Max Hardcore found guilty in obscenity trial

Originally posted by jfj123

Not a question for this discussion in my opinion.

Yes it is. If Max Hardcore depicts "pretsense-pedophilia" (young schoolgirls) thats an endorsement of it.

Originally posted by Skyfloating

Originally posted by jfj123

Not a question for this discussion in my opinion.

Yes it is. If Max Hardcore depicts "pretsense-pedophilia" (young schoolgirls) thats an endorsement of it.

He doesn't depict pre-teens. At someones recommendation I went to his site and the first thing you see is that ALL ACTRESSES ARE 18 years or older.

How many of you have asked your girlfriend or wife to dress up in her old cheer leader outfit? Does that make you a pedophile?

reply to post by jfj123


Thats not what I said, is it? I said pretending to have sex with underaged women.

Thats not the same thing as endorsing it?

If you say so. But I have my doubts.

Originally posted by Skyfloating
reply to post by jfj123

 

Thats not what I said, is it? I said pretending to have sex with underaged women.

Thats not the same thing as endorsing it?

If you say so. But I have my doubts.

Sorry I miss understood what you said
"pretsense-pedophilia"
I thought you misspelled pre-teens which would equate to pedophilia.

Do you understand my point about the cheerleader uniform comment though???

reply to post by Skyfloating


Sort of, but not really. They are getting paid to make a movie with sex in it. The courts see it as different things, and I happen to agree that it's not the same.

Also, it's much safer than prostitution on many levels.

reply to post by jfj123


yes, I dont mind a cheerleader outfit.

But Im interested in the question of where some stuff becomes an endorsement of pedophilia.

Tiniest smallprint may say "All actors over 18" but the large print says "Young Schoolgirls". That stuff is in legal grey zone and should be adsressed.

Originally posted by Skyfloating
reply to post by jfj123

 

yes, I dont mind a cheerleader outfit.

But Im interested in the question of where some stuff becomes an endorsement of pedophilia.

Tiniest smallprint may say "All actors over 18" but the large print says "Young Schoolgirls". That stuff is in legal grey zone and should be adsressed.

On the main page, it says this
"There are no models under 18 on this website !!!"
In a large point type, bolded in black and with a bright yellow background. It stands out BIG TIME. Far from "tiniest small print.

I'm not going to post the link but it's easy to find via google.

Originally posted by Skyfloating
reply to post by jfj123

 

yes, I dont mind a cheerleader outfit.

But doesn't that make it seem like you endorse sex with young girls?

reply to post by jfj123


I was not talking about any specific site but gave that as an example of possible behaviour of porn-producers.

Anyway, fair enough, questions answered.

This is so sad. What do they find sexy about it? Doesn't matter that they are in fact older. They are portraying children and men enjoy this!
Are many men in fact closet pedophiles?

If you are going to condemn any actor or actress for portraying a character far younger than they actually are, then you will have to arrest Ralph Macchio for all his Karate Kid movies. Also Gary Coleman and Emanuel Lewis.

Originally posted by jfj123

Originally posted by Skyfloating
reply to post by jfj123

 

yes, I dont mind a cheerleader outfit.

But doesn't that make it seem like you endorse sex with young girls?

There are cheerleaders that are over the age of 18. Also, just because consenting adults use costumes to roleplay, doesnt mean they are trying to combine reality with their fantasy.

This debate is still going on?

Unless someone can clearly tell me exactly what is obscene and what is not, then Max isn't guilty of anything.

There is no law against portraying someone younger, end of story.

And as someone else pointed out somewhere in this thread, there are far more twisted and brutal scenes in regular movies than what Max is doing. I've had to walk out of movies because of some of the stuff that I knew was messing my head up.

Like they said here, there are just some things you just can't "UN-see."



[edit on 6/9/0808 by jackinthebox]

reply to post by jackinthebox


Again.. That isn't the reason he was found guilty by a jury. All the child molestation charges which the state of california tried to charge him with were thrown out. The state had tried to charge him with child molestation full knowing the girl in question was under 18 (which shows their true motives). Now these Florida charges which were completely different.

They wanted this guy bad.

A jury isn't going to find you guilty unless you break the law. The entire concept of making older girls look younger is perfectly fine. Videotaping it and selling it is also completely legal. That isn't in dispute here. Those are the facts.

At least he isn't like this piece of $#17 who calls defacation and bestiality art! You can also call decapitating human beings art as well as rape for that matter. As if people considering it art somehow makes it morally acceptable. Sick bastages!
www.abovetopsecret.com...'

-ChriS

P.S.. All the Words used in this one post I never thought possible.

[edit on 9-6-2008 by BlasteR]

[edit on 9-6-2008 by BlasteR]

reply to post by BlasteR


Then why did they find him guilty? Obscenity? Okay, what is obscene? Not your own opinion, factually.

It doesn't matter what we think. It mattered what the jury thought. This is how it worked..

www.tampabay.com...

The movies have scenes that include urinating, vomiting and defecating. Adult actresses in the films are often made up to look like young girls.

Defense attorneys say that what Little and MaxWorld produce and distribute is legal and protected in the marketplace by the First Amendment.

While adult pornography isn't illegal, it can be prosecuted as obscene under the Miller test, named for the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court case Miller vs. California.

The court developed a three-part test to determine obscenity: It must appeal to prurient interests, be patently offensive by community standards and have no literary, scientific, political or artistic value.

Jurors get to decide whether, by the contemporary standards of their community, the material in question would be deemed obscene.

However it is interesting that only hand-picked porn companies are being judged with such scrutiny and I don't completely agree with what Max Hardcore has had to deal with in the past from the state of California and the FBI (even though he is a dirtbag). Why are people suddenly caring so much about what porn is obscene, what isn't, and now of all times when everyone is focused on other issues like the economy, the war, and the election.. And while porn has taken over the internet and is readily available anywhere. As if hanging this guy up to dry is going to help anything? Please.. This guy should stand up like a man and accept his punishment though rather than crying about free speech impingement. Even if he goes to jail, the porn industry will freely accept him when he gets out so he can make more stacks of cash.

If anything this is going to make him more respected by his colleagues in the porn industry.

-ChriS

[edit on 10-6-2008 by BlasteR]

[edit on 10-6-2008 by BlasteR]

reply to post by BlasteR


Yeah, I'm not a big fan of the Miller Test. Seems like the long way around to form an opinion on wether or not someone else thinks they know better than you.

Lenny Bruce, save us!

Seriously, i think that the people opposed to this need to look at it like this, unless proof can be found that these simulated underage porns lead to real underage sex, then it should be legal. There has been one citation posted that in Europe this porn has lowered these crimes by giving and outlet, and one posted saying that child porno leads to child rape.

The problem is the second study is referencing real child porno, not simulated, and as mentioned, is only a prediction. Regardless, there is no solid proof that these specific porns caused any damage. Reports go both ways on this.

I think the danger of censoring these videos would outweigh the danger of allowing them. Anytime we allow censorship of private actions by or between consenting adults we open the door to increased government control. Look at things not that long ago that would have been considered obscene:
Interacial sex, oral sex, group sex, scantily clad women, prophylactics, etc.

I know, everyone is going to jump up and say, "hey, thats stuff wouldn't be overturned, thats a flawed slippery slope argument" But is it. I think the post on this board prove that many people would like this to be just a stepping stone to greater censorship. By this I mean the ones that say it doesn't matter if he didn't break the law, he got what he deserved, and porn is one of the root causes is evil, and all porn is sexists and bad.

I also find it humorous that people presume to speak for the women of pornography and how their rights are being hurt. Isn't taking away the livelihood women who are making tons of money doing what they want because you find it offensive sexists? A look around will show that the most sexually repressed areas of the world tend to be the worst places for womens rights.

Originally posted by ts117

Originally posted by jfj123

Originally posted by Skyfloating
reply to post by jfj123

 

yes, I dont mind a cheerleader outfit.

But doesn't that make it seem like you endorse sex with young girls?

There are cheerleaders that are over the age of 18. Also, just because consenting adults use costumes to roleplay, doesnt mean they are trying to combine reality with their fantasy.

just because consenting adults use costumes to roleplay, doesnt mean they are trying to combine reality with their fantasy.

My point exactly. Thank you

I'm no fan of the "Miller Test", either. I don't see how we can determine something is obscene, and thus illegal, AFTER the fact. As it is now someone has to produce a work and then it must be judged to be obscene. In my opinion the work becomes obscene only at the time of judgment. How can any artist, novelist, film maker, or porn producer know BEFORE he starts how to abide by "community standards" when there is no solid definition for him/her to follow. How can a law abiding person find out if something is obscene before they produce it? If Max had taken the time and money to conduct his own "Miller Test" (let's say through a Zogby poll) before he produced a film, would that have been acceptable to the court? Or would the opinions of the chosen jury take precedence? Or what if "community standards" were to regress back to the level of the 1950's, would that make everything produced since then obscene, and thus illegal? Are people supposed to just produce something and then cross their fingers and hope the winds of "community standards" blow in their favor?

In America is is OK to drop bombs on children of the world. It is not OK to take naked pictures of them. I'm against them both.