Max Hardcore Sentenced to 46 months in prison.

[stimpy17]

And now he'll know what it's like to be the fuckee. Scum.

[brickcitybrother]

This is not good. Obscenity laws often are so vague as to allow an impermissibly large group to fall into them. The fact that his charges are not Mann Act charges or straight prostitution or use of minors or even tax evasion says alot about the prosecution.

As stated before:

This is not good.


If we cannot engage in lawful conduct - that other may not like - we will always be subject to unfair prejudice and persecution.

If you do not think this is true - then allow the Admins of the site to get and send your names to your local authorities along with the worst that's on this site. If the thought of that bothers you than realize - THIS IS BAD.

[tommymageeshemales2]

He brutalised and performed ghastly acts on very young women. And, as far as I am aware, many of his productions solicited a corner of the porn market for extreme deviants and the horribly depraved.

I can only speak for myself, but I think a guy who gagged, choked and pissed on girls, who supposedly had just turned 18, should be put down.

well if they signed up for it and the contract is legit... it was their choice

we dont have to like it... and im sure plenty of ppl think YOURE a deviant and and a low life perv but theres no reason to be punished for it

fact is ... any of the performers on there signed up for it so that shouldnt be a factor

Fair enough point, IF complete degradation was indeed what the girls signed up for.

I've never been in a situation where I've signed a contract to shoot porn (the directors i went to see said they don't work with deviants - that was punishing!) but it would be a real surprise to know that each and every girl is briefed in accurate detail (even in pre-school terms given that some of them are morons) about what they would be doing in their scene.

Can't find the link, but there was a thread on here about Khloe Hart being bitten, scratched and bruised shooting some vid in which she wasn't expecting such bad treatment. I think it shook her up bad, and it raises the question about who should be held accountable for when "what actually goes down" diverges greatly from "what you sign up for".

[SXFX]

Don't we have this thing....i don't know what's it called...jesus h bush wipes his ass with it.....oh yeah the bill of rights to protect people?
I tell ya conservatives need to be rounded up and shot in mass! Or hunted like wile animals via helecopter gun ships!

[iloveall]

the are doing it with smokers
can't smoke in public places now tha's crap
and i don't smoke

[hippifried]

I've never been in a situation where I've signed a contract to shoot porn (the directors i went to see said they don't work with deviants - that was punishing!) but it would be a real surprise to know that each and every girl is briefed in accurate detail (even in pre-school terms given that some of them are morons) about what they would be doing in their scene.

What "briefed"? All they need is to have seen any of the previous videos. Max Hardcore's been around for a couple of decades.

This conviction was for selling porn over the internet. This is a test case. It'll be hard to make it stick.

[happyjack]

Take it easy and please don't storm in with "Tom you're such an ignorant dick", but isn't this a good thing?

Tom you're such an ignorant dick, lol im sorry but i had to do it lol

WOW Lisa,I love that avatar,you look so luscious, and doable like that

[tommymageeshemales2]

Braveman, I do realise that. And I understand the fears, and the threats that a conviction of this nature poses to the industry. In short, I'm not sad to see the guy in question go down.

[NYBURBS]

Look whether he is a likable guy or not should have absolutely nothing to do with this. At the end of the day this comes down to a weak reasoning by "moral purists" on why the First Amendment does not cover certain things. For those that do not know:

There are generally 3 exceptions the Supreme Court has come up with that do not receive Free Speech protections. 1) Obscene material 2) Child Pornography 3) Fighting Words (there is also a national security exception but I'm not going there right now).

I think we can all agree that the child porn is understandable as it relates to conduct with someone that is not old enough to consent to that kind of conduct. Fighting words is a bit more sketchy and is also where this whole "Shouting fire in a crowded movie theater" originates from. Obscenity though is merely thought as immoral content that has no artistic value.

The exact test is this:

(a)Whether the average person, applying contemporary adult community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest (i.e., an erotic, lascivious, abnormal, unhealthy, degrading, shameful, or morbid interest in nudity, sex, or excretion); and

(b)Whether the average person, applying contemporary adult community standards, would find that the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct (i.e., ultimate sexual acts, normal or perverted, actual or simulated, masturbation, excretory functions, lewd exhibition of the genitals, or sado-masochistic sexual abuse); and

(c)Whether a reasonable person would find that the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

Personally the whole notion scares the shit out of me, but anyway hopefully this clears it up for some people.

[SarahG]

Great post NYB. I bet that a very large percentage of local American communities would find the images, movies, dvds, postings, and advetrisements, posted on HA to be "obscene."

Which was the point I was trying to make earlier.

It really is a nobrainer to get an obscenity conviction, all a DA has to do is find a bunch of easily disgusted Americans... and judging by the FCC complaints after a recent Superbowl involving Jackson, I dare say that isn't hard to find such prudes to stack a jury with.

The DA then hopes that the shock value of "omg did that guy just stick a penis in... SOMEONE'S ASS HOLE!?" would be enough to trump free speech concerns.

There have been states where sodomy, sex toys, and even tattoos have been illegal (AFAIK there is still one state, and i bet you all can figure out where it is, that still has tats illegal).

The American people are eager to destroy civil liberties as soon as children are brought into the debate, that's why people are complicit in eroding double jeopardy protections for sex offenders. Anything unmainstream is going to be subject to this nonsense, because all DAs have to do is get a bunch of prudish soccer moms to sit threw porn genres they'd never have watched in their lives, setting them up for the question of "what if your children found this stuff?"

You can replace "stuff" with almost any genre and find a sympathetic jury- now what if the jury picked actually believes that someone can "become gay" from exposer to "alternative lifestyles"... it would not be purely academic to wonder how hard it would be for trans porn, even if it isn't hard core, to be targeted.

This is NIMBY adapted to an online, digital world. We are all well aware what happens to clubs when suburban sprawl or urban renewal sets up shop next to "go-go bars" that have been in operation for thirty years or more without incidents. With online, the NIMBY is not so much "what's next door" but "what's in your living room" and that is a question that politicians have been feeding parents for years, hoping that it would help come election time. I've watched the Senate committees on video games (yes, some years there have been such things but I might have the name wrong). As of 2005 they were still complaining about titles like Doom2 that had been around for well over a decade. This is not a separate movement, and if developers can be blamed for unrealistic, poorly done sex scenes added BY END USERS THEMSELVES in titles like GTA, then what chance is there for the people who are *really* making adult products for consenting adults?

The reason why the internet was brought into this case, was not by chance. These states know that they need to adapt in a world where the supreme court has established that laws against say, sodomy, are unconstitutional. By bringing the internet in the equation, the state hopes to acquire the power of censorship even online, forcing isp's to block smut- even when their customers demand it.

I would even go so far as to say this is a bipartisan effort, Lieberman, Hillary Clinton have been in favor of video game regulation, the right have been in favor of porn regulation- the internet is where they have a common agenda, and a common target.

The Turner Thesis, even with all its faults, is correct about one thing: federal regulation rarely succeeds until after the local & state communities have desensitized the public to the act for years. You're not going to be seeing the feds come out and say "the following sex acts are considered obscene and are not legal in the United States"

But if these cases continue to succeed, you will be seeing "the following states define the following acts as obscene and there fore the possession, production, sale, and ownership of the following content as a felony, if not a sex crime" with all the ramifications of that (like losing voting rights, gun ownership rights, and if its a sex crime- being stigmatized as if you're no different from a guy who brutalizes 3 year old boys- not to mention being thrown in jail).