max hardcore gets in trouble w the law...
- Thread starter member9999986
- Start date
I dont know about using "fun" as the barometer. Women in the adult biz do all kind of things that are not "fun" for the money - how many women really find anal sex to be fun? Roxy Jezel is a pretty hard-working porn babe, doing lots of anal scenes. She featured at my local strip club recently and one of the house dancers was telling me later that she and a group of the dancers were chatting with Roxy about being a porn performer and especially about doing anal. Roxy told them that she doesn't enjoy the anal sex, that it hurts - I'm sure, though, that there are promo interviews that she has done talking about how much she enjoys it, because she makes money doing it.
That's why women work with people doing rough sex, too, including Max.
There should be the opportunity for women to say "stop" and have him stop. Some women who complained about other directors actually had good things to say about Max. There's a scene he did with Jade Hsu where she made it clear that she wouldn't allow anal sex and he didn't ***** her. He throat-fucked her some more.
The government would love for this case to set a precedent to go after other portions of the adult biz, I'm sure. Whether they'll be able to do so remains to be seen.
I agree with that definition of the term "fun" also. I mean how many people say their work is "fun" and are given the opportunity to say stop when they are not having anymore "fun" because they are working overtime, porn is a living for them. Not all the performers have been anally fucked by Max, so where's the part where he ****** them. How about they are over the age of 18, so they made a clear descicion of doing what they were going to do and thats something that most these days to account for what they agree to do and choose that is easy to blame someone else.
AbyssKiller
Banned
Didn't Max sexually harassed/agressed one pornstar backstage when they weren't filming?
I don't know if you're talking about the Felicity incident, but I think that was revealed later on to have been an act on her part. Not sure.
Everyone's been wondering about the charges. I was looking for those, and so far all I've found is this MSNBC story about it from May 31:
http://www.wnbc.com/news/13420217/detail.html?subid=10101421
If I can find anything on the actual charges (Filed in Florida, not CA) I'll post 'em up!
EDIT- here's a different article, and it looks like it's 10 charges- five counts of transporting obscene material via computer, and five counts of the same by regular mail. Anyhow, here's the link:
http://www.infoworld.com/article/07/05/31/Porn-director-faces-charges-for-online-distribution_1.html
H
Freedom of speech exists for a reason.
If Max Hardcore is a ******, they should charge him with ****.
The charge of 'obscenity' should be removed from the books. All obscenity is, in and of itself, political in some way whether intended as such or not.
If Max Hardcore is a ******, they should charge him with ****.
The charge of 'obscenity' should be removed from the books. All obscenity is, in and of itself, political in some way whether intended as such or not.
And how is it that you **** someone who is an consenting adult to perform in an adult oriented movie? the answer is you don't. This is just the Goverment trying to start a chain reaction agaisnt all form of legal porn! Freedom of Speech has been under some serious ****** after 9/11
I was never a fan of MH's vids, and I do occasionally like to watch some rough stuff. But MH was just disgusting. Almost all the girls he chose looked ******** (even though they weren't), and I'm sorry I'm just not one of those guys who fantasizes about fucking girls who look like they're still in high school. Not to mention the **** he did to them in his vids. I found it revolting.
Don't support the legal action though - if it's legit, it's legit. Shouldn't be any issue.
Don't support the legal action though - if it's legit, it's legit. Shouldn't be any issue.
that is just absurd. I think that you know the definition of what **** is, and if you don't I suggest that you look it up. What part of saying "No" qualifies as cosenting yes to you?
But we don't really know, do we? We don't know what's in these movies that he's being charged with. Find out what the facts are before spewing the same stuff everyone else does about eroding freedoms and 9/11, blah blah blah.
For all we know, Max is trying to shove an entire goat into a 17 year old. The few scant articles I've found so far don't go into detail on why these movies were enough to get charges, but my guess is, if there's counts against him for trying to transmit it over the net, and through the mail- there's something more naughty than making some girl gag.
Again, just trying to go off facts, rather than emotion.
H
For all we know, Max is trying to shove an entire goat into a 17 year old. The few scant articles I've found so far don't go into detail on why these movies were enough to get charges, but my guess is, if there's counts against him for trying to transmit it over the net, and through the mail- there's something more naughty than making some girl gag.
Again, just trying to go off facts, rather than emotion.
H
Yeah we do know what it's about. It's the feds, the little weasel Gonzalez, Bush, Cheney, trying to tell you what you can and cannot watch.
They're going after Max because of A) rough sex, B) *******, C) fisting. Since they have the archaic rule about sending "obscene" matierial through the mail that's how they're going about nailing him. Never mind the fact that what's obscene to one person is boring to another.
That's also why they're doing this out of Florida where the jury pool will consist of 75 year old bible thumpers who think anything with the lights on and anything other that missionary position is a sin.
The only thing Max is guilty of is making tasteless, pointless garbage and that is not a crime.
They're going after Max because of A) rough sex, B) *******, C) fisting. Since they have the archaic rule about sending "obscene" matierial through the mail that's how they're going about nailing him. Never mind the fact that what's obscene to one person is boring to another.
That's also why they're doing this out of Florida where the jury pool will consist of 75 year old bible thumpers who think anything with the lights on and anything other that missionary position is a sin.
The only thing Max is guilty of is making tasteless, pointless garbage and that is not a crime.
And you know this for certain? You've reviewed the case and the charges?
Again, and you proved my point- everyone's certain this is big ******* out to eat up our freedom. Ever consider the fact that maybe this porn pig just pushed it too far once? Or maybe, he had an ******** performer? There could be any number of reasons he's been charged.
But we don't know what those reasons are.
H
Oh please. Give me a break. You are more naive than Paris Hilton. This is the same government that has busted the Come On Her Face guys. The same government that has busted JM Productions for an episode of Gag Factor and American Bukkakke. Here's the story about the indictment. http://avn.com/index_cache.php?Primary_Navigation=Articles&Action=View_Article&Content_ID=289624
Here's the videos in question. "Hardcore is also charged with mailing DVD copies of Max Hardcore Extreme Vol. 20, Pure Max 19 Euro Edition, Fists of Fury 4 - Euro Edition, Planet Max 16 - Euro Edition to a post office box in Tampa "on or about January 18, 2006."
******** performers. Again give me a break. No one in the mainstream porn business is going to come within a mile of using anyone that's not at least 18. There is too much money at stake to do anything that stupid.
If you notice from the titles they are "Euro Editions". That means they have fisting and ******* and probably barfing too. Granted those movies are all a bunch of garbage but it's not the governments business to tell me or anyone else that they cannot be viewed.
If you don't think that this is an attempt by "big *******" (particularly this administration with their fascist Christian right wing assholes) to eat away at our freedom to watch what we choose to watch then I really don't know what else to say to you.
Iamforever
Banned
is everything about bush? damn his name gets brought into every single argument doesnt it? instead of blaming him, why not blame those that are to blame.
Not him per se but since this is his administration he gets his name used probably more than it should. He also does have final say on policy. But then again everyone says Cheney is pulling all the strings in reality so who knows?:rofl:
i fucking **** max hardxore, but id condone that.
The judicial process "just works" (even if not immediately or efficiently) ...
Furthermore, Flynt's legal actions set the precedent and now protects our rights -- most specifically on the aspect of "taste."
Just like the US Supreme Court (among other lower courts) have regularly sided with sexual offenders that ******** "sexual desire" is not against the law, but when the ***** himself/herself is ********, that IS against the law. Someone has to be "harmed" in order for it to be "against the law," not merely under someone's arbitrary and differing sense of "taste."
SIDE NOTE: The only time I see any different is when it comes to budgetary matters, but that's outside the topic of this thread.
Conclusion ...
Most people don't care to understand the law or the courts, only what they think is "right or wrong" in their values. That's hardly "objective."
I have followed many, many, many rulings in the US Supreme Court over the years. Every one has been sound and well thought-out. Even if I did not agree with the final ruling, I did stop to read and understand the reasons why each judge ruled based on their reasoning.
My personal favorites that reminded myself why the public doesn't make, execute and much less interpret and rule on the law were the two (2) cases on the Ten Commandments in the courtroom. The Supreme Court ruled against one, but for another. Most people didn't stop to read why or understand the real, legal history of the matter, but assumed it should be as they saw fit.
Max Hardcore is being prosecuted for many reasons. He will be found guilty or not guilty -- possibly after a series of appeals -- because of the rule of law and our very involved set of "due process" designed to give anyone and everyone the best, most complete and overall protective set of processes we know of. They are hardly "subjective" or "unobjective" in the grand scheme of things, and they work very well, even if "the truth" takes years to come about.
It hardly works immediate or most effectively, but it's the best we know of to preserve the protections we've had, and will always have, as a result of that "due process" that neither happen nor can be changed "on a whim" (or by any administration for that matter -- even after appointing several, alleged "conservative" or alleged "liberal" Chief Justices). That's why the people elected by the people to create laws serve only 2-6 years, the executive only 4 years and the judicial for their life. Because over a lifetime, you survive the "whims" or "attitude today" of the populous and get to rulings and judgements that favor a lifetime of legal precedent.
Because I fear the say when the "whims" and "majority" define and override a lifetime of this country's precedents. Our founding fathers felt the same, very strongly.
even larry flynt was targeted. damn right wing christians.
Actually, Flynt repeatedly won appeal after appeal, showing our judicial system does, indeed, work!
Furthermore, Flynt's legal actions set the precedent and now protects our rights -- most specifically on the aspect of "taste."
Because it is protected under our First Amendment. Until it crosses the ********* of the rights of others, it is always protected and upheld.
But "taste" is up for interpretation. It is a very poor legal argument. But ...
That is the difference. It doesn't matter what is in writing or other "disclaimer," the gross ********* of someone's physical self -- clearly against their will -- cannot be tolerated under the laws of this country. It has nothing to do with "taste," but the protection of the individual.
Just like the US Supreme Court (among other lower courts) have regularly sided with sexual offenders that ******** "sexual desire" is not against the law, but when the ***** himself/herself is ********, that IS against the law. Someone has to be "harmed" in order for it to be "against the law," not merely under someone's arbitrary and differing sense of "taste."
The administration has little to do with this, as the courts ultimately decide what is "right'n wrong." It's at the very heart of our federal government's limitations of powers -- with those elected more removed from those that are selected who hold the greatest power. At most, the administration can only play a very small role in either the prosecution or defense of individuals or other entities they name.
Every US Executive administration is almost always the focal point of the public's outrage, regardless of whether or not they are involved. The Clinton administration was regularly blamed for many things that he was not directly involved with either.
SIDE NOTE: The only time I see any different is when it comes to budgetary matters, but that's outside the topic of this thread.
Er, no. He has his "final say" on the policy of the Executive office, and by definition the Executive has more power than the Legislative when it comes to enforcing the law (whereas the Legislative makes laws, and has far more power there, as well as influence by the people), but he hardly has "final say" on the law. That's the responsibility of the Courts, who are furthest removed from the power of the people, ironically (or not so ironically) enough.
Conclusion ...
Most people don't care to understand the law or the courts, only what they think is "right or wrong" in their values. That's hardly "objective."
I have followed many, many, many rulings in the US Supreme Court over the years. Every one has been sound and well thought-out. Even if I did not agree with the final ruling, I did stop to read and understand the reasons why each judge ruled based on their reasoning.
My personal favorites that reminded myself why the public doesn't make, execute and much less interpret and rule on the law were the two (2) cases on the Ten Commandments in the courtroom. The Supreme Court ruled against one, but for another. Most people didn't stop to read why or understand the real, legal history of the matter, but assumed it should be as they saw fit.
Max Hardcore is being prosecuted for many reasons. He will be found guilty or not guilty -- possibly after a series of appeals -- because of the rule of law and our very involved set of "due process" designed to give anyone and everyone the best, most complete and overall protective set of processes we know of. They are hardly "subjective" or "unobjective" in the grand scheme of things, and they work very well, even if "the truth" takes years to come about.
It hardly works immediate or most effectively, but it's the best we know of to preserve the protections we've had, and will always have, as a result of that "due process" that neither happen nor can be changed "on a whim" (or by any administration for that matter -- even after appointing several, alleged "conservative" or alleged "liberal" Chief Justices). That's why the people elected by the people to create laws serve only 2-6 years, the executive only 4 years and the judicial for their life. Because over a lifetime, you survive the "whims" or "attitude today" of the populous and get to rulings and judgements that favor a lifetime of legal precedent.
Because I fear the say when the "whims" and "majority" define and override a lifetime of this country's precedents. Our founding fathers felt the same, very strongly.
Right on! A lot of what Max does is straying away from porn into ******** tinged, misogynistic *****. Some of it I wouldn't even consider sexual, just using sex as the medium for a darker longing.
But he would not be in business if that market was not there, a lot worse **** goes on in the real world - I would prefer to see people in power who want to stop this trying to find out why , rather than lock up people who are showing it.
Similar threads
