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

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 :2 cents:

I agree:2 cents:

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.

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

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.

Scary thought :helpme

Good luck, Max!

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.

:thumbsup:thumbsup

:1orglaugh

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".

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!

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.

That is the thing that scares me as well.

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

For everybody's sake.

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

I'm ON the jury! Shhhhh :thumbsup

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

good luck max!

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

I love your signature gif :1orglaugh

http://i3.tinypic.com/6kk7mub.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.

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 :winkwink:

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. :2 cents:

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.. :2 cents:

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 .... :)

post some videos of his "art"

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...

Yep, I agree

I wish max the best of luck.

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

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.

From this morning:

:disgust

ADG

Thx for the update ADG :thumbsup

But :

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

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....

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.

:2 cents:

crossing my fingers for you, Max

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?

(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.

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.

Amazing the things the government wastes taxpayer money on.

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

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.

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.

"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..

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.