A line could be a good guide, but where would you draw it? There is such a wide range in adult, to BDSM, humiliation, extreme roughness (to name only a few) where some people DO enjoy being on what some perceive to be the negative receiving side, that if it all involves consenting adults (performers and viewers) it is hard to draw.

I think "policing" should be done in protecting performers, that they are not misled or forced into acts they do not want to do and that they are treated fairly and respected.

All of you people who are crying about what Max is doing and how it makes the industry look bad need a reality check.

Do you think if Max wasn't doing his thing that the govt would leave us alone?

Fuck no.

The next thing on the list would be gay porn, or anal sex, or gangbangs and DP.

After those were all gone they would go after cumshots, and then anything hardcore, and if they had their way by the time they were done all of the women in this country would have their faces covered and not be allowed to talk to a man she wasn't related to.

This will never end with them. Be glad that Max is the one sticking his chin out there to take the punch.

i think its far less important "where" than it is to just do it.

the "line" is always going to be (or seem) inappropriate or arbitrary to some. a girl might be 18 and might be horribly immature but she can be in porn whether or not she is ready for it... another can be 18 and have the life experience, maturity and intelligence of someone much old. arguing forever about "where" to draw the line has nothing to do with the fact that without a line, you are fucked. either you draw that line ... or the federal government is not only going to draw that line for you... they are then going to keep moving it for you.

The Prosecution rested it's case today...

ADG

You really don't get it do you?

No matter where the line is drawn the government will simply start there and then work it's way down.

Perhaps you need to spend some quality time giving your dog another massage, and while you're doing so, rethink your position.

really? like ...say... when the motion picture industry drew some defensible lines and the government leaves them alone completely?

how fucking retarded are you? do nothing? fight the federal government and a nation full of religious nut jobs? really? a bunch of 1/2 retarded, anti-social idiots who can't stop stealing from each other are going to line up, form an army and fight? is that the plan?

how about this.... think about how to fight battles you can win... rather than just running around , sticking your chin out there while people constantly take swings at you trying to knock you out. you cant do that forever.

Your right but I think the movie industry was different as far as there weren't that many studios. So to get together wasnt like herding cats also the movie bosses were long term thinkers, our industry only thinks about today for the most part.

You said it yourself: "a nation full of religious nut jobs".

Those people, and the government they elected, think all porn is obscene.

Now, unless we all "self regulate" ourselves into burger flipping jobs, there ain't nothing we can do except beat them in court.

Be glad Max has deep enough pockets (and big enough balls) to fight the fight :thumbsup

Weird, no ?

They were in possession of the dvd's, they had the client in Tampa, they shipped it interstate to Tampa ... and they are not charged ...


???? Backroom deal


BTW, Jaded has a hell of a lot of Euro stuff that makes Max Hardcore look like Walt Disney :2 cents:

Fight the cheesy tag line on the end of each one of your posts!

I'm just shocked that in this day and age we STILL try to tell consenting adults what they can and can't do and what WE as adults can and can't watch. And as far as minors seeing it...I would have given my left nut when I was a teenager to have been able to see some porn! Instead of my dad's old playboy magazines and 1960's stag films. I don't think for one second that porn is gonna hurt a 15 year old boy at all...at least not as much as playing a vid game in which he virtually slaughters a few hundred people.
Bottom line is what Larry Flynt just said in the latest AVN Online Mag (I'm paraphrasing here) : Everybody is for "Freedom Of Speech" as long as they agree with it.

since you have no idea what the results of self regulation would be ... since it doesn't happen, you're not exactly stating fact. the problem with fighting in court is that you are going to continually let the worst of the worst in the industry pick those fights on your behalf... and IT WILL backfire eventually. this is a business with no shortage of low hanging fruit for prosecutors.

..... and if you think that being in this position like right now, where the over the top, grossly offensive guy who intentionally tries to push further than anyone else and that was on here screaming "FUCK THE FBI" be the one representing your industry in federal court, is a good strategy for long term success.. you're delusional.

:error:error

A fucking men! Sickfuck only stands up for himself and his hardcore shit he has been paying girls to do for years. I would hate to believe in Karma if I were him :1orglaugh

I hope he gets whats coming to him...

I seriously suprised that no angry fucked in the head models have signed on to do a shoot with him and cut his dick clean off :disgust

Update: looks like the judge will decide if the charges should be dropped today. An actress also testified that she enjoyed working for Little.

http://www2.tbo.com/content/2008/jun...?news-breaking

Max Hardcore Found Guilty in Obscenity Trial

http://www.avn.com/video/articles/30610.html

TAMPA - Producer Max Hardcore (a.k.a. Paul Little) was found guilty of 10 federal counts of distributing obscene materials over the Internet and through the mail.

Little's company Maxworld Entertainment was also found guilty on 10 related charges.

Earlier today, jurors asked U.S. District Judge Susan Bucklew for guidance as the jury was having trouble reaching a unanimous decision.

According to a report in the St. Petersburg Times, the jury foreman sent a note to Bucklew just after 3 p.m., asking: "If we make a decision on 10 of the 20 counts, but are unable to reach a decision on the other 10, will the 10 counts that we decide on stand?''

Bucklew said the jury's decision would count.

The jurors responded in another note: "There are people on both sides of the issues, and we do not believe we'll be able to reach a unanimous decision. How long must we deliberate?''

The judge urged jurors to try again.

"I'm not going to tell you how much time to deliberate, but I am going to ask you to deliberate again,'' she said.

According to the report, the jury then asked Judge Bucklew for permission to take a break, because "emotions were running very high."

Bucklew granted the break, asking attorneys to stay in the courthouse to give the jurors time to talk again. The jury returned its verdict at approximately 7 p.m.



Fight the roh roh!

xbiz: Max Hardcore Jury Returns Guilty Verdict

http://www.xbiz.com/news/94879

TAMPA, Fla. ? Jurors in the Max Hardcore obscenity trial have returned a verdict of guilty on 10 federal counts of distributing obscene materials over the Internet and through the mail.

His company, MaxWorld Enterprises, was also found guilty on 10 related counts.

"This is a sad day for America," Hardcore attorney Jeffrey Douglas told XBIZ, who was noticeably upset. "Like I said in my closing remarks, this was a shameful prosecution. I don't have anything else to say."

Earlier today, the jury appeared to be undecided and conferred with the judge on several points before going back into deliberation.

"If we make a decision on 10 of the 20 counts, but are unable to reach a decision on the other 10, will the 10 counts that we decide on stand?'' the jury foreman asked Judge Susan C. Bucklew this afternoon, just after 3 p.m. EST.

The judge answered that the decisions they returned would stand, even if other counts were undecided.

The foremen indicated also that there were jurors ?on both sides? of the issues, and that there was doubt that they could come to a unanimous decision.

He also asked the court how long the jury was expected to deliberate, to which the judge reportedly told the jury she would not tell them how long to deliberate, only that they should deliberate again.

Sources close to the case told XBIZ this morning that a decision might be imminent, but this afternoon, foreman asked the judge for a break, citing that emotions were running high in the deliberations. Lawyers for both sides were asked to stay in the courtroom, in case the jury should return with a verdict.

However, the jury returned just a short time ago with their verdict.

Max Hardcore and other defense attorneys were unavailable for comment at post time.


Fight the roh roh x2!

Your arguments are somewhat self contradictory.

On one hand you seem to build on the notion that some sort of unity of action should stem from some sort of unity of interest.

On the other you blast away at the unity with bits such as these.

So call it one way or the other, are we or aren't we all together, cause otherwise the frothing at the mouth is more akin to madness than anything.

standing together on the deck of the titanic and watching the ice bergs float by while shooting heroin and screaming "fuck the world" and organizing to actually plot a course, watch for obstructions and navigate the titanic from port to port are two totally different things.

"being together" doesn't mean being a 1/2 retarded fucking moron ignoring the obvious risk of collision and the fact that there is a 100% probability of it.. and then when it happens just start blathering on and on about how the iceberg shouldn't be there to begin with and start insisting everyone is obligated to grab a bucket and bail water out because "were all in it together", as if no one could possibly see the inevitable collision coming.

Okay I'm tired of all the nips. Originally you sounded just a little confused, but you're a man with an aggenda, one that sounds like you work for some sort of jebus group.

First to the fundamentals :

The idea behind a republic is that people can't just get together and pass any law they damn please. I know the contrary sounds like "basic case law" or whatever other basic rudiments you proudly amassed, but nevertheless.

If tomorrow the entire state of Florida votes to kill every black man in this country, the piece of paper they produce, however they call it, won't be a law, nor it's application legal. And if the US Congress passes the same, unanimously or otherwise, the resulting piece of paper STILL wouldn't be a law, nor it's application lawful.

There's more to the making of a law than the agreement of no matter how large a number of perambulatory citizens.

And incidentally, I find your implied proposition that people should, or indeed at all can, tell other people how to spend their spare time most ignorant, obtuse, obscurantist and in general, boo. And fuck you, for you are an idiot.

And to the personals : You personally are no better than Max Hardcore.

You can pretend it all you want, to win cheers and laudae from the granny corner, or to overcompensate for whatever daddy-kisses and shower-watching you were referencing earlier, but the fact remains.

You're not better than Max Hardcore.

And the more fumigating shit you dump to try and hide it from yourself, the more obvious it is, and the more you look like dirty f's avatar.

Now go find jesus and save yourself already. And deliver us from the spectacle.

edafgsdl;kmdfa

upset at the realization that you are one of the absolute totally fucking retarded idiots that i'm talking about?

god? really?

:thumbsup

really? you are comparing current obscenity law, legal precedent and the miller test to some retarded analogy about people creating an obviously unconstitutional law making murder legal?? charging someone with distribution of obscene materials is somehow legally akin to organizing the genocide of black people?

i hope to god that you are hot if your a chick... if not, you better suck cock, swallow and love it in the ass... otherwise, i fear you have little to no chance in this life.


:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

A sensible observation and a sound proposition.

The notion what Hollywood did could be done again is delusional. They came to films first, and cut it in 4 chunks. The proposition is now that we should cut the 4th chunk into 4 chunks, so someone else later can cut our chunk into 4 so yet someone else has a 4th to cut into 4 more 4's. Ridiculous.

Between the movie industry, which got the original pick, and the last cutter down the line's slice, we'd find ourselves in this intenable position, where we're nothing and do nothing meaningful, and exist for no apparent reason, and soon enough the situation would collapse on itself, implode and we'd find ourselves exactly where we are now.

In fact, if you were to look just at the present adult industry such as it is, you could never know whether it is the result of the proposed slicing or of it's history as we in fact know it.

Pulling yourself up by your own breeches won't take you too high.

Thanks for the concern.

The issue Max Hardcore is spending his own money on, and the issue you're disrespecting him for, is a constitutional issue.

And the above is incidentally the reason Max Hardcore is relevant, and you're a name on my screen.

no... in YOUR mind its a constitutional issue. because thats all you're left with as an argument, otherwise you have to accept that there is existing law and legal precedent and this has been through the highest courts in the land... and there are legal tests to determined what is obscene or not and it largely falls on each community to decide what they want in their community.

... and as i've said already, thats they standard bullshit position of all the anti-social idiots in this industry who seem to think they should be able to do anything regardless of the law, regardless of the risks and wants to feign total shock and surprise when someone starts pushing the boundaries in what everyone knows full well is a very gray area and gets popped for it.

so yeah... its a constitutional issue genius. why not just call it an astrological issue? a fung shui issue? or a magical leprechans issue? or any other thing you want, that basically takes any and all responsibility out of your hands for your own behavior and makes you the constant victim in spite of the fact that you know the risks of what you do.

There WAS existing law about killing the blacks, and it WAS to the highest court, and your argument was the argument of "reasonable" people at the time. So ?

You're welcome to call me antisocial, and you're welcome to call Max Hardcore "worst of the worst", or whatever else he is in your mind.

But the fact remains that he's one of the best. Not "in my mind", but by actual criteria.

1. He's made more money than most. This IS the number one criteria for this industry, always was, and the only reason we're here, and the only thing we have in common. Every two bit board hustler and every crack whore on a wannabe trip, and the three or 4 other people in adult go back to this as the make all, end all test. Hardcore passes.

2. He's started it before most. This matters, and matters a lot. He's been battling religious nuts, and closeted religious nuts such as yourself at a time you were battling pubescent awkwardness, I reckon. So he passes.

3. Most importantly, he IS currently defending himself, in a legal battle, out of his own money. This means that he's more relevant to the actual issue being discussed than some blabber mouth on some forum somewhere. Just like the guy riding the bronco is more relevant to bronco riding than the scores of pole-propping experts.

And with that, the discussion of this part is decided. In your mind things may be so or so, but that don't make em real, or relevant.

Add to that unfortunate circumstance the fact that you're quite visibly (tho maybe only from outside ?) looping in recognizably brain-damaged patterns of speech and ideation, and your relevance to the discussion is definitively shot.

Feng shui is spelt feng shui, and as to the responsibility, I'ma take mine, for my actions, and MH is obviously taking his, for his actions, and you're a piddly fuck that's trying to tell real people how they should be going about their business.

Talk to the hand.

thks for the info

Go Max!!!

I hope Max can appeal this. Is he putting together a legal fund? I think we should all chip in a few bucks for the cause.

i think max is pretty screwed at this point.

Hey quentin, there's one speciffic point in there that I'd like to settle. You say

This is not actually true. The greeks, who invented the thing we strive to copy today, and who made it work where ours to date hasn't yet, did have such freedom of speech, and it was limitless. And they considered that limitlessness key to their little engine that worked.

Actually, let me tell you a story.

Diogenes Kyon was sitting in the forum one day and masturbating. Some citizen or other passing by wanted to know if he doesn't it find it silly to be spending his time in the forum jacking off.

"No. And if hunger should also go away through rubbing of the belly, oh what a perfect world we'd inhabit".

Here's the one obscenity test that makes sense : Anything short of jacking off on the senate floor with the senate in session is not obscene. And so jacking off is not obscene either. Just a little silly.

u mean like what u jsut did :winkwink:


Fight the tagline infringement!

Great followup by Mark Kernes:
Jury Finds Max Hardcore Guilty On All Counts in Obscenity Trial
http://www.avn.com/law/articles/30615.html

TAMPA - The call to Jennifer Kinsley's cellphone came at 3:45 on Thursday afternoon.

"They want us in the courtroom," she said to her fellow attorneys H. Louis Sirkin, Jeffrey Douglas, Jamie Benjamin and Dan Aaronson.

"Do they have a verdict?" Sirkin asked.

"No, I think it's for a question," Kinsley replied.

However, that turned out to be not quite correct. When the jury reentered the courtroom at 4:15, the "question" they had presented to Judge Susan C. Bucklew was, "Say if we make a decision on 10 of the 20 counts but are unable to reach a decision on the other 10, will the 10 counts we decide on stand?"

At that point, the jury had been deliberating for more than 12 hours, and all of the defense attorneys had suspected that that meant that either the jury had deadlocked, or that Paul Little aka Max Hardcore and his company, Max World Entertainment (MWE), had been acquitted on at least some of the obscenity charges they were facing.

However, Judge Bucklew had already answered "Yes" to that jury question (although she had not bothered to call the attorneys for either side into the courtroom when she had done so - a clear error), and now the jury had another one.

"There are people on both sides of the issue, and we are fairly certain we cannot reach a decision on the other 10," the foreman's note read. "How long must we deliberate?"

Judge Bucklew was prepared for such an eventuality, since it was hardly the first time such a thing had occurred in a federal trial. She delivered what is known as a "modified Allen charge" - basically, a request that the jury return to the jury room and attempt once more to work out its differences, reminding them that many people had invested much time, money and emotion in the trial, and asking those who had taken the minority stand on the issue(s) to reconsider the arguments of the majority ... although they were not supposed to give up strongly-held beliefs in the process.

After the jury was excused, the judge suggested to the attorneys for both sides that they not leave the courtroom, since there was some likelihood that the jury would return soon, either with verdicts on all counts, or to announce that they were hopelessly hung.

Roughly two more hours passed, though, with everyone growing more nervous as the minutes progressed. What was taking them so long?

Finally, at 6:15, the judge announced that the jury had reached verdicts on all counts. However, as they filed into the courtroom, eyes downcast, one woman obviously in tears, the foreman handed the verdict forms to the judge, who looked them over briefly, then handed them to her clerk to be read.

"On Count 1," said court clerk Layda Santiago, "Guilty. Count 2, Guilty. Count 3, Guilty."

And so it went through all 20 counts against both Little and MWE for using a computer system to transport obscene material and for mailing obscene material to the Middle District of Florida: Guilty on all counts.

At that point, about a dozen legal interns who had been observing the proceedings filed out, leaving the few Little supporters awash in sadness and exhaustion - but the pain wasn't over.

The judge informed the jury that since they had found the defendants guilty on some or all of the charges, it was now their duty to decide how much of Little's property - his home and his domain names - which he had supposedly used in the commission of his crimes, should be forfeited to the government.

Prosecutor Lisamarie Freitas spoke briefly about how Little had shot much of the five adjudged-obscene titles in his home, and how his Websites had been used to disseminate the promotional trailers that had also been found to be unprotected speech. But what apparently moved the jury even more was Jamie Benjamin's impassioned plea, "Please don't take Mr. Little's home. We're not talking about any residence here; we're talking about his house. It's all he has left now."

As the defense later learned, as the jury walked into the jury room to consider the forfeiture, one of them declared to the rest, "Okay; we gave you the guilty verdicts, but I'll be damned if I'm going to let you take his house!"

It still took them more than half an hour to reach their decision.

While the jury was deliberating the forfeiture, Judge Bucklew finally ruled on the remaining "Rule 29" motion to dismiss, which had asked the court to declare that the jury had been given insufficient evidence to find the defendants guilty of having mailed the five DVDs - "Euro" versions of Max Extreme 20, Golden Guzzlers 7, Planet Max 16, Fists of Fury 4 and Pure Max 19 - to the Tampa area. James Komurek, president and owner of JKG, Inc. and Jaded Video, an online retailer, had testified under grant of immunity that his company had done the mailing, and that neither Little nor MWE had had anything to do with choosing either the destination or the method of delivery. Judge Bucklew, however, had found that the mere fact that MWE sold the charged videos to Jaded, which then resold them to postal inspector Linda Walker, was enough to make out a case for "aiding and abetting" the sale, despite a recent 5th Circuit decision in U.S. v. McDowell that had found that a defendant in a similar situation was not guilty of the same crime.

But that was a 5th Circuit decision, Judge Bucklew said, and under case law in the 11th Circuit, where the trial was taking place, the defendants were guilty because they could have "reasonably foreseen" that Jaded would use the U.S. mails to send the DVDs to Tampa. Motion denied.

Almost as soon as the judge had completed her ruling, the jury signaled that it was ready to give its verdict on the forfeiture, and when the clerk read from the verdict form that Little's house would not be forfeited, although the domain names would, Little breathed a visible sigh of relief.

"That was what was most important to me, that I get to keep my house," he said later. "I can replace the domain names, maybe make it maxhardcorexxx.com, but as long as I still have my house, I figure I'm ahead of the game."

Although the attorneys had been warned not to approach the jurors after court had been dismissed to ask questions, one of the jurors - the woman who had been crying - approached this reporter to ask if she could speak to Paul Little to express her condolences on the verdict and to give him a hug. Little and his attorneys were engaging in a post-trial analysis at a nearby hotel, and the female juror, a male juror and the jury foreman all went to that location and engaged in a conversation with the defense team.

"I'm just so sorry this happened to you," the woman said, and did in fact hug Little, whose courtroom demeanor had been above reproach. "We tried and we tried and we tried, but we just couldn't get through to those others. They just beat on us and beat on us and beat on us until we gave in."

The jurors indicated that while the five movies, which contained scenes of urination, fisting and vomiting, were not to their taste, they didn't see anything wrong with others watching them if they wanted to, with the foreman commenting, "After all, that's why we have the First Amendment."

"I'm sorry those jurors didn't have the guts to stick to their beliefs," Sirkin said later. "It's a sad day in this country when even if you believe a person didn't commit a crime, that you can be badgered into changing your vote just because some other juror tries to bully you. That's not the way Americans are supposed to react."

One of the jurors said that as soon as the jury had entered the deliberation room, nine of them had been ready to find guilt on all charges before any discussion had even taken place.

"It was a travesty but we had no choice because of the way the law is written," the foreman declared. "If just two words in the law had been different, I think we could have held out longer for acquittal, and maybe even convinced the rest of them."

The two words: "Reasonably foreseeable," in the statute making it a crime to mail obscene matter, or aiding and abetting such mailing by another person. (See judge's comment above.)

"I should have got off for this nonsense," Little later said. "Obscenity is an archaic term; it's not defined well. I received no warning and they attempted to put me behind bars; they've got a conviction, but we intend to fight on. We're definitely going to appeal."

Dan Aaronson echoed that sentiment.

"That's why I like criminal cases," he said. "There, you're dealing with acts. The prosecution says the defendant did A, B and C, and you get to argue that he did or he didn't. But with obscenity cases, you have to argue the law rather than the acts, and sometimes, I don't think the jury can really understand that law, it's so vague."

"As I said in closing argument, I believe that this prosecution was shameful," Douglas told AVN. "And as Max Hardcore said, this is a sad day for America. It's a deeply sad day for him personally, but also for all of us."

All of the attorneys agreed, however, that the defense team had performed like a well-oiled machine; that they had worked out their strategies and delegated each point to the attorney who could best argue it; and that even their disagreements were settled amicably. Even the three jurors stated that they were more impressed by the defense's courtroom presentation than by the prosecution's.



Fight the posting limit!

But it wasn't enough.

"I'll be replaying this trial in my head for weeks to come," Benjamin said. "I'll wake up in the middle of the night and think to myself, 'Maybe I should have asked this question instead of that one,' or "Maybe I didn't make this or that point forcefully enough.'"

There was unanimous agreement among the attorneys that the case had presented several grounds upon which to appeal the verdicts, and Douglas said that he expected to have the notice of appeal ready to file just after Little is sentenced on September 5. Little faces a maximum of 50 years in prison and more than $5 million in fines.


Fight the bullies!

(I would love to masturbate on the senate floor with all the senators watching....it would be the highlight of my life)

Even though I don't really care for what Max produces, and I myself have never and probably will never work for him, I would still chip in on a fund.
:2 cents:

I'd love to be on set for one of his scenes.

Just to see what the fuck goes on before and after.

He's had some big names choking on his piss and blowing it out their noses...

Ah, it could be that particular claim in my article was off-base. If so, though, it is a claim that has been repeated many times in similar ways by speech law scholars who are far more expert than I am. I was relying on their expertise, as I cannot claim to have examined the speech laws of every culture in history.

What was the crime for which Socrates was forced to choose between banishment and death? Wasn't it for corrupting his students through his teachings, all of which were communicated via speech? Sounds like a restriction on free speech to me, but maybe I'm wrong about the nature of Socrates' crime, as well.

This whole trial sounds like a dog and pony show.
I find it obscene that the jurors badgered the others until they got the verdict they wanted. Maybe they should be put in the hot seat for this :mad:

I hope the appeal process will work in his favor and once again piss can be thrown in the face of the corrupt scum that was so willing and forceful to hang him out to dry.