With the MAX Hardcore conviction. Are these sites next to get indicted?

[ChefJeff]

(the sites listed below are totally random examples and not meant as a slight against any of them. I support free speech rights, obscenity laws are unconstitutional)

www.extremehole.com
www.extremegirlnetwork.com

Looks like JM Productions was paying attention to this outcome. Extreme sites taken down?

http://www.gagfactor.com

And can someone please charge this site with obscenity. I find this completely obscene. Throw 'em in jail - http://www.pamelapeaksinthekitchen.com/
In my opinion that is more obscene than Max' stuff. LOL.

If the Max Hardcore conviction stands, if it isn't overturned on appeal. It affects everyone in the business. The bar is lowered. Who do they want to go after next? Lots of new agents assigned to that obscenity task force at the DOJ since Bushy took over.

And the illegal firing of those 8 US attorneys, yeah, some of them weren't prosecuting obscenity cases like ole Ashcroft and Gonzales wanted them to. So they had to go.

[Spunky]

How much does a Tampa judge have jurisdiction over? or is it Florida only?

[stickyfingerz]

Ok how the hell are some of those ccbill?

[DateDoc]

Originally Posted by Spunky

How much does a Tampa judge have jurisdiction over? or is it Florida only?

It was a Federal case not a Tampa only case.

[cranki]

Originally Posted by ChefJeff

And can someone please charge this site with obscenity. I find this completely obscene. Throw 'em in jail - http://www.pamelapeaksinthekitchen.com/
In my opinion that is more obscene than Max' stuff. LOL.

ugh, that's a crime against humanity... she looks like somebody worked her face with a sledge hammer

[Evil E]

That sucks, I was about to open a simulated forced-scat site

That being said, there's other people in that niche like Danza and Duke that could possibly be judged obscene.

Sweetmoney is in Canada so they should be ok.

[Beaver Bob]

I think we as an industry need to get behind Paul and help him finance the best of the best attorneys for his appeal. Whether or not you like his content (most of us don't), this is not good for any of us making a living selling porn on the internets.

[ChefJeff]

Originally Posted by cranki

ugh, that's a crime against humanity... she looks like somebody worked her face with a sledge hammer

Exactly. I find it obscene. They should go to jail.

What about this site www.ogrish.com? That's where I first saw actual beheadings.

Videos of people getting their heads cut-off. Legal?

Two consenting adults on video puking, pissing and whatever else Max does. Illegal?

There is a great line in "The People vs. Larry Flynt" where he comments that murder is illegal, but taking a picture of a murder is legal. Sex is legal, but in certain cases, like Max, depicting sex is illegal.

[TheDoc]

Well, Max did something a little different, he sent the hardcore porn through mail, porn that I think was ordered on the Internet. Anyway, people mailing, fedex, shipping, super hardcore porn to some areas of the U.S. has always been a starting ground for obscenity cases. So since it's mail, I guess this gives them some extra power since you area using a federal service.

The Internet, fighting porn or not, opens a different type of legal action for everything. The freedom of speech, choice, privacy, and even the idea of absolute expression, the entire idea of the Internet, helps protect even the most extreme porn online.

At some levels, I am a bit surprised they haven't taken on some super hardcore online stuff, other than beast and snuff. Probably a good number of people even harder than Max running around, but I wouldn't really say any of the sites listed here really go to the extreme that Max takes it.

[After Shock Media]

Originally Posted by TheDoc

Well, Max did something a little different, he sent the hardcore porn through mail, porn that I think was ordered on the Internet. Anyway, people mailing, fedex, shipping, super hardcore porn to some areas of the U.S. has always been a starting ground for obscenity cases. So since it's mail, I guess this gives them some extra power since you area using a federal service.

Um who sent it again?
Also they (feds) are attempting right now to use ancient telecomunication laws to say that the internet is just like a postal carrier and falls under the telco laws in regards to obscenity as well.
Not to mention that there was internet portions about the case not limited to distribution. Example being say a trailer is now taken as a whole.

[TheDoc]

Originally Posted by ChefJeff

Exactly. I find it obscene. They should go to jail.

What about this site www.ogrish.com? That's where I first saw actual beheadings.

Videos of people getting their heads cut-off. Legal?

Two consenting adults on video puking, pissing and whatever else Max does. Illegal?

There is a great line in "The People vs. Larry Flynt" where he comments that murder is illegal, but taking a picture of a murder is legal. Sex is legal, but in certain cases, like Max, depicting sex is illegal.

I would think, if Flynt actually thought he could produce crazy hardcore shit, and get away with it, he would. From what I can see, you can tell that he thinks a line has a been drawn.

To me, Flynt was fighting for the right to put nude people, sometimes of different races, having sex, or showing a cock/pussy, sucking, whatever going on.. basically, shit people were doing already. The opposition was trying to say, fucking, was obscene - when thinking that is even more obscene.

That's a huge difference from what Max has produced.

But Max has every right to take it to the top, fight the big fight, and win or lose - change the way shit will be looked at forever.

[TheDoc]

Originally Posted by After Shock Media

Um who sent it again?
Also they (feds) are attempting right now to use ancient telecomunication laws to say that the internet is just like a postal carrier and falls under the telco laws in regards to obscenity as well.
Not to mention that there was internet portions about the case not limited to distribution. Example being say a trailer is now taken as a whole.

He owns it, he controls it, he sent the 2257 records to someone. I don't think it matters who sent it, unless it was pirated.

I figured a trailer would be taken as a whole, if it's from an original production. Digital, printed, film, it's all one. A thumbnail is still part of a picture in 2257.

[AlienQ - BANNED FOR LIFE]

CCBILL processing. Interesting.

[AlienQ - BANNED FOR LIFE]

Originally Posted by Beaver Bob

I think we as an industry need to get behind Paul and help him finance the best of the best attorneys for his appeal. Whether or not you like his content (most of us don't), this is not good for any of us making a living selling porn on the internets.

Sirken is the best.

[Ayla_SquareTurtle]

Originally Posted by stickyfingerz

Ok how the hell are some of those ccbill?

You should see some of the stuff I run into in member's areas. Sites billing with common billing companies... I don't know the rules but I think surely a lot of sites are breaking at least some of them.

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by Beaver Bob

I think we as an industry need to get behind Paul and help him finance the best of the best attorneys for his appeal. Whether or not you like his content (most of us don't), this is not good for any of us making a living selling porn on the internets.

Will Paul share some of his profits with those who raise money for him?

He did this porn for two reasons. To make money and he enjoys humiliating women. I met him 14/15 years ago in the UK and he's not the kind of guy I would want any girl I know working for him.

He did it for profit and not as a Freedom of Speech thing. He got caught and he can pay the penalty. Maybe if he goes to prison he might meet someone who will show him how it feels to be humiliated.

And please don't give me the Freedom of Speech or future of porn bullshit. No one here is in it for Freedom of Speech, you're here to make money. As for the future of porn, it will exist outside America and what ever they do allow in the US consumers will buy to jerk off to.

[Beaver Bob]

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

Will Paul share some of his profits with those who raise money for him?

He did this porn for two reasons. To make money and he enjoys humiliating women. I met him 14/15 years ago in the UK and he's not the kind of guy I would want any girl I know working for him.

He did it for profit and not as a Freedom of Speech thing. He got caught and he can pay the penalty. Maybe if he goes to prison he might meet someone who will show him how it feels to be humiliated.

And please don't give me the Freedom of Speech or future of porn bullshit. No one here is in it for Freedom of Speech, you're here to make money. As for the future of porn, it will exist outside America and what ever they do allow in the US consumers will buy to jerk off to.

it is for freedom of speech and it is for profit. Freedom of Speech should protect those of us who do produce videos that might be considered "obscene" by some bible thumpers from being prosecuted. There is obviously a market for Max's stuff, as he's been doing this for years.

[stickyfingerz]

Originally Posted by Ayla_SquareTurtle

You should see some of the stuff I run into in member's areas. Sites billing with common billing companies... I don't know the rules but I think surely a lot of sites are breaking at least some of them.

Ive had to remove stupid shit from some of the niche sites we took over. A nearly comic fake kidnapping video with asian shemales. lol Yet these guys have fisting vids with thumb and 4 fingers all in ON the tour..

[borked]

Other cases to ponder over

[NKYKev]

Originally Posted by stickyfingerz

Ive had to remove stupid shit from some of the niche sites we took over. A nearly comic fake kidnapping video with asian shemales. lol Yet these guys have fisting vids with thumb and 4 fingers all in ON the tour..

CCBill is easy to figure out. A site based in Europe can be much more extreme than one based in the US, unless the one based in the US makes great sales. Actually, this is how pretty much how every processor works.

[dev777]

Originally Posted by ChefJeff

Exactly. I find it obscene. They should go to jail.

What about this site www.ogrish.com? That's where I first saw actual beheadings.

Videos of people getting their heads cut-off. Legal?

Funny you should mention it..

Ogrish is German owned, but none the less it has come under attack by the feds regarding obscenity issues, in addition to attempts by Germany's government to shut the site down.

a.) http://news.cnet.com/2100-1023-984248.html

b.) http://www.geek.com/fbi-requests-rem...f-web-content/

[snaker]

Originally Posted by stickyfingerz

Ok how the hell are some of those ccbill?

stickyfingerz why do you avatar got the dood from that time allen show ha ha

[SifuE]

how bout ftvgirls.com dont they have that shit in there too

[xentech]

Originally Posted by SifuE

how bout ftvgirls.com dont they have that shit in there too

Lol

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by Beaver Bob

it is for freedom of speech and it is for profit. Freedom of Speech should protect those of us who do produce videos that might be considered "obscene" by some bible thumpers from being prosecuted. There is obviously a market for Max's stuff, as he's been doing this for years.

Are you saying if there's a market for it, it should be legal?

That's a slippery slope.

Years ago he did not go so extreme, he went extreme for the money.

[Twisted Dave]

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

Will Paul share some of his profits with those who raise money for him?

He did this porn for two reasons. To make money and he enjoys humiliating women. I met him 14/15 years ago in the UK and he's not the kind of guy I would want any girl I know working for him.

He did it for profit and not as a Freedom of Speech thing. He got caught and he can pay the penalty. Maybe if he goes to prison he might meet someone who will show him how it feels to be humiliated.

And please don't give me the Freedom of Speech or future of porn bullshit. No one here is in it for Freedom of Speech, you're here to make money. As for the future of porn, it will exist outside America and what ever they do allow in the US consumers will buy to jerk off to.

While I'm far from a fan of Max Hardcore's stuff ... if these girls were being humiliated, why would they work with him, when there's loads of porn producers willing to pay these girls and not humiliate them, such as yourself? Why wouldn't that girl just go to work with you? Maybe because you don't pay them as well? I really don't see the problem. There's likely to be a 'get out' when the models are being fucked ... if they don't like it, they can cancel it. And ... surely they would know what the shoot would involve. It just seems to me that people don't like Max because he is successful in something that a lot of people don't have the balls to do. Again, I find his stuff a turn OFF... but I am not closed minded enough to think that he's abused ALL these girls on camera and not one of them ever checked him out before working with him. Seems ludicrous.

[ChefJeff]

Good article here - http://www.********.com/read.php?ID=28463

Taken from that article - "In a 2007 Senate committee meeting, then-Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said his office asked for the resignation of a Nevada U.S. attorney in part because of the attorney's lackluster desire to prosecute obscenity, according to a transcript of the meeting published in The Washington Post.

The choice to investigate and to prosecute obscenity cases lies with the presidential administration, said law professor Freedman. If President Bush wants federal prosecutors to focus on obscenity laws, that is his right as an elected leader."

[ChefJeff]

Originally Posted by TheDoc

He owns it, he controls it, he sent the 2257 records to someone. I don't think it matters who sent it, unless it was pirated.

I figured a trailer would be taken as a whole, if it's from an original production. Digital, printed, film, it's all one. A thumbnail is still part of a picture in 2257.

No, Max did not mail the videos to Tampa as the charges state. JadedVideo.com did. Max sold his stuff to Jaded. JadedVideo.com decides where they will and won't ship to. They packaged and shipped the order. Right there, those charges should be thrown out.

How can a trailer be taken as a whole? The "work taken as a whole" in this case is the web site.

Which ever side of the fence your on, obscenity laws are unconsitutional and are a creation of religious conservatives in gobment.

If you don't like it, don't watch it.

[NikKay]

Originally Posted by ChefJeff

(the sites listed below are totally random examples and not meant as a slight against any of them. I support free speech rights, obscenity laws are unconstitutional)

www.extremehole.com
www.extremegirlnetwork.com

Those sites are lame.

[pornguy]

Porn in the US is going to quickly become a black market thing. This case will make waves for a long time to come.

[CDSmith]

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

Are you saying if there's a market for it, it should be legal?

That's a slippery slope.

Years ago he did not go so extreme, he went extreme for the money.

Slippery sloaps work both ways Paul. You know that.

[directfiesta]

Originally Posted by TheDoc

Well, Max did something a little different, he sent the hardcore porn through mail, porn that I think was ordered on the Internet.

Think again .... It is Jaded video that shipped the dvd ... Curiously, they were not charged with the offense, but Little was ....

So, if you sell wholesale videos to a distributor, even tough you would have a non interstate shipping clause, if the distributor ships it, you go to jail.

Nice.

And for those that thinks thay what Max did is so bad and should go to jail, well 20 years ago you would have been in his place for a simple DP....

Who is next in line now ? Please raise your hand.

[Kenny B!]

Originally Posted by Beaver Bob

it is for freedom of speech and it is for profit. Freedom of Speech should protect those of us who do produce videos that might be considered "obscene" by some bible thumpers from being prosecuted. There is obviously a market for Max's stuff, as he's been doing this for years.

You're on the money, we are all in the same industry and are painted with the same brush. Whether it's hardcore gagging or some girl in pigtails made to look young showing just boob, we need to fight for our rights and stand behind guys like Max.

[testpie]

Aside from the case itself, that's one court case I'd love to be on the jury of:

Originally Posted by http://www.********.com/read.php?ID=28463

Over several hours last week and this, seven men and five women on a federal jury have watched some of the most extreme pornography commercially available today.

"Excuse me boss, won't be able to turn up to work this week because the Government says I've got to watch a few hundred women in the most extreme porn known to man. See you next Monday then!".

[Niktamer]

"According to the complaint, in the works there are explicit depictions of gagging, coughing, the expulsion of fluid from the mouth, crying, forceful face-fucking by grabbing a female?s hair, anal intromission of tubes, vaginal intromission of straws, use of straw to suck vaginal fluid contents, auto-felching, continuing sexually after a performer?s request to ?please stop?, and pig-tailed performers dressed in a preadolescent fashion being picked up at a playground and used sexually..."


I guess all this in one scene can be shocking.

[Robbie]

I am of the crazy opinion that I am an adult. I should be able to watch any goddamn thing I want to without BIG BROTHER telling me what to do.
And as far as Max Hardcore's material goes...you guys are in porn. Surely you must realize that there is a niche for everything. Max Hardcore enjoys what he does, that's why he's good at it. And the girls that are "humiliated"? Well, has it occurred to anybody that maybe they LIKE that? There is a reason he's made millions. And it isn't because nobody likes that kind of thing.
I honestly don't even understand why the govt. is saying it's "illegal" to do scat. Sure, I think it's disgusting. But then as a "Free" adult I have the option not to purchase it.
I certainly don't need our "free" country telling me to. I'd like to make up my own mind. Not have it made up for me by what is disgusting to other people.
I know plenty of uptight people who would be just as disgusted by a girl doing a softcore solo shoot. And I know everybody thinks that "vanilla" porn can't be touched.
Maybe you're right. But from everything I've seen in my lifetime, one thing leads to another. And when the govt. thinks it needs the votes of the religious right, the sky is the limit if they actually pull this shit off.
That's just my opinion. I don't trust govt. Like a lot of you, I pay a fucking mountain of taxes...and yet basically live in fear in my own community of the govt. kicking my door in and taking everything I own.
I can only imagine what it's like to have YOUR house and YOUR money and YOUR belongings basically stolen by the fucking govt.
I don't think this is what Jefferson, Washington, Franklin, etc. had in mind a couple of hundred years ago.
And don't think that kind of deviant sexual behavior didn't exist in the past. It sure did. Franklin was a HUGE whore monger. And you can go back to the Roman Empire, the Greek civilization, hell even the Bible and find all kinds of orgies, group sex, homosexuality. And most of it was accepted in society.
So no, I don't think this is what our govt. was meant to be doing.

~edit~ I just realized that y'all might think I LIKE scat....lol No, I would throw up if somebody shit in the same room as me! Just wanted to clear that up as a personal note.

[TheDoc]

Originally Posted by ChefJeff

No, Max did not mail the videos to Tampa as the charges state. JadedVideo.com did. Max sold his stuff to Jaded. JadedVideo.com decides where they will and won't ship to. They packaged and shipped the order. Right there, those charges should be thrown out.

How can a trailer be taken as a whole? The "work taken as a whole" in this case is the web site.

Which ever side of the fence your on, obscenity laws are unconsitutional and are a creation of religious conservatives in gobment.

If you don't like it, don't watch it.

Is he not the owner of the Company? Doesn't Max give permission for someone to distribute a video? Is he the primary producer? He is in control of it all, just like all primary producers are. The only time it's not in your control is if you have been pirated.

If the Film/Movie industry has different rules/laws to follow, then he/we should be able beat a trailer or site, being taken as a whole. However, a trailer that was cut from a full production, is enough to sample, understand, view, and experience without having to watch the entire thing. The idea of that is to show that it's tasteful, artful, contributes, whatever that crap is it says. Now, one trailer being a sample of an entire Website, I see the idea they are going after. Maybe if the site actually did have an artful taste to it, learning, or community, some special videos, I'm sure the court would allow those. Pending they wouldn't make the court puke.

I look at it like this, I can think or not think obscenity is right or wrong. If it is unconstitutional then this case should go high enough to prove or disprove that. I can see a clear, hardcore sex, safe line that will not get you into trouble, Flynt set that for us. We have a huge gray area, most of it being safe. But you can also clearly see a red zone that will get your ass nailed, beast, fake sexual rape, scat, the easy to spot extreme shit.

I don't think Max stuff should be found obscene, at least the small amounts I have watched. I'm not a hardcore porn fan, but adults consented to view his films and I'm fine with that as long as everyone in the production was aware of what was going to happen before hand.

I see some new laws coming in, if this case sticks, years from now prob. I see the degrading women law (bondage-bonded, extreme pain, ect.. in sexual moments) something like Canada has. This is what the Max case is screaming to me.

[JamesXR]

I am not comfortable with the idea that some things should be obscene and others shouldn't. I think that the line should be drawn at consent between those who can legally consent. Everything else is just arbitrary. Humiliation, what the heck is wrong with that. Plenty of people love to be sexually humiliated. If not, we wouldn't sell so many cock cages. That one sexual interest should be legal and another perfectly non-victimizing interest should be obscene is outrageous. It doesn't matter if he did it to make money, we all do things to make money.
I salute Max Hardcore for having the balls to take a risk to advance the cause of freedom. That's a value that we should be rewarding in America. Filthy republicans shutting down freedom loving small businessmen, its just unAmerican.

[DaddyHalbucks]

People act so surprised about this, but this train was spotted 10 miles away.

[ChefJeff]

All of your comments are good. This is the type of dialogue that should be taking place on important issues such as the issues this case highlights.

[CDSmith]

Originally Posted by DaddyHalbucks

People act so surprised about this, but this train was spotted 10 miles away.

Why do people keep saying this? I'm not surprised at all by this verdict, at this stage of the case.

I will however, be somewhat surprised if he loses on appeal. Not because I think his stuff isn't offensive. It is. But because I know it is acted out fantasy, done with consenting adults all of whom get paid and off camera are treated just fine, and the material in question is purchased by other consenting adults for voluntary viewing purposes.

I see nothing obscene in that. Offensive does not and should not automatically = obscene.

[JamesXR]

Originally Posted by CDSmith

Why do people keep saying this? I'm not surprised at all by this verdict, at this stage of the case.

I will however, be somewhat surprised if he loses on appeal. Not because I think his stuff isn't offensive. It is. But because I know it is acted out fantasy, done with consenting adults all of whom get paid and off camera are treated just fine, and the material in question is purchased by other consenting adults for voluntary viewing purposes.

I see nothing obscene in that. Offensive does not and should not automatically = obscene.

I've got an issue with "offensive". Nothing good ever comes from respecting the feelings of offended people. Very little nonpersonal stuff offends me. Of course I take politics personally because those people purport to represent me, hence it becomes personal and I take offense. However, porn is a transaction between the people who make it and the people who want to watch it. Anyone else is just butting in on someone else's business. That's like breaking into the houses of ugly people and then complaining because they were having ugly people sex, and we saw it.

[tranza]

Originally Posted by stickyfingerz

Ok how the hell are some of those ccbill?

I was going to ask this!

[LAJ]

Who knows what's next... I'm sure the FBI has their targets and comb thru threads like these regularly lol...

[erehwon]

Originally Posted by Niktamer

"According to the complaint, in the works there are explicit depictions of gagging, coughing, the expulsion of fluid from the mouth, crying, forceful face-fucking by grabbing a female?s hair, anal intromission of tubes, vaginal intromission of straws, use of straw to suck vaginal fluid contents, auto-felching, continuing sexually after a performer?s request to ?please stop?, and pig-tailed performers dressed in a preadolescent fashion being picked up at a playground and used sexually..."

For the longest time, the agent just sits in silence. Finally, he manages, "That's a hell of an act. What do you call it?"

[fuzebox]

Originally Posted by stickyfingerz

Ok how the hell are some of those ccbill?

I think you should go through the allowed content list again... There are some very specific criteria that aren't based on whether a site "looks too hard" or not...

[NikKay]

Originally Posted by JamesXR

That's like breaking into the houses of ugly people and then complaining because they were having ugly people sex, and we saw it.

Haaaa! I use this example all the time!

"They're offended that people of the same sex might want to get together? Well, I'm offended that ugly people get together and have sex. Who's going to protect me from that?"

[JamesXR]

Originally Posted by NikKay

Haaaa! I use this example all the time!

"They're offended that people of the same sex might want to get together? Well, I'm offended that ugly people get together and have sex. Who's going to protect me from that?"

Clearly great minds think alike.

Now I'm curious as to what's most objectionable? If you were to place people in a private room with a tv fixed on with two channels. You could play max hardcore videos on one and have an old women sucking cock on the other. Old women all wrinkly, thinning hair, blatant old woman mustache growing in kinda thick. Then you find out what channel they end up leaving the tv on. You could scientifically measure comparative distastefulness. Of course some people will try to figure out if they can get picture in picture and watch both at once. Not that any of that should be illegal, but who doesn't like science? You could rate all porn by tastefulness and add a filtering program, so that picky people who like one kind of porn, but not another could search the internet safely without having any porn too hardcore for their sensitive eyes, but now I'm getting off topic.

[jakethedog]

this whole thread .. the court case... the decision ,.. is fucking ridiculous .. I have had lots of dealing with Max drunk and sober .. lol .. I consider him a friend .. ...I have his feeds .. I have produced some of the most hardcore content out there while i was with sweet .. IT IS FUCKING ACTING .. YOU EXPLAIN TO THE MODEL WHAT THE SCENE WILL ENTAIL AND YOU THEN GO TO SHOOT THE CONTENT .. the model is absolutely free to leave at any time... for fuck sakes this is retarded .. obscene .. ?? it is adult content ..fucking film.. thought out .. laid out and designed for people who happen to enjoy that style content to jerk off to .. thats it .. there should absolutely be NO reason for it to deemed "obscene" ... it is a fucking film .. not an un-consentual rape in some dark alley .. this is fucking retarded .. whats next .. broke-back mountain .. ???

[DaddyHalbucks]

Originally Posted by CDSmith

Why do people keep saying this? I'm not surprised at all by this verdict, at this stage of the case.

I will however, be somewhat surprised if he loses on appeal. Not because I think his stuff isn't offensive. It is. But because I know it is acted out fantasy, done with consenting adults all of whom get paid and off camera are treated just fine, and the material in question is purchased by other consenting adults for voluntary viewing purposes.

I see nothing obscene in that. Offensive does not and should not automatically = obscene.

Unfortunately, your foot is not the standard measurement.

Decisions on obscenity are made at the local community level. Unconstitutional? Probably. Arbitrary? Almost for certain. Unfair? No doubt.

But that's the way it is.