I'd like to stay but I've got a plane to catch. 3243 Posts 5/06
Posted - Jan 31 2009 : 10:33AM
Welcome to the internet, your GPS is useless on this plane (geometrically speaking, not aviation speaking) you might as well chuck it in the trash can.
Max Hardcore is a sick fuck - without doubt. However, all those girls signed contracts and must have known more or less what would happen. His reputation is notorious, and if unsure watch any scene of any his flicks & you would surely then know.
Look, you cannot become a pornographer without knowing that people before you have gone to jail for obscenity. Max knew the history of prosecutions. He was given a gazillion warnings from people in the industry that he was setting himself up for a fall. But Max wanted to make money--fuck everybody else. Bottom Line, if you are shooting content, you must ask yourself, if this product was shown in front of a jury, would they find it obscene? Max, with his vomiting and and pissing, had to know this day would come.
pornography wasn't sex but fantasies of an impossibly hospitable world 12377 Posts 9/07
Posted - Feb 1 2009 : 4:43AM
Not true, case after case since the 70s have juries finding material as extreme as a gangbang featuring Vanessa Del Rio (so you know it was nasty!) being found not obscene. I predict that Stagliano's material will also not be found obscene. Anyone who has read the obscenity laws in the US would have known that Max was fucked because he didn't have a leg to stand on to defend his material. I predicted his conviction from the start based on that.
If this is true, how does an agent who does something like that to someone who turns out to make a pretty big splash in the industry I(Rebbecca) keep from getting a very bad name? You'd think that once word got out, virtually nobody would want anything to do with said agent. Sure. Maybe Max would still work with him/her but one guy isn't enough to make a living with, is it? Or is it? Edited by - randomprecision on 2/2/2009 5:08:51 PM
Fools like Max piss off the religious right and, in doing so compel the government into action. Miller v. California established a three tier test for what is legal and what is not (i.e. obscene.) Most of us would agree that Max' content doesn't meet community standards for our areas, he was begging for a fight with the government and he got one. Looked like a knockout to me.
Everything and everyone, except their own religion pisses off the religious right. From a quick search that court casing ruling is so open to interpration anything could be banned. You're foolish to clap at Max's prison term yet you do not see what's going to happen in the future. Max's movies had consensual intercourse with over 18's. No different to any other porn title.
pornography wasn't sex but fantasies of an impossibly hospitable world 12377 Posts 9/07
Posted - Feb 3 2009 : 1:06AM
Well, I have no reason to doubt to Rebecca Linares story, Max on the other hand is a well established pimp-liar. I'm unsure of who the agent was, most of the post is in Spanish, so many of the details are unclear, maybe someone who speaks Spanish can tell us more about what is said. This happened before Rebecca was established in the US so I would guess she may have dropped the agent soon after or that he was/is her suitcase pimp. She's done some very kinky and hard scenes so I don't think it's a matter of her not being able to handle what was dished out, but not agreeing to what was dished out. You may have noticed over the years that fewer and fewer name-performers have had anything to do with Max, even those into the hard stuff: Sasha Grey, Annette Schwarz, Lorelei Lee, Audrey Hollander not to mention the likes of Gianna, Sunny Lane, etc. Why do you think that is? The likes of Knuckle Kids though will dismiss any story from any performer because he doesn't want to hear otherwise. That's why these kind of debates are endless and pointless on ADT. Edited by - BlackSix on 2/3/2009 1:16:40 AM
I don't think you really believe that. If you do, I feel sorry for you.Most of us would choose to basically ignore Max's content because all it was, was a few DVDs sitting on a shelf. It never flew off the shelves and into someone's DVD player all by itself. If you picked it out and you watched it and you were offended, good. You deserve to be offended if you're not smart enough to look at a box cover and figure out this might not be your thing. I learned that lesson myself. I watched a few of Max's movies. They progressively turned more and more into a freakshow and I chose to spend my porn dollars elsewhere. That's how you vote speech you don't like down in a truly free society.
I understand what you're saying. And believe me, I find myself ashamed to have to defend Max but you can only blame Max for so much. The nature of the porn business is such that it simply cannot afford to have performers saying they had no idea what they were getting into. It's not about whether or not she knew who Max was. It's that she should have. If I was gonna let somebody put their dick in my ass for money, I'd want to know something about them. This industry can't afford to have performers saying they didn't know who Max Hardcore was. In my opinion, that undermines everything. At some point, you have to stop blaming Max for everything and start wondering if a person who doesn't know who Max Hardcore is should even be doing porn. Spain is across the ocean. Not on another planet. The internet is as easy as 123. Go to Google's image search, turn off the safe surfing filter and type in "Max Hardcore". The first row of pictures should tell anyone everything they ever needed to know about Max. Simple as that. I'm not even necessarily blaming the women, either. Although I do think an adult film star should behave like an adult and they should make it their business to know who they're going to be dealing with before they're laying on their back with Max pissing on their face. Because the industry can't afford to have this happening, it needs to get it's act together and make sure (somehow) these women know what they're getting into. The porn industry is not an industry that can afford to have shady people working in it.Like I said, I get that. I'm not a fan of Max. I just worry what a verdict like this means for everyone else. And as I have said repeatedly, if he was guilty of assault or whatever, that's what he should have been charged with. A jury of reasonably intelligent people convicted a man of having consensual sex on video with adults. I don't care what he was charged with. We all know why he was charged, why he was convicted and what the jurors were thinking when they voted to convict. Everything else is smoke and mirrors. I know you're smart enough to know that.
I'm worried that more sick fucks might put out films with vomiting, pissing, etc. in them and then the Supreme Court will overturn Miller v. California and local governments will restrict my ability to watch adult content. Let's all wake up and smell the coffee folks.
Why are we arguing about this? Paul Little-Cock is in jail, he'll be there for a while and anything he does in the future will be under a microscope. I don't know the guy, don't care for the guy and frankly could care less. There are bigger things to worry about than some perv behind bars.
pornography wasn't sex but fantasies of an impossibly hospitable world 12377 Posts 9/07
Posted - Feb 3 2009 : 11:48PM
I agree about the case, it's just whenever I hear the 'consenting adults' and 'everyone knew what they were getting into' statements that pop up with this particular case that I feel the need to point out that as the song says 'it ain't necessarily so.' Let's not pretend to not know what Max is about, to say that he's disliked in the industry just because he's old and ugly is ridiculous, how about Ed Powers, Ron Jeremy et al? It must take something to get a bad reputation in porn for god's sake. Edited by - BlackSix on 2/3/2009 11:56:15 PM
Sick fuck, sadistic prick or anything you care to call him, at the end of the day we all have a choice to buy or not to buy, rent or not to rent, download or not to download or watch or not to watch. For now. Max Hardcore paid his performers and one presumes most if not all had an idea of what it is they were going to be involved with and if they decided they could not or did not want to perform, they could walk away. No one forced them. In a free country like we are supposed to be in, no way, shape or form should Max Hardcore be serving jail time. If they can convict him...they can convict Paul Thomas or John Leslie or anyone. You don't have to like or approve of Max Hardcore to know they got him and anyone could be next.
[Link]
Knuckle Kids Deactivated User
287 Posts 4/08
Posted - Feb 4 2009 : 5:54PM
Uh, no! The fact is, Max has been around forever so there is no believable excuse on saying you don't know what he is all about. You'd really have to be completely brain dead and fresh off the turnip truck not to what is in store for you. It's kind of like a celebrity going to the Ivy in L.A. and not knowing that TMZ and 100 other papinazis are going to be there. Edited by - knuckle kids on 2/4/2009 9:21:51 PM
I'm not an actor, but I play one on TV 911 Posts 4/06
Posted - Feb 4 2009 : 6:51PM
While I'm smelling the coffee, could you clarify something for me? It appears that you don't want Miller v. California overturned, (and if that is the case, we are in agreement) but I'm trying to figure out your rationalization of the above statement... Because it appears to me that you would blame the people making the films with vomiting and pissing, presumably because they are an easy target, instead of blaming the Supreme Court for decided to restrict your ability to watch adult content. And if that is the case, then I believe people sharing your mindset are more to blame than anyone else. Too many people are too self absorbed to realize that not everyone has the same taste that they do and even though you think you have a firm grasp on what is right and wrong, tasteful or offensive, many other people have tastes that are completely different, and despite those differences we can all still enjoy those tastes as long as no one decides to step in and be the morality police. And if you're suggesting that vomiting and pissing in movies be banned because you find it distasteful, then I can think of no better title for you than the Morality Police. If you are suggesting that those type of films not be produced simply because they draw unwanted attention to porn and might impact the content you are interested in, then what do you say to the people that find that content offensive or objectionable? (and whatever your tastes, I assure you someone out there finds it objectionable) How can you defend one while condemning the other? Nearly every "controversy" in porn boils down to the same root issue mentioned above. If everyone would just realize that even though you don't really care for it, lots of other people like [pissing, vomiting, scat, fisting, fake boobs, tattoos, piercings, A2M, squirting, blond hair, bushy pubes, creampies, bestiality, interracial scenes, cum swapping, gay sex, or feet] and if you'd just grow up and watch something more to your liking, there is no reason for anyone to get their panties in a bunch. And sometimes you might have to defend things that you don't necessarily like. I don't like Max's content, but I defend his right to make it. I don't like sex offenders, but I believe if they are "reformed" enough to let out of jail, then they shouldn't be the targets of hate legislation. Hell, I don't like Jerry Springer, but I don't think he should be taken off the air, just because I don't like him. Can't we all just watch the stuff we like and ignore the stuff we don't like that happens between consenting adults? Is that too much to ask?
That's fine and I agree. I don't know close to everything. I don't know the man or any of the people who worked with or for him. The bottom line is that people are supposed to know what they're getting into.I never said he was disliked in the industry because he's old and ugly. I believe I did suggest that many people outside the industry would tend to take the side of an attractive female porn star before they would listen to a word Max had to say in his own defense. He's old, he's ugly and he's a man who makes teen porn for a living. Three strikes, you're out. That's not rocket science, is it? Most porn fans are men. Accordingly, most of their brains probably go on vacation the second they see a hot chick. Most of the more vocal critics of the porn industry are hardcore feminists who hate men and porn anyway. To the other people in the industry, Max was just competition so they wouldn't necessarily be too upset about him having a bad reputation. I realize he probably has whatever reputation he has in the industry for a reason. I'm just not sure it proves anything. Basically, my point is that I think he went to great lengths to give himself a bad reputation because he must have realized (eventually) that his notoriety was what was selling his movies. So the fact that he acted like an animal in his movies wouldn't be too surprising in that context. I believe he was trying to be as outrageous as possible. Maybe he was also trying to antagonize the feds. I don't know. I think they tried to get him one time before. My point here is that a man like Max has a lot of natural enemies just because of who he is and what he does. A man like him wouldn't necessarily have to be a bad guy to bring fire and brimstone down upon him. Keep in mind that I'm not saying he isn't a bad guy. I'm saying the people who are crucifying him would do the same thing to anyone who made the kind of porn he made regardless of what kind of person they were or whether or not it was 100% consensual. Edited by - randomprecision on 2/4/2009 10:27:04 PM Edited by - randomprecision on 2/5/2009 11:03:22 AM
"Can't we all just watch the stuff we like and ignore the stuff we don't like that happens between consenting adults? Is that too much to ask?" __________________ If only the government would do that.
I'll be the odd duck and say that I liked Max's earlier stuff. I remember seeing some of the Anal Vision stuff back in the early 90's and quite frankly what he was doing then I've notice has become standard operating procedure for many porn producers today. And yes, he was being bashed as a pervert, misogynist, sick, 10 years ago. I dislike what his product has become over the years not because I'm the one to objectively define it as immoral but I know what I find erotic and his material no longer was for me so I don't consume it. I still acknowledge that he has been a successful producer/director/performer in the industry for close to 15 years. I've trashed Max at times also because he's an easy target but no one can survive in any industry this long if they are a complete boob and so vile that no one can stand their presence. I'm trying to say in a non-confrontational way that one should guard against so quickly dismissing Max as a "perv" behind bars "who cares"...etc. The enemies of Porn are embolden when those in the industry and or fans show tacit approval of their actions by having a kind of "ding-dong Max is dead" feel.
pornography wasn't sex but fantasies of an impossibly hospitable world 12377 Posts 9/07
Posted - Feb 5 2009 : 4:35AM
One thing I'm wondering is does Max's conviction really make it easier for the Feds to convict other pornographers? Doesn't every case depend on the films and jury in question?
Obviously, I'm no lawyer (Maybe Pornlaw or someone is around?) but I would think that it's now really up in the air. Because the jury wasn't asked to judge any particular act in the movies in question. And from what I recall reading of the trial, they were only shown short clips even though the wording of the law requires the works to be taken as a whole. The lame excuse that was given for this was that it was too much trouble to go through and too hard on the jurors for them to have to watch all of the material they were being asked to base their verdict upon. Which I think is obvious bullshit. If they're going to take a person's freedom away because of a movie, they should make every effort to be as fair as humanly possible. What I think the verdict boils down to is that all of the movies that Max was charged for were deemed to be obscene. All of it. Which to me means that this jury ruled that a simple blowjob was as obscene as anything else in the movie. Because they weren't asked to specify what it was that was obscene. The reason it matters is that if it's obscene when Max does it, why isn't it obscene when someone else does it? A prosecutor in a future case (unless I'm missing something) could simply point out that Max was found guilty for the same thing the person they're prosecuting is charged with. Like I said, I'm no legal expert but I believe the strategy here was to get a "foot in the door" on this kind of prosecution using the worst example (Max) that they could find. I also think it's likely they would have preferred to wait to take on someone like Stagliano but they knew they had a limited amount of time before the conservatives lost power and they wanted to get the charges filed before that happened. I would say if they'd had all the time in the world, they'd have gone after someone smaller but more like Max next. I think they'd have only gone after Stagliano when they had enough momentum to give them an excellent chance of winning. As it is, I think it was a desperate move at the end of the Bush administration. Unfortunately, sometimes even acts of desperation succeed. Edited by - randomprecision on 2/5/2009 10:52:30 AM
[Link]
john_qyoo_public Deactivated User
265 Posts 7/05
Posted - Feb 5 2009 : 10:58AM
Yeah, if that's true, what a pile of horseshit. "Well, we're convicting you of murder, but we can't actually determine cause of death because you mutilated the body. You're guilty because you're so guilty, or something, which means we can't prove you're guilty." WTF?
pornography wasn't sex but fantasies of an impossibly hospitable world 12377 Posts 9/07
Posted - Feb 6 2009 : 1:25AM
I read about this, it came up in the JM productions case too. They did watch some of the films from start to end but the question was whether they had to watch all of the tapes. The prosecution argued that the material was repetitive and so similar that watching all the tapes was not required, if one of the tapes was considered obscene that was enough. The defence said the monotonous nature of the material was part its intentional aesthetic effect (obviously part of their argument that the material did have some artistic or social merit).
^ I'm just sayin'. To me, when it says the work must be taken as a whole, it means from start to finish. It just seems a little strange to me that the prosecution would not want the jury to see all the evidence unless they thought it would hurt their case somehow. But regardless of what the prosecution wanted, it seems bizarre that the judge ignored the letter of the law and allowed the prosecution to do it their way despite the objections of the defense. That just seems backwards to me and appears to fly in the face of the burden of proof being on the prosecution. If anything, the court is supposed to give the defense every opportunity to put up the best defense they can and let the jury decide. It just bothers me when things seem backwards. Because I know something's not quite right. You don't see people driving down the road backwards. Unless their forward gear doesn't work. Edited by - randomprecision on 2/6/2009 2:34:35 AM
Hoping that she has gotten rid of her agent, she still has had the chance to ask about the script right before the shooting, to interrupt the shooting if different from what agreed, to not take the money, to not sign the model release, to take legal action for rape immediately after the shooting if all the above didn't work cause she was forced. I don't like Max Hardcore stuff, but let's not fool each other with bs, please.
From what I read, there was a lot in this trial that was done backwards. I hope that it gets over-turned. (I don't really like Max's material, but I have absolutely no use for these obscenity laws or the way that they're enforced--especially in this case)
From what I hear the government's case against Max was pretty conclusive. The only plausible cause for retrial that I've heard of is that the court only viewed clips of Max's films - one could therefore claim that the third litmus test of Miller v. California (that the work, *taken as a whole*, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value) was not met.
^^^That's a big one, though. He also wasn't the one who actually distributed the material and apparently had no idea that the particular transactions took place (at least for some of the mailing charges). I believe that there was something about mis-handled jury irregularities, too. Didn't the judge also make some biased remarks during the course of the trial? Also from what I understand, it was close enough that there were people on the jury who said afterward that they didn't vote the way that they wanted to (not a lot you can do about that, of course). In a broader sense, the whole notion of obscenity being an after-the-fact determination makes it such that one doesn't know that one has broken the law until actually convicted. Other laws have been struck down as "unconstitutionally vague" b/c of this. Further, there's the issue of venue-shopping. And, of course, there is the issue of one town being able to dictate the "community standards" of the entire world via the internet--which was not around when the Miller standards were put in place. While the first two of these have (unfortunately) stood up in court, the last is relatively uncharted territory and is a key issue in a lot of these trials--which I feel are all "backwards" by definition, anyway. Just my opinions, of course... (PS -- in a lot of this, I'm addressing whether it was done in a "backward" fashion, not necessarily the legal possibilities of a re-trial) Edited by - fu_q on 2/24/2009 11:34:09 AM
As most everybody here knows, the *hard stare decisis* case regarding what is obscene and what is not has been Miller v. California (1973.) Miller v. California established a three tier test and was opposed by all of the liberal Supreme Court Justices at the time (Douglass, Stewart, Brennan and Powell.) It was tenuous at the time and continues to be a case that could be reviewed and overturned. Miller v. California confirmed that obscenity is illegal and established a three-tier test and in doing so legally defined what is legal and what is not. Pursuant to state regulations a work must meet the following criterion to be judged obscene: * the average person, applying contemporary community standards (not national standards, as some prior tests required), must find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest; * the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct or excretory functions[1] specifically defined by applicable state law; and * the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. This case has withstood the test of time well. My greatest concern is that producers such as Max Hardcore will cause the court to overturn this case and, in doing so cause a more conservative Roberts court to more clearly define obscenity. This could cause restrictions similar to those in countries such as Japan and South Korea. Consequently I'm totally in favor of miscreants such as Max Hardcore and Rob Black doing hard time under our existing rulings. Better what we have than alternatives.
I'm an average person and I don't even know what "prurient interest" means. If I were to watch an entire Max flick, I would likely just be bored. What are my community standards? Who determines what they are? What percentage of my community would I need to poll in order to get a good idea of what my community standards are? What is the definition of my community? What is the definition of "contemporary" in this context? The wording of this part of the Miller thingamabob is vague, makes no sense and is clearly gibberish.This part of it describes all porn if you're the type of person who is offended by frank depictions of sex.This part also describes 90% of all porn if you're offended by depictions of sex. In summary, the obvious sole purpose of this law is to make it as easy as possible for a jury who is offended by sex to convict a pornographer who is charged with obscenity. It is impossible to define and this "test" doesn't even come close. It's just dangerous. Almost any working hardcore pornographer could potentially be convicted under this. You only need the right jury.Considering that it's unconstitutional, I agree.I believe that is necessary. If we're even going to have such a thing as obscenity, it needs to be sharply defined so that people know exactly what is and isn't legal. Vague laws are bad laws. You can't honestly believe it is better to be governed by laws under which you have no idea when you're going to be accused of breaking the law? This "test" is terrible for the industry. It is probably part of the reason why American porn is so dull and drab and is so lacking in creativity. Everybody is afraid of being different because nobody has any idea what might get them in trouble.No. I think you're just happy to see Max go away. Whatever. Just say so. But don't try to prop up bad laws just to make a case around your distaste for Max. Just admit that you are in favor of deliberately fuzzy, unconstitutional laws being used against people you just personally don't like. I can at least respect you for your honesty if you just say so. Edited by - randomprecision on 2/24/2009 6:48:32 PM
[Link]
Tobias Deactivated User
475 Posts 1/09
Posted - Feb 24 2009 : 6:50PM
Why all the tension in this thread? Even Max can't be this stressed out. Everyone just chill out and sing along with Max! Let's Go To Prison Edited by - tobias on 2/24/2009 6:51:29 PM
I'd like to send you with him. Just because you annoy me. Since we can apparently do that now.
[Link]
the unknown pervert Deactivated User
I'd like to stay but I've got a plane to catch. 3243 Posts 5/06
Posted - Feb 24 2009 : 9:35PM
I don't think I would use Japan as a basis for an argument about future porn restrictions. Sure they don't show pubic hair but they make up for that by giving the producers the freedom to show various aquatic animals being shoved up someone's ass. It's not exactly a porn version of Fahrenheit 451 over there.
As you know, it's not just Max Hardcore who has been charged with obscenity violations -- if they have a tool like this, they don't necessarily show restraint in their use of it... (give them an inch, they take a mile...that kind of thing) Allowing "obscenity" involving consenting adults to be illegal is, in my opinion, a relic from a past age and, again in my opinion, is an instrument for oppression. Personally, I can't ascribe to the notion of embracing someone going to jail who doesn't belong there as a sort of precarious, legal trade-off... Call me an idealist, I guess.
pornography wasn't sex but fantasies of an impossibly hospitable world 12377 Posts 9/07
Posted - Feb 25 2009 : 1:24AM
BTW with Alito, Roberts, Scalia and Thomas now dominating the court, if an obscenity case shows up in front of these dudes this case will seem like small potatoes. These guys want to reverse Roe, you think they're going to blink about coming down on porn in a big way? As for Max's chance on appeal, that's just more whistling in the dark, I knew from the beginning that Max was screwed if his stuff was put in front of a jury.
pornography wasn't sex but fantasies of an impossibly hospitable world 12377 Posts 9/07
Posted - Feb 25 2009 : 4:26AM
The XPT crew were deluded through the whole trial, the denial over there was unbelievable, even now there's some of them claiming he'll get off on appeal.
Max Hardcore @ AEBN
Posted - Jan 31 2009 : 4:17AM
