Pornographer sentenced to nearly four years in prison

Eh? Why would I support the liberties of others if they are distasteful and I disagree with them? I have no reason to do so. That's why we form a social contract to begin with. To say "Hey, instead of plummeting into total chaos, I'll give up my absolute freedom to do whatever the hell I want in exchange for some order and taste."

According to my logic, your precious state already regulates sodomy.

 

Yeah, I knew you are the real deal.

 

Aristartle can answer for herself of course, but your argument that she is implying she thinks your gay neighbors should be jailed is illogical. And you know it, but then again you were advocating that google spy on citizens as a means of determining community standards, so who knows what you are willing to do to win a fight short of actually doing what HAS to be done: change the law.

Your gay neighbors are safe from having their door busted down not because laws magically appeared which gave them safeguards. The laws appeared because gays banded together, became a political force and FOUGHT for their rights.

Perhaps Max Hardcore’s jailing will lead to a movement which results in a rewriting of the laws. I suspect, however, it won’t. You yourself stated all you plan to do is keep downloading porn. It’s fake outrage. Seems to me you know there will always be a new Max Hardcore willing to risk being jailed, there will always be new porn actresses willing to play the role and that is all that matters to you.

 

Well said, depoisoned. :hurray:

 

i thought the social contract in america was: i accept your freedom to do/think/say what you wish, and in return you grant me the same. i didn't see anything about taste in the constitution or the bill of rights. as far as i know we don't legislate taste here. i thought that was the whole point.

 

Apparently, times have changed, and they are walking backwards.

 

first off in the supreme court case Lawrence and Garner v. Texas in 2003, sodomy laws were struck down as unconstitutional in my precious country, which is now the US. Not sure what you meant, but the is the law here.

And I find it most disturbing that you don't understand why you should not stand up to support the liberties of others merely because you find their actions distasteful. I would do it for you in a second, and I am grateful every day that i live in a part of the world where we at least strive for that. There ought to be a standard of legitimate state interest that involves some kind of harm from happening to something or someone. Anything short of that is arbitrary and in this country, unconstitutional. The world will not slip into chaos because someone is puking on someone else. Even if a third person derives pleasure from watching it. Even if that offends you, it behooves you to make damn sure that right is protected.

 

Yes you do. Your Constitution is plagiarized from a social contract that John Locke wrote a century earlier.

That's what a social contract is. It's the creation of the transferring of power. People invest their absolute freedom (the freedom to do whatever they want) and agree to give that freedom up in exchange for the security provided by a civil government or a state (for things such as murder laws, laws against theft, etc.)

The whole point is to give up your freedom to do whatever the hell you want in favour of some kind of order and peace.

 

I understand why you think I should stand up for something I don't agree with. Because civil liberties are above everything in this world eh? Above nature, above families, above kindness, the whole thing now?

I think you're very foolish to fight for my freedom, you wonderful freedom fighter who doesn't agree that my freedoms are tasteful but fights anyway. That's just sad.

Why would I fight for people to sell sex, smut, filth and exploit people all along the lines of production who are chained to an industry bent on profiting off the dredges of society? The world is already in chaos if you believe this is something people should be fighting for.

*shakes head in shame*

 

http://www.xxxporntalk.com/ubbthreads/printthread.php?Board=dvdtalk&main=47446&type=post

Anyone attempting to protect Max Hardcore's rights should take a look at that link.
Just a warning, it is from an actual porn forum.

If you read all of the scene descriptions, and still want to protect him, maybe you should question your personal morals.

I see it like this. Tampa wanted this guy locked up a long time ago. He imitates child pornography through acting, which violates any obscenity law one can think of, he is documented to have caused an actress to commit suicide, his videos CLEARLY promote pro-rape notions, and actresses have spoken out against him time and time again. They used the obscenity laws to lock up a psychopath spreading his fucked up ways of thought to hundreds of thousands of people. I don't see what the big deal here is. He deserves this sentence not for breaking obscenity laws, but by tip-toeing over legal boundaries for so many years that it finally caught up to him.

You have to consider the power of persuasion this guy must use to get anyone to be in his films after reading descriptions of his scenes and the reality of Max Hardcore.
People like him are dangerous to society because they lower the bar on human decency, and that is not a moral issue when you consider how it could affect the potential rape victims whose predators minds were desensitized by this mock-rape garbage.

 

Here is just a sampling from that thread that exposes the facts behind this fuckhead.

Other Max Hardcore incidents (Websites, News Stories etc...);

- Max fucks a blonde named Nina so hard that she cries and bleeds. Then over her protests, he urinates into her mouth. Medoff says Max pays the girls about $200 each. -lukeford.com


- Max and I got into it a while back about this girl Gia who had come into Jim South's office. She needed the money and he offered her $600 for an anal scene, her first fucking scene. The scene is so bad that he can't even release it in the United States. He can release it only in Europe because she's screaming 'No. Stop. Don't.' She's crying throughout the whole scene. She told me what happened. - lukeford.com


-Felicity (aka Leanna McQueen) 'she got an 'interview' with Max Hardcore, and at the point of the interview where she might have expected to be shaking his hand she found him thrusting his penis into her butt. Things went on from there in the way that might be expected from Max Hardcore, and 20 minutes into the interview Felicity fled, loudly complaining about having been throttled, and generally abused. Max followed her and spent several minutes sweet-talking her, followed by several more telling her what a waste of space she was, and that only one other girl had ever tried less to perform with him than Felicity had done. Though clearly unnerved, Felicity apparently decided to continue with the session, but at this point the photographer, concluding that he was presiding at a rape, intervened and took Felicity away, back to his apartment. Max H apparently made no effort to contact her again, but the experience had somehow made Felicity willing to do things on film that she hadn't been prepared to before.' - lukeford.com

 

I didn't realize that it was that severe. Ty MamaKate for opening my eyes.

I was wrong for supporting him. If I had known how serious this was I wouldn't have supported him.

I am sorry to Aris if it seemed that I supported a monster. I was supporting something before I saw the complete picture, and was supporting something far less severe as what MamaKate presented.

I am glad that he is jailed.

 

Dirty bastard, let him get three or four years in prison so he'll see how violent sex can really be.

 

Read Mama's post.

Sometimes you have to walk backwards so you don't walk off a cliff.

 

Don't be too hard on him, Aristartle. He is smart but not particularly wise. It's a different skill set.

 

just so everyone knows that was me posting, not Kate. she was logged on and i thought that i was when i posted. so yeah, im a male and those are my views on this particular form of "pornography".

A good example of bad support of constitutional rights was Alan Ginsberg's support of NAMBLA. There is a fine line between what defines liberal politics and what are just the negative effects on ones mind who has been influenced by too much freedom (in that case, LSD)

There may be constitutional rights protecting pornographers like Max, but when it can be disputed that the rights of others are being affected, you have a case. In this case, im sure the main dispute was the rights of the women who are involved with the production of his films. If it wasn't, it wouldn't have taken them 8 1/2 hours of his videos to reach a verdict.

Why are people wondering how it took that long to analyze? Considering the degree of realism used to explain his scenes, im sure the jury had a hard time deciding what was a girl acting like shes crying, and what is just flat-out rape on video. They probably wanted to give him rape charges as well, but couldn't find enough evidence to draw that conclusion. All i know is that if i was part of a jury analyzing this case after watching 8 hours of what is described on that site, i would hope for nothing but the most severe charges possible for Max. Fair? maybe not completely. Justified? definitely.

 

if it's true that people were actually being forced to participate in making the videos, then he should have gotten a helluva lot more than 4 years. if they were acting, then it's no different than any number of hollywood offerings you can see in theatres every day in this country. either way this still doesn't make sense.

 

Wow, hate America much? Plagiarism is when you use someone's work and call it your own without giving them credit. Borrowing ideas is not plagiarism.

And I still don't see how Max Hardcore threatens the peace.

And for those of you thinking he is being jailed for abusing women, that is simply not the legal case. He is being jailed for selling the material. Period. The actual "abuse" is legal, in Florida, Ontario, and any province or state you can think of in North America. No, it is not true that anyone was being forced to do anything, and that was never alleged in this case by anyone except people on this forum who don't understand the difference between the law and morals.

I never thought I would find Hip forums to be dominated by social conservatives with neo-totalitarian ideas, but there you have it. I guess that's what happens when life has been too easy for too long. People start to take freedom for granted.

Freedom is not free. It sometimes requires you to look a little bit beyond yourself. You may even have to coëxist with NAMBLA. In fact, take a look at nambla.org. They are still around. That's because the 1st amendment is still around. So i suppose that means we need to do away with the 1st amendment altogether? Nambla is despicable. But yes, I will stand up for the right to be despicable.

 

amen.

 

sure, our legal system is fucked up. is there any doubt that perhaps he wouldn't have gotten charged with obscenity laws had there not been a possible case for abuse? and you can't tell me that a jury would subject themselves to 8 1/2 hours of his videos only to make the obscenity conclusion.

maryjohn, are you basing your conclusion about the legal case to the press release or something? if you are not convinced that there could be allegations of abuse, watch one of his videos, or look up some information on his videos. these girls will cry real tears and ask him to stop in the middle of a scene to which he continues his acts or will even physically hold them down. regardless of any legal protection be it a signed release form or what have you, if that isnt a case for abuse, i dont know what is.

This is not social conservatism. This man's rights that you are defending, are no different than a man's rights which say he has the freedom to kill someone so long as there is a legal document involved. Those are not rights and nobody has those rights and for good reason.

There are also many exceptions you have to consider. Many actresses of his have claimed to being manipulated in various ways. Many have quit the business after working with him. He doesn't represent the majority of the adult industry, he represents a small percentage of people who test legal boundaries and in doing so accept the fact they will get busted. He probably didn't even care that he had the rights to do what he was doing or he would've been a little more cautious instead of filming himself ruining a person's self-worth (which is evident) to the point that they are crying and telling him "no" and to stop. If he'd cared about his own rights he would have protected them better. The court watched his films first-hand and that ultimately fucked his rights. He had it coming and deserved it.