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: 4
5
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 10:04 AM
link   
reply to post by GradyPhilpott
 


Star for you in thanks for the link.

I still don't see any real crime here though. Who gets to define what is "obscene?"




posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 10:23 AM
link   
Jman,
don't give me a reason to find anything good about Bush.
I say, regulate the hell out of porn.
But you seriously lost me on the anti-porn agenda. Yes, it is about preventing the exploitation of children, for many of us. I'm the furthest thing from a Bible thumper.
Some other poster talked about how the constitution has to protect the scumbags as well as the rest of us. Well, you don't live in reality then.
You could fill up this whole site with unconstitutional "per se" laws and stuff. You will never see this Country make enough federalist progress in your or your kids life time. So, if someone is going to get screwed than it might as well be some scumbags.
regulate porn, overturn Ashcroft.

Jack, we hashed this out before. "obscenity" is defined by using the "Miller test".



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 11:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Res Ipsa
 



Jack, we hashed this out before. "obscenity" is defined by using the "Miller test".


I don't really agree with the Miller Test myself to begin with, but it is the standard of the Supreme Court. So let's see then how it stands up.


Whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest


"Prurient" is the key word here. Under US Law that would be defined as "sick, morbid, or shameless."

I would have to say that the average person, myself included, would find Max Hardcore to be sick and shameless. But I am no doctor, so how am I really to judge if he is really sick or not? And shameless, well by that standard, even "missionary" would be illegal for most people then. I know that I am not shamed by such an act.


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


Clearly offensive to whom? The authors of state Law?


Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.


Here, serious political value could mean "free speech." The scientific value could be based on the observation of re-enacted depictions of human interpersonal relationships.

So, in the end, the Miller Test does not seem to have clearly answered the question. Especially considering that a finding of "obscenity" must meet all three criteria.





[edit on 6/8/0808 by jackinthebox]



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 11:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Res Ipsa
Jman,
don't give me a reason to find anything good about Bush.
I say, regulate the hell out of porn.
But you seriously lost me on the anti-porn agenda. Yes, it is about preventing the exploitation of children, for many of us. I'm the furthest thing from a Bible thumper.
Some other poster talked about how the constitution has to protect the scumbags as well as the rest of us. Well, you don't live in reality then.
You could fill up this whole site with unconstitutional "per se" laws and stuff. You will never see this Country make enough federalist progress in your or your kids life time. So, if someone is going to get screwed than it might as well be some scumbags.
regulate porn, overturn Ashcroft.

Jack, we hashed this out before. "obscenity" is defined by using the "Miller test".


yes let's regulate porn because SOME people find it offensive.
Let's regulate everything that everyone finds offensive. The law must be applied fairly.

So everything will be regulated...
No more religion.
No more cigarettes (yeah, I hate cigarettes).
No more alcohol (I don't drink so it doesn't affect me anyway).
No more fast food.
No more foul language, disrespectful language, unpopular opinions.

No more everything because there are always going to be a group of a FEW people that are offended by something.



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 12:28 PM
link   
Jack, I think you left out an important adjective proceeding the word
"prurient" and not only that, you correctly stated but did not apply all of the factors need to be taken as a whole, or simply you don't agree with it which is fine but yes, statutes on the books have to be considered obviously. The Miller test is the best we have, if you can think of something better to define "obscenity" well pass it on to your representatives.

As for the previous post; What Country do you live in? We do regulate cigarettes, religion (if they are tax-exempt or not for example), alchohol...that is another no brainer. How many Jack Daniels commercials have you seen on t.v.? How many states allow a 16yr old buy a case of Budweiser? Everything you mentioned is regulated.



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Res Ipsa
Jack, I think you left out an important adjective proceeding the word
"prurient" and not only that, you correctly stated but did not apply all of the factors need to be taken as a whole, or simply you don't agree with it which is fine but yes, statutes on the books have to be considered obviously. The Miller test is the best we have, if you can think of something better to define "obscenity" well pass it on to your representatives.

As for the previous post; What Country do you live in? We do regulate cigarettes, religion (if they are tax-exempt or not for example), alchohol...that is another no brainer. How many Jack Daniels commercials have you seen on t.v.? How many states allow a 16yr old buy a case of Budweiser? Everything you mentioned is regulated.


I'm not talking about regulation. Notice I said "NO MORE.... as no longer accessible" not "regulated" ? Please read my posts before responding to them. It may avoid future confusion on your part.

I live in the US what about you?



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 12:40 PM
link   
dude is the link avn.com thing pornographic or something because i cant access it. its blocked. damn the irony. my DNS is blocking it its not a form of censorship or anything but its done to keep the computer safe.

anyway, from what i read here this max hardcore guy sounds sick. hope he dies in prison. is he the only producer doing this i reckon not so why are they picking on him though. are they trying to set an example? or is it one scum at a time. whatever they are doing a good job, imagine what wouldve happened if Hilary became president- she would let them off the hook just like her husband. I dont know why people here are upset.



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 12:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Res Ipsa
 



The Miller test is the best we have, if you can think of something better to define "obscenity" well pass it on to your representatives.


I don't think the government has any right to define obscenity, as it applies to an individual's choice, other than what is put on public display. And by public, I don't mean what is available to the public, but what cannot be avoided by the public. Like a billboard perhaps, or a commercial on regular programming TV, or even un-solicited mail.

And while we're on this train of thought, why isn't all porn declared "obscene?" After all, you can't go putting up pictures on a billboard of people having just regular old sex.



We do regulate cigarettes, religion (if they are tax-exempt or not for example), alchohol...that is another no brainer.


Far too much regulation if you ask me.



How many Jack Daniels commercials have you seen on t.v.?


Many, why?



How many states allow a 16yr old buy a case of Budweiser?


Not enough.



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 12:49 PM
link   
My main problem with this is that what is obscene to one is normal to another, and we will constantly be chasing our tails so to speak if we are to try to regulate such things as pornography. There is a huge market for hardcore pornography, which many people would deem obscene, but to others it is required to stimulate their libido. Not everyone enjoys the same type of intercourse.

I did a little research on this Max Hardcore guy when I came home on break, because that is definitely not the search string I want on my work PC
, but from the pictures wherein it seems this is all being blown out of proportion. What I saw was the covers of some of his videos and I saw nothing wrong with what he is marketing. Yes, he had women dressed as cheerleaders, or school girls, but they are all visibly not children and over the age of eighteen. There is thousands of other adult entertainment companies that market the same type of "product" if you will. They use the terms "young teen" or "lolita" to describe eighteen year old, consenting women who may look younger. If I was one of his actors and this was my way of income, I would file a suit for discrimination. Just because someone looks and dresses younger should not exclude them from doing what they want to do.

This type of product is no more worse then what most people have their girlfriends dress up as in the bedroom. I hear plenty of stories about the cheerleader outfit, or the catholic school uniform from last years graduation - should this also be subject to censorship? Some people have some pretty weird fetish's and if them watching pornography is their cup of tea then so be it.

I would much rather have someone watching this mans videos then to be prowling a high school parking lot to get his jollies.



[edit on 8-6-2008 by deadline527]



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 12:50 PM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 


yes let's regulate porn because SOME people find it offensive.
Let's regulate everything that everyone finds offensive. The law must be applied fairly.

So everything will be regulated...
No more religion.
No more cigarettes (yeah, I hate cigarettes).
No more alcohol (I don't drink so it doesn't affect me anyway).
No more fast food.
No more foul language, disrespectful language, unpopular opinions.

No more everything because there are always going to be a group of a FEW people that are offended by something.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You were talking about regulating. You even made it sound like regulating is equal to "no more" .....
It appears I was less confused about your post than you were.



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 12:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Res Ipsa
reply to post by jfj123
 


yes let's regulate porn because SOME people find it offensive.
Let's regulate everything that everyone finds offensive. The law must be applied fairly.

So everything will be regulated...
No more religion.
No more cigarettes (yeah, I hate cigarettes).
No more alcohol (I don't drink so it doesn't affect me anyway).
No more fast food.
No more foul language, disrespectful language, unpopular opinions.

No more everything because there are always going to be a group of a FEW people that are offended by something.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You were talking about regulating. You even made it sound like regulating is equal to "no more" .....
It appears I was less confused about your post than you were.


Admittedly a poor transition. Of course we all know porn is already regulated but if Max is put out of business and convicted based on nothing, then in effect, it potentially puts the whole industry at risk of being removed from existence. At that point, we're talking about the distinct possibility of:
No more religion.
No more cigarettes (yeah, I hate cigarettes).
No more alcohol (I don't drink so it doesn't affect me anyway).
No more fast food.
No more foul language, disrespectful language, unpopular opinions.

No more everything because there are always going to be a group of a FEW people that are offended by something.



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 12:56 PM
link   
Simply getting rid of religion would do the planet a world of good.

Porn= Good

Religion= bad



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 01:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by slackerwire
Simply getting rid of religion would do the planet a world of good.

Porn= Good

Religion= bad


Agreed. Religion is much more detrimental to society then pornography could ever wish to be. Although, I would gladly give up pornography if it was the only way to get rid of religion as well.



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 01:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by slackerwire
Simply getting rid of religion would do the planet a world of good.

Porn= Good

Religion= bad


You're not wrong !

But people should have the right to practice their religion. If they practice it enough, they may get it right one day!



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 01:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123

Originally posted by slackerwire
Simply getting rid of religion would do the planet a world of good.

Porn= Good

Religion= bad


You're not wrong !

But people should have the right to practice their religion. If they practice it enough, they may get it right one day!




People of legal age should also be allowed to have whatever kind of consensual sex they want in front of a camera if they deem necessary. No one forces people to watch this stuff, the way people are making it out to be is that its being played on PBS 24 hours a day. If you find it offensive, don't buy it.



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 01:11 PM
link   
Jack,
you are all over the place now.
Lets break it down for people and yourself.
The 10th amendment plays a role in all of this too. So you have to look at state statutes for what is and what isn't legally obscene or indecent. I'm sure Neveda is looser than Alabama for example.
Some of what I read on this thread seem to imply that anarchy is the better form of government. It would be for people like me, but since most people are greedy self serving bastards and intellectually challenged....well that form of government won't work.
So in order to have a well ordered society, which seemed important enough to the founding fathers to mention it, we unfortuneatly are stuck with regulations and laws.
regulating and prohibiting are not the same thing (contrary to what some poster thinks)
Some of us that are characterized as being anti-porn, simply don't want children being used OR portrayed in porn. We have no problem with every law being pushed or exploited to take down the scumbags like Max.
How many people shed a tear because they got Capone on tax evasion rather than his other criminal activities. Well, Max went down in similiar fasion.
The Miller test is also flexible because as you pointed out, "current community standards"
Porn by definition by the way is not "obscene"
We have beat this horse into the ground.
Yes, we use the word "obscene" to reflect a subjective attitude, but we know that "obscene" has a legal definition and is much much more objective.
So in a nutshell; Porn is not obscene by legal definition and thereby is not illegal. When porn crosses the line and meets the legal definition, well than it is objectively obscene.
Obscenity is not protected by the 1st amendment at all.



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 01:22 PM
link   
"""People of legal age should also be allowed to have whatever kind of consensual sex they want in front of a camera if they deem necessary. No one forces people to watch this stuff, the way people are making it out to be is that its being played on PBS 24 hours a day. If you find it offensive, don't buy it. """"

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
They are.

(that was going to be my no shiete Sherlock line but.....you pose a real messed up problem......
what if the legal age in Zanzibar was 5yrs old? Can they post on youtube?
What if it is between a 50yr old guy and a 5yr old and it is legal in that Country because they are married?

This obviously has had to have been addressed!
They must "regulate" or "prohibit" this type of stuff from being legal to obtain in this Country. At least I sure as hell hope so.
See, regulation good.



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 01:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Res Ipsa
 


I totally agree with you about most of what you just said.

But, my statement was in regards to two consenting adults, meaning over the age of eighteen.

As for child pornography, I believe the offenders should not get a second chance. Them people are the worst of the worst and anyone who would hurt a child deserves to be locked up for a very long time.

The problem here is, in this mans videos, the people are consenting adults over the age of 18. They can look or act as young as they want, but that does not change the fact that they are of legal age to be having consensual sex and to have it video taped. If I decide I want to have sex with my girlfriend dressed up as a catholic school girl in pig tails and video tape it to market, whats wrong with that? As long as nothing illegal is being done this should be a no brainer.

Now if they actually found out this guy ever did use an actor under the age of 18, then I have no sympathy for his actions and he deserves what is coming to him in jail.. and we all know exactly what that is. But, to prosecute someone for marketing a completely legal pornography tape to an extremely viable market, I see nothing wrong with that. Actually, I see a man who saw an oppertunity and is now making money.

He is not exploiting anyone underage, he is not forcing people to have sex no matter what they may be acting in the video, and he pretty much tells people by the name "Max Hardcore" on the box, that this is not your normal pornography.

This isnt much different from movies that have brutal rape scenes such as "The Hills Have Eyes", where they rape a underage girl in front of the mother. I actually fast forward past that part because it is extremely brutal, violent, and sexually obscene. Should that producer also be put on trial? This has too many implications across the board, just get ready for big brother to tell us what we can and cant watch in the privacy of our own home - no matter how legal it is.

[edit on 8-6-2008 by deadline527]



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 02:05 PM
link   
ok Im offended when you guys say that pornography is better than religion. thats so wrong. im just gonna leave this thread. and sick stuff like that shouldnt exist and porn producers all try to up the ante when it comes to sick stuff and just like consumerism people will get whatever is what there. its not that people ask for it.



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 02:09 PM
link   
Well as someone has pointed out, the Supreme Court agreed with you in the Ashcroft decision. I disagree with it, but it is what it is.

I knew what you meant by "legal age" but not every state is it 18. Marriage laws in many states have different ages for different circumstances with parental consent.

I'm talking about the importation of "legally" made crap.

But, since you brought it up, what about the girl who is legally married, in this Country, who is 15 and makes a porno with her husband?
Now where do you draw the line?

What if she is 15 or even 16 but looks 8 or 9 years old?

So now you have a legally married couple, with an amancipated adult, who looks 9rs old, making a porn.

Is some one here willing to say..."cool with me" on this one?



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join