Max Hardcore found guilty in obscenity trial

Originally posted by Finn1916

There is something wrong with this world when someone is not allowed to make their living in any way that they please so long as it is legal( as far as I know pornography is legal)

There are many types of pornography that are illegal. Do you think child pornography should be legal? Should snuff be legal?

Originally posted by AgentScmidt

Originally posted by Finn1916

There is something wrong with this world when someone is not allowed to make their living in any way that they please so long as it is legal( as far as I know pornography is legal)

There are many types of pornography that are illegal. Do you think child pornography should be legal? Should snuff be legal?

No, but what part of max's porn is illegal? it never said in the article, and seeing as people are saying he is guilty, maybe they should point out what he did that was so wrong.

Who is to decide what is sick and twisted anyway? If you think so, fine dont watch it. Dont impose your moral values on other people. The line is clearly drawn to the point where adults who of their free will do whatever they do. Therefore it's not very productive to use the argument "is child porn or snuff ok too?".
There is plenty of stuff I consider 'immorral' or 'dirty' but I keep that opinion to myself. Law is flawed and a guy like Max has just about as big of a change for a fair trial as it would be to see Bush & co. in a fair trial.

I am going to have to agree with some of the people here as well, what exactly did he do that was illegal? Is there children in his videos? Are people forced against their will?

From what i've read so far, he caters to a market and is making quite a bit of money. Who cares if all of you people find it offensive? If its not illegal then the government should keep its nose out of it. You dont have to buy it, and i've never even heard of this guy until all of this. I think this is just giving him more publicity.

The worst i've heard is he uses people over the age of 18 but dresses them like they are younger... and that is illegal how? Also, do you know how many S&M or bondage industries there is? Its not my cup of tea but I am not going to pass judgement on someone who keeps that stuff in their private life. Unless what he is doing is illegal, he should be allowed to continue without anyone interfering.

So I still ask.. what exactly is so illegal about his videos? Not inappropriate, or sick, or twisted - illegal, as in, against the law.

I think we should install cameras in everyone's bedroom to enforce "missionary" laws. Oh, and cameras in the showers to make sure you don't snap a shot off before work in the morning.

So psycho, you think that these heinous, sadistic acts are OK?
Do you really enjoy seeing a re-enactment of brutal rape?
This Max is a pedophile. That's OK with you? Oh yeah they are adult women - dressed as children/young girls. Thinly disguised pedophelia I'd say, but pedophilia just the same.

Is slander and libel protected by the free speech amendment?
I think not.

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.

Originally posted by OhZone
So psycho, you think that these heinous, sadistic acts are OK?
Do you really enjoy seeing a re-enactment of brutal rape?
This Max is a pedophile. That's OK with you? Oh yeah they are adult women - dressed as children/young girls. Thinly disguised pedophelia I'd say, but pedophilia just the same.

Is slander and libel protected by the free speech amendment?
I think not.

Obviously hes not a pedophile if the people are over 18. There is no way you can say someone over 18 depicted in porn is pedophilia because of the way they are dressed. Are you saying that anyone who is over the legal age but looks youthful should not be allowed to be seen naked because they may have smaller breasts and a shaved genitalia? God forbid they decide to wear pig tails... better call the cops.

My last girlfriend was 18 and still had her catholic school girl uniform. Guess what, she looked damn sexy in it too. Does that make me a pedophile? Does pig tails, and bubble gum make it suddenly illegal?

Also, you said re-enactment of brutal rape, that is a FAR ways away from real rape. Actually, this isnt that far away from the couples who tie their partners up and such, pull hair, and enjoy rough sex.

Noone is making anyone watch the material, so whats the big deal?


[edit on 7-6-2008 by deadline527]

What I do and dont enjoy seeing has no bearing on the discussion. I hate to repeat myself but here goes anyway: if it's consending adults they can do whatever they please.
How this Max guy is now a pedofile I dont really know. I was under the impression that everyone were adults, I couldn't care less what they're dressed up as.
Slander and libel how the heck does that have anything to do with this? Aren't those targeted insults? Comparing porn that is meant for pleasing to this doesn't make any sense. If you find it offensive dont watch it.

[edit on 7/6/2008 by PsykoOps]

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]

Was Max awarded a jury, of his peers?
Not Joe Shmuck, or Betty Bible Thumper.
But true peers, like the porn industry?

I've seen his vids, some baptist's I know, and have known in the past, can make his stuff pale in comparison.(thats with past memberships to numerous churches, no I will not divulge them debunkers!!!)

There is no soapbox, and definately no soap.
The world is dirty, and cruel, and unfair, one man cannot be made an example when the multitudes are as bad.

It is an ongoing war on man's freedom, to see, do, travel, experience.
Porn is wrong(imop), and I hate that I like it.
I also hate cigarettes, they killed my Mom.
But if you smoke, go ahead and enjoy yourself, I can remove myself if I can't handle it.
You hate porn, remove yourself and stop pointing fingers, or figure out a way
to fix all sexual dysfunction, physical and mental.
I'm telling everyone, It's too late.
Porn should have been wiped out when it began.
But it wasn't, so there you have it.

I just visited Max Hardcore site to see what the QQ is all about i see nothing bad looks like low quality girls in his videos that's the only thing i didn't like. Why not go after the kid porn freaks and the bestiality people instead?

I was going to bring up the Ashcroft decision but see someone did it, good job.
I think it was a bad decision.

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

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?

This free speech argument maybe is just redundant to me because we have been hitting it on other current threads but to be really quick about it

1) Obscenity is not protected speech. Miller Test.
2) Profanity has limited protections

Although the Supreme Court rarely rarely will allow a law to infringe on pure speech, the government can come up with a "compelling" reason that was narrowly tailored for the infringement, and the Court will uphold the law.
So.....tech. all speech is subject to either regulation or prohibited. (if the government can meet that "strict scrutiny" review by the court.

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.

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?

nice catch-22.
"if no crime is commited" then why monitor....how do you know no crime is being commited?
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?

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. Oh, and by the way, there is no effective treatment. It is a lie that the tax payers are funding.
Civil commitment of sex offenders is just a way to give them a life sentence.

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 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.

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

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 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?