Judge Sentences Porn Producer To 46 Months In Prison

Page 2 of 2 [ 20 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,044
Location: Seattle

06 Oct 2008, 9:32 pm

spudnik wrote:
Quote:
Although Hardcore often depicts his actresses as young and sometimes beneath the age of consent, they are not actually under 18. In his film Max Extreme 4, an actress over the age of 18 was portraying a character who states that she is 12 years old.
Sorry I don't know how anyone can defend anything depicting pedophilia, even if the actresses are over 18, it just shows the intent is there.


So where do you draw the line? Should a film version of Lolita be subject to obscenity prosecution because it explores the theme of pedophilia? I'm not going to make the argument that what Max Hardcore was peddling was "art", but I take issue with throwing him in jail because he crossed a very murky boundary that is not very clearly defined from a legal standpoint. His whole business was built around a perceived demand for adult entertainment of a specific nature, and judging from his success, his perception was correct. Why is it any business of ANY government what gets people off? No one was coerced, no underage people where involved, obviously no one thought they were breaking any laws. Also, if the issue was distribution, why was the distributor given immunity while the producer was targeted? This is very obviously an attempt to clamp down on the adult entertainment industry by the morality police, and should be vigorously fought against, regardless of any personal feelings about Max Little.


_________________
Murum Aries Attigit


Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,044
Location: Seattle

06 Oct 2008, 9:36 pm

Fnord wrote:
TheMidnightJudge wrote:
Unless he was actually forcing the women to be on video, I don't see the problem. I don't think deviant tastes, however sick, should be illegal.

From the OP article:

Quote:
"The videos featured scenes of vomiting and urination, showing women being forced to ingest various bodily fluids."

Your Honour, the prosecutiuon rests...


Fnord, you have heard of the term "acting", correct? Many mainstream movies (Boys Don't Cry, The Accused) have dealt with themes of forcible sex, do you think those actresses were involved against their wills? We are talking about rough pornography here, simulated force can be part of that, and was actually very popular in the 70's before falling out of style.


_________________
Murum Aries Attigit


Apatura
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jul 2006
Age: 45
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,398

06 Oct 2008, 10:51 pm

If it's consenting adults, no minors, no animals... what's the problem?

There are mainstream movies that show sexual scenes between actors who ARE underage... I just watched L.I.E. for example. Should the makers of that film be charged with obscenity?



Rjaye
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Nov 2006
Age: 57
Gender: Female
Posts: 903

07 Oct 2008, 3:16 am

Of course, we don't have all of the evidence that led to his conviction either. If all he did (which was icky) was make fetish films humiliating consenting actresses, I can't see that he broke any laws.

Dollars to donuts there's specific laws against this kind of fillum in CA, and the distributor should have been nailed as well-they actually delivered the product. Plus there may have been witnesses to support the prosecutor's suit.

Damn article doesn't present the whole case.



Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,044
Location: Seattle

07 Oct 2008, 4:01 am

Rjaye wrote:
Of course, we don't have all of the evidence that led to his conviction either. If all he did (which was icky) was make fetish films humiliating consenting actresses, I can't see that he broke any laws.


Article says 10 counts of distributing obscene materials over the Internet and through the mail, and that they are federal charges. If I recall, this case has been going on a while, it may even be a holdover from the Ashcroft days when the feds decided to make obscenity prosecutions a priority. If you read the federal obscenity laws however, you will find them very vague indeed, making no specific references and alluding to "community standards". Personally, I don't even see how they are enforceable, and apparantly neither did Max Little.

Rjaye wrote:
Dollars to donuts there's specific laws against this kind of fillum in CA, and the distributor should have been nailed as well-they actually delivered the product. Plus there may have been witnesses to support the prosecutor's suit.

Damn article doesn't present the whole case.


He wasn't charged in CA, and as I stated in my original post any local ordinance ought to be struck down on constitutional grounds. No one has the right to dictate taste or turn-ons, especially when we are talking about videos sold over the internet and viewed in the privacy of ones home.

I also don't see how witnesses would matter here, if you hold the obscenity laws to be legal, which I do not, he's guilty as sin, no one's disputing that. His site is still up, I'm already starting to see "Free Max Hardcore" banner add elsewhere on the internet that redirect back to his site, where you can still purchase his products.

The article does not present the whole case, but given that he was charged only with obscenity trafficking, not any sort of coercion, underage actresses, drugs or any of the other offenses often associated with porn prosecutions, I don't see what could possibly change anything. He's being locked up because the current administration does not approve of pornography and wants to make an example of somebody, and he's an easy guy to target. This is a classic slippery slope case, let this one slide because the guy being railroaded is a definite sleazeball, and the case law will be used to justify incremental encroachments on constitutional rights on things that matter.


_________________
Murum Aries Attigit