Max Hardcore found guilty in obscenity trial, page 2
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 5 times


reply posted on 7-6-2008 @ 03:19 PM by jackinthebox
reply to post by OhZone



Being a pedophile is no more a crime than being a homosexual, or a agalmatophile.

The act is the crime, not the thought.


reply posted on 7-6-2008 @ 03:30 PM by BlasteR
reply to post by Finn1916



The article states that 10 of the charges were related to the company itself. Not necessarily even because of the porn it created. The porn industry pretty much always walks a fine line between what is legal and acceptable and what is illegal and unacceptable. There is so much money at stake in the porn industry that you have to walk that line responsibly. This is why all the companies involved know exactly where that line is.

I do find it highly suspicious that the FBI was raiding this guy's business because of "research". They were looking to nail this guy from the very beginning. But the fact that all this would come back to bite him in 2008 shows that this guy has been watched closely for some time. Whatever evidence they used in court, it was enough to convince a jury that he was, in fact, guilty.

I don't exactly completely agree with what happened that led up to this jury finding him guilty in this recent trial in Tampa. But the evidence was there nonetheless. They tried to catch him on child porn charges in 1998 knowing that the girl in the video was over 18. Why would you waste everyone's time and money on such a frivolous lawsuit, and charge someone who you know never broke the law you said they broke? It appears this was more of a morality issue for the state of Los Angeles (unless there were things going on in the background that we never heard about).

From wikipedia..
Although Hardcore often depicts his actresses as young and sometimes beneath the age of consent, they are not actually under 18. In his film Max Extreme 4, an actress over the age of 18 was portraying a character who states that she is 12 years old.[1]

Based on these movies, the city of Los Angeles in 1998 charged him with child pornography and distribution of obscenity. The fact that the actress was over the age of 18 was not disputed; they brought charges based solely on the fact that the actress was portraying a character who was under eighteen years of age.

Just before the case was brought to trial in 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the statute prohibiting adults from portraying children in films and books was unconstitutional (See Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition). Based on this ruling, the child pornography charges against Hardcore were dismissed. The misdemeanor charge of distribution of obscenity was retained, but the jury failed to reach a verdict. An additional obscenity charge was subsequently levied against him by L.A., again resulting in a hung jury. Hardcore commented that "it was a frivolous waste of public resources."[1]

On October 5, 2005, the offices of Max World Entertainment were raided by the FBI. Five video titles and the office's computer servers were seized, ostensibly for research toward a federal obscenity indictment or a charge related to the 2257 record-keeping law. In response to this action, Hardcore released the following statement: "Once again, the government is wasting tax dollars and otherwise invaluable law enforcement resources to try to force a minority view of morality on all of America. Five of my movies have been targeted by the Federal Prude Patrol. There is no indication of any crime to be alleged except obscenity. If indicted, I will fight to protect my liberty, as well as the liberty of consenting adults to watch other adults engage in lawful, consensual, pleasurable sexual action. Shame on the Bush Department of Justice. I am proud of the movies I make and proud of those who buy and sell those movies."[2]

In 2007 Max Hardcore was indicted by the Department of Justice on 10 counts of federal obscenity charges in Tampa, Florida[3][4] and was found guilty on all charges in June 2008.[5]


-ChriS

[edit on 7-6-2008 by BlasteR]

[edit on 7-6-2008 by BlasteR]

[edit on 7-6-2008 by BlasteR]


reply posted on 7-6-2008 @ 05:13 PM by jackinthebox
reply to post by Res Ipsa



never the less, someone is going to rant on about the government can't infringe my 1st amendment rights man. Yes and Yes and Yes they can.


The government can do whatever it wants. The Constitution is only a guidline, it hasn't been a legal authority in many years.


It feeds the pedophiles and then it leads them to acting.


Perhaps it actually keeps others from acting. We have no way of knowing. I once practiced long periods of abstinence from a partner, and turned to pornography as an alternative. This was a social choice for me really, not wanting to get involved in the various complications of sexual realtionships with another person.


Are any of you willing to monitor these child porn "portrayers" to make sure they don't use minors? Are you going to monitor to make sure the women aren't being raped? Didn't get sold into this line of work?


Why should they be monitored if no crime was comitted? Unless you support government installed pecker-cams maybe?


reply posted on 7-6-2008 @ 05:38 PM by jackinthebox
reply to post by Res Ipsa



I agree that there is no real "treatment." Any more than you can "treat" someone for being a homosexual. This does not mean that someone who has "deviant" fantasies will ever act out on them though.


....how do you know no crime is being commited?


How do we ever know? Usually the victim reports the crime. "Innocent until proven guilty," would fit in here as well.


They have people on the sets for movies to make sure the fracking cat in the movie doesn't get harmed.
So why stop there?


What does that have to do with anything? There are people on the sets of porn movies too. In fact, they are under very close scrutiny.

Why aren't there people enforcing the child-labor laws, so that my fourteen year old cousin doesn't have to work eight hours on a school-day without being threatened that he will be fired for "leaving early?"


You can also provide me or us with anecdotal examples of what child porn does or does not lead to. But I can tell you that I have 10 years experience with treating pedophiles.


No, you have ten years of experience working with convicted child-molesters, perhaps. And if that is true, then you certainly should know the difference.


reply posted on 7-6-2008 @ 06:04 PM by Alethia
reply to post by Finn1916



I wouldn't exactly make the statement that participants are willing. There was a documentary a few years ago, made by that guy who looks like Oliver Stone and is British, that followed a girl trying to make ends meet by getting into the porn industry, taking a job with Max, but then Max doing things to her that she didn't want. In fact when she went to the shoot, Max introduced himself by bending her over and screwing her (not for the movie they were supposed to shoot, no camera [apart from the one the guy filming his documentary had] was rolling, he was doing it just for the hell of it). That was his way of saying hello.

He then tried to force her to do things on camera she hadn't previously agreed to, and the British documentary guy finally stopped filming and stepped in to stop him abusing her. And that incident we only know of because it was caught on camera. Hopefully Max will do some time, then we'll see how "Hardcore" he really is.


reply posted on 7-6-2008 @ 06:10 PM by jackinthebox
reply to post by Alethia



That story does not surprise me. But why wasn't he charged with a crime then, when it was quite clear? Why now under a cloud of ambiguity?


reply posted on 7-6-2008 @ 06:12 PM by jackinthebox
reply to post by Res Ipsa



notice I used the term "civil commitment" not "convicted commitment"


I don't agree with that whole "civil commitment" thing anyway. But had your clients previously at some point been convicted of a sex crime?
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5  >>    ^^TOP^^