It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Max Hardcore found guilty in obscenity trial

page: 14
5
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 11:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by jimmyx

Originally posted by slackerwire
reply to post by Camilo1
 


Why would you want to impose your moral beliefs on other people?



because that's what they want to do, they want you to live by their laws.


Not once have I imposed my religious beliefs here at ATS. I hope you made a general statement about some believers here, because if you were refering to me that is an outright lie.

I`m not ashamed of my religion but I respect other beliefs.




posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 11:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Camilo1
 


a) This doesn't involve children, it involves adults

b) This isn't rape.

c) Source for your claim "most child rapists" love this kind of porn?

For a moment lets assume you are correct. The girls in this kind of porn are portrayed as 15, 16, or 17 year olds. That certainly isn't a child.



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 11:03 PM
link   
reply to post by slackerwire
 


I would guess that the FL state constitution gives them the authority, just as any other state constitution gives a state the authority to make a law.



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 11:04 PM
link   
reply to post by BadgerJoe
 


Odd, I have looked, and haven't been able to find that authorization. Just as the U.S. Constitution only gives the USG the power to make certain laws, so do state Constitutions.



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 11:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Camilo1
 


i stand corrected, but you stand with a very small crowd.



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 11:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by slackerwire
reply to post by Camilo1
 


a) This doesn't involve children, it involves adults

b) This isn't rape.

c) Source for your claim "most child rapists" love this kind of porn?

For a moment lets assume you are correct. The girls in this kind of porn are portrayed as 15, 16, or 17 year olds. That certainly isn't a child.


This is the last time I reply to you, since you seem to be o.k. with this garbage and I am not.

1) This involves girls who are barely 18 playing the role of UNDERAGE girls.

2) This is simulated rape.

3) Read a little about the subject of porn and specially child porn and the connection to child rape, I`m not going to do the work for you, and 15, 16 or 17 is UNDERAGE, whether you accept it or not, and yes they are children trying to appear as adults, but non the less children.



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 11:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sublime620
reply to post by Dramey
 


Well the whole "drugged" concept would be case-by-case. We can't all go assume that every girl that does porn is tricked while she is high on drugs.

If the girl can prove that she was, and was not in a state to understand the contract, then she may have a case. It would be tough to prove. It doesn't really matter anyway.

I'm not sure what exactly everyone is arguing about. Do people really think that banning porn will solve anything?






you said that very well better then myself i must admit, that is what i was making a futile attempt to point out
i agree its a case by case basis, one of my points im trying to make is that there are several cases where that is the situation

the statement you made about not understanding the contract/proving it was because she was drugged or some other situation is also what i was trying to say, in these situations after the events take place, its up to the girl to prove anything, thats not easy in the court of law especially with a girl who has the money of a cheap porn actress, lawyers are expensive and at that point she has to prove she didnt understand the contract, in court, thats almost impossible id imagine, if im wrong about that id be happy to retract that statement
when you add the fact that the claim may have to do with drugs, thats also harder as most drugs that are used in that situation have a short half life and are out of your body quickly
so if a girl has it in her system shes either been taken advantage of or just considered a addict, for most of these girls it wouldnt be too easy for them.
im not saying youre saying this but it seems people are trivializing the legal process and making it sound like its simple for a girl to prove she was screwed, the legal process isnt that black and white, its why this discussion is even taking place
the statement made by camillo also supports what im saying by talking about underreported crimes, etc.


i also agree with you about not banning porn, i dont mean for it to sound like i want all porn banned and if thats how i come off i apologize however i do feel that porn needs to be more regulated and realized that its the powerful industry that it is and we cant let it grow out of control like a giant weed and take over just to reafirm my statement theres several professional porn companies that dont resort to such low practices
also to make sure its clear i dont know if this is exactly about pedophilia as much as it is about the content and way he does business, theres other companies that have girls in catholic school girl uniforms with pigtails but the difference is not such a large majority of those girls are being abused in the way those on the lower spectrum of porn are but again im not saying all mainstream porn people are all angels either just like i dont mean to imply all low budget porn is "evil" either...thats why i dont say ban it, i say regulate it, i mean we have enough other regulations that are alot more rediculous than this, and this might actually protect someone



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 11:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Camilo1



This is the last time I reply to you, since you seem to be o.k. with this garbage and I am not.

1) This involves girls who are barely 18 playing the role of UNDERAGE girls.


And they are still ADULTS. Ever watch that show from the 90's Beverly Hills 90210? All of those people were well into their 20's, yet played the role of teenagers. There was even an episode where one of them was almost raped.

Are you against that as well?


2) This is simulated rape.


Yet not actual rape by any means. They consent to appear in it.


3) Read a little about the subject of porn and specially child porn and the connection to child rape, I`m not going to do the work for you, and 15, 16 or 17 is UNDERAGE, whether you accept it or not, and yes they are children trying to appear as adults, but non the less children.


So you can't provide a source. Gotcha.

FYI, the age of consent varies around the nation. Quite a few states have the age set at 16 or 17.

If a 16 or 17 yr old is a child, why are we letting children get behind the wheel of a few thousand pounds of steel and gasoline?



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 11:21 PM
link   
reply to post by slackerwire
 


I now what I said, but you have turned this into a debate.

Here is your source, there must be hundreds and I am not exagerating a bit.

"A team of researchers in Toronto, Canada has recently published a paper, titled, "Child Pornography Offenses Are a Valid Diagnostic Indicator of Pedophilia" in the Journal of Abnormal Psychology (August, 2006, Vol. 115, No. 3, 610-615) averaging their results for this methodology across 685 people (some known child offenders (e.g., known pedophiles), some adult offenders (e.g., standard rapists, etc.), some adult porn addicts, and some convicted of child porn viewing, but otherwise not known to be pedophiles. Their results confirm statistically that a predilection for viewing child porn is closely associated with pedophilia. In fact, study subjects convicted of viewing child porn but not previously convicted of any actual child offenses were almost three times as aroused by child porn photos as actual convicted pedophiles. Adult offenders (e.g., standard rapists), as you might expect, showed arousal far more frequently to adult pictures than to child pictures. "
Child Porn Seeking predicts real Pedophilia

I advised you before not to get involved in a debate with me because you will lose, but you seem to want to be publicly humiliated.

[edit on 8-6-2008 by Camilo1]

[edit on 8-6-2008 by Camilo1]



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 11:22 PM
link   
reply to post by slackerwire
 


Are you referring to a specific clause that lets them make a law that determines what is obscene or just the general making of laws.
In any event, here is the process by which a law is made in FL, just follow the steps in the link.
www.flsenate.gov...


[edit on 8-6-2008 by BadgerJoe]



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 11:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Camilo1
 


Hahaha thats cute.

First, the word is lose, not loose.

Secondly, your little article there concluded a PREDICTION, not a fact.

Evidence:


The presence of child-porn-seeking behavior doesn't prove pedophilia, of course, but when it is present, pedophila is statistically more likely to be the case than not.


A prediction, not a fact. Evidently you have the 2 confused.

Yet again, you are proven wrong. How many other ways would you like to be embarrassed?



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 11:26 PM
link   
reply to post by BadgerJoe
 


Given there is no specific definition of obscenity, that can be a law that is subjective to whoever is in power at the time.

How about the power to make laws such as those against obscenity?



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 11:30 PM
link   
reply to post by slackerwire
 


There is a standard for determining what is obscene, see Miller v. California, 1973.
www.family.org...

And for some reason, I thought this was a case being prosecuted by FL, it's a Federal case being tried in FL.

[edit on 8-6-2008 by BadgerJoe]



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 11:31 PM
link   
reply to post by slackerwire
 


Not embarrased a bit. In fact very proud of my english since it is not my first language. If a scientific study is not proof enough then I have nothing else to say, people like you make me sad. But then again you avatar kind of explains a lot.

Good night.



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 11:33 PM
link   
reply to post by BadgerJoe
 



Yet Ashcroft v Free Speech Coalition protects the type of porn MH was producing.



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 11:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Camilo1
 



My avatar? How so? Because it stands for freedom?

Your study didn't provide any conclusive facts.



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 11:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by slackerwire

Originally posted by Camilo1



This is the last time I reply to you, since you seem to be o.k. with this garbage and I am not.

1) This involves girls who are barely 18 playing the role of UNDERAGE girls.


And they are still ADULTS. Ever watch that show from the 90's Beverly Hills 90210? All of those people were well into their 20's, yet played the role of teenagers. There was even an episode where one of them was almost raped.

Are you against that as well?


2) This is simulated rape.


Yet not actual rape by any means. They consent to appear in it.


3) Read a little about the subject of porn and specially child porn and the connection to child rape, I`m not going to do the work for you, and 15, 16 or 17 is UNDERAGE, whether you accept it or not, and yes they are children trying to appear as adults, but non the less children.


So you can't provide a source. Gotcha.

FYI, the age of consent varies around the nation. Quite a few states have the age set at 16 or 17.

If a 16 or 17 yr old is a child, why are we letting children get behind the wheel of a few thousand pounds of steel and gasoline?



your main defense on this thread is that they consent to it
do you believe a contract offers 100 percent proof that it wasnt rape and it was consensual
if the contract is not 100 percent proof (ie contract disputes) then how do u decide whats really rape, maybe the girl starts out faking it then at one point it does turn to rape and she tries to get him to stop, but its just acting and simulated rape huh?
this is a what if but
what if i a girl signs the contract monday on friday she shows up on set, its her max hardcore a camera man and a 3 person lighting crew, they start the scene shes ok with what she thinks is gonna happen, then middle of the scene max goes farther then they agreed to, shes got a contract hows she gonna prove that she was raped when she was raped?

she cant and the cycle continues i gotta be honest now it seems like youre the one with ulterior motives as youve taken a debate personal with several of the posters and your only defense is the contract thing. the contract is the only thing that makes it consensual and every single day around the world there are contract disputes

bottom line everything in this world is regulated whether we like it or not thats the way it is
this situation just is one step the govt is taking towards those regulations which i find necesary
i dont agree with alot of the things the govt does but as someone whos had involvement in the world in question this is one of the few things me and the govt see eye to eye on, its not like theyre banning porn, they're just arresting one guy to make a example to keep people from going overboard
like i said theres alot more absurd regulations then one protecting kids
just another slight of hand

edited to also say i dont mean to sound as if im attacking you but throughout alot of this thread you seem to be getting pretty personally defensive about the subject seems like its taking away from the thread instead of having a open debate from different points of view

[edit on 8-6-2008 by Dramey]

edited again to say
that i do in a way understand where you are coming from i do understand your thought process (i think) in the way you are defending the constitution and free speech and i am glad that you are here to debate that side, as without you this would not be a democracy however it is my opinion that we need to be careful now where and when to defend free speech as it tends to be abused

[edit on 8-6-2008 by Dramey]



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 11:45 PM
link   
reply to post by slackerwire
 


Does not apply in this case. From what I can find, none of the titles that he was prosecuted for had any mention of children or simulated sex with children. To tell the truth, I'm not sure why these movies were chosen to base a case on.



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 11:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Dramey
 



We could start addressing the rape issue by determining how many producers of that type of porn are currently in prison for raping one of the actresses.

Happen to know?

My main issue here certainly isn't the contractual side of it, it is the role of other people imposing their morals on others.

If a jury of Florida retards doesn't like porn, they don't have to watch it. If they find it obscene, thats their choice to avoid seeing it. But preventing other people from viewing a LEGAL product simply because they disagree with it is my problem.



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 11:47 PM
link   
reply to post by BadgerJoe
 


Happen to know what titles they were? I still haven't been able to figure out why they chose them either.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join