Or he can be found innocent and be considered a modern hero to freedom of speech sort of like Larry Flynn is, but he will actually be a scumbag. So everybody gets screwed either way where either our liberties are hurt, or they make a slimbag out to be a hero. It doesn't seem like a good situation to me.
As long as you’re an adult rape doesn't seem possible with consent. It defeats the whole definition of rape. Abuse would also be pretty hard to imagine with the consent of the other person, otherwise things like boxing and professional wrestling or people that make movies with violence with actors could be charged with "abuse". It's a pretty weak argument.
I wonder how many people actually got conned into it. It might be some, but I wouldn't doubt gigantic portions of the actresses are in it for the money. Most places of business I have ever worked have exploited people almost as bad; they just didn't involve sex or have it on camera. Maybe you should advocate the creation of fairer and common sense labor laws to protect every worker at every business from that, not eliminate the type of material he creates from being made, even if something like that is practically unachievable. That would make more sense. Maybe he did some unethical things, but there is a difference between ethical and legal. In an ideal world they would be more or less mutually inclusive but the world isn't ideal and were forced to go from there.
I could also point out that barring being physically coerced or restrained even after they signed the contract they probably could have walked out at any time even if they didn't know what was going to happen before hand (which they probably did know anyhow). There isn't a judge in the country that would force them to have sex. With drugs there is a different chemical addiction than just a normal person with a need for money. I don't think there quit the same.
The Supreme Court isn't staffed and has never been staffed by a bunch of wise men and women in black robes that always make the correct decision based on sound legal reasoning. In reality the people on it are individuals that have their own political desires and motivations. There will always be a different time with different judges put there by different people. That goes for all judges for that matter. Surely you can see that incidences like this can and will further allow more and worse things to happen. That's why they call it a slippery slope. No, if they convict Max the day after it they probably can't take down Vivid. However they can go on the next small little step further along and then the next little step and then the next and so on and so on and so on until they get what they ultimately wanted. Some of the worst things in history happened in steps because they couldn't be achieved in whole without the people rebelling. It's already happening in a lot of incidences. Whether it's the continual eroding of free speech, protections against search and seizure, or gun control among many, many, other things.
The view you have seems to me to be of one where you think Max is a bad person and the questionable means they use to go out and get him is all right as long as somebody you don't like gets what they have coming to them in your view. That seems to be an ends justify the means, two wrongs make a right approach.
I don't like anything Max Hardcore puts out. I don't know him personally, but I think he probably really is a scumbag. However that's not my criteria for determining if somebody should be charged with a crime, otherwise it comes down to nothing more than trying to make your opinion on morality the law of nature whether other people like it or not.
