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: 24
5
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 10:31 PM
link   
reply to post by mysterychicken
 


If you live in a dry county, and get caught with a bottle of whiskey, who gets in trouble, Jack Daniels? I think not.

And again, Max had no way of knowing that his material would be found to be obscene in Florida, meanwhile in the rest of the country, it is still perfectly legal for him to do business. Therefore, I would say the responsibility rests with the consumer who lives where the material is prohibited. In fact, many websites and such have such a disclaimer. That the buyer is responsible for knowing their local laws.




posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 10:35 PM
link   
reply to post by sacerd
 


In your "computer pornography/obscenity" citation there, you seem to have overlooked one very important word. That being, "KNOWINGLY."

Max did not know that the material would be determined to be obscene at the time of dissemination.



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 10:40 PM
link   
reply to post by jackinthebox
 


You're absolutely right. If possession of obscene materials was illegal in Tampa and someone purchased it somewhere else only they would be accountable. However, a liquor seller shipping alcohol to a dry county where sale is prohibited would be committing a crime (even if ignorant of a law prohibiting sale).

Max indeed (and his distributor) are responsible to know the laws of the areas they are distributing to (ignorance of the law is not accepted as an excuse). That is why many large business have legal teams to insure they don't break any local or state laws outside of their own. A disclaimer is a good idea however the seller choosing to ship goods that are illegal to distribute to an area are taking the risk of charge. If a business is unsure of the laws in an area regarding a good they are selling they should not sell to that area until they are clear on the law. Again ignorance of the law is no defense.

I'm not discussing the philosophical or moral argument of if it's fair but if it's legally and constitutionally just (different but related things). "Fair" and "just" are not synonyms nor are "freedom" and "liberty".


[edit on 13-6-2008 by mysterychicken]



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 10:46 PM
link   
reply to post by jackinthebox
 


Exactly!

The local consumer knows moreso than the producer, yet I haven't heard a peep about the wackos going after the person who actually purchased the videos.

Has anyone heard exactly how these religious nutjobs came to find out about the material being purchased in FL?



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 10:48 PM
link   
reply to post by mysterychicken
 



However, a liquor seller shipping alcohol to a dry county where sale is prohibited would be committing a crime.


Not necessarily though. Take the tax issue for example, on things like cigarettes. The consumer is required to report their liability, not the seller.

Furthermore, it would be impossible to limit access to a website by specific community. That would be like banning a radio station, that happens to have enough power to broadcast into an area that found the music offensive. They would have no authority to go over into the next down and # down the station, just because their own town didn't like it.

I have had alcohol shipped to me, without so much as an age verification.

Then there is the salvia topic. While the substance has indeed been ruled to be illegal in some states now, it is still available from a variety of companies on the interent.






[edit on 6/13/0808 by jackinthebox]



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 10:50 PM
link   
reply to post by mysterychicken
 


How can one be aware of a law that doesn't specifically define what "obscene" is?

The laws are vague for a reason, they leave the power to interpret said law open to whatever nutjob is in office at the time.



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 10:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by jackinthebox
reply to post by sacerd
 


In your "computer pornography/obscenity" citation there, you seem to have overlooked one very important word. That being, "KNOWINGLY."

Max did not know that the material would be determined to be obscene at the time of dissemination.



1.)His argument was not whither he knew or not, his defense is that he feels that it is a infringement of his constitutional rights.

2.) Notice how Section A and section C specifically mentions "knowingly" but section B and section D does not? That is not by accident.



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 10:53 PM
link   
reply to post by mysterychicken
 



Max indeed (and his distributor) are responsible to know the laws of the areas they are distributing to (ignorance of the law is not accepted as an excuse).


There was no law there against the material, until after the fact. So it was not a matter of being ignorant of the law. The material was only ruled to be unlawful, after it had already been delivered.



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 10:55 PM
link   
reply to post by sacerd
 


Well, it seems to me that either your citation is imcomplete, or you are here advocating the ban of ALL pornography.



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 10:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by slackerwire
reply to post by jackinthebox
 


Exactly!

The local consumer knows moreso than the producer, yet I haven't heard a peep about the wackos going after the person who actually purchased the videos.

Has anyone heard exactly how these religious nutjobs came to find out about the material being purchased in FL?


They may not have had a buyer, it very well could have been a sting operation.



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 10:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by jackinthebox
reply to post by sacerd
 


Well, it seems to me that either your citation is imcomplete, or you are here advocating the ban of ALL pornography.


No its not incomplete as far as I know, you can look it up yourself if you like, and I am not here advocating the ban of anything.



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 10:58 PM
link   
reply to post by sacerd
 



They may not have had a buyer, it very well could have been a sting operation.


Could not have been a sting, as the material had not yet been ruled to be "obscene" and thereby illegal.


[edit on 6/13/0808 by jackinthebox]



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 11:00 PM
link   
www2.tbo.com...
Apparently it was a sting operation.



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 11:13 PM
link   
reply to post by sacerd
 



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.


This is the last I will mention of it. The semi colons separate them into separate thoughts, yes. That means the third part talking about politics has no bearing on the second part. Now you say this comma proves it some how has connection to only the political, which you admit is a separate thought. Even if you think the word press somehow refers only to political, your argument still holds no wait. This is because the word OR. It says make no laws abridging freedom of speech, or freedom of the press. If you are right, they would have said make no law hurting freedom of speech, pertaining to freedom of the press.

If I say, "don't punch me, or spit on me, does that mean you can still punch me as long as it doesn't pertain to spitting? No, it means don't do either one. I'll again ask you to provide me with one constitutional scholar that shares your opinion.


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


I'm glad to see you showed everyone reading just how crazy your view of the world would be. The constituion was made to protect all of our freedoms even if they weren't popular, as long as they didn't hurt anyone. Your saying when the founding fathers wrote the constitution, they were hoping that people wouldn't be prudish in order to protect our freedoms.

FYI, people are that prudish. Luckily, your vision of the world is not constitutional so people can't force these beliefs.


Because it is protected specifically by the Constitution.


Your reading of the constitution says Make no law abridging freedom of speech, or of the press means only political free speech because the comma, the how doesn't the phrase "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" mean that they really didn't mean the free exercise thereof, because the comma doesn't separate the two thoughts. So you can have any religion, your just not allowed to practice in public.


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.


Show me where the constitution protects clothing (turbans) if not under the freedom of speech. How about sexual preference? You can't point to one phrase because these are all freedoms of expression given to us by the freedom of speech clause. Again, if my town thinks its obscene for women to show any skin, they're under arrest. These things have nothing to do with people, it has to do with clothing or expressive choices.



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 11:16 PM
link   
reply to post by sacerd
 


That does indeed appear to be the case. Which is really even worse fi you ask me. So now the Feds are going on witchhunts. So they purchased stuff that was found to be illegal after the fact. At the time of the "sting" the stuff was not even illegal there in Florida yet. Don't the Feds have anything better to do, like maybe catching terrorists, murderers, and real child-molesters? What a terrible waste of resources.

Now it becomes all too clear. This is entrapment if you ask me. They went to great lengths to go out and create a crime where it had not existed before.



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 11:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by jackinthebox



Not necessarily though. Take the tax issue for example, on things like cigarettes. The consumer is required to report their liability, not the seller.


If a clear law stating that distribution of an item is illegal then the distributor is guilty of that crime regardless of where the distribution is from. If the possession of an item is illegal then the person possessing said item is guilty of a crime.
Getting around the law is not the same as not breaking the law.
I happen to know companies that sell items to areas where it is illegal simply have to put a program in their computers that ends transaction when the recipients zip code is in a prohibited area.


There was no law there against the material, until after the fact. So it was not a matter of being ignorant of the law. The material was only ruled to be unlawful, after it had already been delivered.


Actually the law was there but the determination on his materials was not (just nitpicking). I'll say you're correct on this since I get what you mean. As far as I've been able to find there is no precedent determining that Max Little would've known for sure (assuming he was not given any warning to cease distribution) that this would fall under the definition "obscene". As far as I can tell that would mean the only thing that could be done to him would be that he is no longer allowed to sell his items in Tampa and any further distribution would be a violation. Interesting, I think he has a legit gripe here.
The only problem is that he never argued that his items are not obscene under Tampa's rules but that he didn't know they were going there.














[edit on 13-6-2008 by mysterychicken]



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 11:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by sacerd
www2.tbo.com...
Apparently it was a sting operation.


Thereby proving this was indeed a witch hunt. The willingly signed up for his site, and ordered videos.

Are there not more important crimes to focus on than this?

Edit: Apologies to Jackinthebox, my reply was almost word for word the same as yours, I should have read the entire page before posting.

Still, our comments stand strong. The feds intentionally targeted him.

[edit on 13-6-2008 by slackerwire]



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 11:51 PM
link   
reply to post by mysterychicken
 


Well, I would certainly agree with you there, and posted something along those lines earlier in the thread.

If he had violated a cease and desist order, I would not be arguing here. Or even if Tampa had ruled that his material was indeed "obscene," but had done so before the material had been imported. Even if he had not known this ahead of time, "ignorance of the law is no excuse." I might still have a gripe here over that, but certainly there would be some valid grounds for prosecution, even if I disagreed with a conviction on such grounds.

What gives the people of Tampa jurisdiction over a man from California anyway though? I could see maybe if they issued a warrant for him, and that if he ever set foot in Tampa he could be arrested, but how does Tampa get the right to decide for the whole rest of the country?

I know I once got a traffic ticket out of state, and never paid it. There wasn't a damn thing that state could do about it, except arrest me if I ever came back.



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 11:53 PM
link   
reply to post by slackerwire
 



Still, our comments stand strong. The feds intentionally targeted him.


Indeed. I'll take my freedom of speech now please, with a side-order of liberty to go.

Star.




posted on Jun, 14 2008 @ 12:03 AM
link   
reply to post by mysterychicken
 



The only problem is that he never argued that his items are not obscene under Tampa's rules but that he didn't know they were going there.


Well, he can't really argue that they weren't. It's not up to him to decide that as the law stands for now, right or wrong.

But intent plays a big part in the prosecution of a crime.

Furthermore, would not the distributor actually be the guilty party, not the actor/producer? Right on down to the actual worker who packed and shipped the product?

I know that if I am working in a store and I sell beer to a minor, I am the one who is held criminally responsible. The business must pay penalty fees and serve out a suspension in regards to their licensing, but the clerk is held accountable criminally, and even possibly in civil court if damages were incurred as a result.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join