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: 18
5
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 10 2008 @ 11:11 AM
link   
reply to post by earthman4
 


In case you missed the whole rest of this thread, no one is talking about taking pictures of children. That is not what happened.




posted on Jun, 10 2008 @ 11:15 AM
link   
reply to post by NIcon
 


This post deserves more stars. Brilliant. Retroactive law anyone? Can you be prosecuted for something that was no illegal when you did it?



posted on Jun, 10 2008 @ 11:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by jackinthebox
reply to post by earthman4
 


In case you missed the whole rest of this thread, no one is talking about taking pictures of children. That is not what happened.


Yes, but the whole premise of the laws are to protect children and keep offensive material from those who would be offended. Max did not seek to break any of these laws. My point is that we are not protecting children and wasting the courts time. We must fight the real enemies of our children.



posted on Jun, 10 2008 @ 11:31 AM
link   
reply to post by earthman4
 


Well, that much I agree with. Go after the real criminals, not the "pretend" ones. Would it make sense to go after studio-gangster rappers who have never even double-parked in real life, much less done anything they rap about? No, go after the real bangers.

And what about Pacino, DeNiro, Pesci, S.L. Jackson? I wonder how many people have been murdered while the killer quoted one of their lines?



posted on Jun, 10 2008 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating


Yes they are. Both involve getting paid for sex.


Considering laws prohibiting prostitution are blatantly unconstitutional, they need not be followed.

If you believe porn and prostitution are the same, perhaps you could explain why porn stars, directors, and producers, aren't currently in prison on numerous charges.



posted on Jun, 10 2008 @ 03:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by NIcon
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?


The "morality squad" of America can't go after anybody if they haven't done anything. Porn producers like Max Hardcore are easy targets because of all the questionable material they put out before being charged. It's easier to describe what the guy hasn't done in his videos for crying out loud..You can't be charged with conducting illegal activities altogether unless you are being tried "after the fact". To my knowledge we do not have pre-crime yet like in the minority report, therefore we can only hold people accountable, legally, after the act has been committed.

This wasn't an attack on porn in general, but an attack on obscene/questionable material that porn companies claim is "art" or "freedom of speech". This will, in no way, affect the amount of porn out there.

Therefore, the argument goes both ways...
You have to personally define the boundaries of obscenity, as well as the boundaries of art and free speech. You can call anything free speech or art. But that doesn't make it right. Some people would call defacating on someone's face art. That's not exactly art that is appealing to most people, and usually the only people who care to see such material are already perverted freaks.

-ChriS



posted on Jun, 10 2008 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by earthman4
In America is is OK to drop bombs on children of the world.

It may be ok with the administration but it is NOT ok with the American people, trust me.


It is not OK to take naked pictures of them.


You're right, it's not. Keep in mind that Max did not take pictures of children.



posted on Jun, 10 2008 @ 05:08 PM
link   
reply to post by slackerwire
 


I dont really believe prostitution and porn are the same. That came out wrong.

What I meant to say is that some actresses (it would seem) are exploited in a similar way that prostitutes are, especially if they´re desperate for financial survival.



posted on Jun, 10 2008 @ 07:23 PM
link   
reply to post by BlasteR
 



You can't be charged with conducting illegal activities altogether unless you are being tried "after the fact". To my knowledge we do not have pre-crime yet like in the minority report, therefore we can only hold people accountable, legally, after the act has been committed.


But you can't define the law after the fact either. Now, if they had told Max that they had determined his material was obscene, and that he went on to violate a cease and desist order. I wouldn't argue that. But you can't go making retroactive laws fairly.

It has been done though before. Here in NY, the age of consent was lowered by one year, to seventeen, retroactively, to get an assemblyman off the hook for sex with a minor. Maybe it was a state senator. Can't remember now, but the point remains.



posted on Jun, 10 2008 @ 11:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 



How is anyone being exploited when they willingly take part in it?



posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 10:41 AM
link   
reply to post by BlasteR
 

blaster, my point was much broader then just Max. if someone were to go to a police officer, lawyer, a judge, even a supreme court justice before producing a "questionable" film and asked if what they were planning to make was obscene, thus illegal, the only honest answer they could give would be "it would have to be decided by a jury". No lawyer, judge or police officer would be able to say definitively or not if it would violate the law. The best they could do is say "it may be found to be obscene" or they could give their own personal opinion (which may or may not reflect what a jury determines). This applies even if one were to ask about making a Disney-style movie (with a sex scene included, of course)... all they could ever do is give their opinion. It's a much different situation then if you were to go and ask "if I go kill so-and-so..." or "if I dump my garbage in this vacant lot..." or even "if I go to the store naked...." So the question is, how is a law-abiding person, who's personal "standards" may not match "community standards", able to avoid doing something illegal? By doing nothing?



posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 01:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlasteR
The "morality squad" of America can't go after anybody if they haven't done anything. Porn producers like Max Hardcore are easy targets because of all the questionable material they put out before being charged. It's easier to describe what the guy hasn't done in his videos for crying out loud..You can't be charged with conducting illegal activities altogether unless you are being tried "after the fact". To my knowledge we do not have pre-crime yet like in the minority report, therefore we can only hold people accountable, legally, after the act has been committed.

It's a crime to solicit a prostitute, the act of prostitution need never take place.
It's a crime to sell oregano to an undercover officer, if you are presenting it as actual illegal drugs. There are many cases of pre-crimes in our society which are punishable by law.
It's now a crime to discuss purchasing or selling child porn, even if said CP doesn't exist.


Originally posted by BlasteR
This wasn't an attack on porn in general, but an attack on obscene/questionable material that porn companies claim is "art" or "freedom of speech". This will, in no way, affect the amount of porn out there.


This was absolutely an attack on porn in general. Max Hardcore is a very visible member of the porn industry, and he is also considered low hanging fruit based on his content. The original charge was sending obscene material through the US postal service. It was discovered in the trial that he did not infact send the product, but it was sent by another party without his consent. That should have been enough for a mistrial, but the judge decided to ignore these facts, and prosecute strictly on the obscenity charges. This was clearly an attempt to set precedent for future obscenity cases.


Originally posted by BlasteR
Therefore, the argument goes both ways...
You have to personally define the boundaries of obscenity, as well as the boundaries of art and free speech. You can call anything free speech or art. But that doesn't make it right. Some people would call defacating on someone's face art. That's not exactly art that is appealing to most people, and usually the only people who care to see such material are already perverted freaks.


And we use the Miller test to determine this. The problem is, the miller test as written wasn't used in this case. The Miller test states that the work in question must be "taken as a whole", which it wasn't. The judge ruled to allow only parts of the content to be shown, which isn't "as a whole". The "take as a whole" clause is used to allow the artistic, scientific or political aspect of the work to be considered.

BTW, there are several fine examples of defecation, that have in the past been considered art and satire. Point being that just because something is offensive doesn't make it obscene. Appealing is not a term used to determine if a work is not obscene. There is plenty of art that I do not find appealing, yet I wouldn't consider it obscene.

This was clearly a politically motivated which hunt, which in the end will do little to help the real issues, such as child pornography.



posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 01:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by ts117
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.


Isn't the whole point of roleplay to make fantasy more realistic? Or am I doing it wrong?



posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 01:21 PM
link   



posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlasteR
reply to post by jackinthebox
 


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.


A jury comes to a verdict based solely on the facts presented in the case. When specific evidence to support the defense is not permitted, when testimony that supports the defense is stricken from the records, and when proper legal proceedings are questionable at best, then a jury may not be making the most informed decision. There are so many issues in this case that a mistrial could have been called during several points in the trial.

I seriously have to question the ability of a jury who admitted to wanting to write a book for profit based on the trial. Can anyone say Jury for hire?



posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 01:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by NIcon
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?


Couldn't agree more. Also what community are we to use the standards of? In this case, the product in question was mailed to a specially selected location in the hopes of having a favorable community standard for the prosecution. But is that really the community in question? The products were purchased over the internet, shouldn't that be the community to which the standard should apply? Apparently not. Apparently someone producing content within a community accepting of that content, has to be concerned with communities that are not necessarily "their" community.



posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 02:20 PM
link   
Willingness or consent NEVER guarantees the person won't be exploited. That's why deceit exists.

The courts shouldn't tell Max Hardcore that it's wrong to distribute porn. That was his parents' job...



posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 04:46 PM
link   
Well it's about time!

I'm a (sometimes) professional writer. I've made money playing in punk bands. I'm as freedom of speech as anyone I know. Mostly I'm offended by ignorance. I can take a reality in which people say or do things that I don't like. I get it. I can get mad when someone, to my face, badmouths my deep convictions and beliefs. But in NO WAY would I choose to live in a world where they could not express their own ideas.

That said, Freedom of Speech isn't in danger one iota at the hands of a max hardcore prosecution. The Patriot Act is a much much much more real threat than trying to stop some of what this sick sadist does.

Let's know what we are talking about when we talk about what this guy films:

If I set up a dog in a gynocological setting and then urinated INTO the dog and ran a tube of the urine to the dog's mouth and had him drink it while slapping him and smashing lipstick all over his face while he vomited, I'd be in big trouble. This is what this guy does WITH HUMANS.

The fact that there are girls or women coerced or manipulated or drugged into it doesn't make it merely an issue of "free speech". There are acts occurring that are foul beyond belief.

The fact that he incidentally tapes it and sells it is pretty much secondary. Anyone with half a brain knows that you have to draw the line somewhere.

Our government is already sliding down the slope, as I mentioned, with the Patriot Act. The erosion is very real and tangible. Our library records are fair game, etc.

To think that the freedom of speech warzone somehow lies WAY down the scale with some slimeball is insane.


[edit on 11-6-2008 by 2nd Hand Thoughts]



posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 05:02 PM
link   
reply to post by 2nd Hand Thoughts
 



Happen to have any proof that any of the girls in his films were "drugged", "coerced", or "manipulated"?

Surely there would be at the very least a police report if a girl was drugged and forced to appear in one of his videos right?

Any evidence whatsoever other than speculation?



posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 09:16 PM
link   
reply to post by twistedd
 


I think someone else may have already made this point I am about to repeat...but isn't Max entitled to a jury of his peers? Would not his peers be people in the porn industry?

Just a thought anyway.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join