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: 19
5
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 09:36 PM
link   
You really need to see this one...

LA obscenity trial suspended over judge's Web site




posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 09:39 PM
link   
reply to post by 2nd Hand Thoughts
 



If I set up a dog... I'd be in big trouble.


Yes you would. Because bestiality is illegal.

EDIT to add: Not to mention that an animal cannot consent. That is the basis of statutory rape laws, that people who are underage are not capable of consent.



[edit on 6/11/0808 by jackinthebox]



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 06:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by 2nd Hand Thoughts
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.


First off, you have no proof that these women are coerced, manipulated, or drugged into doing these films. You are basing your comments off of speculation and opinion. Just because you find these acts offensive, you assume that there must be coercion.

The fact that you consider these acts "foul beyond belief", doesn't mean that every one else agrees with you. There are people who enjoy viewing these acts, just as there are people who enjoy participating in acts like these in their own homes.


Originally posted by 2nd Hand Thoughts
Anyone with half a brain knows that you have to draw the line somewhere.


And who decides where that line is drawn? Do you get to decide? That's the crux of the problem here. Who ultimately decides what is "acceptable" and what isn't.



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 09:26 AM
link   


And who decides where that line is drawn? Do you get to decide? That's the crux of the problem here. Who ultimately decides what is "acceptable" and what isn't.


There's no problem really... we decide what is acceptable all the time. Murder is not acceptable - see easy. But some are easier than others. Thats why we have legislatures and police and courts lawyers and juries. We have obscenity laws because the people want them and think they are needed. I agree. You don't - whaaa- then write your congressman. In this case the jury decided. Guilty of being a scum bag.



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 09:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Bigwhammy
 



Murder= causes harm to others.

"Obscenity" = harms no one.

Big difference.

Victimless crimes are unconstitutional.



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 09:58 AM
link   
reply to post by slackerwire
 

Didn't a jury decide he was guilty? doesn't that mean they were actually shown evidence of abuse etc?



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 09:59 AM
link   
reply to post by slackerwire
 


Sorry -You do not get to force your beliefs on the majority.

We the people of the USA - disagree with your personal opinion - the consensus is that it does great harm - it warps your mind and victimizes women- as a result we have obscenity laws.

Don't like it? - move to the Netherlands.



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 10:04 AM
link   
reply to post by riley
 


He wasn't convicted of abuse.

As I said before, many people are willing to disregard the Constitution when they see fit. I'd love to see a poll of that jury to determine how many of them regularly attend church services.

The Constitution doesn't give any government the power to make up victimless laws, hence said laws need not be followed.



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 10:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Bigwhammy
 


Uh, who is forcing whose beliefs on others? In this case, as with many others dealing with "obscenity" it seems to be the religious nutjobs who think others should follow along with their moral code.

If they don't like what MH produces, they don't have to watch it. It's that simple.

instead, they choose to take away others right to watch something they disagree with.

Could you point out the section of the Florida , or hell even the U.S. Constitution that gives governments the power to make laws such as this?

Warps your mind and victimizes women? hahaha thats simply laughable.

Hear that one in church?

[edit on 12-6-2008 by slackerwire]



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 10:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
Sorry -You do not get to force your beliefs on the majority.


But the majority gets to force it's beliefs on you....... Love the contradiction.


We the people of the USA - disagree with your personal opinion - the consensus is that it does great harm - it warps your mind and victimizes women- as a result we have obscenity laws.


If this is the case, what would the difference be in forcing religion or political ideologies on the minority?

"Democracy means simply the bludgeoning of the people, by the people, for the people."
-- Oscar Wilde



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 10:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rasobasi420


But the majority gets to force it's beliefs on you....... Love the contradiction.


It isn't a contradiction, it's called "democracy".




If this is the case, what would the difference be in forcing religion or political ideologies on the minority?


Well, freedom of religion and politics are guaranteed by our bill of rights. And I just read it again, no-where in it does it guarantee the right to produce simulated violent pedo-rape videos for other people that enjoy violent pedo-rape to get off on.



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 10:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tiloke

Originally posted by Rasobasi420


But the majority gets to force it's beliefs on you....... Love the contradiction.


It isn't a contradiction, it's called "democracy".



Lucky for us, we're not a democracy right?

[edit on 12-6-2008 by Rasobasi420]



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 10:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Tiloke
 


Uh, we don't live in a democracy, we live in a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC. You do know there is a difference don't you?

It would really help if you would educate yourself on this topic before choosing to debate it.

Pedophilia is prepubescent children. MH doesn't produce videos depicting that.

You mention the BOR, perhaps you could point out the section of it that gives government the power to make laws against a legal product simply because others disagree with the content of said product.



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 10:36 AM
link   
reply to post by slackerwire
 



Uh, who is forcing whose beliefs on others? In this case, as with many others dealing with "obscenity" it seems to be the religious nutjobs who think others should follow along with their moral code.


You are trying to force your approval of disgusting violent porn on the rest of society. We don't want it. We passed laws. The jury has spoken - You lose - get over it.



If they don't like what MH produces, they don't have to watch it. It's that simple.
instead, they choose to take away others right to watch something they disagree with.


You want to force your opinion to accept violent smut on the rest of the culture and we say NO to your offensive tyranny.

By your logic if you don't like kiddie porn or snuff films - you don't have to watch it either. But we don't allow that.

Newsflash: now Max hardcore is included. The jury says he harms society. Don't like the jury system? Then move to communist China.

Its perfectly acceptable to take peoples rights for the good of society. We do it all the time. Some people will harm others and we need to be protected. That's why we have Laws. To make it easier for you to get into your skull some more extreme examples are - We don't allow snuff films or kiddie porn. Your objections do not matter - a jury weighed the evidence. You weren't there.



Warps your mind and victimizes women? hahaha thats simply laughable.

Hear that one in church?


Ever here of scientific evidence? Try it sometime...



SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
Subcommittee on Science, Technology, and Space

Hearing on the Brain Science Behind Pornography Addiction
and the Effects of Addiction on Families and Communities


EXCERPT:testimony Jeffrey Satinover, M.S., M.D.

Like cigarettes, that particular form of expression we call pornography,
unlike all other forms of expression, is a delivery system that has a distinct and powerful effect upon the human brain and nervous system. Exactly like cigarettes, and unlike any other form of expression, this effect is to cause a powerful addiction. Like any other addiction, the addiction is both to
the delivery system itself—the pornography—and to the chemicals that the delivery system delivers.

It may seem surprising that, at this juncture, I should speak of “chemicals”, when one might be thinking instead of “sex.” But, in fact, modem science allows us to understand that the underlying nature of an addiction to pornography is chemically nearly identical to a heroin
addiction: Only the delivery system is different, and the sequence of steps. That is why heroin addicts in particular give up sex and routinely compare their “rushes” to “orgasms”.
www.obscenitycrimes.org...


Ignorance denied.



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 10:45 AM
link   
Fine, we live in a republic. That means people like you and me vote for representatives to represent us and our beliefs. If you don't like what your representatives are doing, don't vote for them. If you want to change things so that simulated violent pedo-rape is considered "acceptable" , then run for office. See how many people vote for you when you run under that campaign.


You are right, his "actresses" are all over 18, a fact he prints largely on the cover of each of his videos. However, he doesn't put it there as a legal disclaimer,if he did he would put in in small print on the back of the box like everyone else. He puts it there like he is saying "you won't believe our actresses are 18!!!".
You seem to have glossed over the "simulated" word in my post. He purposely finds women that appear to be under 18 solely for the fact that others people like to watch him simulate mouth rape until this younger appearing actor throws up from it. On top of that he makes them dress up like they are even younger than they are just so that people that like young girls will buy his videos.
I'm sorry, if you like to watch women get force-****ed until she cries or forced oral-sex so hard she throws up just so you can get off, then you have serious problems.



Your whole "If you don't like it don't watch it" argument is 100% without merit. Using that argument I could tape myself raping babies and sell them because hey, if you don't like it don't watch it.

[edit on 12-6-2008 by Tiloke]



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 11:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bigwhammy


You are trying to force your approval of disgusting violent porn on the rest of society. We don't want it. We passed laws. The jury has spoken - You lose - get over it.


Make no mistake, it is you who is attempting to force their beliefs on others, not me. I am not advocating forcing people to watch this, just don't take away the rights of others to do so. Think it is merely a coincidence that a jury was picked in a state lying right in the heart if the bible belt? If so, you are more naive than you are ignorant.





You want to force your opinion to accept violent smut on the rest of the culture and we say NO to your offensive tyranny.


Again, the only one promoting tyranny here is you. You want others to bow to your bull# moral code. If you didn't watch it, you wouldn't have to accept it. You and people like you seem to be mentally incapable of understanding that other people don't share your belief system.


By your logic if you don't like kiddie porn or snuff films - you don't have to watch it either. But we don't allow that.


Uh no. Children are incapable of consenting, and "snuff films" (incidentally they are a myth, but I don't expect you to understand that either), if they actually existed, would violate laws against MURDER.

Why are you incapable of seeing the difference between consenting adults, and obvious harm to another?


Newsflash: now Max hardcore is included. The jury says he harms society. Don't like the jury system? Then move to communist China.


If you wish to act like the Taliban, why not make if official and move to Afghanistan? Seriously, is "MOVE OUT OF THE COUNTRY" the only argument you can come up with?

Don't worry, I won't hold it against you. I certainly can't expect people who believe in organized religion to be all that intelligent.


Its perfectly acceptable to take peoples rights for the good of society. We do it all the time. Some people will harm others and we need to be protected. That's why we have Laws. To make it easier for you to get into your skull some more extreme examples are - We don't allow snuff films or kiddie porn. Your objections do not matter - a jury weighed the evidence. You weren't there.


Really? How about we take away the right to practice your religion? Obviously religion has caused more harm in the history of the planet than any other factor, so lets do away with it once and for all.

Again, snuff films are a myth, and child porn actually harms someone.







Ever here of scientific evidence? Try it sometime...


Since youre so reliant upon scientific research, why not indulge yourself and read how the more accepted porn becomes, the lower the amount of sex crimes occur.

report

It is people like you who wish to lead sheltered, narrow minded lives who are truly dangerous.



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 11:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Tiloke
 



Did you ever bother to think why there are certain niches in all sectors of business that are more successful than others?

Hint: Because there is a freaking demand for the product.

You do know those actresses willingly take part in those types of scenes right?

If a girl in porn knows she is about to go film a "gagging" scene, she knows full well what will be happening before it actually does. Thats why they get paid more than a normal porn shoot.

Again, if you were to film yourself raping babies, you are violating numerous laws because....Hold on to your overly tight panties here: BABIES ARE INCAPABLE OF CONSENTING.

Consent vs no consent. Are you able to differentiate between the 2?



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 11:24 AM
link   
Whatever dude, I can see now that you will use any excuse you can to try to defend simulated pedo-rape. I don't know what your reasons are, but I do know I don't want to hear any more about them, so I an sticking you on my ignore list. We both know that only very very sick people watch this stuff to get their rocks off, thats why you refuse to reply to that part of anyones posts.

[edit on 12-6-2008 by Tiloke]



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 11:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Tiloke
 


Translation: You cannot refute fact, or common sense for that matter so you choose to run away.

Gotcha.



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 11:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tiloke
Whatever dude, I can see now that you will use any excuse you can to try to defend simulated pedo-rape. I don't know what your reasons are, but I do know I don't want to hear any more about them, so I an sticking you on my ignore list. We both know that only very very sick people watch this stuff to get their rocks off, thats why you refuse to reply to that part of anyones posts.



Ah, the ignore list. The last resort of one who has unquestionably lost a debate. Kudos to you!

Edit to add:

~C. S. Lewis:

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."


And he's one of those religious people!!

[edit on 12-6-2008 by Rasobasi420]



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join