Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘obscene’

Free Max Hardcore!

200px-maxhardcore

From

http://www.maxhardcoretv.com/FreeMaxHardcore.htm

As you have probably heard by now, the groundbreaking and legendary adult film maker Max Hardcore, was recently found guilty for the production of “Obscenity,” and sentenced to 46 months in federal prison, and fined Eighty-Five Thousand Dollars! Other artists who have been convicted of Obscenity in the past include comedian Lenny Bruce and author James Joyce.

Max Hardcore’s films were found to be illegal because they “violated community standards.” With the assistance of the judge, the prosecutor inflamed the jury as they painting Max Hardcore as a violent predator – even though there was no real violence at all! Thoroughly prejudiced, the jury ignored the fact that Max’s scripted and staged productions involved only willing and well paid participants of legal age. The jury even ignored the glowing praise by one of his so-called victims who starred in three of the five movies on trial.

Take a quick look at history and you will find that most truly great art violates community standards. Max Hardcore was sentenced to prison because he is a creative, brilliant, groundbreaking pornographer. Instead of being tried in Los Angeles, where he lives and works, he was tried in a conservative part of Florida, because some of his internet servers happened to be located there. This sets a very dangerous precedent to all those who have blogs or websites no matter where you live!

Humanity progresses through offensive ideas. Socrates was sentenced to death for corrupting the youth of Athens. Copernicus and Galileo were arrested for proving that Earth was not the center of the universe. Jesus was crucified for teaching a religion of peace and acceptance.

The freedom of speech is the right to pursue and develop ideas, and to share those ideas with the world. It is the right to pursue greatness and truth. It is the right to do art, to do science. It is to express yourself with the help of others, so long as everyone is participating of their own free will.

By jailing a truly groundbreaking artist, the government has not just taken away one man’s freedom. They have taken away the right to pursue new ideas, to challenge and improve the accepted ways of doing things, to seek artistic greatness. And they have taken this right not only from Max Hardcore, but from every one of us.

Sincerely,
Stanton Audemars
Rattled Films

You Can Do Something About this!

Max Hardcore was never a rich man, but has financed this case up to this point, and spent nearly all his money. To carry it onward to the appeals process, Max now needs the help of all people who know the importance of Freedom of Speech, and the Sanctity of one’s own home.

Now is the time to show you mean business, and contribute whatever you can, be it $20, $100, $1,000, or more, every dollar counts! Max has set up a fund so he can mount a robust appeal, and get this case thrown out, for so many good reasons, that it shows the conservative elements of the Justice Department that people aren’t going to stand for being treated like unpatriotic citizens anymore! Here’s what you can do:

Contribute by Check or Money Order:

Make checks Payable, and Send them to:
Sirkin, Pinales & Schwartz, LLP
Attorneys at Law
920 Fourth & Race Tower
105 West 4th Street
Cincinnati, Ohio 45202-2726
(Memo Note on check that it’s for the Max Hardcore Defense Fund)

Contribute using a Credit or Debit Card! Call them at: 513 721-4876

(Say you want to contribute to the Max Hardcore Defense Fund)

True, not everyone is fond of Max.

According to wikipedia,

Max Hardcore (born Paul F. Little on August 10, 1956 in Racine, Wisconsin, U.S.A.) is a controversial male porn star and producer whose films usually feature him engaging in a variety of sexual acts with young women who dress and act like prepubescent girls.

Prosecutions

Although Hardcore often depicts his actresses as young and sometimes beneath the age of consent, they are not actually under 18. In his film Max Extreme 4, an actress over the age of 18 was portraying a character who states that she is 12 years old.

Based on these movies, the city of Los Angeles in 1998 charged him with child pornography and distribution of obscenity. The fact that the actress was over the age of 18 was not disputed; they brought charges based solely on the fact that the actress was portraying a character who was under eighteen years of age.

Just before the case was brought to trial in 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the statute prohibiting adults from portraying children in films and books was unconstitutional (See Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition). Based on this ruling, the child pornography charges against Hardcore were dismissed. The misdemeanor charge of distribution of obscenity was retained, but the jury failed to reach a verdict. An additional obscenity charge was subsequently levied against him by L.A., again resulting in a hung jury. Hardcore commented that “it was a frivolous waste of public resources.”

On October 5, 2005, the offices of Max World Entertainment were raided by the FBI. Five video titles and the office’s computer servers were seized, ostensibly for research toward a federal obscenity indictment or a charge related to the 2257 record-keeping law. In response to this action, Hardcore released the following statement: “Once again, the government is wasting tax dollars and otherwise invaluable law enforcement resources to try to force a minority view of morality on all of America. Five of my movies have been targeted by the Federal Prude Patrol. There is no indication of any crime to be alleged except obscenity. If indicted, I will fight to protect my liberty, as well as the liberty of consenting adults to watch other adults engage in lawful, consensual, pleasurable sexual action. Shame on the Bush Department of Justice. I am proud of the movies I make and proud of those who buy and sell those movies.”

In 2007 Max Hardcore was indicted by the United States Department of Justice Obscenity Prosecution Task Force on 10 counts of federal obscenity charges in Tampa, Florida and was found guilty on all charges in June 2008. He has been sentenced to 46 months in prison. Also on October 3 2008 the official Max Hardcore domain was forfeited, making the current official website http://www.MaxHardcoreTV.com.

Glenn Greenwald writes in Salon,

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.

this site suggests that some of Max’s scenes really were rape. However, if that is the case, why were no charges of rape ever filed, with the evidence being so easily available?

max-girl

Susannah Breslin writes,

In Max Hardcore movies–“Anal Agony,” “Hardcore Schoolgirls,” “Max! Don’t Fuck Up My Mommy!”–women are verbally and physically degraded in an unprecedented myriad of ways. They are choked, slapped, throat-fucked, penetrated with fists, given enemas, pile-driven, urinated upon, vomited upon, and in some instances instructed to drink from glasses the money shots that have been delivered into their rectums. Most of the time, Little as Hardcore is the perpetrator of these acts. Not infrequently, his scenes are fraught with pedophilia themes, beginning when he stumbles upon his subjects in playgrounds, where they sit alone, in pigtails, talking baby-talk, and sucking on lollipops. Mostly, the sex scenes end with his latest costar a mess and Hardcore triumphant. Even for the most jaded porn watcher, Little’s ouevre is over the top. Watching Little’s work is less like watching a porn movie than it is akin to witnessing a vivisection. On the screen, Hardcore bends over the female bodies before him, sometimes with speculum in hand, as if attempting to get at something within her at which he can never quite get, and so to which he is doomed to return, his methods more and more hardcore.

She continues,

Because if you’re going to talk about how far we’ve come when it comes to porn, if you’re going to posit Paul “Max Hardcore” Little as the latest victim of the Bush administration, if you’re going to lament one more strike against your First Amendment rights, you should bear witness as to what a porn star drenched in vomit looks like.

Fair enough. I’ve watched dozens and maybe even hundreds of Max’s films, going back over a decade. I’ve certainly watched hundreds that have been inspired by his work. Unless and until there is evidence of actual rape proven in a court of law, I tend to agree with Greenwald as reported in his exchange with Breslin:

I really don’t care what consenting adults do with one another in order to entertain themselves or please themselves sexually–I’m not a busy body trying to sit in judgment of what other adults choose to do with themselves, especially in their sex lives. Not even the Government claimed that these films involved minors or non-consent, so as far as I’m concerned, it’s nobody’s business what they do, and whatever they do isn’t going to change my mind in the slightest.

Breslin reports,

In 2005, the Bush administration launched its so-called “War on Porn,” forming the Obscenity Prosecution Task Force, a Department of Justice outfit dedicated to pursuing obscenity prosecutions, and the FBI began recruiting for a “porn squad,” otherwise known as the Adult Obscenity Squad, focused on “manufacturers and purveyors” of pornography.

She also finds irony in the following:

Little’s defense, Greenwald points out, is the same defense the Bush administration has used to defend interrogation techniques used on detainees: “because the acts in question didn’t involve the infliction of severe pain, they weren’t illegal.” In the case of Little’s videos, he asserts, “There was no suggestion that any serious violence was ever inflicted or that the adult actors in the film were anything other than completely consensual.” In conclusion, he proclaims: “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.

What’s ironic about that? The Bush gang tortured people who did not consent. Max either tortured women who did consent – not a crime, and not even wrong – or he tortured women who did not consent. In which case, the Bush gang should have charged him with rape. They did not. Is it because they did not have a case? If they did have a case, why didn’t they charge him?

And why is the same bunch who makes excuses for non-concensual torture so willing to go after concensual torture – because they wish to monopolize the act, or keep it out of sight and out of mind?

Where is all of this leading?

Delaware Libertarian offers a clue:

From News.com.au:

THE Federal Government is planning to make internet censorship compulsory for all Australians and could ban controversial websites on euthanasia or anorexia.

Australia’s level of net censorship will put it in the same league as countries including China, Cuba, Iran and North Korea, and the Government will not let users opt out of the proposed national internet filter when it is introduced.

Broadband, Communications and Digital Economy Minister Stephen Conroy admitted the Federal Government’s $44.2 million internet censorship plan would now include two tiers – one level of mandatory filtering for all Australians and an optional level that will provide a “clean feed”, censoring adult material.

Despite planning to hold “live trials” before the end of the year, Senator Conroy said it was not known what content the mandatory filter would bar, with euthanasia or pro-anorexia sites on the chopping block.

“We are talking about mandatory blocking, where possible, of illegal material,” he told a Senate Estimates Committee.

Previously the net nanny proposal was going to allow Australians who wanted uncensored access to the web the option to contact their internet service provider and be excluded from the service.

So… Australia is going to have mandatory, state-instituted internet filtering, which is basically designed to eliminate anything the Australian government decides would be bad for its citizens to see, a list which apparently includes at this point any website discussing anorexia or euthanasia.

But, as my non-Libertarian friends never tire of telling me: there is no such thing as a slippery slope. There is no such thing as a slippery slope. Thereisnosuchthingasaslipperyslope.

As Majikthise points out,

However, the CIA interrogators who videotaped the torture and degradation of non-consenting prisoners are still free.

The same Justice Department that defended the legality of “enhanced interrogation” methods has named mainstream adult pornography a top enforcement priority.

Advertisements

Read Full Post »

Tim CouchI’m not exactly sure why someone who sits on a state legislature (where he represents about two and a half obscure rural counties out of 120 counties in the state) thinks that he can legislate what everyone in the world does, but

Kentucky Representative Tim Couch filed a bill this week to make anonymous posting online illegal.

The bill would require anyone who contributes to a website to register their real name, address and e-mail address with that site.

Their full name would be used anytime a comment is posted. If the bill becomes law, the website operator would have to pay if someone was allowed to post anonymously on their site. The fine would be five-hundred dollars for a first offense and one-thousand dollars for each offense after that.

Representative Couch says he filed the bill in hopes of cutting down on online bullying. He says that has especially been a problem in his Eastern Kentucky district.

Ah, eastern Kentucky, home of one of this blog’s all-time favorite criminals, the Duct Tape Bandit. LOL. That probably answers my original question in this thread.

Aside from the logistics, in that it is absolutely impossible for a state legislature to legislate the behavior of everyone on the internet – no matter how hard they may try – is this a good idea?

Even though I covered the Megan Meier controversy to a great degree, I think it is a horrible idea, and I’ll tell you why.

What happened to Megan Meier was an anomaly. That poor young girl was mentally ill, as evidenced by the fact that she was prescribed not just anti-depressants, but also Geodon, an anti-psychotic. Her adult neighbor Lori Drew was well aware of this, so what she did to that child is absolutely unconscionable, whether one believes she is responsible for Megan’s death or not.

While I realize there are people who have mental illnesses on the internet – and sometimes I wonder if the majority of people posting on the internet have a mental illness – the internet is not a nanny, nor should anyone expect it to be. It is also not a place for children, or the otherwise weak at heart. It is definitely rated “R”, so no one who couldn’t get into an R-rated movie shouldn’t be here in the first place, unless they have parental guidance.

Some other parts of the internet are rated NC-17, some are rated X. With some websites, you don’t even realize you are going to an X-rated site until you are already there (another problem, but responsible internet users simply don’t click on unknown links in the first place).

I can write an article as ElfNinosGreatAuntTilley, and as long as I don’t harm anyone in the process, it is not a crime for me to do that. The right to anonymity is a basic right. It is a right which I exercise everytime I log onto this blog. It is a right which I exercise in my personal life on a fairly regular basis. The fact of the matter is that no one is entitled to know my name, in real life or on the internet. I’m not doing anything wrong, and in fact I do a lot to help others in life, but I like my privacy.

Why do I think it is important for me to post under a pseudonym? There are several reasons, all of which I feel are perfectly valid.

I used to regularly bust scammers on Quatloos, cooperating with the FBI and other law enforcement agencies to get these slimeballs behind bars where they belong, and in that capacity I angered some extremely dangerous people. Once I even angered a man who was a dirty ex-NYPD cop, and a former enforcer with the Colombo crime family (yes, the mafia). He had stolen millions from people in a scam wherein he pretended to be a loan company for people who can’t get conventional loans, and he would charge them a large up-front fee. He did his best to ascertain my real identity, and made multiple threats of physical violence against me, including both murder and rape.

In a situation like that, I have two choices. I can either bust the guy under a pseudonym, and be able to sleep at night, or I can do so under my real name, and end up moving every few months. I choose to stay put.

As most of you are aware, I am a professional writer, and I write about true crime as well as criminology issues. However, I didn’t sign up for the publicity which comes with that. I have a unique name, and I don’t want people coming onto this blog to ask me the same questions I’ve been asked (and answered) a million times, and harassing my friends who visit this blog; yet I have every reason to believe they will do that, because that’s what they did when I had a professional website. I just want to be me when I’m here, and I want others to feel comfortable posting here as well.

Tim Couch may not think those are valid reasons for me to not use my real name on the internet, and he’s entitled to his opinion. At the same time, I didn’t elect him, and I don’t live in Kentucky, so his opinion could not possibly be more irrelevant to me.

The fact of the matter is that there are more than enough laws already on the books to handle any situation which might arise on the internet, regardless of whether the person is using their real name or a pseudonym. There are laws against stalking, harassment, obscenity, and other problems. Sure, it might not be easy to find the perpetrator, but it’s not always easy to find perpetrators in real life either.

There are laws to cover what Lori Drew did to Megan Meier, too, if the authorities would use their heads. She could be charged under child abuse laws, stalking laws, harassment laws … the list goes on and on. I don’t know why they decided to not charge her, but that doesn’t mean she couldn’t be charged if the prosecutor wanted to do so. Of course, now a federal grand jury is considering charges against her for wire fraud, since she used a false name on MySpace for the specific intention of stalking and harassing another person (though that’s a Catch-22, since Megan Meier also falsified her age with her mother’s permission, as she was otherwise too young to have a MySpace account). It’s not a problem to use a false name in and of itself. It only becomes a problem when someone uses a false name in order to commit a crime, which is something the vast majority of people on the internet will never do.

So, in a nutshell, I think Kentucky State Representative Tim Couch needs to worry about things which are actually under his control. He is not in a position to legislate the internet, since he is just a state legislator. He has, like a typical politician, grabbed onto a controversial issue to get publicity. Even if his law passes, he is only giving his constituents a false sense of security on the internet since the law would not apply to anyone outside that state; he’d do a far greater service to his constituents if he introduced a bill to fund a public information program about the internet, or requiring that children in his state be educated about the dangers of the internet. He knows or should know that he has no jurisdiction to legislate the internet. If he doesn’t know that, he isn’t smart enough to be making laws in the first place.
_______________________________

Originally posted on Adventures In Frickintardistan

Read Full Post »

International Loud Cussing SymposiumIn St. Charles, Missouri, officials are considering a bill which would ban profanity, table dancing, drinking contests, and any other type of indecent, profane or obscene music, literature, and entertainment in bars. They claim the law is needed to keep rowdy bar crowds in the historic downtown district under control.

They don’t seem to care that the behavior they find so reprehensible is taking place on private property. They also seem to be overlooking the undeniable fact that it’s none of their fucking business what anybody does on private property, as long as the property owner doesn’t mind.If people in that area aren’t careful, they’ll ban consuming alcohol in bars next.

Bar owners, needless to say, are opposed to the measure, saying it is a violation of their civil rights. Marc Rousseau, who owns a bar called R.T. Weilers, said, “We’re dealing with adults here once again and I don’t think it’s the city’s job or the government’s job to determine what we can and cannot play in our restaurant.”

Rousseau is absolutely correct.

St. Charles officials are obviously trying to take all the fun out of going to a bar. I’m not a big drinker at all, and while I did hit the bars regularly when I was young, I now only drink occasionally. However, the last time I went to a bar (on New Year’s Eve) people were hootin’ and hollerin’ and drinkin’ and cussin’, and a good time was had by all. I really don’t see what the problem is, except that city leaders seem to have an overly tight anal sphincter. What they really need is a good stiff drink to loosen that up.

There is no doubt that the proposed measure won’t withstand court scrutiny due to being overly broad and therefore not enforceable (not to mention being a violation of bar patrons’ and bar owners’ constitutional rights), but city officials don’t seem to mind that bar owners will be forced to spend money unnecessarily to challenge the law. Outrageous.

__________________________

Source: AP: Bill would ban swearing in bars

Originally posted by ElfNinosMom on Adventures in Frickintardistan

Read Full Post »

%d bloggers like this: