From Random Precision's Post: 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? My reply: Perhaps so - should we have the Roberts Supreme Court further define what is obscene and what is not? Methinks not!
This is simply not true. It completely depends on where you are located. Various established people who work in the industry (including performers on this very board) have already stated that in a lot of places the release is signed before the scene and the payment can come after a few weeks even by check in the mail. I agree that this doesn't necessarily benefit performers, but to say it's not how things go is misleading and false.
[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 25 2009 : 7:06PM
Yes, it was completely delusional to think he had any chance of beating that rap. Particularly when the owner of that board beat the very same rap less than a year ago.
Ideally, "obscenity" depicting consenting adults shouldn't be illegal at all... ideally... But...pragmatically and as it sits now...the current Supreme Court attempting to define "obscenity" could be disasterous... That fact still doesn't justify someone being in jail who doesn't belong there, IMO, though... (It's more of a sad reality...and a flagrant injustice...than something to embrace or pass off as okay or acceptable b/c the alternative is worse. This goes for the notion of not knowing that you have committed a crime until you have been convicted for "obscenity", as well -- it shouldn't be that way, it's backwards, and it's unfairly vague (IMO) -- but the current line-up of the Court remedying it at this moment could be awful. Again--a sad reality and an injustice.)
I think if you're going to say there's any such thing as obscenity, you have to clearly define it. So yes. I have no problem with the Roberts court trying to do the impossible. I'd love to see them try to define "obscene" in plain English in a way that isn't vague or open to interpretation. Edited by - randomprecision on 2/25/2009 8:04:50 PM
[Link]
Tobias Deactivated User
475 Posts 1/09
Posted - Feb 25 2009 : 11:49PM
Why would you say this? By all accounts, Clarence Thomas LOVES porn!
pornography wasn't sex but fantasies of an impossibly hospitable world 12377 Posts 9/07
Posted - Feb 26 2009 : 1:54AM
I'm sure you know that JM Productions only escaped by dumping their distributor to the wolves via a technicality. They did not win a jury trial and did everything in their power to dissociate themselves from their own product. Not exactly a major victory for the First Amendment. Max tried to run a variation of JM's trick by claiming ignorance and dumping on his distributor but this time it seems the Feds were ready for it and it didn't fly. The reasoning on that may seem strange but that's why insurance companies ask a business if they have hold harmless agreements with the sites they link to, it is possible you can be held responsible for what you link off of your site (eg. think of child porn links). JM should be counting their lucky stars that Obama got into office otherwise the Feds would have followed up on them just like they did with Max and if they wouldn't be able to pull the same dodge twice. BTW that distributor (Five Star, who was forced to close down) stated on this very forum that JM refused point blank to help at all with any financial support when the Feds came for them for distributing JM's product, whereas Evil Angel, Jules Jordan, Elegant Angel, the much mocked Steve Hirsch of Vivid and even Steph and Drew of this site all helped out. Stand up guys indeed. Since the internet lawyers on here will demand 'proof' because they've watched too many episodes of Law and Order and are too lazy to use the search function, here's the thread. Bornyo says that Jeff responded to this thread on XPT but I can't find it. Edit: Ah wait [ invalid url ] it is. Notice that on the second page one of the XPT posters selectively quotes Five Star, claiming to have caught him in a 'lie' but actually distorting his response by excising what follows the first two lines. Typical XPT BS. Also note Jeff's brave decision to not actually answer the question, what happened to the internet tough guy who would make us all scatter like cockroaches? None of the brown-nosers over there, with the honourable exception of Dean W, even attempt to make him answer. Edited by - BlackSix on 2/26/2009 5:37:05 AM
I don't care what in some places do and that's exactly my point. Serious producers let you sign the model release after the scene; a producer who ask me to authorize the release of something i haven't shot yet is not a serious producer, for me, and i won't work for him/her. If you look at the release wording you will notice that it's written in past tense, not in future tense. If you agree to release something before hand and therefore it could be something completely different from what you expected and agreed you are simply stupid (i'm talking generically of course not about you). You agree for a certain kind of material with you in it to be released therefore the material must be existing.
As Blacksix pointed out, the other guy got a lucky break on a technicality. Max himself narrowly escaped some years ago (If the info I read somewhere on AVN is correct) but obviously didn't learn anything from it. He merely took it to mean that he was invincible, apparently. He pushed the limits while the Republicans had a lock on power and then managed to get himself put on trial in a kangaroo court in the state where the brother of the Republican president was governor. Add to that the fact that in a typical Max flick, Max had girls who already looked younger than they were dressed up like little girls getting fucked and "abused" in every position imaginable while he behaved like an old trailer park pervert. The only thing that surprises me is that he didn't get more time than he did. Edited by - randomprecision on 2/26/2009 1:30:53 PM
Oh, I 100% agree with you, make no mistake. Signing before the release is pretty much an open invitation for the director to go too far. Especially as nowadays people are turned on and impressed by things going wrong or women being abused on camera. All Im saying though is that as Knucklevids(?) posted earlier on and in various other posts by many different performers as well as blogs I frequent and the occasional chat with performers, this seems to be the standard in some states. I don't think performers really have much choice to refuse anyway with the slow business at the moment. The release signing is one thing, but demanding payment in cash right after/before the shoot is another thing completely imo.
That's all i was saying and i agree with you too. If you read my first intervention i simply blame those girls who sign a release in advance, do the shooting, get the money and then complain. Just trying with humility to give little advice to newcomers about the fact that you can also say "no" and that in a long term that pays. A release signed in advance makes you cheap and can make you only cheaper, next time, on top of probably having a nightmare of a shooting. Getting paid right after the shooting (at the signing of the release) is common sense and common practice, but of course it's a personal choice. Personally i turn a work down if i'm proposed to get paid at a later time and if i'm tricked after the shooting i don't sign the release until i get paid. Don't forget that once a release is signed the material can be published, no matter if they are going to pay you or not (sure you can go to court, but in the meantime the material is published and the producer makes money off your performance). The practical commerce exchange in this field is the release for the money, not the performance itself for the money. If you got paid for having sex that would be prostitution. You get paid for having someone filming you having sex for free and releasing the shot material. And alright...i'm always too long in my posts...i apologize eheheh Hugs!
pornography wasn't sex but fantasies of an impossibly hospitable world 12377 Posts 9/07
Posted - Feb 28 2009 : 4:43AM
jrv, I already mentioned in my post that it is standard for insurance companies to request evidence of hold harmless agreements with any site you link from on your website, particularly advertisers or another business you have a formal relationship with (eg. a distributor selling from Max's site). This is different from someone creating a hypertext link in a forum, which Steph and Drew would probably not be held responsible for, but if they had a link to an advertiser that sold child porn, as an extreme example, then they could be found liable. This is not new law. Edited by - BlackSix on 2/28/2009 6:35:10 AM
Figure I'd post this here: "Holiday Letter From Max" From the article: "...at 46 months, I've actually got a longer sentence than some of the bank robbers here, who average between 40 and 52 months..."
^ Thanks for the post. It was good to hear from Max. Whether you like him or his material or not, it does seem strange that in the year 2009 a guy is in jail on obscenity charges. I am reminded of those old black and white photos and reels of Lenny Bruce. They seem awfully silly now.
[Link]
Tobias Deactivated User
475 Posts 1/09
Posted - Dec 26 2009 : 6:49PM
Some of you make it sound like Max Hardcore is to free speech what Nelson Mandela was to the anti-apartheid movement. That's not the case though. Max is actually more of a threat to the porn industry than anything else. It's people like Max who fuel the fundamentalist Christians and others who want to completely outlaw porn. You can argue otherwise, but mark my words - All it takes is one moron like Max to keep pushing the limits, keep pestering the dog so to speak, and eventually that dog will bite. Only when that happens, everyone's going to feel the pain.
I never would have thought in my lifetime that I would ever hear Nelson Mandela and Max Hardcore in the same sentence. Edited by - Nimrod on 12/26/2009 7:21:53 PM
IMO Max is a dumbass. He's old enough to remember Miller v. California and he's old enough to remember what happened to Ruben Sturman but he decided to push the envelope and see what it would take to get him arrested. He's where he deserves to be, wonder how many tats he's got by now. Aryan Brotherhood Max? Or perhaps he's wearing his trousers low like the hip hoppers do, you see that in prison sometimes...
#SDNY he's all yours. -- Michael Steele 5110 Posts 3/03
Posted - Dec 26 2009 : 7:46PM
Please refer me to any post that you contend supports this statement.
[Link]
the unknown pervert Deactivated User
I'd like to stay but I've got a plane to catch. 3243 Posts 5/06
Posted - Dec 26 2009 : 8:58PM
The fundamental Christians are fueled by the very idea of pornography. Any semblance of their fears to actual people are merely coincidence. You said it yourself "they want to completely outlaw porn." Not completely outlaw porn in which old men make women dressed up as 13 year olds puke all over their dick, but completely outlaw all porn. You could wave a magic wand and Vividize every porn movie ever made and they would still have the same goal. Edited by - the unknown pervert on 12/26/2009 8:58:47 PM
^Absolutely. Then, after knocking out hardcore, they would target softcore. One might actually be able to make the argument that people like Max--while increasing the target--also provide something of a buffer. I fail to see how those who think Max belongs in jail here are much different in their thought processes than those who put him there or would put all porn people there.
Edited by - fu_q on 12/26/2009 11:33:31 PM
[Link]
Tobias Deactivated User
475 Posts 1/09
Posted - Dec 27 2009 : 12:55AM
Personally, I don't mind that Max got thrown in the slammer. Porn was getting pretty out of control, what with the donkey punch stuff and such. The way things were going, anyone who liked porn was going to be categorized as a rapist in training.
[Link]
realtip Deactivated User
2301 Posts 6/04
Posted - Dec 27 2009 : 2:12AM
^The anti-porn crowd was already categorizing people who like porn that way long before Max. If you go back and read some of the criticism against pornography dating from decades ago, the same types of arguments were still being used even then. They haven't changed. Max had nothing to do with that. And quite frankly, I see no reason why we should care what the anti-porn crowd thinks. Other than knowing how the industry can better defend itself against their tactics, I see no reason why porn needs their approval.
Sometimes I think there's an inflated sense of self-importance about porn. 98% of the population does not know Max Hardcore or what he does. He does not stream his material into Middle America's households. He does not stream his material into your house Tobias. He does not obtain the model releases of his actors by duress. Everyone is an adult with free will and the ability to choose what they do and what they watch. The only people who seem to care are the Govt. and guys like Tobias who think "porn has gotten out hand." Germany has long since had a very liberal policy about porn and the country does just fine. I think it is time that we do away with all obscenity laws. They make no sense to me.
pornography wasn't sex but fantasies of an impossibly hospitable world 12377 Posts 9/07
Posted - Dec 28 2009 : 6:55AM
Certainly the hardcore anti-porn Christians are never going to give an inch, but the vast majority of Americans obviously like their porn, but they do have limits and buttons that can be pushed. The Feds who pursue these cases aren't fools, they don't think they're going to wipe out porn, in an interview with Frontline one of the prosecutors under Reagan, who really went after porn bigtime in the 80s, said his goal was to go after the 'worst stuff' to keep 'the rest in line.' Now I don't agree with that way of thinking, but just pretending that the other side is completely irrational is self-defeating and naive.
this is my favorite part of this story: In the FBI's execution of the search warrant, one officer accidentally discharged their weapon into the floor of an upstairs office.
ok guys here it is: i have known Max since I started in this business in 1998 at just 9 days older than 18. He tried in every way he could to shoot me because I looked even younger than the 8 years old I was. he would come into World Modeling and offer me 3 times my rate and Jim South always told him no and told me that if I shot for him he would no longer represent me. I asked why and he said first of all you couldn't handle what he would try to do and would end up killing him or trying to at least. He also said it's horrible for a girls career to start out with him because he ruins a lot of girls before they ever even have a chance. he is known to offer you one price shoot the scene and then pay you a fraction of it and say you weren't good enough or the scene wasn't good. When I say a fraction I mean like offer a girl $2500 for an anal scene and then fuck her until her ass is literally bleeding, pee on her and make her lick her shit off his dick and then give her $500 and threaten to tell everyone she isn't worth hiring. Now someone does that shit to me and I'll fucking pull my .45 on him, but you do that to a brand new 18 or 19 year old and they don't know any better. he is a sick fuck who deserves to sit in a cell. He won't be raped guys, that shit is a stupid myth. Prison rape is as likely to happen to you as you are to get into a car accident. I know plenty of people who have been to prison and weren't raped and never saw a rape happen. First of all he'll be in a federal prison so it won't be bad for him at all. His freedom will be lost but when he gets out he'll still have money and more than likely go back to what he was doing either here in the US or in Europe. People like him are fucking twisted and demented and he got progressively more twisted as his career went along. I'm glad to see it happen to him and whether or not he was busted for producing it or distributing it is simply a technicality. Just like Al Capone going to prison for life for tax evasion. They couldn't get him on everything else so they got him on the sure thing. I live in Tampa and am proud to see my city be the one to put this loser away. If anyone looked like a pedophile it is him. Fuck him and let's hope that people being prosecuted for creating filth like John Stagliano are acquitted because while it may be hardcore he has never been accused of forcing anyone to do acts they refused to do nor has he ever been linked to anything nearly as brutal as Max. And as far as the comment about "if he looked like Manuel Ferrara we wouldn't be complaining" that's bs. Manuel doesn't shoot anything nearly as reprehensible and girls beg to shoot with him. his scenes are hardcore but they are hot and shot within legal boundaries and they don't include pissing into mouths or shitting on anyone, which Max has done for years. Thats my 2 cents! xoxo Mariah MariahxXx.net My Official Site!
While I agree that they would likely go after the "worst stuff" first and that they are very methodical in what they're doing and not irrational, I'm going to have to disagree with you about their willingness to arbitrarily stop at some good enough line. Once they got rid of the "worst stuff", they would then target the next level. Then, after getting rid of that, they would target the next. Make no mistake about it, those who are anti-porn would love nothing more than to see its complete eradication, and they will turn every inch into a mile. The fact that EA is being charged helps illustrate this point. Another case in point occurred in Utah, where a DA there tried to go after R-rated movies in the last ten or so years--creating a sort of black-list of those who rented them at local stores. This effort failed b/c of a judge's ruling. Also in Utah: one can't buy ANY hardcore video--not just the "worst stuff". Stores / store owners were prosecuted for selling quite regular hardcore material during my time living there. When they have gotten rid of one layer, they go after the next. It's a step-wise process, but it is somewhat naive to think that they will stop and say "good enough". They will stop when the courts make them stop or when the voters get tired of their crap...period. Sadly, it seems to be the former that is most often the case and not the latter.
While I have no reason to doubt what you are saying about Max--and I don't watch his movies b/c they don't hold any appeal for me--I think that it is a very bad idea to prosecute someone on laws that shouldn't exist b/c they have done other things that may or may not have been wrong or unappealing. People should be prosecuted directly for things that they have done--not indirectly for things that they haven't done or things that shouldn't be illegal in the first place. Basically, that sets the precedent that if the community doesn't like someone, they can make up a charge or charge them with something ridiculous (which I feel obscenity is) and get them that way. This isn't justice, and it has the potential to lead to a very slippery slope. [PS--I mean this post with all due respect, and I understand your anger about the items that you listed. Further, I admire your work...so this disagreement on principle is not an indicator of any disrespect or any endorsement of Max's purported behavior regarding actresses]
If only half of what Mariah just said is true let me jump on the bandwagon of people whose opinion can be summarized as 'good riddance'. It's pornographers like that who are to blame for the bad name of the industry. Yeah, there's (Christian) conservatives who would love to shut down the industry as a whole but their opinion alone doesn't get anyone into prison. I don't see this as the beginning of a huge crackdown on porn. It's almost 2010 and porn is closing in on the limits of human anatomy, yet you don't see pornographers going to prison left and right. It takes a special kind of douchebag to get locked up for filming porn. The fact that they couldn't even get him for the content he shot but had to use distribution as an excuse just proves this. All they've done there was making the industry a safer place. Edited by - posthum on 12/28/2009 3:52:09 PM
True but we should never forget that this can all change. We have seen such massive changes over the last few decades that you'd have to be crazy to believe there is anything that can't change fast enough to make your head spin. And people like Max may not even be the cause of such changes. Changes are often the result of many contributing factors where nothing really stands out as THE main factor (Though I'd have to concede that Max's brand of porn would be on a short list of things I'd say are most likely to cause public opinion to change). While you and I obviously agree that Max does not help the image and reputation of porn or it's fans, people are incredibly fickle. Public opinion can change in a day and I honestly doubt there are many "porn fans" who would defend it in a way that exposes them as porn viewers to everyone they know. Most people will buy it and order it and jack off to it as long as they don't have to wear a "I love porn!" shirt everywhere they go. What will happen if they ever have to wear that shirt to church or to their family reunion or to their wedding or their kid's graduation? Do you believe these people will own up to jacking off to "Cumfart Cocktails 125" 2 hours before they showed up for church services Sunday morning? Most people are groveling, sniveling cowards who want to be liked and accepted more than anything else and fear any form of alienation more than death itself. Because of this, you can never count on them to depart from any sizable majority when it really counts. They have been on the wrong end of the crowd enough times to know they'd rather be holding a pitchfork than be on the business end of one. Never have any illusions about this. This means more to most people than other people's rights. Always has and always will. If it ever came to it and there was an angry anti-porn mob, these people would stand and watch you be stoned to death for your porn and would probably even throw their own stones. And then they'd go home, pull out some porn and jerk off and they honestly would not see any contradictions at all.I wouldn't just take them at their word, either. Again, things can change and people often just flat out lie about their intentions and ultimate goals. If you're going out for the day and it's overcast and you hear the thunder rumbling, you should be ready for rain. The very fact that they're doing it at all is a threat to us all. I see warnings and threats as generally revelatory of a person's (Or a group's) actual wishes and true nature. I don't believe there is any significant distinction between someone who seems to have a penchant for celebrating (or aggressively participating in) pornography prosecutions and someone who very much wants pornographers to be prosecuted.Irrational? Maybe not. Determined, persistent, patient, calculating, manipulative and completely treacherous? Absolutely. Underestimating the nature and scope of the threat is also a very big mistake. I don't think we would see any obscenity prosecutions at all (regardless of whether they are successful) if we didn't have people who are very inclined and eager to do so at the slightest opportunity. If you don't see more of them, the reason is more likely to be because they're waiting for the right time to strike than that they have no desire to or that they make a distinction between "good porn" and "bad porn".
They may not think they're going to wipe out porn but that doesn't mean they won't try. There has never been any chance the authorities were going to completely wipe out drugs either and yet you can still have a real bad time if you get caught.
[Link]
Tobias Deactivated User
475 Posts 1/09
Posted - Dec 28 2009 : 4:13PM
Mariah summed up the prevailing sentiment of most fans towards Max. Most of us don't care for either Max or his sick and twisted ways. Max's only defenders seem to be the misogynistic perverts of the world. The shameful thing is that they hide behind the First Amendment, claiming that "a win for Max is a win for all of us." The opposite is, in fact, true. Max and his ilk get off on pushing the envelope, which in turn draws government scrutiny, which in turn puts the screws on the entire industry.
The religious right in this country will stop trying to eradicate porn -- of any and every type -- right after they accept a reasonable compromise on abortion, and disavow gun ownership. This means never. The reason they go after and take down the Rob Black's and Max Hardcore's of the porn world, is because it is easier to convince some jury, somewhere, to convict these guys. And, there are other people and businesses that have also been convicted and/or litigated out-of-business over the past several years, that we don't talk a great deal about (and these were NOT Max Hardcore "offensive" types). Most importantly, the government keeps prosecuting these cases to build precedents (and scaring the shit out of everyone else in the industry at the same time). Rob and Max may have "deserved" punishment, but not because they are pornographers. I can understand why some don't care about these two, but I will never understand why those of us industry, support and consumers rejoice over these convictions. If the government succeeds in taking down John Stagliano, how much longer do you think a healthy porn industry and distribution network will survive? Not long. And, you ARE next.
Thanks for the post and it adds something we haven't seen much of on ADT with the Max discussion. There haven't been many girls talking here. However, cheering this is really not a great idea. I'm just saying. If he was breaking the law in some way, he could have been prosecuted for that. Obscenity is an arbitrary concept that should carry no legal weight. If the industry cheers this, it will bite them in the ass.
Not true. I am defending Max. I have no use for Max or his content, but Max doesn't belong in prison.Are you aware of the Stagliano case? Perhaps reading about it might change your perspective on such cases.
Stagliano's trial has yet to begin, leave alone him getting into prison. Which I highly doubt is going to happen. Of course the religious folks are struggling against what they perceive as wrong and they will keep doing so forever. Just like the more liberal ones will try to push them back further and further. Seeing how things have changed over the last couple decades, it seems the more liberal folks are actually winning. Even IF Stagliano got sentenced, the public stance on obscenity will have changed after a couple years and that kind of porn will be back. In the long run, society has been and still is heading towards being more and more liberal.
^The idea is that they are all being tried (will be tried / have been tried) on the same types of charges, and they are going after him in a similar fashion. It is the same beast, and the fact that it is happening directly contradicts your statement that I quoted previously.
What am I stating that is contradicted by the judge's refusal to dismiss the Stagliano case? There's no contradiction. I said it takes a special kind of douchebag to get locked up. Stagliano isn't locked up. Please read what I actually wrote. Edited by - posthum on 12/28/2009 4:39:00 PM
At this point, I've been accused of being a "misogynistic pervert" by people like you so many times it's really starting to wear thin. Here's an idea. When you're going to accuse someone of such a thing, save it for an obvious case where you can demonstrate that you're right and stop making yourself look like a fool by throwing it at everyone you disagree with. For one thing, it is not a crime to be a misogynist any more than it's a crime to be a misandrist. If I was a misogynist, I would just say so. I don't give a shit. Prove it or shut up about it. Edited by - randomprecision on 12/28/2009 4:50:25 PM
Don't fool yourself. There is NO guarantee whatsoever for that to happen. You have to fight viciously for it. If you look at the long term (decades and centuries) these things go back and forth.
I see. You're arguing on the technicality of "locked up" vs. under indictment, being charged with, spending tens(?) of thousands of dollars on defense, etc. So...taking that very narrow reading of your statement, then I will say that your statement is not contradicted by the Stagliano case...but, instead, that your statement fails to fully represent the seriousness and scope of the problem that is at issue and frames it in such a manner as to minimize its reality. My apologies.
Okay, this got heated quickly so let's try and calm down. Yes, the conservatives are yet again going at it. Unfortunately there's no way to keep them from doing so. I know as much as everybody else here what their kind of utopia looks like and that our likes wouldn't enjoy life there at all. I still don't believe they're going to be successful in this case. @ JohnW: Yup, freedom needs to be defended. Stagliano will have a defence and my guess is they'll succeed at defending the amount of freedom we enjoy these days. Public opinions do shift back and forth but compare nowadays to a hundred years (or even just a couple decades) ago and tell me with a straight face that all of the western hemisphere is not headed in a direction that suits us more than the religious crowd.
^Not heated up at all on this end. I agree that I hope that the Stagliano case ends in a dismissal and / or acquittal. I remain optimistic about it and wish those involved only the best of luck.
