Max Hardcore found guilty in obscenity trial

Originally posted by zysin5

I guess you dont have any kids..

Actually I do have an infant son.

ITs well known enough that what he is doing is wrong.

well known to who?

And you say if you dont like it, dont look at it?? WTF?

You are missing the point here..

What point would that be? That if some uptight retards dont like something, it shouldnt exist?

Enjoy what ever you are doing here. Playing devils advocate.. But its your screen name, and rep. at stake here not mine..
I stated my feelings, and I will protect kids, and family members..

Until your kids turn 18, give you the middle finger, and go do whatever they want in order to get away from you and your sheltered nature of raising them.

Originally posted by sacerd




Yes the courtruled that his distribution of porn was against the law. No different in the eyes of the court than distribution of anything else that is found to be illegal.

Do yourself a favor and read Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition

There have been cases the have determined how "free speech" is to be defined and determined. Also, pornography and obscenity are not protected by the 1st amendment. Interpretation is left to the individual community on the whole and not generally a federal issue.

Obscenity and Pornography

Artful depictions of human sexuality highlight the tensions between lust and love, desire and commitment, fantasy and reality. Vulgar depictions can degrade sexuality and dehumanize the participants, replacing stories about love with stories about deviance, abuse, molestation, and pedophilia. State and federal laws attempt to enforce societal norms by encouraging acceptable depictions of human sexuality and discouraging unacceptable depictions. Libidinous books such as Lady Chatterly's Lover and pornographic movies such as Deep Throat have rankled communities struggling to determine whether such materials should be censored as immoral or protected as works of art.

The Supreme Court has always had difficulty distinguishing obscene material, which is not protected by the First Amendment, from material that is merely salacious or titillating, which is protected. Justice Potter Stewart once admitted that he could not define obscenity, but he quipped, "I know it when I see it." Jacobellis v. Ohio, 378 U.S. 184, 197, 84 S.Ct. 1676, 1683, 12 L.Ed.2d 793 (1964). Nonetheless, the Supreme Court has articulated a three-part test to determine when sexually oriented material is obscene. Material will not be declared obscene unless (1) the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the material's predominant theme appeals to a "prurient" interest; (2) the material depicts or describes sexual activity in a "patently offensive" manner; and (3) the material lacks, when taken as a whole, serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15, 93 S.Ct. 2607, 37 L.Ed.2d 419 (1973).

Although the Supreme Court has failed to clearly define words like "prurient," "patently offensive" and "serious artistic value," literary works that deal with sexually related material are strongly protected by the First Amendment, as are magazines like Playboy and Penthouse. More difficult questions are presented in the area of adult cinema. Courts generally distinguish hard-core pornography that graphically depicts copulation and oral sex from soft-core pornography that displays nudity and human sexuality short of these "ultimate sex acts." In close cases falling somewhere in the gray areas of pornography, outcomes may turn on the "community standards" applied by the jury in a particular locale. Thus, pornography that could be prohibited as obscene in a small rural community might receive First Amendment protection in Times Square.

Free Speech/Freedom Of Expression





[edit on 13-6-2008 by mysterychicken]

reply to post by slackerwire


Your cited case is a determination that a particular type of depiction is not always obscene and illegal (thereby leaving room that in some cases it is and others not). The case at hand in Tampa is however determined obscene without literary or artistic merit. These two cases are apples and oranges as the Max Hardcore case is not about all of a particular kind of depiction being obscene rather, that which has been determined obscene is prohibited in a particular community.



[edit on 13-6-2008 by mysterychicken]

reply to post by Bigwhammy

Hello????? Its done everyday and VERY necessary. If your daughter gets raped can the police please have you permission to take the rapists rights? DUH? Don't we put people in jail for murder? Thats taking their rights according to law.

No, that's sanctioning them for committing a crime.

Well we also have obscenity laws. Get it???

No, I don't. Define obscene.

reply to post by Bigwhammy

We're talking about sick twisted porn. not basic freedoms

See, that's where you are wrong. It is only your opinion that the porn is sick and twisted, and thereby imposing your will upon others basic freedoms.

Originally posted by Grambler
reply to post by sacerd

 

Thanks for responding! I'm kind of rushed, so I'll just say this, It says freedom of speech, or press. To take the leap that this means only political speech takes quite a leap. It says or, meaning both. Don't hurt freedom of speech or freedom of the press. Thats what it says. Political is not even mentioned.

No problem I enjoy these types of disscussions at times.
Yes it says freedom of speech or the press but it is not seperated by a semi colon as it is done in the previous parts of the admendment, to seperate diffrent ideas.
Allow me to quote again...
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
This entire admendment is concerning politics and peoples freedoms to practice religion and voice political ideas and concerns."

It also seems to me that you are saying Lenny Bruce deserved to be arrested. Well that proves how restrictive your interpretation would be. Profanity would be deemed a criminal offense. There would be no diversity of ideas, no dissent, and life would suck.

I do think that Lenny Bruce should have been arrested. Not because I in particular find his words evil, but because the community that he performed in found them to be obscene. This is well within the rights of of the local government and community, to determine.
However you need not worry about life sucking because ideas are covered by the constitution as is dissent. Both of these rights are given by the first admendment and can be enforced by the 2nd should it become needed.

You then say about tyranny of the minority, but no one is forcing anything on you. Under your interpretation, if a majority of people wanted women to cover all skin in public, they would have to. Remember, having this kind of porn is forcing NOTHING on you. You don't have to watch it. Slackers study proves that societies with more pron actually have less violence against women. It really seems you are close to saying anything the majority wants it should get. So we would still have, slavery, no women voting, no equal pay for women, no affirmative action, no social welfare programs (for some groups, Japanese Americans imprisoned (from WW2). These are all things that at one point the majority of Americans wanted.

No what I am saying is that people have the constitutional right to determine what is obscene and allowed in their communities. Nothing more and nothing less.
As far as the idea of my interprutation the majority wanting something and being allowed to get it you are wrong.
The government is set up so that a simple majorityof the population cannot do that, it requires a supermajority from en.wikipedia.org... to pull that off. This is to ensure protection of the minority from tyranny of the majority, while at the same time protecting the majority from tyranny of the minority.






[edit on 04/13/2008 by sacerd]

reply to post by Bigwhammy

Its proven to be an addiction and its harmful.

Not nearly as much as cigarettes, alcohol, scratch-off tickets, fast food...

reply to post by Bigwhammy

Also you guys are very much the intolerant bigots you accuse Christians of being.

So what are you saying? That there are "bigots" on this board who are intolerant of intolerance?

You think your right to watch twisted smut outweighs our voted on laws.

What laws? How could Max have possibly known that the material would be declared "illegal" after it had already been made? And furthermore, how can he be punished for it.

Maybe we should go back and fine you for every single time you drove in a car without your seatbelt on, before the seatbelt laws came in. Or better yet, let's ticket you for speeding in a contruction zone on any road that there might be construction on next year.

reply to post by Bigwhammy

BTW-- WAS a legal product -- its not a legal product in FL ANYMORE

Which bring up another valid concern. Who is really culpable here? Max for providing the material, or the person who solicited/dowloaded it. There are plenty of things that are legal in other states and countries that are not legal where I am. If I were to recieve any such materials or products, I would be held legally accountable, not the supplier. Take fireworks for example, or salvia, or even different kinds of porn.

You do realize that in some states it is illegal to get a BJ from your own wife right?

reply to post by sacerd

If he would like to continue working in his chosen field perhaps he should move to another community. Its really not that difficult to understand.

Actually it is, considering that Max is from California.

reply to post by zysin5

Now Im not going to say he is a pedo, or what not, but chances are with the kind of stuff he promotes, its highly likely he has some kind of underground thing going on. Wouldnt shock me if it turns out he is selling or promoting Child porn. Which is why this case should get more light.

That is a completely erroneous assumption, and you contradict yourself within a few sentences.

It is more likely that Max would stay away from anything illegal that would upset his multi-million dollar business and lifestyle.

If he was actually involved in something clearly illegal like that, fine, charge him. But as it stands now, this case stinks worse than a Max Hardcore flick.

Originally posted by jackinthebox
reply to post by sacerd

 

If he would like to continue working in his chosen field perhaps he should move to another community. Its really not that difficult to understand.

Actually it is, considering that Max is from California.

Please see pg 22 3rd post from the top.
Apparently the community does not want his business there.

[edit on 04/13/2008 by sacerd]

reply to post by zysin5

I guess you dont have any kids.. Nor do you care about the fabric of our soceity. If you want to stick up for this guy then fine..

Actually, I think it is important to stick up for Max in this case for the preservation of the fabric of our society, and out of concern that the children grow up in a free country.

If you were to ask me if simulated child abuse should be made illegal, I would say yes, it should. But it has already been ruled to be perfectly legal. As have many other acts.

Originally posted by jackinthebox
reply to [url=http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread361290/pg22#pid4476033]post

If you were to ask me if simulated child abuse should be made illegal, I would say yes, it should. But it has already been ruled to be perfectly legal. As have many other acts.

It was not found to be 'perfectly legal'. It was found that it and of itself is not illegal. On an individual basis depictions of child abuse can be determined without merit and obscene. The refusal to make a blanket condemnation is not the same as condoning.

[edit on 04/13/2008 by sacerd]

reply to post by sacerd


Perhaps you missed my reply to Bigwhammy...

Which bring up another valid concern. Who is really culpable here? Max for providing the material, or the person who solicited/dowloaded it. There are plenty of things that are legal in other states and countries that are not legal where I am. If I were to recieve any such materials or products, I would be held legally accountable, not the supplier. Take fireworks for example, or salvia, or even different kinds of porn.

reply to post by jackinthebox


If possession or purchase AND distribution are all illegal then both parties would be charged and correctly so. If there were no laws against distribution then there would be no charge for the seller/distributor.

Title XLVI CRIMES
Chapter 847 OBSCENITY
847.0135 Computer pornography; penalties.--

(1) SHORT TITLE.--This section shall be known and may be cited as the "Computer Pornography and Child Exploitation Prevention Act of 1986."

(2) COMPUTER PORNOGRAPHY.--A person who:

(a) Knowingly compiles, enters into, or transmits by use of computer;

(b) Makes, prints, publishes, or reproduces by other computerized means;

(c) Knowingly causes or allows to be entered into or transmitted by use of computer; or

(d) Buys, sells, receives, exchanges, or disseminates.

Basicly he might get away with using the US postal service but the internet distribution will stick.

[edit on 04/13/2008 by sacerd]

reply to post by sacerd

Allow me to quote again...
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
This entire admendment is concerning politics and peoples freedoms to practice religion and voice political ideas and concerns."

I dont know what to say. The amendment literally says congress sgall make no law abridging freedom of speech, or freedom of the press. Its plain english.

I do think that Lenny Bruce should have been arrested. Not because I in particular find his words evil, but because the community that he performed in found them to be obscene. This is well within the rights of of the local government and community, to determine.
However you need not worry about life sucking because ideas are covered by the constitution as is dissent. Both of these rights are given by the first admendment and can be enforced by the 2nd should it become needed.

Wow. So if yu think it was perfectly legitimate for Lenny Bruce to be arressted by local government because of local opinion, look at the word we would live in. Lets say your driving your car with the window down listening to Led Zepplin. All of the sudden you go through a town that finds that music obscene, your under arrest. What if a local community finds the show CSI obscene, can the makers of it be arrested? What if a community finds homosexuals obscene, there under arrest? You'll say the constitution protects these rights, but where? You literally say the only free speech were entitled to is of politics.

And how do you know freedom of religion wouldn't be next? You say the first amendment protected it, but if you can look at the phrase "Congress shall make no law.... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press" and read into it somehow that it means only political, people will be able took look behind the scenes of all of the amendments and strip them away.

No what I am saying is that people have the constitutional right to determine what is obscene and allowed in their communities. Nothing more and nothing less.
As far as the idea of my interprutation the majority wanting something and being allowed to get it you are wrong.
The government is set up so that a simple majorityof the population cannot do that, it requires a supermajority from en.wikipedia.org... to pull that off. This is to ensure protection of the minority from tyranny of the majority, while at the same time protecting the majority from tyranny of the minority.

This defines supermajority as two thirds. Clearly in some communities, 2/3 people would want to ban homosexuals. In the south, well of 2/3 of the people found it obscene for black people to not be slaves. Heck, I live in a town of about 400 that would find people wearing turbans obscene. Under your definition, all of this would be legitimate, so long as 2/3 of the people in any given town voted for it.

I dont know what to say. The amendment literally says congress sgall make no law abridging freedom of speech, or freedom of the press. Its plain english.

Remember your semicolon argument when you said...
"It breaks it into three sections, that are seperated by semicolons."
Those are sections in that you are correct. Remember a comma is a pause in thought not the beginning of a new thought. Now with that in mind lets look at the first amendment again.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
If you will notice the location of the comma in relation to the surrounding semicolons.

I do think that Lenny Bruce should have been arrested. Not because I in particular find his words evil, but because the community that he performed in found them to be obscene. This is well within the rights of of the local government and community, to determine.
However you need not worry about life sucking because ideas are covered by the constitution as is dissent. Both of these rights are given by the first admendment and can be enforced by the 2nd should it become needed.

Wow. So if yu think it was perfectly legitimate for Lenny Bruce to be arressted by local government because of local opinion, look at the word we would live in.

It is not up to me to decide that is a constitutional matter for local and state government to decide.

Lets say your driving your car with the window down listening to Led Zepplin. All of the sudden you go through a town that finds that music obscene, your under arrest. What if a local community finds the show CSI obscene, can the makers of it be arrested?

Why yes as a matter of fact they can, lucky for us people are not that prudish.

What if a community finds homosexuals obscene, there under arrest?

No not for being homosexual because people cannot be obscene by the very nature that they are not a form of media.

You'll say the constitution protects these rights, but where? You literally say the only free speech were entitled to is of politics.

I answered the first part of this in the above statement, but as far as the first amendment only being relevant to religion and politics the reason is simple, through the political framework of the U.S. change is enacted in the laws of the community.

And how do you know freedom of religion wouldn't be next?

Because it is protected specifically by the Constitution.

You say the first amendment protected it, but if you can look at the phrase "Congress shall make no law.... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press" and read into it somehow that it means only political, people will be able took look behind the scenes of all of the amendments and strip them away.

Again look at the difference between comma and semicolon, and their placement in the amendment.

This defines supermajority as two thirds. Clearly in some communities, 2/3 people would want to ban homosexuals. In the south, well of 2/3 of the people found it obscene for black people to not be slaves. Heck, I live in a town of about 400 that would find people wearing turbans obscene. Under your definition, all of this would be legitimate, so long as 2/3 of the people in any given town voted for it.

No, again people are not media, books, film, radio, art, performance and so forth are forms of media. People themselves cannot be a form of media.
Don't worry all of our black friends and turban wearing friends are still free to go where they please, and practice any religion they wish.

[edit on 04/13/2008 by sacerd]