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: 26
5
<< 23  24  25    27 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 12:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by sacerd
Hopefully I can explain this in a way that can be understood.

Apparently this porn producer was convicted under obscenity laws.
Obscenity is something that has been defined by the court system, and was posted earlier as...
"Whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest."
The key phrase here is "contemporary community standards."
Apparently the community in question decided that what this man was producing was obscene and not in accordance with their self regulated standards. Thus his films are obscene. 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.


Except that this material was never intended for sale in the community it was tried in. If you are familiar with the case, you should know that the videos in question are from a line that is distributed overseas, where community standards are more tolerant.

The distributor of the content (which was NOT Maxworld Entertainment), illegally sold this material in the US, without consent of Maxworld Entertainment, and admitted as such under oath.

So the whole problem in this case is that the WRONG COMMUNITY applied their standards. The Florida community never had the legal right to test for obscenity in the case, and because of this, the case will come up for appeal.




posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 12:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by sacerd

Originally posted by slackerwire
reply to post by sacerd
 


Uh, he didn't live or work in the jurisdiction that he was charged in. In fact, he is on the other side of the country.


I don't know that it matters, if he was responsible for any distribution of his product there.
For example: Say Moonshine was legal in Tennessee but not in Kentucky and I brought Moonshine into Kentucky but the shine was made in Tennessee and I lived in Tennessee I can still be charged.


You as the runner (aka distributor) can be charged, not the producer of the moonshine.

Max Hardcore wasn't the distributor in this case. The distributor was given immunity to testify against Max Hardcore, but never admitted to having consent to sell the content to this community. That alone should have thrown the case out of court.

So the court without proving that Max Hardcore was responsible for distribution, tried him on obscenity regardless. Thereby applying their community standards to a product that wasn't produced for consumption in their community.

[edit on 20-6-2008 by twistedd]



posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 01:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by mysterychicken
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).

True the liquor seller would be committing the crime, not the producer of the liquor. Max Hardcore was not the distributor in this case. As a matter of fact, he had a contract prohibiting his distributor from selling this content in the US. Being ignorant of a law is not the same thing as saying, produce your content, we'll decide later if it's obscene or not. That is how obscenity laws work, which is also what many believe makes them unconstitutional.



Originally posted 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). 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.

There is no clear definition of obscenity for the community this case was tried in (as there is no clear definition in any jurisdiction). If I know it is illegal to commit fraud, it is because the concept of fraud is clearly defined by the courts. The same cannot be said for obscenity. The definition of obscenity is if it passes the Miller test for obscenity, which if you've read it, you will know that it leaves the definition of obscenity to be defined by the community applying it's own standards. Not a single community has a list of what it's "standards" are. Nor would they want to do so for fear of stepping on someones rights to free speech. It's a catch 22. You can't be told if your content is obscene until after you distribute it to a community that later decides it's obscene. You can't even tell based on prior court cases in that community. There is no ignorance of the law here, there is ambiguity within the law.


[edit on 20-6-2008 by twistedd]



posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by sacerd
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...


It's one thing for him to claim that none of his movies can be disseminated without his written permission, and other thing all together for someone to do so without his consent, which is what happened in this case.


Originally posted by sacerd
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.


The problem here is that contemporary community standards, are still as yet undefined. Show me where Florida has defined their community standards. They will not, nor should they, as it's not in their best interest to do so. Community standards can only be decided on a case by case basis in a court of law.



Originally posted by sacerd

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]


1) No such person exists in any community. The adult industry has requested this for years.
2) Max Harcore has done this in his films, only the jurors were not allowed to view the content in it's entirety.



posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by sacerd

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

This doesn't mean that permission was given.



Originally posted by sacerd
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.

Because the DOJ has had a hardon for this guy for years now. Tampa didn't have the problem, the DOJ under Ashcroft does. They merely used Tampa as their staging grounds due to it's conservative attitude.



Originally posted by sacerd
And look there! Little transmitted over the internet!

It is still up for debate as to which community standard should apply in internet cases. Why should someone in Florida set the community standards for the rest of the world? This question of community standards for the internet will not be settled any time soon.



posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Originally posted 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?



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.


Except that the law wasn't exactly followed. The miller test wasn't properly used in this case.



posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 11:28 AM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 


You revel when religion is thrown out of public places (schools, court houses, ect..) and revile when pornographers are harassed and imprisoned. Seems to me to be a bit of hypocrisy. Freedom of speech is no more or less important than our freedom of religion. What about Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Hindu, or Buhddist rights to freedom of expression? It seems that we're only interested in fighting over this subject when it regards the worst of us, but never when it's the best or even merely the avergae person. Either we're all free or none of us are. And the argument that atrocities are perfomed in the name of religion is just about full of crap. Secular societies have slaughtered just as many, if not more, people. They've just managed to do it quicker and more efficiently. You just have to look at the death tolls from such bastions of freedom as Communist China (approx. 35million), the USSR (43,000,000 under Stalin alone), or Hitler's Germany (20,946,000) just to name a few. These figures are readily available to anyone who's willing to look.



posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 03:00 AM
link   
Porn is the canary in the internet coalmine. Like it or not, many important free speech battles coming up will be fought in the domain of porn. It's kind of fitting, since a lot of the pioneering attempts to create the marketplace that we have on the internet now were undertaken by the porn industry.

As someone once said, "Of course I don't read Playboy, I just look at the pictures."



posted on Jul, 8 2008 @ 01:13 PM
link   



posted on Aug, 4 2008 @ 01:38 AM
link   
reply to post by OhZone
 


Truth



posted on Aug, 15 2008 @ 10:42 PM
link   



posted on Oct, 11 2008 @ 06:04 PM
link   



posted on Oct, 11 2008 @ 10:07 PM
link   
reply to post by OhZone
 


No he shouldn't be shot for f##king on film and selling it.
So he's kinky and has some semi "sick" porn. So what.
Your comment that he should be shot for it makes you the bigger sick mind.
I'll take a freak like him over your "Morality Police" mentality any day of the week.

If it's not rape, underage, snuff, etc..etc.. then let them film their crap and sell it if they want. If you don't like it, DON'T WATCH IT!
What a friggin concept! Duh!

Congrats to you! I finally get to use the ignore option!

[edit on 11-10-2008 by bigdog36]



posted on Oct, 11 2008 @ 11:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by OhZone
Yeah, these women likely have to be drugged to get their consent. Kind of like an anesthetic so they can endure just to get paid.

I've read a lot of books about half-way houses for women coming out of prostitution and the porn industry. There were thousands of testimonials in these books. Most of the women were lured into that business from their teens after running away from home. The young ones are considered "fresh meat" by the ones who will eventually own them, use them and discard them when they're through with them. They introduce naive girls to addicting drugs, get them hooked, and when they're fiending for more, they force them into either prostitution or pornography with the promise of another high. The ones in the porn industry who claim they don't approve of these girls doing drugs usually know damn well what the girls are buying with the money they earn. They can spot girls already addicted to a drug a mile away and they know how to lure them in.

Older porn stars and prostitutes no doubt defend their position due to pride and the inability to admit they were used like cattle. The popular ones, who didn't die from drug overdose, will continue because of money and dreams of a better future if they can only make it to that "big gig".


You all are sick to defend such things.

Not only does porn fill a mind with filth and corruption, but to ignore facts such as the meat market behind the industry and the field of dead bodies of women who didn't make it out alive, is truly disgusting.



posted on Oct, 11 2008 @ 11:20 PM
link   
reply to post by mmariebored
 



I love porn and my mind isn't filled with filth or corruption.

You would explain that how?



posted on Oct, 11 2008 @ 11:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Constitutional Scholar
reply to post by mmariebored
 



I love porn and my mind isn't filled with filth or corruption.

You would explain that how?

There are people in rehabs for porn addictions. Nuff said.



posted on Oct, 11 2008 @ 11:27 PM
link   
reply to post by mmariebored
 


Thats your point?

There are people in rehabs for all sorts of addictions. The problems of the few do not outweigh the enjoyment of the many.



posted on Oct, 12 2008 @ 10:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Constitutional Scholar
reply to post by mmariebored
 


Thats your point?

There are people in rehabs for all sorts of addictions. The problems of the few do not outweigh the enjoyment of the many.

Watching drug slaves have sex is merely the "problems of the few"? Most of them die because of an overdose or they get killed.

If you can sit there and enjoy what you see, knowing the other side of the story...

Anyway, this disgusting conversation isn't worth my time.



posted on Oct, 12 2008 @ 11:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by mmariebored

Originally posted by Constitutional Scholar
reply to post by mmariebored
 


Thats your point?

There are people in rehabs for all sorts of addictions. The problems of the few do not outweigh the enjoyment of the many.

Watching drug slaves have sex is merely the "problems of the few"? Most of them die because of an overdose or they get killed.

If you can sit there and enjoy what you see, knowing the other side of the story...

Anyway, this disgusting conversation isn't worth my time.


Of course it's not worth your time because you have lost the debate. And by the way, addicts are weak. Why should everyone else be punished because of the addictions of the weak? If you like porn, watch it. If you don't, then don't. It's really that simple. trying to force YOUR morals on everyone is not right. Should I force mine on you?



posted on Oct, 12 2008 @ 12:27 PM
link   
reply to post by mmariebored
 


You watch drug slaves have sex for money? If so, then you are part of the problem.

Most of them OD or get killed? Are you referring to porn stars?

Lets see a source backing up your contention that most of them expire that way.

[edit on 12-10-2008 by Constitutional Scholar]



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 23  24  25    27 >>

log in

join