• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Adult film director sentenced to 4 years in prison on obscenity charges

Kernel Sanders

Norville Rogers
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 19, 2008
Messages
3,730
Reaction score
1,931
Location
Pittsburgh, PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Source [BoingBoing | Adult film director Max Hardcore sentenced to 4 years in prison on obscenity charges]

A US District Court in Florida has sentenced "extreme shock porn" gonzo director and distributor Max Hardcore, aka Paul F. Little, to four years in prison over obscenity charges. Writing for Salon, Glenn Greenwald wrote that he believes the verdict is a blow to first amendment rights:

“So, to recap, in the Land of the Free: if you’re an adult who produces a film using other consenting adults, for the entertainment of still other consenting adults, which merely depicts fictional acts of humiliation and degradation, the DOJ will prosecute you and send you to prison for years. The claim that no real pain was inflicted will be rejected; mere humiliation is enough to make you a criminal. But if government officials actually subject helpless detainees in their custody to extreme mental abuse, degradation, humiliation and even mock executions long considered “torture” in the entire civilized world, the DOJ will argue that they have acted with perfect legality and, just to be sure, Congress will hand them retroactive immunity for their conduct. That’s how we prioritize criminality and arrange our value system.”

Sorry - this is a blog and not a news source. I will try to find an actual article and post back here
 
Last edited:
Here we go - from one of the sources linked to by the blog

Source [St Petersburg Times | Pornographer sentenced to nearly 4 years in prison]

TAMPA — The pornographer tried to apologize.

His voice shook. He sounded as if he'd cry.

"I didn't realize I'd made a mistake," Hollywood hardcore producer Paul Little told the judge Friday. "My entire life I've been trying to do the right thing by people and by the law."

Senior U.S. District Judge Susan C. Bucklew interrupted him.

"Mr. Little, I find this almost incredible," she said. "You seem to look at this whole thing as a big joke."

Bucklew sentenced the man known as Max Hardcore to 3 years and 10 months in federal prison for selling and distributing his messy, sometimes violent videos in Tampa. She also made him forfeit three Web sites, fined him $7,500, ordered him to face three years of probation after his prison sentence and fined his company, Max World Entertainment, $75,000.

Tampa jurors convicted Little in June on 10 counts of selling obscene material on the Internet and 10 counts of shipping it to Tampa through the U.S. mail.

They reached that decision after watching 8 1/2 hours of extreme porn on a giant screen in court. At times, they winced as Little performed in sex scenes that included urinating and vomiting.

After nearly two weeks of trial and roughly 12 hours of deliberations, jurors decided that what they had seen went beyond the Tampa Bay region's community standards.

Little's attorneys, who argued his films were protected by the First Amendment, said they plan to appeal.
 
This is so absurd. As long as it involves consenting adults, who cares what they do? How can anyone dictate what is or isn't obscene considering that it is a subjective term?
 
They should appeal this as planned. It sounds like a judge had an ax to grind and forfeit the first amendment to do it.
 
WTF? This judge needs to reprimanded. They should definitely appeal and I hope that they don't ever get such a clear 1st amendment violation conviction a second time.
 
This is so absurd. As long as it involves consenting adults, who cares what they do? How can anyone dictate what is or isn't obscene considering that it is a subjective term?

Ha. You said "dick" on a thread about porn.
 
jurors decided that what they had seen went beyond the Tampa Bay region's community standards.

This perfectly highlights the dangers of majority rule. A majority opinion does not constitute a fact nor is it inherently logical. We are supposed to be a nation ruled by laws, not contemporary circumstances. Majority rule and creative interpretations of the law will bring this nation to its knees. This verdict is far more sickening than the defendant's porn could ever be.
 
I wonder what this judge would sentence the writer and director of the SAW movie series?
 
Tampa is part of the 11th District of Florida (I believe, correct me if I'm wrong) and its Congressional Representative is Kathy Castor. If you wish to register a complaint with her office in regards to this egregious First Amendment violation here is her contact info...

Mailing Address:
Castor for Congress
301 West Platt Street, #385
Tampa, FL 33606

Phone:
813-454-9080

Email:
info@castorforcongress.com


As far as the judge is concerned the only contact info I could find on her (I didn't try very hard) was the following phone number...

The "Honorable" Susan C. Bucklew
Senior United States District Judge
Tampa Division

813-301-5858
 
Talk about judicial activism. Anybody care to see an actual case of it, well here's your chance.
 
Congresspersons have absolutely nothing to do with the decisions of federal judges. When you email/call them about those topics, they get deleted or otherwise ignored.

Re: the actual topic

At first, this sounds ridiculous. Showing the jury 6 hours of videos seems unduly prejudicial. At the same time, the idea that they can't be prosecuted just because they're consenting adults doesn't quite fly either. There are plenty of things that you can "consent" to that are illegal.
 
Congresspersons have absolutely nothing to do with the decisions of federal judges. When you email/call them about those topics, they get deleted or otherwise ignored.

Re: the actual topic

At first, this sounds ridiculous. Showing the jury 6 hours of videos seems unduly prejudicial. At the same time, the idea that they can't be prosecuted just because they're consenting adults doesn't quite fly either. There are plenty of things that you can "consent" to that are illegal.

I somehow don't think that there is a law on the books that says anything they did was illegal. Watersports are illegal in Tampa? Doubt it. Vomiting? Scat? Doubtful. I'm sure its some vague law that was used to prosecute this guy and will be overturned in no time.
 
I somehow don't think that there is a law on the books that says anything they did was illegal. Watersports are illegal in Tampa? Doubt it. Vomiting? Scat? Doubtful. I'm sure its some vague law that was used to prosecute this guy and will be overturned in no time.

The laws most certainly exist

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=18&sec=1461

The question is just what qualifies as "obscene"

Citizens' Guide to Federal Obscenity Laws

The Supreme Court has held: "Transmitting obscenity and child pornography, whether via the Internet or other means, is... illegal under federal law for both adults and juveniles." Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844, at 878 n. 44 (1998).

Federal law prohibits the distribution of obscenity through the facilities of interstate or foreign commerce. More specifically, it is a crime to use the mail to send or receive obscene materials, to import obscenity, to ship or receive obscenity by a common carrier, or to transport obscene materials across state lines for sale or distribution, including by computer. See 18 U.S.C. sections 1461, 1462, and 1465. It is also illegal to broadcast obscene materials, or engage in the business of selling obscene materials that have traveled through interstate or foreign commerce.

...

The U.S. Supreme Court established the test that judges and juries use to determine whether material is obscene. The test was developed in three major cases: Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15, 24-25 (1973); Smith v. United States, 431 U.S. 291, 300-02, 309 (1977); and Pope v. Illinois, 481 U.S. 497, 500-01 (1987). The resulting three-pronged test to adjudicate obscenity is as follows:

Whether the average person, applying contemporary adult community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest (i.e., an erotic, lascivious, abnormal, unhealthy, degrading, shameful, or morbid interest in nudity, sex, or excretion); and

Whether the average person, applying contemporary adult community standards, would find that the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct (i.e., ultimate sexual acts, normal or perverted, actual or simulated, masturbation, excretory functions, lewd exhibition of the genitals, or sado-masochistic sexual abuse); and

Whether a reasonable person would find that the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

Any material meeting this definition may be found to violate the laws of the United States and anyone convicted of distributing such material may be prosecuted and punished by fines and a term of imprisonment.

The way the law is written and has been interpreted by the court, it's basically applying a "community norm" approach. Genteel society has determined that most "normal" porn is okay, so we only prosecute for the really bad stuff.

Is this a sensible policy? Not particularly.
Is it really defensible on the merits? No.
Is it a makeshift solution that avoids an unanswerable question? Yes.
 
I think it'll boil down to community standards, which I personally think is justified.

Now, on the other hand, I'm a tad liberal in my thinking on sexuality. I've attended Fantasy Fest on several occasions, it's basically an adult festival for people of all orientations to express themselves freely, but, Key West, sets their community standards, which allows for open expression of this nature.

When it comes to sexuality issues, I think it should be determined by the states, and then further broken down into local municipalities.

I don't think Amish country should have to live under laws that suit a San Fransico lifestyle, and vice versa.
 
I prefer Mom's Apple Pie :cool:

pie.jpg













source
 
I think it'll boil down to community standards, which I personally think is justified.

Now, on the other hand, I'm a tad liberal in my thinking on sexuality. I've attended Fantasy Fest on several occasions, it's basically an adult festival for people of all orientations to express themselves freely, but, Key West, sets their community standards, which allows for open expression of this nature.

When it comes to sexuality issues, I think it should be determined by the states, and then further broken down into local municipalities.

I don't think Amish country should have to live under laws that suit a San Fransico lifestyle, and vice versa.

I would agree with regard to public sexuality, perhaps.. but not private.
 
Ignorance at it's best. If you don't like it, don't watch it. It's really that easy.
 
Genteel society has determined that most "normal" porn is okay, so we only prosecute for the really bad stuff.


Ha. Oh man, this is our wonderful country.
 
I say we all watch porn tonight in honor of this man.
 
Was this the guy that did the two girls one cup thing? If so then I demand he be forced to eat chocolate that looks like feces and someone elses vomit.
 
Was this the guy that did the two girls one cup thing? If so then I demand he be forced to eat chocolate that looks like feces and someone elses vomit.

I don't think 2g1c was an american film. Either way, nobody was forced to do anything. The models did what they did of their own free will
 
I don't think 2g1c was an american film. Either way, nobody was forced to do anything. The models did what they did of their own free will

I was being facetious. I believe it was made by an American director in Brazil. I remember reading he was facing charges because of it.
 
Was this the guy that did the two girls one cup thing? If so then I demand he be forced to eat chocolate that looks like feces and someone elses vomit.

Yeah, but it's still chocolate regardless of what it looks like. If anything, he should be forced to eat feces and vomit that looks like chocolate.
 
Yeah, but it's still chocolate regardless of what it looks like. If anything, he should be forced to eat feces and vomit that looks like chocolate.

Did they fake the vomit though? I don't know how they would do that...
 
Back
Top Bottom