"The next guy" doesn't watch porn, certainly not extreme porn such as Max Hardcore. Even with normal porn still being such a touchy subject in America, it gets labeled as "obscene" pretty quickly, let alone something like Max. What I meant was, once the line of one's personal preference has been crossed, it often gets dubbed "obscene" and demonized.
"The next guy" doesn't watch porn, certainly not extreme porn such as Max Hardcore. Even with normal porn still being such a touchy subject in America, it gets labeled as "obscene" pretty quickly, let alone something like Max. What I meant was, once the line of one's personal preference has been crossed, it often gets dubbed "obscene" and demonized.
It is the pictorial documentation of humans engaged in sexual activity. As it is documenting an expression of physical human interaction, it constitutes a form of art. There are cinematic considerations during the process, editing for stylistic consideration, and directorial decisions being made. All of these make it art.
Originally posted by: zinfamous
Is he the guy responsible for 2 girls 1 cup?
I'd love to see this written out in one of those citations
That's the Brazilian MFX Video company.
Originally posted by: SagaLore
Nice.
That should be up to the organization. However, there are other laws that would affect this other than obscenity laws--regardless if those particular laws violate free speech. One may consider it for a sexual education course demonstrating ways one cannot become pregnant.
AstroManLuca
Lifer
- Jun 24, 2004
- 15,628
- 5
- 81
Originally posted by: zinfamous
Is he the guy responsible for 2 girls 1 cup?
I'd love to see this written out in one of those citations
A while ago I actually read an interview with Max Hardcore where he said he'll do anything that doesn't involve shit. So even he has his limits.
I'm guessing it won't, unless there's a jurisdictional issue. I haven't seen any of this company's videos (no curiosity here, I'm way too weak in the stomach given some of the descriptions here), but the jury did already convict. In our system, a jury is given a lot of weight as the trier of fact, so without clear error by the judge in an evidentiary issue or refusal to grant a directed verdict or jnov, it's going to be a pure issue of law on appeal.
That brings about the Miller test, which you can google. The Wikipedia entry is fairly accurate, in the instance you can't find a secondary legal source. The first prong is based on the standards of the community, not a reasonable person standard, and the jury there already found for the prosecution. The 2nd and 3rd prongs are objective (reasonable person), but the jury already found for the prosecution there too -- and the jury is considered to be the determinant of what is reasonable there too.
On appeal, that realistically leaves a jurisdictional challenge. Yes, there will likely be a de novo review because its a speech case and its restricting content, but the law is settled -- Miller controls, and the jury found that the facts fit the law. Facts matter, a LOT. It'll be an interesting case, probably one that we'll read in future casebooks, on the jurisdictional issues, but ultimately I do expect that this case will stand unless a judge made a serious error. I can't find the record online, and probably don't have time to read all of it, but as a matter of substantive law this probably isn't protected speech under the 1st amendment.
Yes they should, as a local issue. That's one point where Miller is actually a pretty good decision (it's the controlling law in this case, you can look that up). Fact of the matter is, at the level as granular as an individual community, people should have the ability to decide what's obscene and what they don't want. I'd argue entirely differently on the state or federal level, where it's just too big to make blanket statements. But just as individual communities are free to regulate themselves as "dry towns" they have the right to do this too.
Now, whether a suit brought under the subjective standards of an individual town against a defendant who uses the internet as a distribution mechanism should have jurisdiction against the defendant in its entirety is another issue. I imagine this will be the larger issue on appeal.
From what I've picked up over the years, the "stars" are never told who they are working with on any given day. The work is all contracted out through agencies, and all the agency is obligated to tell them is where to show up on what day.
In other words, I'd think there are some serious doubts over the issue of consent. And especially for any woman living outside of L.A. who has picked up the cost of airfare in advance.
But certainly I know no specifics.
In other words, I'd think there are some serious doubts over the issue of consent. And especially for any woman living outside of L.A. who has picked up the cost of airfare in advance.
But certainly I know no specifics.
Female porn actresses tend to have quite a bit of control over their contracts regarding what they will and will not do. There's of course a lot of pressure to...loosen...their restrictions, but that's up to them.
jonks
Lifer
- Feb 7, 2005
- 13,918
- 20
- 81
Part of the prosecution's case rested on video viewed on the internet. You don't think this presents a ripe question regarding local obscenity defining material available to anyone anywhere on the web? Now they also have him for mailing videos, but the internet aspect might not be so quickly dismissed by higher courts.
ED: you addressed this in your next post. I agree.
I said in my first post too, "unless there is a jurisdictional issue". I'm sort of lumping what you said/I said in my follow up. That is, if i were appellant's counsel, I'd argue the M.D. Fla. didn't have personal jurisdiction over the defendant, and probably want to address the minimum contacts issues head on.
I'm just also betting that many times like the liberal 9th circuit finds a way to state their desired outcome and backfill the analysis to make it fit, the more conservative 11th circuit will do the same.
If the Supremes grant cert, it's going to be an interesting fight. I think they're definitely up to handling the case objectively, and also having some unlikely allies on both sides, for different reasons. In the end, I'd go as far as predicting a plurality opinion, but really can't venture an informed guess as to which way. My personal conjecture says it stands, since they can safely go narrow in the plurality and still uphold Miller.
Factually, I think Miller really applies here, and this particular defendant isn't a good enough candidate to overrule it. Not for this Supreme Court, anyway.
jonks
Lifer
- Feb 7, 2005
- 13,918
- 20
- 81
elmer92413
Senior member
- Oct 23, 2004
- 659
- 0
- 0
His stuff is actually pretty tame...I mean vomit? Come on that's what baby's do.... babies.... I'm sorry, where was I?
Vomit and urine are tamer than the latest House/ER/other medical show. Doesn't sound like most people are even aware of what's out there. I've been around the netblock a time or two and have got to tell you that his stuff doesn't hold a candle to the real sick stuff out their.
Vomit and urine are tamer than the latest House/ER/other medical show. Doesn't sound like most people are even aware of what's out there. I've been around the netblock a time or two and have got to tell you that his stuff doesn't hold a candle to the real sick stuff out their.
zanejohnson
Diamond Member
- Nov 29, 2002
- 7,054
- 17
- 81
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter