gods green earth who are FORCED to view the material will be 12 jury members and a courtroom.

These obscenity laws are dated before VCR's even existed. In this day where discreet home delivery is the standard, it's absolutely ridiculous to actually try to apply such antiquated laws to modern day society.

I consider most of prime time tv to be obscene, and nearly ALL news reports from war zones and violent death coverage is graphic and abhorent to my sensibilities.

I'm not into extreme sex, I'm much more vanilla personally. But I know there are people who like to drip hot burning wax on themselves, and people who get off on the smell of a fresh bag of balloons and clamping nipples and whipping and spanking. Thats their pleasure! It's not mine, and it's not for *me* to say they are not permitted to achieve orgasm by whatever method!

With the current laws, the only hope prosecutors have is this sort of pseudo-entrapment and forcing a whitebread god serving jury to view something not of their choice. So of COURSE that's what they'll continue to do. Prosecutors job is not "justice", it's to WIN. Lawmakers we elect need to get on the stick and make new laws that apply to post 1960 society.

Beaver Bob · 05-28-2008, 11:27 AM

crossing my fingers for you, Max

Socks · 05-28-2008, 11:29 AM

So then question.

Have we as an industry, by protecting or defending a guy like Max Hardcore, put ourselves into an awkward situation in this case?

Not that we have any say in the matter, but I promote Max Hardcore myself, I don't have to, but I don't see a problem with it, I'm canadian, yadda yadda..

But.. What they're playing to those jurors is about the worst they can muster against us.. Not exactly what I'd hoped they'd be showing to a jury whose decisions could have far-reaching effects on all of us y'know?

Tom_PM · 05-28-2008, 11:39 AM

(a) whether the "average person, applying contemporary community standards" would find that the work depicting or describing sexual conduct when taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest?, (b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law; and (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

Well, "contemporary community standards" is absolutely KEY here, and in any other similar case. This was written in 1973 for petes sake.

In 1973 I lived in a tiny town and remember when a divorced woman moved into town! All of us kids speculated whether she was a prostitute because she was divorced, and THAT was un freaking HEARD of. The NORMAL was families where Dad worked, Mom took care of the home and 5 children and 2 cars and a dog, and we had the priest over for dinner once a month! And i'm not joking here.

Freaking comparing the stone age to the computer age here.

Quentin · 05-28-2008, 12:00 PM

This isn't Max's first time facing an obscenity trial, and assuming it goes all the way to the jury, it's certainly not a given that he will be convicted.

An anecdote related to me a couple years back by one of Max's attorneys demonstrates the point:

When reviewing the videos that the jury would be forced to watch at trial, one of Max's attorneys noted that during a particularly graphic "gape" shot, a fly landed, circumscribed the performer's expanded anus and then flew away.

Dismayed by what he saw, the attorney called Max and yelled something to the effect of "Have you ever heard of the term 'editor' before? Can you imagine what the jury's reaction to that fly is going to be?"

When the day came for that scene to be shown to the jury, the lawyer braced himself when the 'fly scene' was approaching. When it happened, much to his (pleasant) surprise, a single male juror began repeatedly slapping his hand on his thigh and laughing very hard.

"There's the one I need," the lawyer thought to himself. "That's our guy."

In the end, Max was not convicted, and the lawyer in question began to think of the fly as the best exhibit in the case.... so you just never know.

It only takes one person to derail the prosecution, while the prosecution needs all 12 to be in agreement. When the crime in question is something that is only a crime if the jury says it is, getting that unanimity is much harder than in a case where the sole question is "did the defendant do it?"

In obscenity cases, in effect, there is no "it" unless and until the jury says there is.

commonsense · 05-28-2008, 12:02 PM

Amazing the things the government wastes taxpayer money on.

flashfire · 05-28-2008, 12:04 PM

if most of us on here cant bare to watch....well he's fucked

Brad · 05-28-2008, 12:24 PM

This is basically a 1st amendment case. People like their freedom of speech much more than they dislike watching a graphic porn movie. I don't think a few girls being pissed on are going to ruin everyones fun.

That's just my 2 cents.

dev777 · 05-28-2008, 12:43 PM

When an ordinary person sits down and watches a Max Hardcore video, they're more than likely gonna think they've just witnessed a real rape.

hopefully he is able to show the interviews they do after the shoot where the girls are smiling and having a laugh..

Brad · 05-28-2008, 12:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dev777

When an ordinary person sits down and watches a Max Hardcore video, they're more than likely gonna think they've just witnessed a real rape.

hopefully he is able to show the interviews they do after the shoot where the girls are smiling and having a laugh..

Surely he would go a bit further than that and actually bring them in to testify.

bdld · 05-28-2008, 12:53 PM

"Movie scenes include urinating, vomiting and defecating, often on adult actresses made up to look like young girls."
damn if thats not illegal i dont know what is..

NikKay · 05-28-2008, 01:26 PM

I would love to see a few girls sue Max for his treatment of adult models but I don't think this should be an obscenity issue. And that's my 2 cents.

05-27-2008, 12:44 PM	#1
ShellyCrash Confirmed User Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Tampa Bay, FL Posts: 6,708	Max Hardcore Obscenity Trial Update May 27, 2008 Pornographer's obscenity trial underway TAMPA -- Jurors selected in the obscenity trial of a California filmmaker and his company will be asked to judge the local community's standards and values when it comes to viewing certain types of pornography. To do so, they'll likely watch several hours of what prosecutors described as violent pornographic movies that meet the U.S. Supreme Court's standards of obscenity. Paul F. Little, also known as Max Hardcore, is on trial today in a Tampa courtroom facing five counts of mailing obscene matter and five counts of transporting obscene matter by use of an interactive computer service. The case is being prosecuted in the Middle District of Florida because Little and his company, Max World Entertainment, Inc., are accused of mailing films to a post office box in Tampa. Little's movies include footage of bodily functions and severe violence toward female actors. Prosecutors say they intend to display several movie trailers in court that don't show explicit sexual acts. But Max World defense attorney H. Louis Sirkin said jurors should see the movies in their entirety to fairly decide if the depictions are obscene. "The government must show the entire movie," Sirkin said while arguing several motions before jury selection began today. He said the defense can't rely on jurors viewing the entire movie or movies during deliberations, so he wants them to see the entire thing in open court. U.S. District Judge Susan C. Bucklew did not immediate issue a ruling. As part of the legal definition for obscene, the law requires the material being judged to be looked at as a whole, Sirkin said. Bucklew spent the morning questioning more than 30 members of a jury pool. That process was slightly delayed because several potential jurors and the courtroom deputy got stuck on an elevator. Most of the jury questions so far have been routine, with responses about employment, spouses and prior jury service. No one raised their hand when asked if they had -- or knew a close relative or friend who had -- ever been employed in the adult entertainment industry. One woman raised her hand when the judge asked if anyone belonged to an organization that has publicly taken a stance against the distribution of pornography. She asked to speak with the judge about it in private. At least two members of the jury pool identified themselves as volunteer youth pastors. Jury selection will resume this afternoon. Return to tampabay.com for updates. Kevin Graham, Times staff writer Link to Article __________________ Start making money with the hottest hookup site! up to $55 PPS or up to 75% Revshare ICQ 196766477

05-27-2008, 12:55 PM	#2
directfiesta Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Montreal, Quebec Posts: 29,776	I personally don't like his stuff , but it should be legal to produce, possess and view by warned adults... Let's wish him ther best __________________ I know that Asspimple is stoopid ... As he says, it is a FACT ! But I can't figure out how he can breathe or type , at the same time ....

05-27-2008, 01:11 PM	#4
Penny24Seven So Fucking What Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: USA Posts: 6,287	so not fair though. of course some will think it is obscene. When I am shopping and I see a lady with hairy legs I think that is obscene but you don't see her in court. Who gives a fuck what 12 people think. They were never forced to watch it. __________________ Our site is coming soon. It will be one of the best ever! I know so. Brian and Penny

05-27-2008, 01:15 PM	#6
ShellyCrash Confirmed User Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Tampa Bay, FL Posts: 6,708	Tampa's a tough town, very diverse populace so it could easily go either way. His stuff is not my cup of tea, so to speak, but I really wish him the best. __________________ Start making money with the hottest hookup site! up to $55 PPS or up to 75% Revshare ICQ 196766477

05-27-2008, 01:19 PM	#8
davecummings Confirmed User Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: San Diego Posts: 2,922	Good luck, Max! __________________ Dave Cummings www.davecummings.com www.davecummings.tv San Diego Email--- [email protected]

05-27-2008, 01:13 PM	#5
tony286 lurker Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: atlanta Posts: 57,021	I wish him the best, the lawyer he has he is in very good hands.

05-27-2008, 01:20 PM	#9
pornguy Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Homeless Posts: 62,911	He may be in good hands, but this has a lot more far reaching impact, than most people think. Just the fact that they are charging him with "transporting obscene matter by use of an interactive computer service" can put us all in a bad situation if he is convicted. __________________ PornGuy skype me pornguy_epic AmateurDough The Hottes Shemales online! TChicks.com \| Angeles Cid \| Mariana Cordoba \| MAILERS WELCOME!

05-27-2008, 02:11 PM	#12
montel Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: See sig! Posts: 2,606	If the chicks in the jury convict him he can skull fuck them and then piss in their mouths. "I didn't mean to convict you mister". __________________ Barefootsies

05-27-2008, 02:11 PM	#13
tiger Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 6,986	Don't like his stuff either what little I have seen of it but it should be legal as long as its consenting adults. If you don't like it don't watch it, how hard is that? Best of luck to you Max! Go kick some ass! __________________

05-27-2008, 02:22 PM	#14
AlienQ - BANNED FOR LIFE best designer on GFY Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: IALIEN.COM - High Definition Video and Photographic Productions -ICQ 78943384 Posts: 30,307	Sirken owns. However I doubt many of you guys have taken a good look at MaxHardcore's stuff, otherwise you wouldnt publicly support em. I am pretty jaded and I got little doubt that his content could be deemed obscene. His shit is incredibly brutal, he makes Danza look like a puppy or newb when it comes to demeaning chicks. __________________ NAKED HOSTING FTW!11 I'm On The INSANE PLAN $9.95/mo! \| The Alien Blog Adult News Worth Reading Updated Daily \| Content For Sale! 641 PICS 216 MINUTES OF VIDEO $350.00 \|ICQ: 78943384 \| Last edited by AlienQ - BANNED FOR LIFE; 05-27-2008 at 02:24 PM..

05-27-2008, 04:45 PM	#17
Socks Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: May 2002 Location: Toronto Posts: 8,475	does only one juror have to say it's not obscene, and not budge?

05-27-2008, 04:47 PM	#18
Dennis Rodman So Fucking Banned Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 1,060	I'm ON the jury! Shhhhh

05-27-2008, 05:05 PM	#20
SL\|M! Confirmed User Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: The BP4L Bunker Posts: 1,480	good luck max!

05-27-2008, 05:25 PM	#22
GregE Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Philadelphia Posts: 2,704	I love your signature gif I used to have a cat like that, only mine was even more aggressive. I remember how people would get all quiet and just look at me kind of funny like whenever I explained away the scratches by saying: "Oh, I was just playing with the cat". As for Max, his stuff ain't my cup of tea either but I think a gentleman by the name of Martin Niemöller explained best why it is that we all need to support the Max Hardcore's of this world. __________________ 50/50 lifetime payout - EXCLUSIVE CONTENT - CCBill CLiCK here for your Bun Beating Dollars.

05-28-2008, 08:06 AM	#26
Phil Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 7,659	post some videos of his "art" __________________ Ask Phil

05-28-2008, 08:18 AM	#27
SykkBoy Jesus loves bacon Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Sin City, Motherfucker Posts: 19,969	I'm another of those who can't stand to watch more than 2 or 3 minutes of a Max Hardcore video, but believe he should be allowed to produce what he does...that whole crazy consenting ideas thing... __________________ Support my new movie “The Second Coming”

05-28-2008, 08:26 AM	#29
rayadp05 TRUEAMATEURMODELS.COM Industry Role: Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: TrueAmateurModels.com Posts: 4,187	I wish max the best of luck. __________________ TrueAmateurModels.com Twitter TrueAmateurModels.com Affiliate Program

05-28-2008, 10:11 AM	#30
payd2purv Too lazy to set a custom title Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Toronto Posts: 2,727	Max is screwed people outside of Adult just won't understand. __________________

05-28-2008, 10:46 AM	#31
Elli Reach for those stars! Industry Role: Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Vancouver, BC Posts: 17,991	Sounds like the jury is not very favourable to him. Two youth pastors? Come on. I hope there are a few folks in there with racier jobs than that. __________________ email: [email protected]

05-28-2008, 11:19 AM	#34
B O B Confirmed User Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Santa Ana, Costa Rica Posts: 2,664	I think he is fucked if he has a jury... a jury of his peers would all be members of GFY and I dont see any of you on that jury Sucks Max.... __________________ SoloConverts.com is now LIVE! 8 kick ass exclusive sites, weekly payouts, secure 3rd party billing, 60/40 revshare - PPS by request, tons of promo tools and much more! Sign up today at SoloConverts.com Contact me today for anything you need! [email protected] ICQ: 184807 Skype: bobbyrica

05-28-2008, 11:22 AM	#35
Tom_PM Porn Meister Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 16,443	The ONLY people on the face of gods green earth who are FORCED to view the material will be 12 jury members and a courtroom. These obscenity laws are dated before VCR's even existed. In this day where discreet home delivery is the standard, it's absolutely ridiculous to actually try to apply such antiquated laws to modern day society. I consider most of prime time tv to be obscene, and nearly ALL news reports from war zones and violent death coverage is graphic and abhorent to my sensibilities. I'm not into extreme sex, I'm much more vanilla personally. But I know there are people who like to drip hot burning wax on themselves, and people who get off on the smell of a fresh bag of balloons and clamping nipples and whipping and spanking. Thats their pleasure! It's not mine, and it's not for me to say they are not permitted to achieve orgasm by whatever method! With the current laws, the only hope prosecutors have is this sort of pseudo-entrapment and forcing a whitebread god serving jury to view something not of their choice. So of COURSE that's what they'll continue to do. Prosecutors job is not "justice", it's to WIN. Lawmakers we elect need to get on the stick and make new laws that apply to post 1960 society. __________________ 43-922-863 Shut up and play your guitar.

05-28-2008, 11:27 AM	#36
Beaver Bob Confirmed User Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Las Vegas, NV Posts: 1,099	crossing my fingers for you, Max __________________ Spunky Dollars \| Need Content? Paysite Owners: Protect Your Members Area with Strongbox 361-574-229

05-28-2008, 11:29 AM	#37
Socks Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: May 2002 Location: Toronto Posts: 8,475	So then question. Have we as an industry, by protecting or defending a guy like Max Hardcore, put ourselves into an awkward situation in this case? Not that we have any say in the matter, but I promote Max Hardcore myself, I don't have to, but I don't see a problem with it, I'm canadian, yadda yadda.. But.. What they're playing to those jurors is about the worst they can muster against us.. Not exactly what I'd hoped they'd be showing to a jury whose decisions could have far-reaching effects on all of us y'know?

05-28-2008, 11:39 AM	#38
Tom_PM Porn Meister Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 16,443	(a) whether the "average person, applying contemporary community standards" would find that the work depicting or describing sexual conduct when taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest?, (b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law; and (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. Well, "contemporary community standards" is absolutely KEY here, and in any other similar case. This was written in 1973 for petes sake. In 1973 I lived in a tiny town and remember when a divorced woman moved into town! All of us kids speculated whether she was a prostitute because she was divorced, and THAT was un freaking HEARD of. The NORMAL was families where Dad worked, Mom took care of the home and 5 children and 2 cars and a dog, and we had the priest over for dinner once a month! And i'm not joking here. Freaking comparing the stone age to the computer age here. __________________ 43-922-863 Shut up and play your guitar.

05-28-2008, 12:00 PM	#39
Quentin Confirmed User Join Date: Dec 2002 Posts: 1,280	This isn't Max's first time facing an obscenity trial, and assuming it goes all the way to the jury, it's certainly not a given that he will be convicted. An anecdote related to me a couple years back by one of Max's attorneys demonstrates the point: When reviewing the videos that the jury would be forced to watch at trial, one of Max's attorneys noted that during a particularly graphic "gape" shot, a fly landed, circumscribed the performer's expanded anus and then flew away. Dismayed by what he saw, the attorney called Max and yelled something to the effect of "Have you ever heard of the term 'editor' before? Can you imagine what the jury's reaction to that fly is going to be?" When the day came for that scene to be shown to the jury, the lawyer braced himself when the 'fly scene' was approaching. When it happened, much to his (pleasant) surprise, a single male juror began repeatedly slapping his hand on his thigh and laughing very hard. "There's the one I need," the lawyer thought to himself. "That's our guy." In the end, Max was not convicted, and the lawyer in question began to think of the fly as the best exhibit in the case.... so you just never know. It only takes one person to derail the prosecution, while the prosecution needs all 12 to be in agreement. When the crime in question is something that is only a crime if the jury says it is, getting that unanimity is much harder than in a case where the sole question is "did the defendant do it?" In obscenity cases, in effect, there is no "it" unless and until the jury says there is. __________________ Q. Boyer

05-28-2008, 12:02 PM	#40
commonsense So Fucking Banned Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 1,790	Amazing the things the government wastes taxpayer money on.

05-28-2008, 12:04 PM	#41
flashfire ICQ 1 6 7 8 5 3 4 9 2 Join Date: Feb 2003 Posts: 13,098	if most of us on here cant bare to watch....well he's fucked

05-28-2008, 12:24 PM	#42
Brad Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Toronto Posts: 2,510	This is basically a 1st amendment case. People like their freedom of speech much more than they dislike watching a graphic porn movie. I don't think a few girls being pissed on are going to ruin everyones fun. That's just my 2 cents. __________________ Affiliate Manager/Media Buyer ICQ 376 978 529 Skype: bradleyjwscott [email protected]

05-28-2008, 12:43 PM	#43
dev777 Confirmed User Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 366	When an ordinary person sits down and watches a Max Hardcore video, they're more than likely gonna think they've just witnessed a real rape. hopefully he is able to show the interviews they do after the shoot where the girls are smiling and having a laugh..

05-28-2008, 12:53 PM	#45
bdld $100,000 Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 11,452	"Movie scenes include urinating, vomiting and defecating, often on adult actresses made up to look like young girls." damn if thats not illegal i dont know what is..

05-28-2008, 01:26 PM	#46
NikKay Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 1,642	I would love to see a few girls sue Max for his treatment of adult models but I don't think this should be an obscenity issue. And that's my 2 cents.