Max Hardcore conviction upheld
 

http://www2.tbo.com/content/2010/feb...ed-max-hardco/

By ELAINE SILVESTRINI | The Tampa Tribune

Published: February 3, 2010

TAMPA - Pornographic materials sold over the Internet may be considered obscene in one community and perfectly acceptable in another.

A federal appeals court says communities that find the materials objectionable are within their rights to prosecute the pornography producers, even though the items were not specifically directed at those communities.

Ruling in the Tampa federal prosecution of Paul F. Little, also known as Max Hardcore, the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals says the law doesn't recognize a national community standard for Internet-based material.

The Atlanta-based court rejected arguments by Little's attorneys that applying a local community standard to the Internet violates the First Amendment because doing so means material can be judged according to the standards of the strictest communities.

In other words, the materials might be legal where they were produced and almost everywhere else. But if they violate the standards of one community, they are illegal in that community and the producers may be convicted of a crime.

The court upheld the 2008 convictions of Little and his production company on 10 violations of federal obscenity laws. But it ordered that Little be resentenced, ruling that the sentencing judge should not have considered the profits from sales of the obscene materials, whether or not they were sold in the Tampa court's jurisdiction.

Little, 53, is in a minimum security prison in Texas serving a 46-month sentence handed down by U.S. District Court Judge Susan Bucklew in January 2009. He has a projected release date of May 29, 2012.

Little is from California but was tried in Tampa after investigators here ordered his videos through the mail and downloaded them over the Internet.

Jurors in Little's trial were told to judge the materials on the basis of how "the average person of the community as a whole ? the Middle District of Florida ? would view the material."

Little's lawyers maintained that standard was unworkable when dealing with the Internet.

Federal courts are divided on the issue, which could mean it will ultimately be addressed by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The ruling in the Little case applies only in Florida, Alabama and Georgia.

A federal appeals court in California ruled in another case three months ago that a national community standard must be applied when regulating obscene materials over the Internet.

A three-judge panel of the 11th Circuit, however, wrote that they "decline to follow the reasoning" of the California court.

Because the materials in the Little case were ruled to be illegal only in the Middle District of Florida, the sentence had to be limited to the defendants' activities in the district, the Atlanta-based appeals court ruled.

Therefore, Bucklew should not have increased Little's sentencing level under federal guidelines, which penalize defendants for financial gain over $30,000. Little and his company made $40,000 selling the disputed materials.

But the appeals court said there was no evidence of how much of that money was generated in the Middle District of Florida. The panel ordered Little be resentenced at a lower level.

The court said Bucklew acted appropriately, however, when she increased Little's guideline level because the videos were sadistic, masochistic or violent.

The videos featured scenes of vomiting and urination, depicting women being forced to ingest various bodily fluids.

7 days late dog

I must have missed it last week, sorry.

No biggie. I don't like his content but I don't think he deserves to go to Jail.

If anyone deserves it he sure does.

this reminds me of an ancient chinese proverb...

"he who stays in glass hotels should not throw chairs".... :thumbsup

is there an error in your nickname ?

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

Little and his company made $40,000 selling the disputed materials.

I guess there really isn't money in porn

I don't think he deserves to go to jail, :2 cents:

LOL at the first amendment. its nothing but toilet paper in anton scalias bathroom.

... and of course Hollywood movies with brain and blood splatter, executions, rape, you name it... is perfectly legal :error

so fucking stupid isnt it

:1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

I didn't see this either, but I don't read GFY on a daily or even a weekly basis.

I'm confused here. While I'm no big supporter of Max Hardcore, I don't think he's the one who is guilty here. He produced the content. But he never stepped foot in Tampa or wherever. Seems to me the only people who might have broken the law would be the hosting company, the ISP who allowed it to be downloaded in Tampa, or the person who downloaded it to their computer.

It's not like Max Hardcore intentionally reached out to someone in Tampa and forced them to download his content.

"the person who downloaded it to their computer. "

That was my same thoughts while reading the article. The porn in question was not available in that area till that person who bought it brought it there, via their computer..

Using what ever logic the court used to convict Max Hardcore. Could be applied to getting rid of all the porn on the internet just by having all the people in censored areas down load porn. Then have the DA's file charges against everyone that had it on line.

It also stated that he was charged with 10 violations of federal obscenity laws. That's what got him not this local community crap..

that is bad

Pfff, some people are plaine stupid, and mind their own business

poor guy. I know he pushed the envelope, but nobody deserves to go to jail for this BS.

Wiseman, I am trying to reach you. Please send me a message or contact me on ICQ or AIM.

obviously seems to be some strategy behind this.. the content itself is almost impossible to defend on the 'moral' standpoint

this situation sure does seem fucked up i am not a huge fan of him either but he doesnt need to go to jail :2 cents:

Agreed.


This isnt good for our business. I bet if you showed that movie "Hostel" or "Saw 1" to the same jury they would probably find that obscene too.



This is gonna be used as a spring board to attack the rest of the adult industry. Because i do know for a fact that people in the bible belt like Oklahoma, especially the ones not smart enough to escape jury duty would find any gay scene or strait anal scene very obscene under the same rules that Max got fucked with.




Look at the law or rules that are used to govern obscenity, not the man that has been convicted. You can say fuck max, he got what he deserved, but if this is up held at the supreme court level you or I can be next. :2 cents:

Like WTF. Doesn't this mean that some Bible Thumper can decree that a Side-Boob is objectionable in his community and then prosecute the photographer of said side-boob? Who defines the size and scope of the community? Why was he searching google for Side-boobs anyway (the pervert!). This blows.

Nope! Not one, but 12 need to find it objectionable.



I bet you can find some court house in the south that would find IR sex objectionable. Like 2 big black man pounding a little white southern girl in the ass hard would be way objectionable.





If this sticks, this we be just the beginning.:2 cents:

Florida's cracking down!
Max Hardcore, Dirty D

When the government goes after obscenity, they start the worst and work their way up from there... As soon as they are allowed to decide which speech is free and which isn't, all of us are at risk :2 cents:

and what do you deserve?? maybe you should ask yourself that?

but it's legal for Bill Clinton to get a blowjob, something that by law should get you at least 20 years in Georgia and Texas

What Hollywood does is fake. Paul Little does it for real. Big difference.

The moment you get one of these threads people start screaming "YOUR NEXT." Wasn't Paul Little convicted years ago, so who was next?

So, if the obscene is fake in porn movies, it would be allowed? I don't think so.

A woman who gave her consent to have piss down her throat, is in less real danger than a stuntmant risking his life in Hollywood.

The difference is the context. The morality, with laws discriminating across industries.

IMO A lot on the jury convicted him just because of what he was doing.

I was thinking the same thing!!!

The article said investigators downloaded it in Tampa.
So I guess any countrified fuckhead investigators can do this and then prosecute ya' in podunk USA.

Usually just 6 jury members.

Bad timing.


Sabby:)

Pee is sterile and no more gross than cum imho. People drink their own pee to survive thirst in extreme conditions.

I dont disagree. Men are expendable... women and children protected.


Sabby:)

Even Martha Stewart and Paris Hilton went to jail though...


Sabby:)

Yes, first they had to identify the obscenity, to convict him of "distributing" it. But he was not jailed because he forced someone or put anyone in danger? The real thing? Would fake production make the distribution legal?

The lack of force or dangerous behaviour and a situation with consent between adults, makes it a question of morality. Community standards. What are you allowed to show and watch. What not.

The real thing is irrelevant if fake productions gives same conviction (for distribution). If other industries can do the same (and even more obscene) without convictions, then it's discriminating. The context and industry is discriminated.

My point is: Comply with the law, but stand up for your rights. There are lots of "next", if you don't.