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: 25
5
<< 22  23  24    26  27 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 14 2008 @ 12:15 AM
link   

This is the last I will mention of it.


Very well I will give wikipedia my last word on it.

en.wikipedia.org...
In English, the semicolon (
has two purposes:

1. binding two sentences more closely than if separated by a full-stop period. It replaces conjunctions, such as and or but. Writers consider this appropriate when indicating a close relationship between two sentences, a continuation of meaning from the one to the next; the connection might break with an abrupt period.
2. as a divider stronger than a comma, to clarify meaning in a sentence where commas are used for other purposes, e.g. to separate items of a list when the items contain commas.
en.wikipedia.org...



I'm glad to see you showed everyone reading just how crazy your view of the world would be.


Well I am merely relating information about the constitution and the English language I am not creating a world view. I might add that the constitution protects very little explicitly and intentionally leaves laws up to individual communities and states. Remember Laws are restrictions with the boundaries outlined 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.


Again I provided a wiki article for your reading pleasure, that should explain it to you better than I could.


Show me where the constitution protects clothing (turbans) if not under the freedom of speech.

This can be found under freedom of religion as they are a religious article of clothing.


How about sexual preference?


Again people are not a form of media nor is their sexual preference thus cannot be decreed Obscene.


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.


No that would not be obscenity that would be a public decency law.
Note that public nudity is indeed illegal in most areas but not all.
Why?
Because states and towns are allowed by the constitution to pass laws that their towns and states agree with if it is not expressly prohibited by the federal constitution. Neat how that works huh? Aint freedom without tyranny of the minority or a simple majority cool?

[edit on 04/13/2008 by sacerd]




posted on Jun, 14 2008 @ 12:37 AM
link   
reply to post by slackerwire
 


Did you actually read the article?

Unfortunately this stuff does happen:




The Italian investigators say the material includes footage of children dying during abuse. Prosecutors in Naples are considering charging those who have bought the videos with complicity in murder. They say some may have specifically requested films of killings





Covert film of young children naked or undressing was known as a 'SNIPE' video. The most appalling category was code-named 'Necros Pedo' in which children were raped and tortured until they died


Snopes



posted on Jun, 14 2008 @ 12:38 AM
link   
Huh what do you know, apparently he took blame at one point for knowing where his product was being shipped.

"Prosecutors also pointed to language on Little's Web site that says none of his movies can be disseminated without his written permission."
www2.tbo.com...

And apparently the law that he was convicted with was written in 1986
law.onecle.com...

So basically I guess it was not a frame job after all, and no retro conviction in any form.
The miller case defines obscenity as such...

1. It must appeal to prurient interests. That must be determined by the average person, applying contemporary community standards.

2. It must be patently offensive.

3. It must lack serious literary, scientific, political or artistic value.



Maybe future porn producers will remember this and either...

1.) Show the film to a official community representative in a given community. (city council perhaps) before attempting to sell.

2.) Adding humor or satire and a plotline to avoid this result, as suggested by
A.J. Comparetto a St. Petersburg lawyer who specializes in helping clients create adult Web sites.






[edit on 04/13/2008 by sacerd]



posted on Jun, 14 2008 @ 01:06 AM
link   
reply to post by sacerd
 



Huh what do you know, apparently he took blame at one point for knowing where his product was being shipped.


Nice try. But no cigar. You are being deliberately misleading here. Here is the truth, found in your own article.


MaxWorld sent the DVDs to Jaded Video via the private shipper UPS. Jaded Video then sent the DVDs to buyers around the country via the U.S. Postal Service, including shipments to Tampa.


So it seems quite clear here that not only is Jaded Video the actual offender and not Max Hardcore, but also that you have now impeached your own credibility.






"Prosecutors also pointed to language on Little's Web site that says none of his movies can be disseminated without his written permission."


He gave permission to Jaded to sell his videos. He never had anything to do with shipping them to Tampa.



And apparently the law that he was convicted with was written in 1986


I knew you were leaving something out. The law you keep citing is about exploiting children over the internet. That is not what this case is about at all. You're grasping at straws now, and being deliberately misleading. Maybe you should go to work for the Feds in Tampa.


[edit on 6/14/0808 by jackinthebox]



posted on Jun, 14 2008 @ 01:17 AM
link   
reply to post by sacerd
 


Don't punch me, or spit on me. You claim that this doesn't mean don't do both, but it means don't do one in the context of the other. WOW. Your article says semi colons are more of separators than commas. I agree. Hence, nothing about POLITICS enters the phrase about freedom of speech or the press. Also, the comma can be used in over ten ways, but the way it is being used here is to separate independent clauses:


The comma is a valuable, useful punctuation device because it separates the structural elements of sentences into manageable segments. The rules provided here are those found in traditional handbooks; however, in certain rhetorical contexts and for specific purposes, these rules may be broken.

1. Use commas to separate independent clauses when they are joined by any of these seven coordinating conjunctions: and, but, for, or, nor, so, yet.

The game was over, but the crowd refused to leave.
The student explained her question, yet the instructor still didn't seem to understand.
Yesterday was her brother's birthday, so she took him out to dinner.
owl.english.purdue.edu...

You get that? INDEPENDENT clauses, meaning they are separate from each other. And I again, out of the thousands upon thousands of constitutional scholars there have been, can you show me one that agrees with you?

Then you say turbans would be protected because they are religious. Thats not true. Many people wear turbans for cultural or fashion reasons Its improper to assume something is religious just because some religious people use it . Rabbis have beards, therefore all beards are religous. It it was deemed obscene, then people wouldn't be allowed to wear it.

Look, in the end everything that I'm saying doesn't matter. You have admitted that you would find it perfectly acceptable for a town of 400 people to vote to arrest people for listening to Led Zeppelin. You understand that this quite literally means that if one town found CSI offensive, the makers of that show would be arrested. That literally means that one group of religious zealots would have the potential to arrest everyone involved in any sort of media that they found offensive, if it was broadcast publicly. Inevitably, the result of this would be only religious programing. But you don't see that as people forcing their beliefs on others? Clearly, you are either being facetious or you are 100% totally irrational, and either way I'm wasting my breath discussing this with you. extra DIV



posted on Jun, 14 2008 @ 05:43 AM
link   
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions



posted on Jun, 14 2008 @ 08:24 AM
link   
reply to post by sacerd
 


The law you posted has absolutely nothing to do with the case at hand.

Why not just post the specific definition of obscenity as defined by FL law?



posted on Jun, 14 2008 @ 11:36 AM
link   

Nice try. But no cigar. You are being deliberately misleading here. Here is the truth, found in your own article.


Don't insult me by choosing not take the entirety of the case into consideration.


So it seems quite clear here that not only is Jaded Video the actual offender and not Max Hardcore, but also that you have now impeached your own credibility.


My credibility is still intact. See below.


"Prosecutors also pointed to language on Little's web site that says none of his movies can be disseminated without his written permission."


He gave permission to Jaded to sell his videos. He never had anything to do with shipping them to Tampa.


Note where I said that little may get off on the mail in orders in several posts above? Here is the statement in the article.

"According to evidence in the trial, federal investigators in January 2006 purchased an online membership to the MaxHardcore.com Web site and downloaded five promotional video clips."
Here is the article. www2.tbo.com...



I knew you were leaving something out. The law you keep citing is about exploiting children over the internet. That is not what this case is about at all. You're grasping at straws now, and being deliberately misleading. Maybe you should go to work for the Feds in Tampa.


Don't insult me. There is no misdirection. see the three things below that define obscene.

1. It must appeal to prurient interests. That must be determined by the average person, applying contemporary community standards.

2. It must be patently offensive.

3. It must lack serious literary, scientific, political or artistic value.
Now let me ask you a question.
WHY would Tampa have a problem with little in particular, when they have a huge adult entertainment industry? C'mon use some critical thinking skills here.
And look there! Little transmitted over the internet!



posted on Jun, 14 2008 @ 11:39 AM
link   

The law you posted has absolutely nothing to do with the case at hand.

Why not just post the specific definition of obscenity as defined by FL law?



Well beings how that is the law that Florida used in the case that must be how Florida defined the obscenity.
It is too bad for Little that he gets to be the defendant in a precedent case. Someone has to go first I suppose.



posted on Jun, 14 2008 @ 12:08 PM
link   
To respond to this...


Don't punch me, or spit on me. You claim that this doesn't mean don't do both, but it means don't do one in the context of the other. WOW. Your article says semi colons are more of separators than commas. I agree. Hence, nothing about POLITICS enters the phrase about freedom of speech or the press. Also, the comma can be used in over ten ways, but the way it is being used here is to separate independent clauses:


And this...


And I again, out of the thousands upon thousands of constitutional scholars there have been, can you show me one that agrees with you?


I would suggest you read this...
memory.loc.gov...

Them come back and talk to me.


Then you say turbans would be protected because they are religious. Thats not true. Many people wear turbans for cultural or fashion reasons Its improper to assume something is religious just because some religious people use it . Rabbis have beards, therefore all beards are religous. It it was deemed obscene, then people wouldn't be allowed to wear it.


I will concede this point. But the very fact that they are there as opposed to missing (i.e. wearer is not nude) sort of precludes them from being obscene. Not to mention that a turban does not show pornographic images and is not in and of itself a form of media.


Look, in the end everything that I'm saying doesn't matter. You have admitted that you would find it perfectly acceptable for a town of 400 people to vote to arrest people for listening to Led Zeppelin. You understand that this quite literally means that if one town found CSI offensive, the makers of that show would be arrested. That literally means that one group of religious zealots would have the potential to arrest everyone involved in any sort of media that they found offensive, if it was broadcast publicly. Inevitably, the result of this would be only religious programing. But you don't see that as people forcing their beliefs on others? Clearly, you are either being facetious or you are 100% totally irrational, and either way I'm wasting my breath discussing this with you.


Why is accepting that a supermajority that is 2/3rds of the people in a community have the right to define their own public standards irrational?
What you are proposing sounds a bit stranger to my ears, and I would assume any of our law makers.

Now read this if you will.

"About the First Amendment
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.
— The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

The First Amendment was written because at America's inception, citizens demanded a guarantee of their basic freedoms.

Our blueprint for personal freedom and the hallmark of an open society, the First Amendment protects freedom of speech, press, religion, assembly and petition.

Without the First Amendment, religious minorities could be persecuted, the government might well establish a national religion, protesters could be silenced, the press could not criticize government, and citizens could not mobilize for social change.

When the U.S. Constitution was signed on Sept. 17, 1787, it did not contain the essential freedoms now outlined in the Bill of Rights, because many of the Framers viewed their inclusion as unnecessary. However, after vigorous debate, the Bill of Rights was adopted. The first freedoms guaranteed in this historic document were articulated in the 45 words written by James Madison that we have come to know as the First Amendment. "
www.firstamendmentcenter.org...

Now go back and read the debates again from the first and second congresses and tell me what you think the founding fathers intended.

[edit on 04/13/2008 by sacerd]



posted on Jun, 14 2008 @ 12:21 PM
link   
reply to post by sacerd
 



Don't insult me by choosing not take the entirety of the case into consideration.


As you have done with the Miller Test? In case you didn't know, to determine something to be obscene under the Miller test, it must meet all three criteria. You have left out some important parts in your citation of the Miller Test, such as...


Whether the work depicts/describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct or excretory functions specifically defined by applicable state law,
en.wikipedia.org...


Show me a state law that was violated, specifically and without ambiguity. And you can't say "obscenity" for obvious reasons, unless you want to just go chasing your own tail here.



"Prosecutors also pointed to language on Little's web site that says none of his movies can be disseminated without his written permission."


Okay, so? That's to protect against pirating. In other words, you can't rip a copy and give it to a friend without his written permission.

He gave his permission to whoever was running the website to host the material.



"According to evidence in the trial, federal investigators in January 2006 purchased an online membership to the MaxHardcore.com Web site and downloaded five promotional video clips."


Okay, so? The agents committed a crime then and they're trying to pin it on Max. If I download a sodomy video from the internet, and I happen to live in a place where sodomy is illegal, I am at fault, not the host. If I download a video of a sixteen year-old from a country where it happens to be legal, I am the one who is in violation of the law.

I can also buy flashing lights and a siren for my car, but if I use them, I am in violation of the law, not the parts shop.



Don't insult me. There is no misdirection. see the three things below that define obscene.


I think we've already covered that now. But I will give you the benefit of the doubt and say that if you are not intentionally being deceptive, then perhaps you really just don't know what you are talking about.



WHY would Tampa have a problem with little in particular, when they have a huge adult entertainment industry? C'mon use some critical thinking skills here.


It just happens to be where the Feds decided to set up there little witch-hunt I suppose. They probably figured they could get a favorable outcome there, for whatever reason. Maybe the Tampa porn industry is trying to knock out some competition. You tell me.



And look there! Little transmitted over the internet!


So?



posted on Jun, 14 2008 @ 12:23 PM
link   
reply to post by sacerd
 



Well beings how that is the law that Florida used in the case that must be how Florida defined the obscenity.


Good. Then we should see this decision overturned on appeal, because Max is not a child-molester.

EDIT to add: And the precedent has already been set that "simulation" is not illegal.



[edit on 6/14/0808 by jackinthebox]



posted on Jun, 14 2008 @ 12:44 PM
link   
reply to post by jackinthebox
 

Jack, I am afraid that you are incapable of having an intelligent discourse on this if you cannot use enough critical thinking skills to understand that a court can and will by law, use precedent set forth by other states at their pleasure, and can choose to interpret the law as they wish.
How do I know they can they do this?
Because laws are made, like this all the time.
The court does this via Jury. The jury acts as the will of the people.
I am at a loss as to help you understand. I would suggest asking a lawyer if you don't believe me.
I would also suggest you maybe move to Florida and petition the court and state government to display your grievance as that is protected under the first amendment.
Remember this from civics class?

In the United States, ex post facto laws are prohibited in federal law by Article I, section 9 of the U.S. Constitution and in state law by section 10. Over the years, when deciding ex post facto cases, the United States Supreme Court has referred repeatedly to its ruling in the Calder v. Bull case of 1798, in which Justice Chase established four categories of unconstitutional ex post facto laws. The case dealt with Article I, section 10, since it dealt with a Connecticut state law.

However, not all laws with ex post facto effects have been found to be unconstitutional. One current U.S. law that has an ex post facto effect is the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006. This law, which imposes new registration requirements on convicted sex offenders, gives the U.S. Attorney General the authority to apply the law retroactively.[1] The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Smith v. Doe (2003) that forcing sex offenders to register their whereabouts at regular intervals and the posting of personal information about them on the Internet does not violate the constitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws, because compulsory registration of offenders who completed their sentences before new laws requiring compliance went into effect does not constitute a punishment.[2]

Another example is the so-called Lautenburg law where firearms prohibitions were imposed on those convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence offenses and subjects of restraining orders (which do not require a criminal conviction). These individuals can now be sentenced to up to 10 years in a federal prison for possession of a firearm, regardless of whether or not the weapon was legally possessed at the time the law was passed. Among those that it is claimed the law has affected is a father who was convicted of a misdemeanor of child abuse despite claims that he had only spanked his child, since anyone convicted of child abuse now faces a lifetime firearms prohibition. The law has been legally upheld because it is considered regulatory, not punitive - it is a status offense.
en.wikipedia.org...

[edit on 04/13/2008 by sacerd]



posted on Jun, 14 2008 @ 12:54 PM
link   
I am so done with this thread, apparently people have a difficult time understanding that fair does not equate to legal. Your constitution does not give you EXTREME FREEDOMS like it is a a superpower or something. Understand this or sit in a cell next to Max Hardcore.
Or you could, should you choose, actually use your constitutional rights and air your grievances to your government and change the laws you don't like. I would suggest the latter because there are thousands of inmates sitting in jail right now crying "my rights were violated". Sacrificed on the alter of special interest groups trying to make a point.



posted on Jun, 14 2008 @ 01:14 PM
link   
reply to post by sacerd
 


Do you even bother to read your own material before you post?




because compulsory registration of offenders who completed their sentences before new laws requiring compliance went into effect does not constitute a punishment.




The law has been legally upheld because it is considered regulatory, not punitive - it is a status offense.


This is certainly not a "regulatory" case. If it had been, you would not have heard an argument from me. If Tampa told Max to cease and desist, but he then chose not to based on his First Amendment rights, this would be a completely different discussion.



posted on Jun, 14 2008 @ 01:17 PM
link   
reply to post by sacerd
 



I am so done with this thread, apparently people have a difficult time understanding that fair does not equate to legal.


I agree that fair and legal are not synonymous, as they should be. And this case is a perfect example of that. It only goes to shiow that the system can do whatever it wants, even to the detriment of our liberties.



posted on Jun, 14 2008 @ 02:31 PM
link   
reply to post by sacerd
 


Florida hasn't defined obscenity, that is the point. How is someone in CA supposed to know what 12 average (aka below average IQ) jesus freaks in Florida think?

The law certainly doesn't specify what is and what isn't obscene. It is up to interpretation depending upon the make up of the jury.



posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 12:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bigwhammy

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

Geez of course I believe we have natural human rights but your personal freedoms do have to be weighed against the good of the many. ie Laws. No its not perfect. That's why we have juries. If it seems like a law is unreasonable or unfairly applied they can let him walk. Its called jury nullification.

NEWSFLASH: The Jury found him guilty.



sick twisted porn, is not illegal, obscenity is. That is what is at issue here, whether or not the content is considered obscene based on community standards.

Two issues that need to be considered are
A: the community to which the standards apply
B: If the material passed the miller test of obscenity.

It was clearly stated in the court that the material was not created for distribution in the community it was being tried in. Yet that information was ignored by the judge. There were witnesses who claimed to unlawfully distribute this material without the knowledge of Maxworld entertainment. These individuals were given immunity to testify against Max Hardcore. Keep in mind that this material is not considered obscene in any sense of the word in other parts of the world, where it was meant to be distributed.

The content was not permitted to be taken as a whole, and therefore could not have passed the miller test of obscenity. The judge disallowed a main factor in the miller test, that the content be viewed as a whole. The judge instructed the jurors to only view specific portions of the content, rather than the entirety of the content as required for the miller test.

Jurors only understand the law in as far as the judge instructs them. The judge failed to instruct the jury that they are not considered the community for whom this material was created, nor were they instructed that the miller test for obscenity wasn't properly applied to the material. They were asked whether or not they find the material obscene, which has absolutely nothing to do with the legalities of this case.

So yes, the jury found the material obscene, but under definition of the law, their opinions do not constitute lawful obscenity.

Of course the fact that the judge admitted to having formed an opinion on the case prior to the trial, and that the jurors admitted to having book deals, is enough in any case for a mistrial.

Appeals have already been filed.

So the argument that he was found guilty of obscenity by a jury is pretty much a non-fact. This case has mistrial written all over it.

[edit on 20-6-2008 by twistedd]



posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 12:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
Sorry its not either. Some people obviously do not know whats good for them they get hooked on drugs and die from it. They drive drunk and kill and maime innocent people. So sorry what each individual finds acceptable is not good enough - DUH!!!!

Jeffery Dahmer found eating people acceptable.



Many people die from achohol and tabacco, yet we don't have laws making those things a crime. We make drinking and driving a crime, because it has a direct negative effect on others (death and injury of innocent people).



Originally posted by Bigwhammy
That "If you don't want it, don't buy it" argument is just a fallacy. You could say the same of child porn or snuff movies.


Not exactly, the reason child porn and snuff are illegal are for the direct harm they cause to the individuals involved. Children can't offer consent, therefore child porn harms them against their will. Dead folks can't consent either, and no one of a sane mind can offer consent, the law states that anyone willing to die, is not of sane mind in this case. There is no crime committed in the filming or ditribution of porn, therefore to block access of these based solely on the content of the video is a violation of the 1st and 5th ammendments. The law does not have the right to tell me I can't watch porn, unless MY community deems the content patently offensive, through the use of the miller test.



Originally posted by Bigwhammy
This case was decided by a jury not one mans opinion. Get over it.

And since an appeal is filed, another jury will have the options of coming to a different conclusion.



posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
You think your right to watch twisted smut outweighs our voted on laws. Sorry You are just wrong. We have courts so stop being bigots and blaming me it's not just not my opinion. A jury decided.


This case was not decided on "voted on laws", those laws were blatantly disregarded by a judge with an agenda.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 22  23  24    26  27 >>

log in

join