In 1964, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart said of obscenity, "I know it when I see it." It's an amusing quip that, ironically, encapsulates the reason why it is utter futility for any government or community to attempt to define obscenity: subjectivity. Our notions of obscenity are akin to what is said about opinions and assholes -- everybody has one.
Max Hardcore, adult movie producer, director, and performer, is currently being prosecuted by the Los Angeles District Attorney's office for "producing and advertising obscene material" for his video Max Extreme 4. The final jury selection for the Max Hardcore trial is currently scheduled for Tuesday and opening arguments could begin as early as Tuesday afternoon. Max Hardcore's attorney, Jeffrey Douglas said, "...the thing which offended the police so much was the relatively subtle underage sex fantasy. No-one is declared to be underage and it is a relatively minor theme but that just got the LAPD incensed. So that is the thrust of the prosecution's case: a film with the implication that there are underage characters; that's what they want to be determined to be obscene."
Obscene? Obscene. Obscene! A movie by adults, for adults, featuring adults, and sold only to adults is obscene? BULLSHIT!
The Catholic Church harboring child molesters is obscene. The juxtaposition of thousands of unemployed workers struggling to survive and corrupt former executives living in luxury is obscene. HMOs denying critically ill patients the treatment that will save their lives is obscene. Tobacco companies marketing cigarettes to kids is obscene. The idea that rich drug addicts are "sick" but poor drug addicts are "criminals" is obscene. Murdering thousands of people because they don't share your religious beliefs, or ethnicity, or race, or political ideas is truly obscene.
Merely marketing a video, to ADULTS ONLY, of oneself performing sexual acts with GROWN WOMEN who ACTED like they were underage is grounds for prosecution? Why?
According to the FBI, "Pedophilia, which is a psychological disorder, is a distinct sexual preference for pre-pubescent children... Pedophiles can be very determined and single-minded in their efforts to stay close to children. Maintaining access to children at all costs is one of the defining trademarks of pedophilia. A child molester is described as an adult, male or female, which experiences any type of sexual act with another person who is a child. The majority of child molesters, more than 95 percent, are male."
Federal Law mandates that ALL participants in adult entertainment are 18 years old or older. Furthermore, the overwhelming majority of sex performers are female, not male. Isn't it infinitely more likely that you’ll find pedophiles and child molesters in the priesthood, Boy Scouts, Little League, or UNICEF than in porn? Shouldn't prosecutors be focusing on priests rather than porn?
Tell me, people, who did Max Hardcore harm? Was any child harmed? Was any adult harmed? Who's the victim?
The Max Hardcore trial is porn’s "Stonewall Inn." Just as the gay and lesbian communty got fed up with persecution that tumultuous night in 1969, it's time for adult performers to standup to the vice squad shakedowns, the politically ambitious and malicious prosecutors, and the hypocritical religious fanatics. Pornography is not a danger to anybody's community; but the harassment of adult performers is a threat to all Americans.
Since when do community standards trump constitutionally-protected individual rights? Segregation was a community standard. Quotas that restricted Jews access to higher education were community standards. Remember? In America, the right of the individual must always prevail, or America will cease to be free.
It's not the Government's business how many fingers are inserted in an ADULT female's pussy! It's not the Government's business if ADULTS want to sell their sexual services! It's not the Government's business if ADULTS want to dance naked for other ADULTS! It's not the Government's business if ADULTS want to PRETEND to be underage and have sex on film.
Consent, and not someone's personal notion of obscenity, should be the only standard for pornography. Consent is easily defined and regulated in law. Are you 18 or older? Are you of sound mind? Are you under any duress? Sign here. Done.
It's reasonable to be skeptical of the legal mind of an anonymous porn fan; but what about Justice William Brennan? In his dissenting opinion, in the 1973, Miller vs. California case, the case which still defines obscenity in America, he wrote,
"Our experience since Roth [vs. United States] requires us not only to abandon the effort to pick out obscene materials on a case-by-case basis, but also to reconsider a fundamental postulate of Roth; that there exists a definable class of sexually-oriented expression that may be suppressed by the Federal and State Goverments. Assuming that such a class of expression does exist, I am forced to conclude that the concept of "obscenity" cannot be defined with sufficient specificity and clarity to provide fair notice to persons who create and distribute sexually oriented materials, to prevent substantial erosion of protected speech as a byproduct of the attempt to suppress unprotected speech, and to avoid very costly institutional harms."
Consenting adults should be able to produce, buy, and sell videotapes of other consenting adults having any kind of sex they want with one another. That's not obscenity, that's freedom.
I don't know anything about Max Hardcore's personal character; but I do know he is the one that fate has chosen. It's time to use a portion of the billions of dollars that the adult entertainment industry has earned to save its own future. Support the Free Speech Coalition and buy the upcoming Max Extreme, Planet Max, Pure Max and Max Factor videos. Planet Max 12 will be out in the first week of October, followed by Max Extreme 19 in the third week of October. November will bring Pure Max 8 and Max Factor 2. Exercise your "right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
"Free your mind, and your ass will follow." aposterula@hotmail.com
I think I'll pass on purchasing Max's non-erotic, stretched-holes-with-medical-equipment, lipstick-around-the-asshole, "blow-bubbles-with-your-pre-puke" videos that turn the women into anything BUT active participants--as... I adamantly dislike them. Although I have liked some of his really early stuff in the past--my enjoyment of that has been soured by his more recent antics.
On the other hand, I absolutely defend his right to produce what he wants (as long as everyone involved are consenting adults)--and agree wholeheartedly with the idea that in our homogonized yet vastly diverse world with "communities" that are both connected physically and through the internet, obscenity can not be universally defined well enough without trouncing on the freedom of expression that is one of the cornerstones of the United States idealism. I have to limit my support for Max, specifically, to ideals though, since I will not pay money for his product.
I agree with Mlyons entirely on his post. I won't buy any of his stuff, as i think most of it is pretty foul, but hey, each to their own, and if the girls want to be in his films, then hey thats fine too.
There are two major, symbiotic, yet sometimes conflicting forces at play here: Freedom of Speech (expression), and Free Market Economy (Laissez Faire).
I thoroughly support Max's right to freedom of expression and am steadfast in support of your argument that Max has the right to produce whatever he desires within the confines of age and consent.
But I do not choose to purchase Max's output because I don't like it. If the law of supply and demand (Max supplies, I DON'T DEMAND) becomes Max's downfall, then I have no problem with that either.
First, the giant disclaimer,.... Like many other posters have said, I don't like what Max puts out, but that doesn't mean he hasn't got the right to make his videos.
Having said that, I think the original post misses a critical point in Max's prosecution. While I realize that Max is being prosecuted under LA county laws, it's easier to make the point I want to make using the Federal law instead.
There are a number of key definitions in USC 2257, and as people have already pointed out, Max employs models over the age of 18 and files all the necessary paperwork. However, there's also a clause that defines a work as child pornography if it is described, depicted or promoted as portraying models under the age of 18. This is where Max, in my opinion, stuck his finger in the eye of prosecutors. Being Max, he has a model, made up to look young, in pigtails, in a parochial school jumper, in mid-frot saying "But Mr. Max, I'm only 14!"
I'm not making a comment about what Max can or cannot write, and I admit that the actress in question is over 18. I'm just saying that with that one line of dialogue, Max walked right up to the legal line and spit across it...
In some ways, he's lucky it's just LA county and not a Federal prosecution....
Scott Kinney Diversified Video Associates www.xxx-imports.com
Scott, I have a question about this "USC2257" - how do they, the authorities, ever expect to enforce that clause you mention if clearly consenting adults are involved in the type of films Max produces? Last time I noticed, he wasn't using 14 year olds in any of his movies. Besides, I think this law, regulation or what ever the hell it is is completely ridiculous - I know I can distinguish between a child and adult as any other normal human being would.
The short, brutal answer is they will enforce it by prosection. Granted, their top priority is to prosecute stuff involving actual minors, but that wouldn't stop them from making a case based on the impression/promotion, etc.
Begging the moderators' indulgence, here is the definition of the definition under Title 18 USC 2257 at issue...
So, let's walk through the hypothetical "Max's Sperm-soaked Itty-Bitty Schoolgirls", boxcover with girl in pigtails, with lollipop and plaid skirt, and in the course of the, ah, action, blurts out "But, Mr. Max, I'm only 14." All proof of age documentation is in place.
On definition "A", he's OK. No actual minors were used. On definition "B", we're in a gray area ('appears to be' being the operative phrase) On definition "C", I'll waive that on the assumption that Max didn't make the girl up to look like any real person.. On definition "D". well, here open the gates of hell...everything about this video is designed to create the impression that the girl is underage, in fact, that's basically the fantasy he's selling.
A prosecutor would look at these factors and assess whether the average Joe would pick up the video box, or watch it and develop the impression that the girl was underage. If they think they can make the case, well, then, Max is in court....
Hypothetically, of course......
Scott Kinney Diversified Video Associates www.xxx-imports.com
Thanx Scott, for your response and for taking time to explain to me this "USC2257" as I was unfamiliar with this California law. But from what I understand, they are not currently prosecuting Max Hardcore because some of the girls in his movies "appear" to be underage - they originally tried doing that but the US Supreme Court effectively shot down the federal law designed for such purposes as un-constituntional this past April. Take for example, the following article from AVN:
Max Hardcore .......Love him.....Hate him but we should ALL DEFEND HIM .
This is AdultdvdTalk and the reason we are all here is because we value our freedom and the right to express ourselves. America is fighting for a war on oppression and terror in the name of freedom .
It is a sad day for us all when an adult entertainment producer has to fight for his freedom when he has clearly committed no crime.
If an individual can be found guilty for producing a film that depicts a certain teen theme , where will it end ?
Jules Jordan in court for making this .....?
Buttman in court for making this....?
Max is a member of our community and should be defended.
Well I'd disagree in the sense that I think there's a clear difference between a barely legal/college theme and a child abuser theme which was clearly the angle Max Hardcore movies were going for.
Thanx for clarifying that, Snowman. But its still a pretty stupid law if ask me and totally unenforceble or else they would have thrown Max in prison long ago. I think consenting adults should be able to engage in any kind of sexual activity with other consenting adults, no matter how they're dressed, acting or behaving - and if they want to photograph or film that activity, so be it. But alas, the USA is so damn politically correct these days its a matter of time before even certain thoughts will be outlawed...
Wow. My virtual cherry message on this forum and look at all the eloquent opinions/controversy. I must admit that I am not very familiar with his proverbial "work". I would like some recommendations on what some people would say that they "liked". For example, what to scenes were you talking about Whiplash the suave...
Here's one scene of Max's that I actually do like:
Tammi Ann and Max in Anal Vision #19.
Again, it's an old scene before he went way over the top... and again, I get soured by his earlier efforts even if I once liked them because of his later stuff. The seeds of what he eventually produced were in most of his early stuff, and most of the time, that's enough to really turn me off to Max of any time period. However, this is a pretty good scene, where Max actually acts like a decent guy at times, and Tammi Ann... well... is Tammi Ann, and how many complaints can you make about her? That's my two cents for a good Max scene. If you want to see his current shinanigans, go visit his website. www.Maxhardcore.com Be warned though... Many of us have strong negative feelings about Max for a reason, and I dare say that his webiste is all the evidence we require.
If Max Hardcore goes down, you'll see MANY studios pulling back the reins.
Whether you personally like his movies or not, the fact is, his movies portray consentual sex between two adults. Personally, I don't think the government has any business defining what is and isn't "obscene" in this situation.
I honestly think if I was a prosecuting DA, I could have picked many videos, from people who appear to be far more popular here than Max, and argue how obscene and patently offensive it is. Max is just an easier target because his videos are less subtle about male domination and misogomy themes and financially his ability to wage a defense is more limited.
To show our support for the right to watch what we want in the privacy of our living rooms, everyone on this site should strongly consider making a donation to his legal defense fund. Even if it was just $5-$10, a thousand donations would greatly assist the battle, which truth be told, is bigger than just Max Hardcore. This is no less than an assault on our freedoms. Max has a PayPal donation button on his website if you are so inclined.
-- Snowman
[Link]
DenverDon Benevolent
Firmly Embedded in Depravity 5914 Posts 7/02
Posted - Sep 23 2002 : 5:56PM
Like MLyons, I watched some of the early Max. Hard yes, but he wasn't over the top yet. Don't care for his stuff now, but that doesn't mean I think he doesn't have the right to produce it. It's just not my style.
I do agree with snowman's statement:
If they are successful against Max, they may feel they now have a precedant and who knows who they will go after next. Good old witch hunting.
I searched out Max Hardcore movies and indirectly found a site that offers free xxx movies (there promotion right now happens to be getting an extra free dvd -Max Hardcore EXTREME if you use MAX-17 as a promotional code when ordering from them again). Anyway, I tried there little site and it worked for me. Kinda neat. So if there is any Max fans out there, try this site and see if you can score the extra free movie http://www.givemefreeporn.com
Oola-la
[Link]
Planet Sex Deactivated User
1951 Posts 6/01
Posted - Sep 23 2002 : 10:45PM
Not exactly. His approach is more in the lines of the Nabokovian fantasy. Dialogues like "I´m going to tell your mother" doesn´t exactly characterize it as "child molestation", cause there are lots of 30-somethings who still have living moms. And have you seen a child dressed like that in real life?
There´s a fetish called INFANTILISM, that´s NOT related with pedophilia at all for it doesn´t involve real infants, just infant iconology (diapers, pacifiers, big lollypops, cribs, toys, things like that - but NEVER images of real kids of kidsex). In fact, using REAL children completely destroys the basic idea of INFANTILISM. It´s more like a roleplaying, and I guess a further study on that can give us some leads.
I hope the moderators will forgive this very long post.
While I agree that there's a clear difference in theme on an artistic level (if you will), defining that difference legally is an extraordinarily complex issue. I am by no means a law expert, but I'll press on anyway. There are two separate and distinct facets to be considered here. One is:
JUDICIAL
On a case by case basis, using judicial precedent as a guide and progressively larger jurisdictions as stepping stones, courts are asked to interpret the laws that legislatures have created. The US Supreme Court has the unique job of judging whether the laws of the land conflict with the overall governing document of our country--the Constitution. In this particular case the main point of contention is the First Amendment. The Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 is a federal law that attempted to refine the definition of child pornography and to establish penalties for engaging in it. One of the things it said in Title 18, Part I, Chapter 110, Section 2256 (section 2257 as cited earlier by Scott Kinney is actually the "Record Keeping Requirements" section) was that, a visual depiction could not be created that "conveys the impression that the material is or contains a visual depiction of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct". The US Supreme Court ruled this last April (2002) in the case Ashcroft Vs. Free Speech Coalition that this definition of "Child Pornography" violates the First Amendment, largely because the act 1.) makes no attempt to define oscenity or the limits of artistic merit in terms of the work as a whole, and 2.) provides severe criminial penalties for producing, and posessing depictions that are defined completely outside the sphere of any obscenity standards. This means that even the smallest part of a depiction as a whole that shows adults that are portrayed as minors engaged in "sexually explicit conduct" is illegal, regardless of whether the depction as a WHOLE contains any "serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value". Here is a small portion of the Court's opnion in the ruling:
In short, in this law's attempt to suppress UNPROTECTED speech and to pro-actively prevent future pedofilic crimes by suppressing depictions that might incite them, there is far too much unilateral suppression of PROTECTED speech inherent in it's proper enforcement for the offending "child pornography" definitions to be ruled constitutional. The Court says, "The prospect of crime...by itself does not justify laws suppressing protected speech." As I understand it, this is a victory for Max because now his work must be judged like all other potentially "unprotected speech" is judged--by the definition of "obscene" according to pruriant interest and community standards. (This is of course assuming other forms of unprotected speech--defamation and incitement--are not applicable in this case)
This leads us to the other facet in this discussion:
LEGISLATIVE
Although I think most of us would agree that there is a vast difference between Max's videos, and Romeo and Juliet, defining that difference in legal terms and with language that can be easliy interpretted by most citizens of the United States is very very difficult. In the last 45 years the best we've been able to come up with is that in order for "speech" like this to be considered UNPROTECTED, "the Government must prove that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest, is patently offensive in light of community standards, and lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value." The original obscenity test was put forth in the Courts opinion in Roth vs. The United States (1957). It has since been updated, but not changed significantly. Not only does this definition make it near impossible to ANTICIPATE what is acceptable and what is not, but as we move forward into the information age, where the world literally becomes smaller and less compartmentalized in terms of ideals and morals, the definition of "community standards" becomes increasingly unclear. The Court made it clear in Roth Vs. United States that the language and definitions that this test used didn't have to be absolutely precise, "All that is required is that the language 'conveys sufficiently definite warning as to the proscribed conduct when measured by common understanding and practices. . . .'" However, in today's world, where are the bounds of this "community" the court speaks of? And why if a substantial minority of this global (or even just national) community finds some value in material that the slight majority considers "obscene" should that material become "unprotected?" How do you write a law that at once establishes definable limits of "decency" so that most people understand it well enough to prevent breaking it, while at the same time not suppressing some forms of protected speech?
My opinion, for what it's worth, is that much of this speech that law makers try so hard to render unprotected because of the bad influence it might have on society is the price we pay for protected speech. Like the Court says, "The prospect of crime...by itself does not justify laws suppressing protected speech." I know that we are somewhat of a special demographic. Like DB has said in the past, porn fans want what they want, no matter what it costs (paraphrasing DB, sorry if I got the gist wrong... :) ), and I certainly won't deny that. If there were a way to stop Max from doing what he does without infringing on what _I_ like, then that would be great for me... but because OUR community alone (to say nothing of the nation at large) is so diversified in opinions of decency and desires, I know that can never happen, and frankly I don't want it to happen. I can make the choice not to watch his material, and I can be a responsible parent and do my best to educate my kids about the dangers they face out there, but I won't tell him he can't produce it as long as he stays within the bounds of the established laws of age and consent.
I'm sure the above is poorly researched and there are holes everywhere, but I got interested... so I looked some of the stuff up. I'm sorry for the long post, but maybe it'll be interesting to some. The quotes above are not properly cited, so please forgive me. Most of them come from the majority opinion of the Supreme Court in the case of Ashcroft Vs. Free Speech Coalition.
I'm sorry but Max Hardcore is scum, enduring two of his DVDs was enough for me to form that opinion.
While he may not "really abuse" the women in the videos, how is Average Joe American gonna know that this was play acting? You go into a store, you ask the person there, what's good, new, and stars So-and-so? They point you in the direction. You see the box, okay, you havea fetish for young girls getting sodomized, so you rent/buy this. You go home, bottle of lube sits beside you... the movie starts, you reach for the lube, but then you see that this isn't porn-like, in fact, it looks a lot like rape. The lube gets put away, dick goes limp, and you feel like you got ass-fucked by the asshole who produced this garbage. You can see how someone who may be misinformed could misinterpret this as rape, I certainly did...
You put any of his videos in front of a jury and ask them to decide, they would vote guilty, not having heard the facts, they would already have an opinion.
I couldn't agree with you more! However, I also want to ---Let freedom ring with the shotgun blast! --- , and sometimes that means scum get protected as well.
Bigmike, whats scary is if you put most hardcore videos in front of a jury, they would deem most obscene. I am not talking about just max here. Animal trainer dvds have the luxury of having a charismastic star, but sometimes the girls are slapped and cry. Joey Silveras titles (runaway butts, please, service animals) would most likely fall under the axe, I can't remember which one it was but he was slapping the girls hands away from her legs as she was trying to close them as he pressed on top of her. Guess what, she cried also. When max goes, so to will most hardcore. Imagine 'middle america' viewing a big ass shemale rogue adventure or Roccos Way to Love. Kiss em goodbye! Love him or hate him, Max is doing this with consenting adults and we have to support his freedom, not the act, as its the basis of all hardcore (girls willingly doing circus acts for money.)
Max is a focus point but he is not the only one doing what he does in porn. He just is the most vocal and therefore most vulnerable. In a review I wrote in the past I stated, 'His charisma as a performer is abhorrent, aberrant, diabolic, devilish, and maniacal.' This was for Cherry Poppers 6 which was made somewhere in the realm of over 6 years ago. I can think of 20 series that copy cherry poppers; he is an evil visionary and scarily enough, one of the most copied. He is far from alone in his pursuit of pushing the envelope.
For comparison, check out some of the hardcore S and M titles out there; I saw one called South America Traffickers or something like that; women were beaten bloody, cum on, roped up till they were bruised. And lets not forget gay films, as I've talked about before in pervious post, they commonly feature heavy incest themes and extreme ass violence (double fist penetrations anyone?)
whats scary is if you put most hardcore videos in front of a jury, they would deem most obscene
Another true and good point...
But Max generates negative publicity from the girls he's "worked" with, and some cry rape, which is what it looks like, though may not be the case.
He is such a target, more so than Rocco, Joey, or almost anyone, because he generates bad press. When someone cries rape, you can't ignore it, it has to be investigated, and I don't think anyone has made that claim on Joey or Rocco. But I could be wrong.
Thanx for the update, Aybesea. But there are a couple of errors that should be clarified - the Barely Legal and Extreme Teen series are NOT produced by Max Hardcore and have nothing to do with this trial, other than being compared to his similar productions. I just love the editor's note from that article:
Max Hardcore makes movies which many, if not most adults find "disgusting". The themes, actions, and situations portrayed in these videos fall far outside the sexual "norms" of the average adult porn viewer. However, they are made FOR adult viewers and they are made WITH adult performers. If there were no market for this type of entertainment there would NOT BE this type of entertainment. Is it against the law to be offensive? No! Is it against the law to be disgusting? No! So why is Max Hardcore being prosecuted to the "max" when several other members of our industry have done the same and faced no legal consequence or, at worse, negotiated settlements? I don't know dear reader - but I would sure like to find out. Share your thoughts with me at don@pornonewsnetwork.com. I'd love to hear from you. And Max, if you are reading this - keep fighting the good fight. Today it's you - tomorrow it could be any one of us.
As stated before, you get rid of Max and then you might as well get rid of everyone aside from Playboy.
We are letting our personal feelings overide this; consenting adults are letting max make them puke, make them piss, etc. If its proved he forced someone into this, thats a problem. But the acts themselves are not if they are not forced and consented upon.
Read my previous post, check out the movies I have talked about. The animal trainers, assworships, all that will be flushed down the conservative, censoring toilet. And when you close the lid and sit on it; pull out the vivid and wicked because thats all you'll have left. But the cumshots will be removed and so to would interacial if Ashcroft and the rest of the loonies had there way. The only way to defend speech is to defend all speech, even the most unpopular. That goes for everone, from the KKK, Max Hardcore, Howard Stern, Tupac Shakur, Dumbblonde, Bill Clinton, the boys at Extreme Associates, Britney Spears, Black Panthers, Rush Limbaugh, Anton Levy, whoever. Max might go to hell in a snowcone legally , but then how far behind is the rest of the industry?
Bigmike, this is the common ground of which I speak of and I commend you on your views.
I hate with a passion many things (max not being one of them as I find him amusing, I need help,) but I would never shut them up. Let them be exposed for what they are and hopefully the consumer can 'shut em down' (as Chuck D. from Public Enemy would say.) But I see no laws being broken except for maybe community standards. Which is a scary thing, for if only the majority view is the right view, then I shudder to think of everything I love (from Grand Theft Auto 3 to Swingers Clubs,) being burned in the streets a la 3rd reich style.
As Max Steiner, Philosopher, said, 'Suck it you teenage cunt!' Far from poetic, but she signed the dotted line to do it and if she wants to flip burgers for her next hit of crack instead of making money with Max, let her pursue that career. Its an ugly world with ugly people, but we have beatiful freedoms and the power of choice.
I hope you didn't think I was directing that Voltaire quote at you?
If you do, I should have been more specific, and said that that was aimed at Max.
If you didn't, then I will still clarify, the quote was directed at Max Hardcore. Though I don't like a thing Max does, I can not take away his right to do so. But given the option I wouldn't mind seeing him leave porno. Just my opinion, and as a wise man once said; "opinions are like assholes, everyone's got one"
My signature is from a Machine Head song, Davidian I think is the title, I love Machine Head and when I was thinking of a new sig, I chose that. Just a little "fun" fact... so...
I don't feel the least bit threatened that my right to freedom of speech will be taken from me if Max Hardcore is convicted. Why? Because all I've ever advocated is using COMMON SENSE in these matters.
The idea that 'Max must be defended at all costs' is much more dangerous to the porn industry than self-censorship. When we get all our porn taken away, you can thank Max and all of the others who pushed it too far for that. If you think people have some God-given right to any kind of pornography they want, you're deluded or have a short memory.
COMMON SENSE. The porn industry had a gentleman's agreement with the LA prosecuters. Whether or not I agree with the list of things that was understood would bring trouble is irrelevent, but the porn industry agreed to it, then proceeded to violate the terms and much more.
Here is an excerpt from an interview with that great Satan Deborah Sanchez: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- How do you, as a prosecutor, approach the community standard? What's your answer to the question? Is it very much a moving target now with the Internet and everything else? And how can you prosecute anything but the very [extreme cases]?
That's kind of what we do. We do prosecute the most very extreme things. What we do see is that there is a public appetite that sparks the commercial distribution of videos that are further and further along. And I think that hardcore pornography can be prosecuted. But we don't just do hardcore pornography; we do hardcore pornography that has some element that takes it to the extremes. And that's what we prosecute.
So I approach it, not just with a common sense, but what has a community found obscene in the past? And since we only prosecute the most extreme stuff, the other things are relatively safe in terms of what the city would prosecute.
Do you hope that, by nailing a few of these characters, the whole industry will somehow back away from acting quite so mainstream?
I have no thoughts of harming the industry. That's like throwing rocks at a car. I might make a little dent with this particular defendant. But I have no fantasies of bringing the porn industry to its knees. That's not what I'm doing. I'm prosecuting someone who broke the law.
Is it a slippery slope? When I watch a Vivid or a watch a VCA or I watch a Wicked, and I go to the Hot Network, next week am I going to watch something else? And in two months am I going to be seeking out child porn or snuff films?
No, I think there are so many types of people. ... It's not really the watchers that we're after -- it's the producers, the distributors -- because it's not illegal to possess obscenity. The contact for us is really in the industry itself, the people that are actually peddling this stuff.
Why are you after them?
Because of the selling of the material that is really beyond what the community will tolerate. And I think somebody has to stand up for the community, in a sense. I have to at least allow them to see [that] this is what's going on. "Do you think that this is acceptable to your community?" And if a jury tells me "Yes," then so be it. If they tell me "No," then let's see where that really goes.
Bigmike, I know your comments weren't directed at me.
Like I said, I do believe Max will fall someday and then it would only be fair to start chipping away at the cum-farting titles ( like ass worship,) the gay titles that are just as brutal, the classics such as Taboo which feature incest, all the evil angel titles were performers slap the shit out of the girls (or perform whirlies, or force tears into the eyes of the performers during throatgag bj's), and Lesbian hardcore S and M movies that have such wonderful themes as cutting and suffocation. Slap Happy, gag factor, these titles have fans. Did Max create these sexual deviances?
Dumbblonde, I respect everyones opinions including yours, and while it might do some good for porns' bad boys and girls to tone down their porn so that it may survive, that really is a boring option quite frankly. A lot of people want to see nasty, dirty, circus freak gross shit. They should be allowed to; I can scream my eyes out about the religious right and how I think their teachings are misogynist, shallow, perverse, and should be done away with. But legally should they be banned? It is not my right to push my agenda on another individual. Thats just un-american.
I am a thrill seeker, I love watching 'fear factor' and seeing people eat coagulated blood balls (and puke on regular tv.) They do it for money...how is this any different? Because they are clothed? Why don't we protect all the gay performers that are descrated, abused, and shit upon (literally.) How do films like this affect the gay community? The priority to protect makes me sick; adults don't need to be protected like children, we have choices. 'Common sense' is a broad term that means as much to me as 'community standards.' No one feels the same on anything and I don't want a moral majority telling me what is kosher. Let me decide for myself; we are not talking kiddie porn here or bestiality. We are talking about two parties deciding beforehand what they want to do to each other.
My thoughts remain the same- Max falls and so goes everyone else.
So what's the concensus? Do people want me to continue posting updates on the trial? Or is this just a useless flame pot? Let me know.
Do whatever you feel is best... I said all I am gonna say about this shitbag, but there are probably those who are interested in him. So nothing wrong with keeping those indivisuals informed, though I think that perhaps a moderator can move this to Porn News forum?
Probably the most sensible comment on this thread. I don't see the logic in defending (at all costs) the very people who are destroying the adult entertainment industry from within for their own financial gain. Max may not have invented the extremist extreme genre (although he's certainly a major player) but thats irrelevent. The issue here is not that porn is now too nasty, you can make nasty porn in which everybody is happy (including the girls doing a2m). The issue here is the child rape themes which you wont find in any of the other extreme titles by other major companies. Is it Max's right to make extreme movies in which the 'kink' is in the idea of ruffing up schoolgirls ?, probably. As already pointed out, nobody is under age. Is it realistic to keep making the above type of adult movies and expect people to turn a blind eye, absolutely not.
OK, I think we all know where we stand on this (I certainly do!) so I am going to let it die. If anyone wants any updates, let me know and I can point you to numerous sources of info (inlcuding the sources I've quoted from above).
Ok Aybesea, I'll take you up on your offer - I'll be more than happy to repost any news as on Max's current situation as I'm very interested in the outcome and I think its completely relevent to the adult industry in general. Please let me know here where you got your info and I'll do the rest. Thanx again for the updates!
I read these everyday anyway, so as I say, if you'd like I can easily post these. I was just afraid this would turn into another Wallice thread that got people flaming each other.
Could someone please explain what is so repugnant about MAX that you all seem to hate him when all he does is the same crap that almost all the recent gonzo porn producers do? I hear cheering for "Weapons of Ass Destruction", cries for more "Rough Sex", discussions on whether Brandon Irons was "to rough" in "Service Animals".
October 10, 2002 06:30pm Max Hardcore: "Victory is Ours!" Source: Adult Industry News by: Steve Nelson (LOS ANGELES, CA) -- Max Hardcore's trial in Los Angeles concluded today with a split vote of the jury. Though not the end of the authorities' attempts to enforce what they perceive as a standard, they must now be aware of a more accurate measure of local community standards.
After 18 months and over 100 thousand dollars Max Hardcore has, in his own words, "taken the best of what they could throw at me" and as a small producer succeeded in benefiting the whole Industry with his sacrifice.
The Prosecution can appeal within 30 days. More later on this important story.
