|
Quote:
Name me ONE community in our country where his material will not be found Obscene?? Just ONE. Your not going to find it, No jury ANYWHERE is going to disagree that piss and vomit porn are obscene. 13 people in a room, watching Max Hardcore movies and coming to the conclusion that video of a woman vomiting on the cock that is being violently rammed down her throat is just fine by community standards??? Not gonna happen anywhere in the US. It's a sad day, the government is too involved in the business of private citizens. |
He should of hired Steve Sweet's lawyer...
|
Quote:
How is it going to affect all of us? The issue regarding Max and his guilty verdict relate directly to obscenity charges. Unless you specialize in shooting obscene material then I don't see how it will affect you. |
vote republican idiots.,
|
Quote:
|
I didnt read the entire thread either, but I want to repeat what has been said before: the only people on the entire planet who were FORCED to view and consider the video(s) in question are the JURY. That is part of what is wrong with obscenity trials in the US right now, as well as how to apply "community standards".
People dont get max hardcore movies jammed in their mailboxes by accident. They CHOOSE to order them! Therefore it is patently NOT OBSCENE to them. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
If shooting content such as girls modeling nude, handjobs, blowjobs....was considered obscene then there would not be an adult industry here in America and it would have been banned decades ago. In my opinion, pornography will always exist....just as it always has existed. You just need to watch what your shooting and don't play with fire because as we have all seen, if you shoot that type of content then your asking for trouble. |
Quote:
Yea fuck Max's nasty shit..fuck him |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Wanna know what the saddest thing is the claire thread went 11 pages and this is barely three.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
just more proof of conservative america and their 'Lynch em!!' mentality...
and yet another reason to live offshore... |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Four years will McCain is going to destroy you guys... and our hope for the US as a country to emulate... |
Quote:
What they are saying is that if you have 2 minutes worth of video on your site you can now be prosecuted for obscenity. You didn't mail anything to anyone. You don't have the full movie available, but that apparently doesn't matter. What this could potentially lead to is attorney generals from all over being able to haul anyone they want into their court. If an AG is sitting in Godville, OK and doesn't like porn he can jump online, find a site he doesn't like and file obscenity charges against the person that is running the site. They now have to go there and defend themselves and it is possible, because of this case, that all they had was 4 30 second long clips on their site. This is the disturbing part. Will there be a witch hunt? I don't think there will. While they have a big voice, the religous zealots only make up about 20% of the country. If suddenly our government start waging war on porn while we can't secure the borders and can't get out of Iraq it would look very bad and I think much of the rest of the country would voice their displeasure. The Bush administration is a joke and they don't care what they do right now so they might try some more things, but in the end we will have a new president in a few months and he will most likely have enough on his plate that we won't be priority number 1 and if it is Obama he may do as Clinton and pretty much ignore us. However if Max's case is left to stand as is, it does open the door up for AG's all over the country to do as they please and that could turn ugly for us fast. |
I'm glad I live in the land of the free aka. the rest of the world :thumbsup
Obscenity laws are total bullshit, how dare you let a JURY (Idiots too stupid to escape the duty) decide on what's good or not, that's ridiculous... |
I see the morally superior pornographers are out in full force on this one. Why am I not surprised?
To me, it's like this. Max pissing in a girl's mouth, displayed on a billboard in the middle of town. That's obscene. Max pissing in a girl's mouth, recorded on DVD, and shipped in a plain brown wrapper to someone who specifically requested that material and paid money for it, is free expression. If you can't make that distinction, then you're not intelligent enough to understand the rest of this post, so please put me on ignore right now. All freedoms come with a price. Extreme pornography is the inevitable consequence of the free expression clause, the same way Scientology or the Branch Davidians are the inevitable consequence of the free exercise clause, the same way that the National Enquirer is the inevitable consequence of a free press, the same way that the Montana Militia Men are the inevitable consequence of the 2nd amendment. Max Hardcore hasn't made your life harder anymore than the Jehovah's Witnesses have made life harder for Catholics. (Many communities directed laws against the Witnesses and many court battles ensued, but it didn't make it harder for anyone else to practice their religion) The National Enquirer's constant publication of erroneous reports doesn't hurt the New York Times. The Montana Militia Men don't make it harder for you to own a shotgun. If there is any place where there should be a wholehearted embrace of the 1st amendment it should be here. Free expression can't just apply to things you like or things that don't offend you, it HAS TO apply to things that make you sick to your stomach or else it isn't really freedom. Those of you who say Max was "asking for it" are delusional. "Asking for it" would be pissing in a girl's mouth in the middle of Times Square. He filmed sex acts (granted, deviant sex acts by almost anyone's standards) between consenting adults, and sold copies of the film to other adults who specifically requested it. There is absolutely NOTHING wrong with that. Televangelists make me sick to my stomach. I want to puke every time they speak in tongues or plant a staff member in a wheelchair so they can "heal them" or say that god's blessing awaits you if you just send money to their ministry. I would rather watch 10 straight hours of Max taking a shit than 10 minutes of a televangelist. Just because they offend me doesn't mean they don't have the right to do what they do. (They, by the way, do it in the middle of Times Square) Their offensiveness is even more egregious, because they specifically target their speech at people who don't wish to hear it, rather than limiting it to people who request it. Yet their rights are sacrosanct, and Max apparently has no rights. Stick that in your irony pipe and smoke it. |
Quote:
The prosecution failed to show the entire video(s) to the jury. That alone could be game, set, match. The Miller test requires that the material be taken as a whole, the prosecution didn't show the whole work to the jury, game over. There was also the issue that Max didn't mail the DVD's, another company took the order and mailed the DVD's, yet Max was convicted on 10 counts of something that he plainly didn't do. There were also several other issues that I read about in the trial coverage that are definitely going to be brought up during the appeal. Now that the case is out of the hands of jurors who were sick to their stomach from watching the films, and in the hands of jurists who care about the law and proper procedure, I think Max's chances are very good. :2 cents: |
they gave the guy from jaded video immunity to testify in the case. well, that is what the tampa bay new website said anyhow.
|
Quote:
Where is the artistic value in that? I'm not against free speech in any means, but really what does this kind of content "add" to our industry? The shit he films is exactly what gives us a bad name and will now likely cause the rest of us problems. |
Quote:
Pretty much agree with everything you said.. People think just because they can do it that it's legal. Umm hello porn producers.. You should all know that you have to be able to prove your work has some sort of artistic value. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
You shoot porn in the US and don't think anyone cares about obscenity? |
Quote:
Men will jerk off to what ever they can get. If the limit is pictures of girls tits then those who produce them will sell them. It actually means people will have to think about what they produce in the future and wonder if they will get prosecuted. Don't worry porn will still exist if Max can't piss in girls mouths. |
As long as no one was injured, how is it obscene? Crazy
|
Quote:
All the Freedom of Speech stuff here is BS. No one here is interested in FoS. They just want to produce what ever they like so they can make money. They want no restriction, no laws and nothing to stop them publishing what ever they want so they can make a buck or two. And for many that's the level they are at. OK you now have an industry that is so deregulated, uncontrolled and free as any. What's the results? Tube and Torrent sites that can steal and publish what ever they like, legal free sites that any 8 year old who can use a computer can wander into and an industry where it has never been harder to make money. Nothing will cull the lame and stupid in this industry more than MORE LAWS AND RESTRICTIONS. If you support less laws you obviously support more competition. |
I predicted it.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
But even the 95% care little about how we are perceived. We spam them with porn, we run sites that are totally hardcore and open. We do nothing to control what we show the world. In fact we do the opposite. We take every opportunity to throw porn in their faces. All in the name of profit. I speak as someone who knows what it's like to produce porn that was illegal, though never obscene. I know what it's like to worry every time the door bell rings and to have policemen standing in my home clutching a sledge hammer in one hand and a search warrant in the other. |
Quote:
what exactly is considered "obscene" anyways? i bet the religious right would consider it obscene. IMO, if its not illegal to engage in the act, it shouldnt' be illegal to film and distribute. |
Quote:
Quote:
So what if they draw a line and say "If you go over this you get slapped." It means us who stay the right side get to make money and no dangers of getting the police knocking on the door. Step over it, like Max did, and you will get slapped. Just please don't cry about it as if you never knew what you were doing. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Like the people who pirate porn say!! Think about it beyond the small box. :winkwink: |
Quote:
And it's easy to say "set a line in the sand", but how do you do that? Who determines what is acceptable and what is not? Would there be a time limit for how long someone can gag for, or is it strictly based on particular sex acts? Would there be a written list to work off of? I just don't see how you could draw a consensus from this in the adult community. Even if that line can be drawn, it will just be fought to be pushed back. Do you seriously believe that conservatives will stop battling pornography simply because the adult industry decided that scat was a bad thing? To them this isn't about just Max Hardcore, it's about all porn. Look at the gun industry. If the NRA came out tomorrow and decided they would stand against machine guns, would anti-gun advocates call it a day and move on to something else? The only thing setting a line in the sand does is admit that something between consenting adults should be illegal. It in fact makes their argument stronger. And from a strictly business perspective, I agree with a lot of your points. I think this stuff does hurt the industry. But from a human perspective, I'm just tired of people telling others what is right or wrong. I'm tired of people telling me what is obscene. The definition of obscene is different for every one of us. When this industry (or any other in the entertainment world) admits that something should be considered obscene by all, it simply gives their argument credibility. The argument should simply be, if you don't like it, don't watch it. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
For about 40 minutes Wednesday and for more than an hour this morning, the entire DVD "Max Extreme 20" was shown to jurors. As the DVD began, the jurors sat mostly stone faced. Two women blushed and smiled slightly. One woman sat wide-eyed. The DVD progressed, and the smiles vanished. Hands often covered mouths. Men and women fidgeted in their seats. Expressions turned to concern as women onscreen screamed in pain during some scenes. In one scene, Little slaps a woman repeatedly, curses at her and urinates on her. She vomits. "That's OK," Little says in the film. "You look better with puke on your face." As the rough sex continues, they discuss her fictional 12-year-old daughter. Little, playing the role of Max Hardcore, tells the woman he had sex with the "preteen." In another scene, a younger woman says she is a virgin. The Hardcore character gives her a modeling job. He grabs her neck and the back of her hair, and forces her into a sex act. The girl vomits. Several of the jurors wince. One man rubs his closed eyes for several seconds. During a sex act, the young woman begins to scream. "I've got to move," she says. "Ow, ow, ow." Hardcore slaps away her hands. "Stop, stop, stop," she says. "Can we stop for a minute? Can we have a break?" The scene ends abruptly but begins again and lasts for several more minutes. While I don't agree he should have been in court to begin with, This needs a judge not a jury. No jury in this country is going to NOT consider this obscene. right or wrong, it doesn't matter. |
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:43 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
©2000-, AI Media Network Inc123