Death is caused by swallowing small amounts of saliva over a long period of time. George Carlin 1567 Posts 2/07
Posted - Oct 27 2009 : 1:10PM
I don't know what the occupation of the poster is. But it doesn't matter to me. It would only matter if the content being provided is proven illegal, which none of it is thus far. Sick porn doesn't necessarily mean illegal porn. It's not the same. So why worry about it if you're not doing anything wrong? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I never said sick porn is illegal, nor did I say the links he posted are illegal. The way the law reads right now is community standard. That could mean if you are downloading porn that is deemed obscene in your community, you could have a problem. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If there was something legitimate for which to prosecute it, then they would have done so already. If they're only looking at it for "possible prosecution," which could be true for anything, then that only means that they're trying to figure out a loophole whereby they can justify prosecution, which typically means it's not illegal, but just possibly offensive. Again, offensive is not the same as illegal. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- That is not always the case, just ask Max hardcore. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Are you implying that these other websites are not legally-run businesses? Why would they not be? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- no i wasn't implying that. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Except that it's porn, how are these sites any different from YouTube? By "legit studios," do you really mean to say "mainstream studios?" Something doesn't have to be mainstream to be legit. The problem with the mainstream adult entertainment today is that it is no longer giving the consumers what we want, but just the same unoriginal recycled crap. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Some consumers want kiddie porn, does that mean we should give that to you? What is it that you want? Simulated rape? Woman being degraded and abused? Max hardcore was providing that type of porn, he is now serving a 4 year sentence. The only lesson I can learn from that it don't do it. I love you guys but i'm not willing to go to jail.
[Link]
realtip Deactivated User
2301 Posts 6/04
Posted - Oct 28 2009 : 1:40AM
True. But as we discussed in this thread, depending on your community standards, you could also encounter legal trouble if you have sex that's not in the missionary position, or if you have sex outside of marriage, as these acts are still illegal in some places. Up until recently, performing oral sex on your spouse was a violation of some community standards and law. Basically, with the way the law reads, just visiting this forum could be deemed obscene in some communities. That's just further proof of how senseless and archaic these obscenity standards are.That was exactly the case with Max Hardcore. Since the content he produced was not illegal, a loophole had to be found in order to reach a conviction. He wasn't convicted for making anything illegal, only for mailing (by entrapment) to a place that hates porn. This was the only way they knew they could get him. It has nothing to do with anything being illegal. It has to do with tricky and underhanded prosecution based on politics rather than law. If it had been a less controversial hardcore pornographer (e.g., Vivid, Wicked, DP, etc.) on trial for obscenity in an equally conservative venue, the outcome would probably have been the same. From my experience with people who oppose porn, they don't distinguish between the "nice" stuff and the "nasty" stuff. Only we do that.I don't blame you for not wanting to go to jail. I don't want to go there either. I also don't want anybody else, including pornographers, going there if they haven't done anything wrong. But it seems like pushing the envelope keeps getting confused with breaking the law. To include children in pornography is, as we all know, against the law. But we are not talking about children. So that example doesn't work. We are all adults here who, I hope, all enjoy watching porn only between consensual adults. But that doesn't mean it has to be boring and indistinct. Yes, Max Hardcore is in prison. But that doesn't mean he was wrong. I also know a law-abiding citizen with no criminal record who was arrested because they refused to allow the police into their home without a warrant. They later sued the police and lost. What does all this mean? It means that we have a criminal justice system that is sometimes fucked up, and that people in authority sometimes abuse their power to reach their own agendas. But it doesn't mean that we should become so afraid that we feel can no longer do/make/watch whatever we want as long as it's within the bounds of the law. What happened to Max is unfortunate. What's more unfortunate is that he's successfully being used as an example to make everyone else toe the line.
Have you ever heard that history is written by the victors? He lost. He knew he was gambling and it finally bit him in the ass. He was foolish enough to believe words on paper would protect him even if a majority of people no longer really believe in the first amendment. That's all the power the document ever had. When the courts no longer uphold it and the people no longer revere and uphold it, it's just empty, meaningless words.I think the point is that the law has no bounds. As has been said repeatedly, the obscenity law is basically meaningless and can be interpreted to mean almost anything in the context of determining whether or not something is legally obscene. The only way you can guess what might be really off the charts risky by reading that definition of obscenity is to ask yourself how you think the most conservative people you know would react to whatever it is you're trying to gauge. Obviously, if you have porn fans on a porn board objecting to something on grounds that it's "sick" you're going to have a big problem if you ever have to try and defend that in a conservative court. I share your passion for free speech but I think we have to choose our battles (because it's only a matter of time) and this one isn't worth it.
Obviously not but I have to believe the first amendment meant something when they wrote it. I don't believe the founders were idiots and some form of porn must have existed in their time. Obviously, written porn has existed since people started writing things. In their day, a graphically written sex story would have had the same impact on it's audience (Assuming they were literate) as a hardcore flick today does. They wouldn't have been ignorant of the potential for advancing technology to spread some form of porn far and wide (Franklin was a scientist and inventor, after all) and yet they saw no need to specifically proscribe it from first amendment protection. It seems to me the trouble really started later when people started to realize you can't believe in free speech unless you really believe in free speech and that might mean you have to tolerate people expressing thoughts and ideas in ways that you find reprehensible. From that moment, the pure principle began to decay. Now we have people who don't even realize there's a difference between what you say you believe in and what you actually believe in. Everybody believes in free speech but nobody believes in obscenity. Classic doublethink. In the case of the kind of stuff we're discussing in this thread, most of us can't afford to be free speech heroes. We're just little guys out here beating our meat. Max chose to try to be a hero believing he had Constitutional support and also that his fellow citizens actually believed in the Constitution. His case makes it clear that we have to watch our step. It may not be right but it it obviously doesn't matter.
Edited by - randomprecision on 10/28/2009 5:47:39 AM
Death is caused by swallowing small amounts of saliva over a long period of time. George Carlin 1567 Posts 2/07
Posted - Oct 28 2009 : 2:42PM
That was exactly the case with Max Hardcore. Since the content he produced was not illegal, a loophole had to be found in order to reach a conviction. He wasn't convicted for making anything illegal, only for mailing (by entrapment) to a place that hates porn. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- He was convicted for obscenity. so in fact, in that community he was convicted for making something illegal. It is not entrapment when every porn company knows not to ship there. If I get an order from Utah, I know not to ship there. It doesn't matter if it is Vivid or JM, ship to Utah, get prosecuted. _________________________________________________________________________ I don't blame you for not wanting to go to jail. I don't want to go there either. I also don't want anybody else, including pornographers, going there if they haven't done anything wrong. But it seems like pushing the envelope keeps getting confused with breaking the law. _________________________________________________________________________ Nothing wrong with pushing the envelope, but you have to know how far you can push. Is simulated rape going to go over well, I doubt it. Can it be deemed obscene, yes it can. Ask Rob Black about pushing the envelope, he is out of business and has legal expenses that could choke a horse. _________________________________________________________________________ Yes, Max Hardcore is in prison. But that doesn't mean he was wrong. _________________________________________________________________________ It also means he didn't do anything right. Is the legal system fucked up, sure it is. But fighting the law and winning is a very tough thing to do. I don't no anyone who fought the law and won, that's why there is a song about it, I fought the law and the law won. From Ruben Sturman, who started this business, to Max hardcore and everyone in between, success in fighting is very slim. Almost non existent. [mod edit: fixed the lines as they were messing up the width of the page.] Edited by - killbillvol69 on 11/8/2009 6:13:53 PM
Death is caused by swallowing small amounts of saliva over a long period of time. George Carlin 1567 Posts 2/07
Posted - Oct 28 2009 : 2:47PM
Random; well said. You actually don't have to go back to our founding fathers to challenge this law, look at lenny Bruce, george Carlin, both went to jail for saying something out of the norm. If Sam Kinison had been around 40 years ago, they would have hung him.
[Link]
realtip Deactivated User
2301 Posts 6/04
Posted - Oct 28 2009 : 10:23PM
^Imagine if other comedians like Richard Pryor and Sam Kinison, or even George Carlin himself, had allowed these obscenity troubles to bridle their talents.Why not? Somebody has to do it. I don't expect pornographers to be crusaders for social progress. They're just trying to work so they can make some money and be able to live, just like the rest of us. But I certainly don't agree that we have to bend over and take it by toeing some arbitrary line which will only become more restrictive as we continue to capitulate. It's not a worthless cause or one that doesn't matter. It certainly matters to the people who oppose it, which is the reason they are able to dedicate so much time, energy, and resources to stopping it. If it matters so much to them, and they're not the ones losing anything from it, then why shouldn't it matter just as much to us?So how far can we push the envelope? Who decides how far it can be pushed? Your limit doesn't have to be someone else's limit. As for simulated rape, it may not go over well with some people. But that doesn't matter. They have a right to refuse to watch it, just as others may exercise their right to either produce or view it. But it is not illegal. It may be deemed obscene. But so can anything else, and it highly depends on where it is. As you've already pointed out, why send material someplace where you know you're going to encounter obscenity trouble? Plus, didn't Rob Black plead guilty on appeal after he had already won prior to appeal? Had he proceeded with trial, he may have won. I agree with you that fighting an unjust law is tough. This is exactly why prosecutors expect that many people won't bother doing it, which makes their jobs easier. But it's not impossible. If it were impossible, laws would never change, society would never progress, and freedoms would never increase. Edited by - realtip on 10/28/2009 10:25:56 PM
pornography wasn't sex but fantasies of an impossibly hospitable world 12377 Posts 9/07
Posted - Oct 29 2009 : 12:28AM
So have you written your congressperson about this realtip? Have you organized a public protest? Are you going to be outside the court with a bullhorn during the Stagliano case?
pornography wasn't sex but fantasies of an impossibly hospitable world 12377 Posts 9/07
Posted - Oct 29 2009 : 12:33AM
There's no historical evidence I've ever heard of that any of the founding fathers, including the Francophiles Jefferson and Franklin, speaking out in favour of the pornography of their time, which would have included the Marquis De Sade's revolutionary writing. Like many a gentlemen of their day they may have had some of his writing in their private libraries, but they would have not supported it being available to the plebs. Since they could write that everyman is born equal and hold slaves, I don't think the hypocrisy of the free speech amendment and suppressing pornography would have bothered them a bit. Just 'constructionist' arguments seem beside the point to me.
^ You're right. "Pornography" wasn't even a concept separate from all sexual/political materials until the 19th century. And indeed, the elite would keep salacious texts in private libraries, as well as write books about erotic art in latin so that the "plebs" couldn't read it. Once the public started getting literate, the elite got scared and started clamping down on things. The same thing happens today - low class trash are the threat - they aren't smart enough to understand the difference between art and reality. Meanwhile the censors trawl through hours and hours of smut, but are so above it all that they emerge untarnished.
Unfortunately, my memory sucks too bad to store the history of the world in my head and my patience is too limited to read it all enough times for it to even start to sink in so you would probably know better than I would. I've never heard of them speaking out in favor of porn either. But I've also never heard that they were particularly opposed to it. AFAIK, they didn't see fit to leave much of a historical record of what they really thought about porn. Which is why I extrapolate that they probably didn't feel as strongly about it as anyone who argues for or against it today. They wrote the first amendment and left that to speak for them. I mean, we know about Washington's false teeth for crying out loud. The men didn't have too many secrets, it would seem.And yet there doesn't seem to be a single case of any of them specifically trying to suppress porn as far as I know. We know they had slaves and therefore, they were capable of extreme hypocrisy (as any human being is). But if any of them ever said anything definitive in support of suppressing porn, I never heard of it. I just tend to believe if they were strongly opposed to it, they would have been far more likely to make it known than if they were neutral or weren't really significantly opposed to it. Slavery was a delicate issue even in those days and it's my understanding that they just wanted to get the Constitution ratified. That would not have happened anytime soon had they even tried to provide freedom for the slaves in the Constitution. The South just wouldn't have stood for it. It's hard to say that hypocrisy on such a delicate matter indicates hypocrisy on all things. Would any state have refused to ratify if they elaborated on the first amendment?On the contrary. If people could just read the thing and see that the way it is written, it's almost impossible to misinterpret it, I think we'd be much better off. If it meant anything else, it wouldn't have taken 200 years of mental (And legal) contortions to dilute it to what it is today. Some (All) of the founders may have been hypocrites and they may not have foreseen everything that was to come but they did still manage to create a framework that was strongly supportive of the rights of the common people. It is this framework that eventually enabled the abolition of slavery in the US. While the founders had slaves, they left the door cracked for those who would see the light and do the right thing.
Edited by - randomprecision on 10/29/2009 11:12:35 AM
Death is caused by swallowing small amounts of saliva over a long period of time. George Carlin 1567 Posts 2/07
Posted - Oct 29 2009 : 1:11PM
Real Tip Being a test case is no fun and extremely costly. It is easy to say, hey why should we bend over and take it. We are trying to make a living, have a million dollar legal bill is not easy to overcome. Simulated rape is very easy to get busted for in almost any community. Yes you have the right to make it, but they have the right to challenge you for that right too. They will win. Very hard to get 12 people to say, nope , that's ok. I, as many people in this industry do, have kids, been married for 30 years, own a house, go to football games to watch my kid play,have involvement in the community, and as a 54 year old fat, balding Jewish man, would not do well in jail. My whole point here is that no one knows this guy, sydbaby, know one knows if he is asking for sick shit to get someone in trouble. You don't know if he is 14 or 40. To reply to this is less than the prudent thing to do. He has a web browser, let him browse himself.
[Link]
realtip Deactivated User
2301 Posts 6/04
Posted - Oct 29 2009 : 11:12PM
^I understand where you're coming from, and I empathize with everything you said, except for your "They will win" statement. This tendency to give in so easily only ends up making the problems for porn worse, not better. With such a defeatist attitude, of course they will win.See this post. Nonetheless, it's the people inside the industry who seem to have the most power to address these issues, but just don't seem to be willing to use it.
[Link]
sickguy Deactivated User
I'm unofficially Beauty Dior's #1 Fan 736 Posts 9/06
Posted - Oct 30 2009 : 12:45AM
I don't know if that was real or not, but that is the most disturbing thing I have ever seen.
Death is caused by swallowing small amounts of saliva over a long period of time. George Carlin 1567 Posts 2/07
Posted - Oct 30 2009 : 11:40AM
When I say they will win, it is historically speaking. After doing this for 25 years and being close to all the people who have gone to jail or paid fines, I can tell you it is a realistic attitude, not a defeatist one.' Send me 2 million dollars for legal defense and i will personally make anything you want. How much money have you contributed to John Staglianos defense, or to Max Hardcores defense, or Rob Black or Jeff Mikes from J.M. I would venture to say, not one dime. Yet you want us to "push" the envelope. The people I have mentioned are only the ones of late, there are many others that came before them, Ruben Sturman, Russ Hampshire, Phil Harvey and countless others. Including my boss, Steven Hirsch. Those guys had to build a war chest just for legal defense. It is easy to be an armchair quarterback, until it is your time to sit in front of a judge and jury. We are in business to make money, not to see if we can get away with something that might shock the masses, and possibly get tangled up in the legal system.
Well, this is off topic, but I didn't know the answer to this, so I went and did some reading - turns out Benjamin Franklin wrote two pieces of "erotica": "Advice to a Young Man on Choosing a Mistress" (1746) and "A Letter to the Royal Academy at Brussels" (circa 1761, while he was living in France). Neither were published, but in 1783 Franklin sent the manuscripts to two friends, a practice that was acceptable amongst gentlemanly peers - and considered completely immoral to put it in the hands of "ordinary" men (the lower classes). I don't know what this says about the 1st Amendment, but thought it was interesting as a slice of American pornographic history. It is worth noting that a concept of "pornography" was non-existent, and indistinguishable from religious/political critique, contraceptive pamphlets, and all manner of other "lewd" and "corrupting" materials. This timeline may shed some light: Fanny Hill (considered first porn novel in modern sense of porn): 1748 de Sade was writing in the 1780s; Justine published 1787 First Amendment submitted 1789; adopted 1791
[Link]
realtip Deactivated User
2301 Posts 6/04
Posted - Oct 30 2009 : 9:35PM
It is defeatism when you go into something already thinking that you're on the losing side. I have to wonder why anyone who feels that way about an industry would even bother working in it. Historically speaking, "they" aren't winning. There are plenty of people who have faced obscenity charges and lost, and there are many people who have faced them and won. Nonetheless, societal taboos have progressively been becoming less and less stringent as society is moving farther away from widely accepting them. What might have been considered "obscene" ten years ago is now no longer at all shocking.If I had $2 million, then I'd be making whatever I want to see myself. And if that's what I chose to do, I'd also be doing it in the fullest knowledge and confidence that I am legally permitted to do so.Not that it's relevant to the discussion, but I contribute to causes I support all the time, whether they are political campaigns, charities, public-supported media, social organizations, etc. Thus, I'd have no problem contributing to the legal defense fund of a pronographer whose work I enjoy if seriously asked to do so. However, I also have to wonder whether or not all the money we as consumers spend on porn also counts as part of our contributions.I wouldn't mind it. But you're missing the point. It's not really about "pushing the envelope." It's more about acknowledging one's freedoms of expression, even if they are unpopular or "sick." Pornographers shouldn't "push the envelope" just for the sake of doing it. They should do it because they know they're free to do if that's what they choose to do. If a pornographer only wants to make standard vanilla couples porn, then that's his prerogative. However, pornographers shouldn't feel that they can't push the envelope either, because that simply isn't true. Not doing it because it's not what you're into is one thing. Not doing because you think you can't, or because you're only trying to appease people who don't like it, is another.That's just further proof that porn doesn't have to be extreme or "sick" to stir up opposition. People are going to oppose porn anyway, whether it's Max Hardcore, Vivid, or Adam & Eve. Otherwise, why have a legal defense fund if you're not at risk?Going back to my above statement, what's to say you won't end up in front of a judge and jury anyway? Nobody wants to be in that position, and I suppose it is easier to be an "armchair quarterback." But it's also easier to just capitulate because you don't feel you stand a chance of winning anyway.You can make money without breaking the law, but still make porn for the 21st-century all at the same time. Why would you have to make something that would land you in legal trouble? Though it may not be obvious by watching most porn nowadays, it is possible to make porn that is creative, unconventional, entertaining, and innovative without breaking the law, and still make money at the same time. There is some porn I have seen still being made which stands out from among the rest that is both legal, and likely lucrative. Unfortunately, those scenes are few and far between.
pornography wasn't sex but fantasies of an impossibly hospitable world 12377 Posts 9/07
Posted - Oct 31 2009 : 5:32AM
For the former you can head on over to to the Defend Our Porn site and donate in support of the Stagliano case, as to the latter, 'wonder' no more, as it clearly doesn't count.
pornography wasn't sex but fantasies of an impossibly hospitable world 12377 Posts 9/07
Posted - Nov 1 2009 : 3:10PM
I don't think it would have been easy for any lawyer to deal with Max's case, but some of the stuff I read about the case was laughable: they compared Max to Archie Bunker!
You guys are all clearly going off topic. This is not a thread about max hardcore and about whether or not you should or should not like this kind of "porn". And no, I also dont like scat, beast or REAL rape flicks. (I don't have any problem with staged rape, gangbangs or face slapping/punching SEX movies). But the links provided have nothing to do with erotica, imo. Those are just so called SHOCK mini vids. Just like watching (Arab) snuff scenes on the same web-site link as provided.
Please stick with titles of scenes and names of SEX movies and enough on that other non relevant stuff. I don't think anyone finds it cool to go through lots and lots of posts to find titles/scenes/web-site links. My 2 cents. P.S. If I were the topic starter I would look for Rocco Siffredi's early Italian movies.Lots of rough stuff where he has a penchant for pushing heads of girl co stars in the toilet while he cums on them. Also try looking for videos of a (Brazilian) company called MFX. They are the guys behind: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2_Girls_1_Cup They also have a lot of movies of reallife (twin)sisters doing eachother. Or more specifically brother-brother/brother-sister/mother-son/grondson-grandma/Grandfather-Grandaughter etc. The weirdest most extrem and sickest stuff I've seen is a scene between MONICA MATTOS and a HORSE. The horse fucked her and cummed in her mouth, she swallowed it all. I couldn't believe that such a hawt looking gurl would ever do such a thing. And then I got pop up SPAM on my computer, that couldn't be removed by mcafee/norton virusscanners, lol. Goddamn, what a fucking nasty stuff I constantly had to click away before I could click my internet icon: gurls with horses/donkey's/(dead and alive)eals/snakes/elephants/rhino's/dogs/ whatever. YUK!!!!!! I bought a new computer after about a week: this stuff was sickening me!
[Link]
realtip Deactivated User
2301 Posts 6/04
Posted - Nov 1 2009 : 6:43PM
Outside of porn, there are quite a few people, like rap group 2 Live Crew, and other unknown people, like the newsstand clerk who was recently prosecuted in Oklahoma for selling Penthouse magazine, who have been acquitted. Admittedly, the number of acquittals may be lower for people inside porn. But it's not necessarily because they're always found guilty either. As with the case of Rob Black, most people who are charged with obscenity are more likely to plead guilty instead of going through trial, in which cases they may be acquitted. According to information from the Dept. of Justice, of the 317 federal obscenity prosecutions occurring between 1992 and 2000, 187 of them (59%) ended in guilty pleas, not guilty verdicts. Of the remaining cases, only one-tenth of them resulted in convictions. The rest were either acquittals or dismissals. Also, thanks for the link to the DefendOurPorn site. Unless I'm mistaken, that site is being used to collect toward the funds of both the Stagliano case, as well as the Max Hardcore case, which I understand is currently awaiting an appeals decision. Is the information on the site updated and accurate?
This is a very good point! If I were in the porn industry, my first move would be to call up Pornlaw (yes, I have his name and company that he works for, can easily get his address), make an appointment to see him and get advice on what I can do and not get busted. I would also not do well in jail, so rape and piss/shit movies won't get made by me!
Death is caused by swallowing small amounts of saliva over a long period of time. George Carlin 1567 Posts 2/07
Posted - Nov 2 2009 : 12:10PM
The buzz word here is "outside". He is asking you to cite cases inside of porn who have won obscenity cases. The reason you can't is because they are few and far between, I can't think of one. But, let's get down to the nitty gritty, what is it that you want to see us make that is not already out there? Be specific. What is your definition of pushing the envelope? I think you are missing the point entirely, some producers have attempted to make porn that is not for the masses, they made stuff like a Priest shoving pages of the Bible up some girls ass, he is out of business and is facing tremendous legal problems. Some have made extreme rough sex where the girls eventually went to the hospital, he is in jail. So what is it that you want to see?
Death is caused by swallowing small amounts of saliva over a long period of time. George Carlin 1567 Posts 2/07
Posted - Nov 2 2009 : 12:14PM
This is a very good point! If I were in the porn industry, my first move would be to call up Pornlaw (yes, I have his name and company that he works for, can easily get his address), make an appointment to see him and get advice on what I can do and not get busted. I would also not do well in jail, so rape and piss/shit movies won't get made by me! [/quote] We have the best attorneys on board. Paul Cambria is without a doubt the leader in his profession. We do get every movie screened prior to release. We do follow his list of guidelines for staying out of jail. Realtip may think you can just shot what you please, but we have guidelines in place to stay out of court. I want to know what it is exactly he wants us to make, that hasn't been made resulting in indictments.
^ Woody, I assumed as much, but thanks for confirming it. As for the OP, I wonder myself.
[Link]
realtip Deactivated User
2301 Posts 6/04
Posted - Nov 3 2009 : 2:07AM
How many porn prosecutions can you think of altogether? Admittedly, the only ones I can think of are the more famous cases, such as Max Hardcore, Stagliano, and Rob Black. Although Max Hardcore was convicted, it was not his first case. He had been prosecuted previously, but never convicted. They had previously tried prosecuting him for his content. They even tried getting him for child pornography despite the fact that everyone in his movies is an adult. But when that didn't work, they took another plan of action and prosecuted him for distribution. This proves my point that producing Max Hardcore type porn is not illegal. However, as you yourself acknowledged, you have to know where not to send it. Max's mistake wasn't making the movies he made. His mistake was sending it to the wrong place. You are saying that you will face legal trouble just for making certain porn, when the truth of the matter is that you will only probably face legal trouble if you send it somewhere that will cause a problem. I am not disagreeing with that point. What I'm not understanding is the reason that I can't watch certain porn that is not considered obscene in my community just because it's considered obscene somewhere else. That's the point at issue here. Rob Black was also charged for distribution, but also not convicted. When the government appealed the decision of the Court, he pleaded guilty rather than go to trial. A court did not convict him. Since this is the case, why don't pornographers of such content post their scenes and movies only on the Web? This would make it much harder to prosecute since it would avoid issues of distribution to certain communities. If Rob and Max had done this, they would have been able to avoid being charged.Since you're asking, I would like to see porn that is not cookie-cutter; porn that is hot, arousing, entertaining, and stands out from among the rest. It can be extreme, or it can not be. There's no one specific characteristic I can think of to define great porn. I wouldn't necessarily call Max Hardcore's movies good porn, but it was good to watch when you got tired of watching the same old indistinguishable formulaic sex scenes in every other porn movie, and wanted to see something different that you couldn't find anywhere else. There are some days when watching a standard scene by New Sensations, or BangBros, or Brazzers, etc., does the trick. But then, there are some days when you're in the mood for something more edgier, and you don't mind seeing a girl get pissed on. Just like there are times when I can sit and enjoy a nice educational documentary or an Oscar-worthy big-budget historical film, there are other times when I just feel like going for a meaningless no-plot slasher flick filled with gratuitous sex and pointless gore. It depends on the mood. As for "pushing the envelope," all that means is that you're not walking on eggshells, and you're not afraid of trying something new or different. Some examples I can think of that are still being done include the age-play fetish (e.g. Erik Everhard's series "Jailbait," or JurassicCock.com), or the F->M rimming fetish (e.g., Lethal Hardcore's "Your Mom Tossed My Salad, or EatSomeAss.com), or the rough sex/degradation fetish (e.g., Sex&Submission.com, FuckingDungeon.com, SwirlieGirls.com). Other examples I would like to see that were once done, but are no longer being done include, but are not limited to, the drunk/drugged/unconscious girl fetish (e.g., SleepCreep.com, ShameOnHer.com), and the M->F pissing fetish (e.g., PissMops.com, YellowDiscipline.com, BiohazardUncensored.com), just to name a few. Plus, hasn't porn always pushed the envelope? Why stop now? Back when ATM first started becoming popular, there were many people who didn't like it, but it eventually became more and more widespread in porn. Was that not pushing the envelope at one point? What about gagging and girls choking on dick? That was once pushing the envelope. But now it's almost everywhere in porn. Porn was once known for its tendency to take things further than before and pushing the limits of taboo, even when it wasn't popular to do so. So why should everyone be afraid to do it now?Since you didn't give names, I don't know who you're talking about. But I think it's safe to say that what they produced is not why they faced legal trouble, since nothing you have described is illegal. Like the other pornographers charged with obscenity, they faced legal trouble just for being in porn, and it's a risk that may come with the territory.That explains a lot. Isn't Paul Cambria the same guy who says porn also shouldn't show IR or facials?That's because you can shoot whatever you please, as long as it's legal to do so. You don't shoot it not because you can't, but rather because you don't want to which, again, is your prerogative. Also, as you yourself previously acknowledged, following all the "guidelines" in the world won't keep you out of court if someone targets you for prosecution. You may have guidelines. But obscenity prosecutors don't.
Death is caused by swallowing small amounts of saliva over a long period of time. George Carlin 1567 Posts 2/07
Posted - Nov 3 2009 : 3:24PM
How many porn prosecutions can you think of altogether? Admittedly, the only ones I can think of are the more famous cases, such as Max Hardcore, Stagliano, and Rob Black. Although Max Hardcore was convicted, it was not his first case. He had been prosecuted previously, but never convicted. They had previously tried prosecuting him for his content. They even tried getting him for child pornography despite the fact that everyone in his movies is an adult. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- it was, not sure if it still is, to depict someone as underage even if they are of legal age. I do not have the time to research all the indictments for obscenity, which are plentiful over the years. What you fail to realize is that the laws are community standard. So what may be legal in Ca. is illegal in Utah. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- But when that didn't work, they took another plan of action and prosecuted him for distribution. This proves my point that producing Max Hardcore type porn is not illegal. However, as you yourself acknowledged, you have to know where not to send it. Max's mistake wasn't making the movies he made. His mistake was sending it to the wrong place. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If he made stuff that fell into the norm, he could have shipped it anywhere, except a few places. Not only does he put himself in jeopardy, but also his distributors and the retail stores that carried his stuff. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You are saying that you will face legal trouble just for making certain porn, when the truth of the matter is that you will only probably face legal trouble if you send it somewhere that will cause a problem. I am not disagreeing with that point. What I'm not understanding is the reason that I can't watch certain porn that is not considered obscene in my community just because it's considered obscene somewhere else. That's the point at issue here. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- you can watch anything you want. The point is why should a studio make something they cannot sell everywhere? Maybe it is legal today in Scottsdale, tomorrow it may not be. If it offends one person, like a cop, and he decides to follow thru with a complaint, the ball is rolling. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rob Black was also charged for distribution, but also not convicted. When the government appealed the decision of the Court, he pleaded guilty rather than go to trial. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- why did he plead guilty if he could win? Because on the advice of his lawyers, he couldn't win. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A court did not convict him. Since this is the case, why don't pornographers of such content post their scenes and movies only on the Web? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- He tried, but could not make any money. He had a very small audience. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Since you're asking, I would like to see porn that is not cookie-cutter; porn that is hot, arousing, entertaining, and stands out from among the rest. It can be extreme, or it can not be. There's no one specific characteristic I can think of to define great porn. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- That's kind of general, but i would argue that is being made everyday. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- But then, there are some days when you're in the mood for something more edgier, and you don't mind seeing a girl get pissed on. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So go buy one, there is a ton of that stuff already out there. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- As for "pushing the envelope," all that means is that you're not walking on eggshells, and you're not afraid of trying something new or different. Some examples I can think of that are still being done include the age-play fetish (e.g. Erik Everhard's series "Jailbait," or JurassicCock.com), or the F->M rimming fetish (e.g., Lethal Hardcore's "Your Mom Tossed My Salad, or EatSomeAss.com), or the rough sex/degradation fetish (e.g., Sex&Submission.com, FuckingDungeon.com, SwirlieGirls.com). -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You just proved my point that stuff is out there and being made. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Other examples I would like to see that were once done, but are no longer being done include, but are not limited to, the drunk/drugged/unconscious girl fetish (e.g., SleepCreep.com, ShameOnHer.com), and the M->F pissing fetish (e.g., PissMops.com, YellowDiscipline.com, BiohazardUncensored.com), just to name a few. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If they are being done any longer, it means they don't sell that well. Period. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Plus, hasn't porn always pushed the envelope? Why stop now? Back when ATM first started becoming popular, there were many people who didn't like it, but it eventually became more and more widespread in porn. Was that not pushing the envelope at one point? What about gagging and girls choking on dick? That was once pushing the envelope. But now it's almost everywhere in porn. Porn was once known for its tendency to take things further than before and pushing the limits of taboo, even when it wasn't popular to do so. So why should everyone be afraid to do it now? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It seems to me, after awhile there just isn't that much left to do. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Since you didn't give names, I don't know who you're talking about. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You do know who I'm talking about, Rob Black made the movie with the Bible, and max put girls in the hospital. ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ But I think it's safe to say that what they produced is not why they faced legal trouble, since nothing you have described is illegal. Like the other pornographers charged with obscenity, they faced legal trouble just for being in porn, and it's a risk that may come with the territory.That explains a lot. Isn't Paul Cambria the same guy who says porn also shouldn't show IR or facials? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- That would be not true as Vivid does both IF and facials in our movies. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------That's because you can shoot whatever you please, as long as it's legal to do so. You don't shoot it not because you can't, but rather because you don't want to which, again, is your prerogative. Also, as you yourself previously acknowledged, following all the "guidelines" in the world won't keep you out of court if someone targets you for prosecution. You may have guidelines. But obscenity prosecutors don't.
Click to expand
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- But those guidelines have historically kept people out of jail. We are businessmen, trying to make a living. There are certain precautions one needs to take to be in our business. Things were bad under Reagan and Bush, they got better with Clinton, then worse with W, before 9/11 W was ready to go full force in a war against porn.
[Link]
realtip Deactivated User
2301 Posts 6/04
Posted - Nov 3 2009 : 10:47PM
It is not illegal for an adult performer to portray a character who is not an adult, and it never was illegal. If it were, shows like 90210 and Dawson's Creek would never have been on TV. But like with everything else, there's always a double-standard when it comes to porn. Like all other acts labelled as possibly "obscene," it wasn't illegal, but there was nothing explicitly saying that it was legally permissible either. There was no law pertaining to it either way. As usual, since there was no clearly defined standard or precedent in place, it left the government open to go after Max on a weakly fabricated child porn charge. The Supreme Court finally cleared up the issue by ruling that it is not illegal for adults to portray children, which is one reason that the child porn case against Max fell apart.That's the problem. Who decides what is the "norm?" The norm in porn now was not the norm in porn 10 or 20 years ago. The "norm" is always changing, which is a good thing.Again, that's the problem. You don't know where you can't sell it until after it's already been ruled obscene. In other words, you're being charged for a crime that didn't become illegal until after you've already done it. How do you know you're committing a crime if it wasn't considered a crime at the time you did it? Even the stuff your company makes can't sell everywhere, as you've already pointed out with your Utah example.I can't speak for Rob Black or his attorneys. But from what I read about it, he pleaded guilty because he couldn't afford the legal fees. From what I understand, his counsel didn't say he didn't have a case. They just weren't willing to do it pro bono. After all, he had already won the first time around. This is another trick that prosecutors use. Even if the law is on your side, they'll make it so costly to defend yourself that people will just give up because they can't afford it.No, there isn't. If there is tons of it, then why can nobody find it?Not enough of it though. There's no reason there can't be more of it on the same scale as all the other "regular" acts we see all the time.Not true. Almost all of those sites stopped operating because the guys behind them became afraid of either their critics, or the law, or both. Not that there was anything to back up the threat, but fear is very useful in making people fall in line. Take down one guy, or make enough noise against something, and people will eventually start censoring themselves.We haven't reached that point yet. There are still many areas left to be explored.I haven't seen every Rob Black or Max movie. But the thing about being charged or convicted of obscenity is that it doesn't define which specific acts are considered obscene. To the contrary, the material has to be considered obscene as a whole, not in part. So I disagree that the acts you mention weighed much when labelling their movies obscene.Yet, they are included on his published list of acts that porn should avoid showing.So what's you guys' excuse now?
Death is caused by swallowing small amounts of saliva over a long period of time. George Carlin 1567 Posts 2/07
Posted - Nov 4 2009 : 12:55PM
You seem to have an answer for everything, the problem is that it's not the right answer. I asked you to be specific in what you wanted to see that you could not see now. You answer was just not the same cookie cutter porn. There is plenty of pissing tapes out there, we are not into shooting fetish porn, never have been, never will be. The market for that is way to small, whether you agree or not, I know the numbers. I would rather put something out that does 3000 out the door and has legs, than put something out that sells 600 pieces. Who is to say there is not enough of something, I highly doubt you own every dvd made, or have seen every dvd made. You admit not even seeing Rob or maxs stuff. The law is the law, no matter how hazy it is, to challenge the law and become a test case is very costly. Mentally and monetarily. Right now Vivid has been making great stuff, the last 25 movies that came out from B Skow have received 4 stars and better, they keep getting re ordered. I would venture to say you have not seen one. Just a guess, I could be wrong. Again I think it is very easy for you to say, hey come on, take a chance, when in fact it costs you nothing and could cost us everything. Look up fetish dvds, you can find a ton of wacky shit out there. I'm sure you have a camera, shoot your own private porn. There is nothing that is not available, be it legal or illegal, you want to see a girl blowing a german shepard or a horse, it's out there, you want child porn, it's out there, you want some girl shitting on some guy, they did it. Those genres have nothing to do with me or this business. If I see someone making or selling child porn, I would turn them in, in a hot New York minute. I'm not sure what you are looking for, but you keep saying it's not there, or not enough. Personally I think there is plenty out there to choose from, enough for all tastes.
[Link]
realtip Deactivated User
2301 Posts 6/04
Posted - Nov 4 2009 : 5:49PM
Yes, I know what kind of porn you produce, which is why I don't watch it. It doesn't matter to me whether porn is fetish porn or not, as long as it's something that I can find enjoyable to watch. Although Vivid is not fetish porn, I would still watch it if it appealed to me. But honestly, every movie I've seen by the company has been a huge disappointment.Again, that is your prerogative, and it does make sense financially. But I find that to be almost the same as saying that small independent filmmakers should stop making movies because their audiences generally aren't as large as the more popular mainstream filmmakers. Although they may not make as much money, their movies are often superior in style, plot, narrative, etc., compared to the big Hollywood movies. Thus, popular or lucrative might just mean that you're able to get it out to more people, not necessarily better or higher quality. I'm also pretty sure it's safe to say that Rob and Max sold alot more than 600 pieces of each movie they released.A person doesn't have to have seen every movie ever made, but just enough to know what's out there. I know that when I browse through the shelves of the video store, almost every movie looks exactly the same. So, it's a good thing when someone comes along with something different that stands out from everything else.I agree with you there. But like I already said repeatedly, no one is asking you to break any laws. Where has anyone asked you to do that?You are correct. I haven't seen any.You're right. Don't take a chance. Instead, just keep putting out the same thing everyone has already seen.That may be true. But I'm not looking for wacky shit. I'm looking for something that I find enjoyable to watch. If it also happens to be wacky at the same time, then that's good too.Wow! Why do you keep translating porn that is above the ordinary to mean kids, animals, shit, or something that's illegal? You keep bringing these things up as if to say that this is what porn has to do to be innovative and edgy. I completely disagree, as I don't want to see any of these things. If that's what you think porn has to do to no longer put viewers to sleep, then that's a big piece of the puzzle as to why it is so boring. How do you keep jumping from hearing us say "We want to see something new and creative," to responding that you won't break the law or show kids and animals? That's quite a ridiculous leap from one to the other. Edited by - realtip on 11/4/2009 5:56:16 PM
Howard. You really need to fix your quoting style. It screws up the whole page on my screen. I can't even read this thread without constantly scrolling back and forth on every line.
[Link]
realtip Deactivated User
2301 Posts 6/04
Posted - Nov 4 2009 : 11:45PM
I don't watch features by any porn company because I'm not interested in plotlines. As for the last Vivid movie I saw, IIRC, I think it was the Kim Kardashian and R-Jay sex tape. I was totally disappointed by what Vivid did to that movie by including the crappy music, the dubbing over the dialogue, and the repetitive loops that ended up showing the same things over and over again. Also, the highly-rumored golden shower, if it really existed, was deleted from the movie. That was probably the one part that everybody really wanted to see, and it seems that Vivid got rid of it. I never really liked Vivid movies before that. But after watching the mess Vivid made of that movie, that sealed the decision not to watch anymore of their movies until they got much better.If you purchased a product that has given you unsatisfactory service in the past, then would you continue to purchase that product just because some other people say they like it? Having not seen the movies you mention, I cannot comment on how good or bad they are. But going off what I have seen of Vivid movies when I watched them, it was enough to convince me that they weren't for me.The video stores I visit receive the newest releases every week, and they rent and sell them very quickly because they still have a substantial customer base. I've also noticed that the more unordinary or "controversial" titles are the hardest to get because they tend to go the fastest.See my opening post in this thread.How do you know you don't like Max Hardcore movies if you don't watch them? If you already know you're probably not going to like something based on past experience, or your knowledge of the company, or the boxcover, or what you've heard about it, etc., then why would you bother watching it again?You wrote in another thread that you're coming out with new movies starring Zuleidy (a.k.a. Little Lupe). If they look good, I might check those out only because she's hot and I haven't seen her in much of anything else. But other than that, one of the basic rules of business is that once you lose a customer, it takes a lot to get him back.If the guy has seen more than a few other movies made by the same people who made Inglorious Basturds, and thought all those other movies sucked, then I would argue that he has enough to base his opinion on.This has been a long and interesting discussion. But it is not a competition. I'm not trying to "win" anything here. We are obviously coming from two different perspectives. I am consumer who is tired of seeing the same old porn movies in which a pornchick who we've seen in 1,000 other movies sashays into a McMansion room with a couch in it to meet a guy with an already erect dick as they go through the motions of BJ-cunnilingus-(semi)mish-doggy-CG-RCG-stroke to cumshot. Conversely, you are speaking as someone who works in the industry, as well as on behalf of a particular company you represent. So perhaps your are right that I am jaded, as I sometimes think I am myself. But perhaps it also true that much of what you say on this issue may either be biased, or is based upon your loyalty to your company. Edited by - realtip on 11/4/2009 11:56:14 PM
Death is caused by swallowing small amounts of saliva over a long period of time. George Carlin 1567 Posts 2/07
Posted - Nov 5 2009 : 12:33PM
The Kim K dvd was re-released in it's raw form. That is a celeb tape, not indicative of a Vivid feature. If I was unsatisfied with a companies product and i saw that they made a real effort to improve and change it, yes I would try it again. The people who started the pissing rumor about the Kim K dvd were people like you, not us. We never said there was one, never said we were going to have it in the movie. As far as i know there wasn't one, so you are saying we cut something out we never had. you said your video store carries all the new releases, and the controversial ones go quick, so there you go, they are there. The basic rules of business are to reach out to your customers and if something is wrong, fix it, which I have been doing here since i returned to Vivid. We have made dramatic changes on box art and content. If you haven't seen it, you are denying yourself great movies, and it leaves little room for you to say if they are good or bad, or if they improved or did not improve. Contempt prior to investigation leaves one in everlasting ignorance. I learned that in the 12 step program. If I go to a restaurant and get crappy service and crappy food, I don't go back, until someone else says, I was just there and they really made some great changes and the food was really good and we received great service, then I go back. That has happened here with Vivid, some of our biggest detractors have tried it again and said, "wow, that was really good". I cannot sell crap,my loyalty to my company has nothing to do with my view on what is good or bad. I watch it, I like it, or I don't like it. I am 55 years old, if I watch a B Skow movie and get a boner, it is good. No boner , not good. I can only rate a movie by my own boner scale. I know the movies Vivid has come out with for the last 9 months are killer. Try one, you might like it. if not, i will gladly send you something else. Celeb tapes are what they are, the new Shauna Sand exposed gave me wood, I liked it. Kim gave me wood, I liked it. I did not like the first version, I told Vivid that , and they changed it.
Death is caused by swallowing small amounts of saliva over a long period of time. George Carlin 1567 Posts 2/07
Posted - Nov 5 2009 : 3:10PM
when you take a shot at someone for no reason, are they not a victim of your dull wit? I haven't said anything to warrant an attack from you. I don't come on here and say anything negative about you. But you just feel the need to take a shot. Save it Don Rickles. Edited by - hollywood woody on 11/5/2009 3:13:20 PM
I happened to think the Ray-J/Kim K movie was shit because Ray-J is a fucking douchebag who can't even drink straight (that was actually the best part of the movie). That aside, I appreciate Vivid and what they do. There is so much hostility towards them here - why? It can't be simply because they produce stuff you don't like, right? Because that seems like it would be a bit silly, and possibly against what you believe in. So, what's the deal? What was this thread about again...?
Posted - Oct 27 2009 : 8:44AM