For one very simple reason. Because it was obvious where it was going to lead for him but more importantly, for the overall adult industry. As I've said repeatedly, I have no illusions. I know those who hate porn would have it in for the industry one way or another but Max was just asking for it. Especially with the whole pedo thing.I agree there to an extent. But obviously, Max went a bit too far. He didn't have a chance in court, really. I think Max is a pretty intelligent guy (in spite of his image) so I have no idea why he didn't see that. The fact that he seemed surprised by the verdict tells me he seemed to think he was going to walk. I have no idea why. There are plenty of fetishes that are yet to really be explored in American porn. I agree. Max chose to go for things that really tend to upset people even more than porn already does. Don't get me wrong. I believe people have the right to explore fetishes and stuff with consenting adults. But those rights only extend as far as the average person (or 12 people) will allow them to go. The Bill Of Rights simply doesn't mean a thing if people don't stand behind it even if it means guys like Max get away with things they find deplorable.You're preaching to the choir here. I'm pretty much neutral on Max as a person. I never wished anything on him, positive or negative. I was not a fan of his work. I am simply disturbed by the way they went about prosecuting him. But I'm also disturbed by the fact that he didn't have the good sense to see it coming and realize the implications a conviction could have for his industry as a whole.In principle, I would agree. But that view contrasts starkly with the reality of the world we live in. The greatest weakness of the porn industry is the fact that the Rob Blacks and the Max Hardcores are inseparable with everything else. Those who wish to take the porn industry down know it's all interconnected and if they get enough convictions, everybody will fall like dominoes.You do have a point there. Max did get repetitive at times but he was also constantly reinventing himself. He seemed to experiment with a little of everything, which I would agree can be a good thing. But again, he went in some directions which were (to quote Larry Flynt, a guy who should know) "indefensible". So you see. I fully realize there's a whole world of sexual exploration and niches out there that American porn has barely touched. But Max went straight to stuff that really pisses people off. There are many other niches besides urine, severe degradation and simulated pedo and rape.Exactly. That is precisely why they went after Max. He was an easy target. They knew they could make him look terrible in front of a jury (Which, really, all they had to do was play a few excerpts from his movies). But more to the point, they knew any significant support he had within his own industry would crumble instantly.But again. There are some envelopes that you can't push. Some of the stuff Max was into will never be widely acceptable in American society.This is obvious. I'm not persecuting him, however. I'm just stating the obvious. As you may or may not know, I had a long, draw out debate over this in the main thread over in the Press Releases section. And I made many of the same points you are making. They do have some merit. But Max has not made it easy to defend him. It would be a whole lot easier if I could just say he did everything a reasonable person could do to at least make sure everything was plainly consensual. As much time as I've spent talking about him and debating people, I still couldn't tell you whether or not he tried to make it obvious that the sex was all consensual. Maybe I'd have a better idea if I'd seen more of his movies. I don't know.I don't think that's going to happen, to be honest. I think they'll throw the book at him We'll see.
[Link]
the unknown pervert Deactivated User
I'd like to stay but I've got a plane to catch. 3243 Posts 5/06
Posted - Jul 20 2008 : 9:45AM
If he did have the sense wouldn't the government have just looked for someone else in the business who didn't have the sense? And if everyone in the business had the sense see it coming wouldn't the government have accomplished what it set out to do, namely keep people from shooting product like this? Either the business takes a stand somewhere or they spend the rest of their lives running from the government.
sorry but that line certainly stands by itself. Especially coming from a guy who once did a simulated incest scene.
[Link]
Clam Digger Deactivated User
Many a man fails as an original thinker simply because his memory is too good. 2268 Posts 1/05
Posted - Jul 20 2008 : 1:40PM
How about those family values conservatives who speak of less government regulation and the virtues of free markets controlling commerce , who applaud every prosecution of porn by the government. I personally don't care at all for the Max Hardcore genre of porn. I suppose that if my tastes controlled the porn market place he wouldn't exist. But apparently his stuff sells to a large enough market that he does well. So be it. Paul Thomas has grown prosperous in the industry, he should know that he can not sling shit with getting his hands dirty.
I believe that the judge instructed the jurors to make a decision regarding obscenity based on the assumption that the activities were consensual and that the performers were properly paid and tested and were of legal age at the time the scenes were filmed. In other words, the jurors knew that their decision was regarding the obscenity or non-obscenity of the material and not the consent of the performers. In addition to this, Max brought a former female performer to the stand to explain that she enjoyed the sorts of activities that were displayed. Finally, it is apparently common for Max to show some BTS footage of the girls that reflect consent, although this might not have been done for any or all of the performances in question.
What I find interesting in this thread and the Max thread is it appears to be 80% posts about whether people like a certain nasty genre of porn. Well like just shouldnt even be a part of the issue. What people like or don;t like should not and cannot be the basis for censorship. It's an utterly irelevant factor to the issue of free speech IMHO I dont like fuzzy lensed feature porn films therefor I can insist they be cnsored? Nope. But when you bring in Max's work or others....it immediately gets into 'oh well HIS STUFF is SO DISGUSTING I HATE IT' and therefore somehow he's not entitled to the same protections as the people who keep creating dozens of new annoying talent and dance themed contest TV shows...which makes ME gag..but you dont see me trying to get the nearest DA to file obsceneity charges against the producers of So You Think You Can Dance
Death is caused by swallowing small amounts of saliva over a long period of time. George Carlin 1567 Posts 2/07
Posted - Jul 21 2008 : 5:47PM
I think you are missing the point, you can't get busted for making fuzzy lensed features, you can get busted for peeing in girls mouths, horse fucking, shitting and kiddie porn. It isn't about personal likes or dislikes, it is about what the goverment feels IT can prosecute you for. The free speech umbrella you are referring to is only so wide, before you get wet. You can make whatever you like, including kiddie porn, hardcore bondage etc., but you will become a test case at the least, and probably go to jail. That is the fact, if you don't like that, you should move to Germany where everything is ok, or Amsterdam, where you can get a hooker and get high for $100 bucks. Sounds good doesn't it. But here it is illegal. Pot is legal in California, they have pot stores, but it is illegal on a Federal level, and they come here and bust people for it. Welcome to America.
[Link]
Clam Digger Deactivated User
Many a man fails as an original thinker simply because his memory is too good. 2268 Posts 1/05
Posted - Jul 21 2008 : 6:16PM
Never mind Edited by - Clam Digger on 7/21/2008 6:16:57 PM
Why not? If it's porn, they can go after it. And probably will if and when some yahoo gets a wild hair up his ass.That really depends. Not everyone in the government cares about how much money they spend. Or even getting reelected. There are some people in government who would be just fine with accomplishing their own personal goals. If someone is anointed into a position of authority in which they can choose what to prosecute, it's simply a matter of whether or not they want to do it. If they don't care whether they win or lose or how much money they spend (waste), you're looking at a whole new ballgame. For instance, Bush has done many things that would be inadvisable. He's wasted shitloads of money and lives. He's done enormous damage to his party. He just doesn't care. He had his own personal goals and he was going to do what he wanted.
[Link]
realtip Deactivated User
2301 Posts 6/04
Posted - Jul 22 2008 : 4:30AM
In that case, then everybody who makes porn is "asking for it."Since all of the girls in Max's movies of legal age and fully grown women, his material cannot rightly be classified as "pedo."This is the whole senselessness of censorship. What determines what is "too far?"I have an idea why. I think it's because he fugured that at least one person out of twelve would be intelligent enough to know that consensual sex, or the filming thereof, should not in any way be considered illegal. I thought the same. If anyone had asked me whether or not I thought Max Hardcore would be convicted, I would have answered No, because I would have thought that enough people are more intelligent and open-minded than that. I think Max made the same mistake I often make, which is overestimating the intelligence of the American populace. I was surprised by the verdict, so I can certainly understand why Max would have been.I'm sure he was aware of the possible likelihood of prosecution. Nonetheless, he obviously felt no need to let it deter him from doing what he did, considering that he wasn't violating any laws. He chose to take his chances with the justice system and let the chips fall where they may. I can't say that I would have done any differently.That's not a weakness. To the contrary, the greatest weakness of the porn industry is that some within it keep trying to separate themselves. This only shows division, which makes the industry appear weak whenever this type of prosecutorial witch-hunting takes place. If pornographers can't even garner the support of those within their own industry, then what chance do they have of getting it from those outside the industry?Why does it have to be "defensible?" That's just like saying that a person should have to defend his choice to watch porn at all, which I feel no need to do. The fact that it is constitutionally protected should be defense enough.True, but why should these particular niches be off-limits? Also, if a pornographer were to film any other niche not currently capitalized, what's to say he won't be prosecuted for that?Pornography isn't widely acceptable in American society at all, whether it's Max Hardcore or "Girls Gone Wild" (look what happened to Joe Francis). However, it has gradually grown to become at least marginally tolerated. I think this will happen with more extreme porn. But in order for it to happen, the porn industry has to stop being afraid to defend its own cause. This means that people in the industry need to stop joining the chorus of porn opponents whenever a controversial figure in the industry gets targeted.Again, I don't see why he should need to be defended. By that, I don't see how he's done anything illegal.He hired girls who have starred in dozens of other porn movies, many of which are just as hardcore as the ones he produced. Quite a few of the girls in his movies were repeat performers. Not to mention that it had to be consensual in order for the scene to be legally distributed. Besides that, there's not much more he could have done. What do other pornographers do to "prove" consent that Max didn't do?Exactly. Unfortunately, however, it seems the business isn't too interested in "taking a stand." The business wants to make money. So if that means the business has to stay in business by compromising itself in order to appease the government (for the time being), then that's what the business will do. As long as they're still making money, I doubt most of the business cares about taking a stand for itself.Yes, I'm referring to American porn. But even with European, Asian, and Brazilian porn, which I keep hearing is allowed to be much more extreme than American porn in particular niches, their accessibility is obviously very limited to American consumers, except that which is similar to American mainstream porn.You might get busted, but for different reasons. Unless I'm mistaken, while child pornography and bestiality are both illegal, piss and scat are not technically illegal, but may possibly be considered obscene depending on the jurisdiction. So, if you are busted for child pornography or bestiality, it is because you have actually committed a crime. If you are busted for piss or scat, it is not because you have actually done anything illegal, but because the government thinks you are a pervert, and wants to waste time trying to get the law to recognize you as "obscene." The trouble with obscenity is that it is so highly subjective. So while Max Hardcore pissing on a girl may be obscene today, just plain old vanilla porn may be ruled obscene tomorrow. Plus, while a jury in Florida may decide that pissing in girls mouth is obscene, a jury in New York may rule that it isn't. With something as subjective as obscenity, the definition can change at any time.
No. But they are all vulnerable to it. Max went out of his way to be as offensive as possible. While I would say porn is supposed to be offensive to people who think sex is wrong, even many porn fans were offended by Max's stuff. I wasn't offended by it (more like indifferent to it) but when you have that much working against you, you're asking for it.But of course you know that defense just isn't gonna fly. It was plainly obvious that he wanted the girls to appear to be way underage. In principle, you're right. But that shit just won't fly. Not in this country. And especially not with the pedo hysteria that's been whipped up in recent years.The man is from Wisconsin. Tell me what would ever give him that idea?Well, I knew if it ever went to trial, he was fucked. I didn't wish it upon him. But it's just the way things are.I stopped doing that when Bush was reelected.I can understand how you may have been. I can't see how Max could have been. There's no way he's been doing what he did for as long as he did without knowing the score.Obviously, he made a big mistake. If his ass gets saved on appeal, he'll be a very lucky man.What I meant was they are inseparable as far as those who know very little about porn are concerned. It's all the same to them.Well, I'm thinking it's going to come down to that. You shouldn't need to defend consensual sex, it's true. But unfortunately, anti porners will always attack relentlessly whenever they can and there's just no choice. You have to defend it or do nothing. In which case, they win. If you can't defend it, they win.The constitution is basically meaningless if a prosecutor can find 12 people who will refuse to uphold it.I didn't say they should be. Just that they aren't necessary. And considering how upset people get over them, it really just isn't worth perusing them when there are so many other potentially viable niches. I can't see how simulated pedo could be all that viable anyway. Surely there aren't that many closeted pedos.Nothing. It's my belief the anti porn lobby is unstoppable and they will continue until they either basically destroy porn as a business or they will just keep trying. Forever. They will never give up. I know this. But there are things that are very difficult to defend in front of a jury and simulated pedo and rape are two of them.I'm well aware of this.But is Max's brand of porn their cause? I hope not because if it is, they're going to lose.I don't see how they have any choice when it's a guy like Max who dresses girls who already look younger than they are up like 11 year olds and abuses them while they call him "Mister". How are they supposed to defend that in the face of a public that is on the rampage over pedophiles? It's like trying to defend Hitler in Israel. I don't care if they are legal. They look like little girls and they act like little girls and Max talks to them like they're little girls while he has sex with them and pisses on them and calls them stupid whores. Appearances are everything. Just give a jury a chance to convict a guy like that of anything at all and see what happens. Now how is another guy who makes porn supposed to say "Hey. He didn't do anything wrong!"? This is THE deadly sin and they don't want to be associated with him. Understandably.Like I said. That's just the way it is. You either defend it or you don't. But if it's Max you're defending, you're going to lose.
Death is caused by swallowing small amounts of saliva over a long period of time. George Carlin 1567 Posts 2/07
Posted - Jul 22 2008 : 12:40PM
They can bust you for anything they want, but then it has to go before a federal grand jury, if they feel what they see is worth proceeding, they will. Historically speaking, if they see a movie that has a storyline and is just straight sex, it will not go beyond that federal grand jury. You keep saying that if they can bust you for this, why can't they bust you for that, the reason is they are not going to spend hundreds of thousands of tax payer dollars to keep losing cases. The general public accepts adult entertainment, they are adults, for whatever the reason may be, they don't like degradation of women, peeing in their mouths and what they percieve to be someone who is begging the guy to stop, and he won't , as obscene. I have never met a politican who doesn't care about getting re elected, that is their job. Bush is an asshole, he is a lame duck President that will go down in history as the worst President to ever hold the position. Any politican that holds their own personal agenda before the agenda of the people is usually gone pretty quick, i.e. Donald Rumsfeld and 3/4 of Bushs boys.
[Link]
realtip Deactivated User
2301 Posts 6/04
Posted - Jul 22 2008 : 9:06PM
I don't think he necessarily went out of his way to be offensive. It stands to reason that anyone who found him offensive would simply avoid watching him. But even if you're right, being offensive is not illegal. There are comedians and many others within the mainstream entertainment industry who earn their fame by being as deliberately offensive as possible. Just look at Jerry Springer, for example. While I have seen some things in both porno and non-porno entertainment that I might describe as personally offensive, I do not understand how a rational adult, especially who one watches and patronizes porn, can use something as petty as offensiveness as a cause for censorship.Was he asking for attention and notoriety within the industry? I'll agree to that. That's not the same as asking to be screwed over by a flawed judicial system.I don't recall the name of the case, but I remember reading that the Supreme Court(?) has ruled that it is not illegal for pornographic performers to to act as underage characters, as long as the performer is of legal age. Besides, I doubt that's what got Max into trouble. What about the pornographers who don't dress the girls in childlike outfits, but still become targets of prosecution? Plus, anybody who watches porn knows that Max is nowhere near the only pornographer capitalizing on the teen/young girl niche.Maybe people in Wisconsin are more familiar with the Constitution than people in Florida.What type of pornography is necessary?Again, people getting upset isn't a justification for censorship.Judging by the amount of teen videos on the market that feature girls in pigtails and braces while holding lollipops, I disagree; it is a very popular and viable niche to persue. This is definitely not to imply that I agree with your generalization that people who enjoy this niche are "closeted pedos." I might expect such a statement from someone who opposes porn, but not from someone who supports it. Such an assertion is no different from all the other false generalizations and assumptions people have of porn-viewers as a whole.And if the industry doesn't support everyone who works in it, it's going to lose. Siding with the enemy doesn't help.They have a choice. The choice is to either to acknowledge that it is a constitutionally protected form of entertainment that has broken no law, or to be bullied into agreeing with those who would rather see pornography disappear altogether. If porn supporters can be asked to contact lawmakers to insist that they oppose anti-obscenity mandates, then I don't think it's too much to expect that people who work in the industry should be proactive enough to defend its own cause, regardless of whoever is the specific target.I don't even have to explain how ridiculously outlandish of a comparison that is.The misguided attitude of "I don't care if they are legal" is the whole problem. Anyone who says that is outrightly admitting that it is OK to convict someone based on personal opinion rather than the law, which is completely unacceptable. It doesn't matter what they wear, or what they call him, or what he calls them, or how old they act. If it's legal, that's the only thing that matters.Easy. If a person really didn't do anything illegal, then there's nothing wrong with saying it out loud, even if it's unpopular. Let's face it: Anything a pornographer says is going to be unpopular by the larger society. So why take pretenses on this particular issue?I think that depends on who you're speaking to. Not everyone can be that closed-minded.
pornography wasn't sex but fantasies of an impossibly hospitable world 12377 Posts 9/07
Posted - Jul 23 2008 : 1:24AM
Joe Francis was widely seen by those in the industry as an imbecile begging to be prosecuted for filming women while they were drunk and not verifying their age. He got what he deserved for his poor business practices.
pornography wasn't sex but fantasies of an impossibly hospitable world 12377 Posts 9/07
Posted - Jul 23 2008 : 1:26AM
No shit, that is what pornography is about: making money. Let's not get too deluded here.
Edited by - BlackSix on 7/23/2008 1:27:34 AM
[Link]
realtip Deactivated User
2301 Posts 6/04
Posted - Jul 23 2008 : 2:31AM
In the case of Joe Francis, there's a difference between him and Max. Joe Francis actually did film underage girls, while Max only filmed girls who pretended to be childlike. One is illegal, while the other is not. Plus, I don't see how it can be said that Joe has "poor business practices" when his business seems to be making much more money than a majority of the people working in porn, and his video commercials are still airing every five minutes on TV. His success doesn't seem to have suffered. For this reason, I see it as likely that Max can overcome his legal setback as well. Having said that, just by seeing all the people who watch and produce porn jump for joy everytime another adult video producer faces a legal challenge, I am convinced that there is just a whole lot of hatred and envy spread throughout the adult industry. There are a whole lot of people who I don't like, but I don't say that they "deserve" to have the government try to throw them in jail for stupid reasons.Of course it's about making money. However, censorship, whether self-imposed or imposed by the government, is not condusive to good business in any entertainment industry. For example, would the music industry still sell as much rap/pop/rock music if singers were no longer allowed to use "obscene" language? Would the movie industry sell as many movie tickets if it became legally "obscene" to show sex or violence on the screen? It's the same with porn. Sure, you might remain in business as long as you agree to censorship standards, but what good does that do if people no longer buy your videos because you no longer film what they want to see? Case in point, I'm almost certain that Max made more money from the sale of his uncensored Euro videos than he did from the sale of the censored American versions. Had he decided to stop selling them, he might have avoided prosecution, but he wouldn't have made as much money either. So, not only is the porn industry making itself look weak, but companies also lose money by refusing to tap into all those untouched niche markets that Max was catering to. There's also the issue of principle.
But he knew they wouldn't. What you expect is for people to behave rationally and I have to tell you that you expect way too much from at least 50% of the people in this country. They will deliberately seek out and watch things that offend them just so they can be all offended and upset and disturbed.I didn't say it was. Just that it will get attention. And if it's porn, probably the kind of attention you don't want.Again. You expect rationality from people who aren't rational. I don't disagree with you about how things should be. I'm simply telling you how things are.That may be but as I said if you give a jury a chance to convict a guy who makes this material of anything at all, chances are, you're going to get a conviction. While it may not be technically illegal, people don't give a shit. The obscenity law gives them enough wiggle room to convict him without having to say why or what for.Guess again. I'm pretty sure they tried to prosecute him once before on charges of kiddie porn but he got off that time. So this time, they simply charged him with obscenity and showed his flicks to the jury. This time, they didn't really charge him with anything specific. Obscenity is vague enough for a jury to convict based upon just about anything. Show a Max Hardcore flick to a group of 12 people and see if you don't get every one of them to agree they saw something that they would personally consider obscene.Like I said, I realize the anti porn movement is determined to destroy porn.Of course not. But he was definitely the most visible and notorious of them all (at least in America).So do you take unnecessary risks when other avenues are open and available?No, it isn't. But people who want to censor don't care. They're as stupid as a box of rocks. Try arguing with them. You'll get nowhere. And unfortunately, there are way more of them than there are of us who would not be so quick to censor if we had our way about it.As well as one that will attract the attention of every prosecutor on planet earth.It's not my generalization. It's just what people will think when they see that stuff. I'm willing to concede there could be some other explanation for the imagery that I'm just too dense to figure out. But not everyone is like me and most people will call it what it appears to be. Simulated kiddie porn.Nor does producing content that appears to confirm all the vile accusations anti porn groups have been making about the porn industry all these years. Don't you see? Max's porn was everything the porn industry has tried to say porn isn't. And it was (or at least appeared to be) everything pornophobes have been accusing porn of being.I don't even have to explain how ridiculously outlandish of a comparison that is.
Click to expand
Not outlandish at all. Max appears to be a pedophile (whether he actually is or not). Tell me how you defend that in America in 2008?What I actually meant was that it doesn't matter. It was a figure of speech. I didn't really mean that I don't personally care. I meant that most people don't.I'm going to stop here. I just don't think we're accomplishing anything here. I'm not in disagreement with you in principle. I've said that. I have only tried to get you to understand the difference between how rational and reasonable people see things and how the people who are responsible for these prosecutions and convictions think. They're polar opposites. These people can't be reasoned with. They don't think. They just act and react. And their thought processes are guided entirely by their emotions and their prejudices. It is useless to argue with them. Edited by - randomprecision on 7/23/2008 4:39:32 AM
pornography wasn't sex but fantasies of an impossibly hospitable world 12377 Posts 9/07
Posted - Jul 23 2008 : 4:40AM
I didn't say that Joe Francis was like Max, I just pointed out that he wasn't some innocent victim of the anti-porn squad. His poor business practices refers to him filming intoxicated girls and not keeping proper records on them.
pornography wasn't sex but fantasies of an impossibly hospitable world 12377 Posts 9/07
Posted - Jul 23 2008 : 4:44AM
As happens whenever this issue comes up, you're confusing what you WISH the law in the US was with what IT IS. The law is the Miller test and that is the basis on which Max, and I suspect Mr. Isaacs, were/will be convicted. You can disagree with that law but you should realize that there is a perfectly legal basis for the decision. I happen to disagree with that law as well but then I don't live in the US, so my opinion on that has even less importance than yours.
pornography wasn't sex but fantasies of an impossibly hospitable world 12377 Posts 9/07
Posted - Jul 23 2008 : 5:02AM
If hardcore pornography was wiped off the face of the earth you could still make a killing selling softcore or just pics of girls in their underwear. As you point out, the softcore of Girls Gone Wild far outsells almost any hardcore pornography produced today. The more 'extreme' the sexual acts the smaller the audience it appeals to, they may be willing to pay more to satisfy their kinks but that is not the road to mega-bucks. Max and JM productions are not making the $ that BangBros and Elegant Angel do for instance. As for principle, the only real principle for 99% of pornographers is making money. Period. I would include someone like Stagliano in the other 1%. BTW, sorry about posting a few times in a row but I can't stand those essay long posts broken up with quotes.
Edited by - BlackSix on 7/23/2008 5:08:19 AM
[Link]
Tobin Deactivated User
450 Posts 11/07
Posted - Jul 23 2008 : 5:12AM
Girls Gone Wild is about 10 hex more erotic than the average gonzo chimp fest.
That's funny. I've haven't seen the video(s) but from the commercial, it just looks like a bunch of stupid, drunk teenagers flashing a camera and making goofy animal noises. What makes that hotter than gonzo?
[Link]
Tobin Deactivated User
450 Posts 11/07
Posted - Jul 23 2008 : 5:36AM
The girls look normal? They appear to be having fun? No naked mopes standing around yanking their puds? No robotic-which-hole-next sex? Just for starters.
[Link]
realtip Deactivated User
2301 Posts 6/04
Posted - Jul 24 2008 : 4:15AM
Prosecutors are usually very good at selecting who will serve on juries. If your purpose is to find twelve people who will find something obscene, you will have no problem finding them if you look hard enough. Depending on the demographics of the jury, as well as venue, an obscenity verdict can go either way. I don't agree that any jury would have convicted Max. It just so happened that this one did. But these types of obscenity verdicts have been overturned before.Drinking alcohol and smoking are risky, as well as unnecessary. But people still do it. People are free to take whatever risks they choose as long as they are legal risks. As for pornography, it is an inudstry where it is almost impossible to avoid risk-taking. Having unprotected anal sex with multiple partners is a risk, but still legal. Why refuse to take some unnecessary risks, but not others?No. Only the ones with personal or political agendas. The rest are too busy prosecuting real criminals.You defend it by not judging people based on what they "appear" to be, but by what can actually be proven against them.Because that's what all the guys buying his videos want to see.I don't necessarily disagree with the Miller test. I think it's an appropriate standard as it allows citizens to determine what is "obscene" in their own communities. The problem is that, since there is no objective definition for "obscenity," it allows prosecutors to charge just about anything as being obscene, leaving a jury to decide on it. I don't have a problem with the law itself, just the abusive and arbitrary application of it. Plus, judging by how many past obscenity convictions have been reversed by higher courts, it further shows how subjective the idea of "obscenity" really is. Indeed, by applying this standard, if you get 12 like-minded people together (which isn't hard to do), any piece of pornographic work can be ruled "obscene."Mainly due to advertising and assessibility. As good of a company as Evil Angel is, you will not see commercials for the next Manuel Ferrara or Buttman flick playing repeatedly every night on FOX for any 15 year-old with $20.00 to order. If Joe Francis' movies were relegated to the same status as hardcore pornography, he would probably have been out of business a long time ago.Porn that caters to a particular fetish or niche is probably not going to be as popular as what is produced in the mainstream, but it won't do poorly either. On the other hand, while those companies in mainstream porn might have a better chance of making higher profits, they still have to compete with several other similar companies for its share of the pie, and many of them will not succeed. Personally, I think the best advice for any prospective pornographer is to find something good that everybody else is not doing, and capitalize on that. Going back to the music example, musicians in the genres of jazz, blues, country, and folk music will likely not garner as much popularity or money as those entertainers in the more mainstream genres of rock, rap, or pop music. Nonetheless, they have their core audience that is not being catered to by the mainstream, and they don't have to compete with a million other mainstream musicians who will probably be forgotten three years from now. Either way, there is a trade-off. The same goes for porn.It's a good thing we have that 1%. What good is it to have rights if you don't feel the need to defend them?
[Link]
the unknown pervert Deactivated User
I'd like to stay but I've got a plane to catch. 3243 Posts 5/06
Posted - Jul 24 2008 : 9:42AM
Not only is there no definition of obscenity there is also no definition of community. What is it? The street you live on? The neighborhood you live in? The town? The zip code? The county? The area code? The state? The time zone? 5 mile radius of where you live? 10 miles? 25 miles? 50 miles? 100 miles? And with the internet now the community is everywhere.
Death is caused by swallowing small amounts of saliva over a long period of time. George Carlin 1567 Posts 2/07
Posted - Jul 24 2008 : 6:51PM
I believe there is a definiton of community, for instance L.A. County would be a community, there are five districts in Ohio, Cleveland, Toledo, Canton, Columbus and Cincinnati. Inside those five districts there are different counties that operate under the same laws. For instance Cuyahoga county falls into the Cleveland district, The laws in the Cleveland district differs significantly from those in the Cincinnati district. So each state may have a different definiton of community, but there is one. As far as the internet is concerned, if you are downloading porn to Brokren Arrow Oklahoma you are subject to the laws of Broken Arrow. Just because child porn is on the internet originating from Germany doesn't make it legal in the U.S. Edited by - hollywood woody on 7/24/2008 6:54:06 PM
[Link]
the unknown pervert Deactivated User
I'd like to stay but I've got a plane to catch. 3243 Posts 5/06
Posted - Jul 24 2008 : 8:44PM
You're splitting hairs between the concept of definition and uniform standard but I believe my point is still valid. How many different communities fall under the jurisdiction of a district? The concept this law is based on is community standards not district standards. Cities have limits to define their boundaries, counties have lines that define their boundaries, there is no set boundary for a "community."
I think he was just pointing out the fact that the people who made this law were quite obviously retarded (as if it wasn't obvious enough considering the purpose of the law). Edited by - randomprecision on 7/25/2008 1:06:36 PM
Are there Slim Jims in heaven? THERE MOST CERTAINLY ARE!!!! 114 Posts 12/07
Posted - Jul 25 2008 : 2:14PM
I think they would have left Max alone after failing to convict him the first time, if Max didn't go on to say how stupid his prosecutors were, and how he ruined peoples lives and got off scott free. It's his attitude that pissed off the man. Sure, they're whole-heartedly against his style of porn, but I believe it was his taunting that lured the feds in again and again. It's not illegal to wear a klan outfit to the million man march, but something tells me it wouldn't be a good idea. Max should have never boasted about his former prosecution attempts as a means to pique interest and sell more videos. He was literally asking for it. He messed with the bull, and he got the fucking horns.
OK. So what is it? What is a community? Where are the borders and how do I know where my community starts and ends? Is "community" supposed to mean "city"? Village? Town? County? Street? Who knows?
[Link]
the unknown pervert Deactivated User
I'd like to stay but I've got a plane to catch. 3243 Posts 5/06
Posted - Jul 25 2008 : 8:55PM
Exactly and it means a different thing in every courtroom.
[Link]
realtip Deactivated User
2301 Posts 6/04
Posted - Jul 26 2008 : 3:05AM
If it's true he did this, I agree that it wasn't a wise thing to do. I don't say he should have stopped making his movies, or that he should have been convicted, but openly mocking anti-porn prosecutors doesn't exactly persuade them not to bother you anymore. Once you've won a fight, win graciously, and don't give your opponent pointers on ways to beat you the next time.
Are there Slim Jims in heaven? THERE MOST CERTAINLY ARE!!!! 114 Posts 12/07
Posted - Jul 26 2008 : 1:54PM
He does it a lot. I understand that "paul little" is a "nice guy", but the that's a side he only showed to those close to him. I remember checking out his website a long time ago when I first heard about him, and half of the introductory description talked about his former prosecutions. I can remember one specific line that said, "join this site now, before Max is incarcerated for good!!!" I guess I would be lying if I said that it didn't pique my interest in who he is and what exactly he does that will eventually land him in prison. He shouldn't be surprised at what happened to him when he walks around talking shit like that. I'm against free-speech discrimination just as much as the next guy, but I don't feel sorry for people that taunt and talk shit. It's just not a a smart thing to do in this country.
I just want to point something out as someone who has gone to jail as a porn clerk for pandering Obscenity. Howard: Many of the movies I went to jail for at the porn store I worked at were nylon fetish movies. No pissing, no shitting, no Max Hardcore'ing, just chicks giving footjobs with nylons on. I worked with 2 clerks, female ones at that, that were involved in a legal fight in Ft. Worth, Texas for over 2 years for pandering obscenity. You know what movies they sold? A VIVID....read that again...a VIVID 4hr compilation and a Caballero 4hr compilation. So I guess an assortment of fuzzy lensed feature scenes CAN get you busted...and Vivid makes plenty of those. Now, none of those instances got long drawn out trials, and maybe justice would have prevailed, but I can tell you this much. Right now I have 9 counts of Pandering Obscenity on my permanent legal record. Almost every one of those counts is for some foot fetish videos. When I was charged for selling a Max Hardcore video, we went to trial and the jury acquitted. It's crazy weird what prosecutors will try to bring charges for and what you can fight and win. Now you want to go on record and say that you can't (your words CAN'T) get busted for features? I think there's quite a few porn clerks and managers out there that would disagree with you...and from experience. It never ceases to amaze me how short sighted porn studios are in thinking that the legal troubles can't stretch beyond those employed by studios. In case the industry hasn't been paying attention (and they haven't by the way), there are clerks all over this country that have been through this shit. They don't get the Reuben Sturman Award, so you may not know who their names are. They don't have a forum to become known like PT so you may not know who they are. But they are out there my friend. I'm sure you sell to LSMT in Texas...why don't you ask them about all the legal fights they had for years that went COMPLETELY unmentioned by ANY adult news outlet. During the time I worked there at least 15-20 other clerks like myself went to jail. But I'm getting off-topic. Long story short, if you think fuzzy features give you some kind of immunity, I guess you better talk to Reality Kings and tell them to fuzzy up that lens, because the forces of censorship are moving closer and closer to all of us...Max, Jeff, Rob Black, Ira Isaacs...they were "extreme", now it's John Stagliano, uh oh...who's next...Jules, Anabolic, Red Light, Hush Hush....Reality Kings?
The constitution doesn't give communities the right to decide which of the Bill of Right they will honer. The constitution doesn't give States the right to decide which of the Bill of Right they will honer. These are given under Federal Law. Now the government has the right to make laws for public places, public property and the public portion of your property. In short know one should have to see your hairy naked ass cutting grass in your front yard. The back yard should depend on your neighbors and what they would have to go through to see your naked ass.
Death is caused by swallowing small amounts of saliva over a long period of time. George Carlin 1567 Posts 2/07
Posted - Jul 28 2008 : 3:34PM
It would be different in each state. Los angeles is a community. san diego is a community. Cleveland ohio is a community, which is also cuyahoga county. There laws differ than Cincinatti, which is a community. City, Village and town are pretty much the same thing. County can encompass many cities, villages or towns. Your street would be part of a community, i.e. the city in which you live.
Death is caused by swallowing small amounts of saliva over a long period of time. George Carlin 1567 Posts 2/07
Posted - Jul 28 2008 : 3:45PM
I guess this all goes back to community standards. I do know that Vivid has always helped with the legals if someone got busted for one of our movies. You certainly failed to mention that. Texas is a tricky place. LSMT chooses to fight for their rights, Gary has always done that. I believe and I could be wrong, Max got busted on a Federal charge. We do not ship to communities where there is a history of prosecutions. If I shipped to gary in Austin and he brings those movies to Dallas, that is his decision. As a clerk, you should know the risk you are taking selling certain dvds in Dallas. But when Gary called I can asure you we helped out, as when any calls with a similar problem. Lsmt did not want the negitive publicity or AVN would have written it up.
I didn't mean to give the impression that Vivid would not help. I certainly know they had, and I should have mentioned it, but I was focusing more on the aspect of just getting busted in the first place. LSMT fights the city NOW, but that's wasn't always the way it was, and I think I know firsthand on that. When I started there, the clerks were getting busted one person almost every week. We were 'encouraged' to plead no contest. That's what I did....9 times. Could I have fought it? Yes. In retrospect, I wish I had. But when you're 20 years old and the company tells you just to plead No Contest because it's riskier to fight it, I believed them. When they say it's just a misdemeanor, and no big deal, I believed that. That's my fault for being naive. Boy do I regret that now. My criminal record follows me to this day. LSMT did not make the decision to start fighting the legal battles. It was a former clerk (Jonathan Wallace) who was involved in a custody dispute when he got his Obscenity warrant that went out and hired Andrew Cheatham to defend him. After his victory, the CLERKS, not LSMT, banded together and insisted that LSMT fire previous attorney (Allen Barr), and hire Mr. Cheatham who went on to win acquittal after acquittal. This was great for the clerks as it was followed immediately by a substantial drop off in arrest warrants being served to clerks. Was this great for LSMT? Yes and no, as it was a great win for freedom and was the right thing to do, but it opened the door for competition from those who previously couldn't afford the legal bills. As far as AVN goes, sadly it would take LSMT emailing the story to AVN as a Press Release to get them to cover the story, because journalism isn't really a strong point there. I think a "news" magazine does have some obligation to seek the stories out and not just print what's sent to them for Press Releases. Although, Mark Kernes does do a good job on his legal pieces. But, how this would have been negative publicity is beyond me, it should have shone the light on an outrageous situation. In fact, the Dallas Observer did cover the situation in great detail (http://www.dallasobserver.com/2002-05-23/news/the-naked-truth/) I think I'm trying to get multiple points across. One being that even a Vivid movie can get you arrested, if not for federal charges, for local ones. Secondly, the local charges often go completely ignored by our industry. Unless you are a producer, the industry glosses over it. It's a much more appealing story to mention Max Hardcore than it is Joe Schmo I suppose. I've complained about clerks not getting any love from this industry for years, and I'll continue to do so. In the 4 AVN Awards shows that I've attended I've never heard the word "clerk" uttered. Consider this my crusade, and I won't stop speaking about it. This will no doubt bring out comments from people who've had bad experiences with clerks, and that's fair. However, I still think this industry should thank those on the front lines everyday. Howie, you know I love Vivid. I always loved dealing with you and Peskin. So please don't think I'm trying to somehow throw Vivid under the bus, because that's absolutely not what I'm saying. I just think our industry focuses solely on those that get federal charges and assume everything less 'extreme' than that is safe, and I want people to understand that at the state/city level that things much tamer than Ira Isaacs have been prosecuted and average working class clerks have had their lives forever changed.
Death is caused by swallowing small amounts of saliva over a long period of time. George Carlin 1567 Posts 2/07
Posted - Jul 28 2008 : 5:41PM
I completely understand. That is why when people on this site say there are no community standards, what is a community, blah, blah , blah, they should talk to you. I understand there are no mention of the everyday sales guys at AVN Awards or anywhere else for that matter. If you noticed, nor are there awards for the best salesperson at a Company, which being a salesperson for over 24 years I think is wrong. The Marty Turkels, Ed Kails, Helenes, Big Al, eric guttermans of the world, not to mention yours truly, have never been recognized. I t kinda sucks, but I live with it. You can get busted locally for anything, true, would they have won those cases? I guess we'll never know. Somehow I doubt they would have. I am friends with a lot of people on the frontline, without you, there would be no us. Hey, I give you the Howard Levine Award, thank you always.
I am really amazed by the moralizing some people, some of them obviously industry insiders, have aired here. One would be led to believe that this is a forum for supporters of Jerry Fallwell. And the dirt heaped upon Max H.? Silly. I really wonder how can someone really claim with straight face that Max´s girls looked underage. Perhaps I am poor at judging people´s ages but to be frank, some ponytails, roller skates and white blouses don´t fool me. Nor they should fool anyone with common sense.
Death is caused by swallowing small amounts of saliva over a long period of time. George Carlin 1567 Posts 2/07
Posted - Aug 7 2008 : 2:52PM
he didn't get busted for girls looking underage. I think what you may not understand is that Max and Ira have a right to make anything they want, if the goverment feels they can make a case against them, they will, and did. If a jury feels the same way the Grand Jury felt, then they will lose. The point is the whole industry loses when this happens. Peoples perception of the adult industry is that we are all making movies like Max and Ira. Ira Issacs made national news and was seen by millions of people, he is not really the Henry Kissinger of porn. I doubt anyone here really supports Jerry Falwell, who I think is dead, so maybe he is a bad example.
