Max Hardcore Guilty On All Counts in Obscenity Trial

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

JEDI

Lifer
Sep 25, 2001
29,391
2,736
126
Originally posted by: sjwaste
Originally posted by: jjones
I'm guessing this will eventually be overturned.

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.


huh? thought porn was a freedom of expression and protected by 1st amendment?

if not, then how does plain old missionary porn video legal in all 50 states? wouldnt some of the more conservative states ban it already?
 

sjwaste

Diamond Member
Aug 2, 2000
8,757
12
81
Originally posted by: JEDI

huh? thought porn was a freedom of expression and protected by 1st amendment?

if not, then how does plain old missionary porn video legal in all 50 states? wouldnt some of the more conservative states ban it already?

I really can't give you a complete, succinct answer to this question. We spent probably a month on related topics in my con law class on this, and that was two years ago for me :) Basically, when it comes to first amendment protection of free speech, not everything is protected. The "obscenity" category falls outside of the First, and is determined based on the factors set out in Miller v. California, 413 US 15 if you want to look it up.

Generally, "regular" porn is protected but "obscene" isn't. Obscenity (doesn't have to be porn) is defined under that Miller test, of which the first prong (no pun?) is subject to the values of the local community. It's obviously a pre-internet decision, which could be applied neatly to an adult book store or something of that nature.

Because Miller has the subjective prong and a jury decided that the content was obscene, it's going to be really hard to reverse that since juries are generally given a lot of weight even in a de novo review. Likewise, it's hard to say there was a mistake of law in this case and that Miller wouldn't apply. Therefore, the real issue on appeal is going to challenge the jurisdiction.

In other words, if this guy opened a store in whatever Florida town and the same suit was brought, the 11th Circuit would probably affirm this quickly. The only thing controversial about this case, IMHO, is that the Internet changes some things.

Jonks linked to another case, vacating a decision against a guy who republished the DeCSS tool in California. I think this case is even distinguishable from the instant, but this is my own pure conjecture now. I think the fact that the person wasn't selling the tool, vs this case where the guy is charging and shipping has a better chance of establishing minimum contacts. Not saying its a sure thing either way, but you'll see it in the next opinion, that's for sure.
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
20
81
Originally posted by: JEDI
Originally posted by: sjwaste
Originally posted by: jjones
I'm guessing this will eventually be overturned.

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.


huh? thought porn was a freedom of expression and protected by 1st amendment?

if not, then how does plain old missionary porn video legal in all 50 states? wouldnt some of the more conservative states ban it already?

As he states above, 1st amendment protection for material deemed 'obscene' varies with local community definitions. What's legal or acceptable in one location may not be in another.
 

QueBert

Lifer
Jan 6, 2002
22,553
834
126
Originally posted by: Baked
This guy has no business in the business. He's a very very sick and twisted asshole.

I agree, I think a lot of the females are naive about just how bad his videos are. A good sign of bad they are. I read an interview with a female who had "heard" of him but didn't know a whole lot. She ended up in one of his videos, and without warning he ran up behind her and crammed his fist into her pussy. She had no idea he was going to do that, she said she started to freak out and cry and he just slapped the shit out of her and told her to take it. Also I read next to no females ever return to do a 2nd video. If he pays well you'd think females would be fighting each other to return to shoot more scenes with him.

It reminds me somewhat of the Ghetto Gaggers site, the chicks have to know what they're getting into. But until they're actually there doing it, they have no idea how bad it's going to be. A lot go "oh I can handle this!" before the scene starts, but none come back to film again.

Max is a piece of shit who prays on weak females, I have no sympathy for him and hope a man in Prison is a fan of his work and gives him the reverse treatment.
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,329
126
Originally posted by: jonks
Originally posted by: JEDI
Originally posted by: sjwaste
Originally posted by: jjones
I'm guessing this will eventually be overturned.

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.


huh? thought porn was a freedom of expression and protected by 1st amendment?

if not, then how does plain old missionary porn video legal in all 50 states? wouldnt some of the more conservative states ban it already?

As he states above, 1st amendment protection for material deemed 'obscene' varies with local community definitions. What's legal or acceptable in one location may not be in another.

That may be the law but its just not "right". I am a big believer of States rights but freedom of speech should not vary from one community to another.
 

Steve

Lifer
May 2, 2004
15,945
8
81
www.chicagopipeband.com
Originally posted by: QueBert
Originally posted by: Baked
This guy has no business in the business. He's a very very sick and twisted asshole.

I read an interview with a female who had "heard" of him but didn't know a whole lot. She ended up in one of his videos, and without warning he ran up behind her and crammed his fist into her pussy. She had no idea he was going to do that, she said she started to freak out and cry and he just slapped the shit out of her and told her to take it. Also I read next to no females ever return to do a 2nd video. If he pays well you'd think females would be fighting each other to return to shoot more scenes with him.

It reminds me somewhat of the Ghetto Gaggers site, the chicks have to know what they're getting into. But until they're actually there doing it, they have no idea how bad it's going to be. A lot go "oh I can handle this!" before the scene starts, but none come back to film again.

I highly doubt any of that crap is true. What's your source?

Mine is someone who works in the industry. He says (quote): "Max's reputation is known wide and far in this industry. The girl is clearly told what will be involved and she can choose to do the job or not to. The idea that any performer is forced into working with Max is completely untrue."
 

cKGunslinger

Lifer
Nov 29, 1999
16,408
57
91
Originally posted by: QueBert
Originally posted by: Baked
This guy has no business in the business. He's a very very sick and twisted asshole.

I agree, I think a lot of the females are naive about just how bad his videos are. A good sign of bad they are. I read an interview with a female who had "heard" of him but didn't know a whole lot. She ended up in one of his videos, and without warning he ran up behind her and crammed his fist into her pussy. She had no idea he was going to do that, she said she started to freak out and cry and he just slapped the shit out of her and told her to take it. Also I read next to no females ever return to do a 2nd video. If he pays well you'd think females would be fighting each other to return to shoot more scenes with him.

It reminds me somewhat of the Ghetto Gaggers site, the chicks have to know what they're getting into. But until they're actually there doing it, they have no idea how bad it's going to be. A lot go "oh I can handle this!" before the scene starts, but none come back to film again.

Max is a piece of shit who prays on weak females, I have no sympathy for him and hope a man in Prison is a fan of his work and gives him the reverse treatment.

I once read a post that said QueBert hated babies so much that one day he saw a baby in the park and he ran over to it and punched it in the face, then took a crap on his face and the the mother said "Hey, stop that," QueBert just said, "Bite me, bitch!" and raped her there on the grass and then went off to stomp on baby panda bears with golf shoes.."


Which is another of saying, :roll:
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,329
126
Originally posted by: QueBert
Originally posted by: Baked
This guy has no business in the business. He's a very very sick and twisted asshole.

I agree, I think a lot of the females are naive about just how bad his videos are. A good sign of bad they are. I read an interview with a female who had "heard" of him but didn't know a whole lot. She ended up in one of his videos, and without warning he ran up behind her and crammed his fist into her pussy. She had no idea he was going to do that, she said she started to freak out and cry and he just slapped the shit out of her and told her to take it. Also I read next to no females ever return to do a 2nd video. If he pays well you'd think females would be fighting each other to return to shoot more scenes with him.

It reminds me somewhat of the Ghetto Gaggers site, the chicks have to know what they're getting into. But until they're actually there doing it, they have no idea how bad it's going to be. A lot go "oh I can handle this!" before the scene starts, but none come back to film again.

Max is a piece of shit who prays on weak females, I have no sympathy for him and hope a man in Prison is a fan of his work and gives him the reverse treatment.

Have the women press criminal charges then. I have never heard of this guy before but what they are sending him to jail for is WAY to much of a gray area when it comes to freedom of speech. In the age of the internet, what is stopping other towns from passing similar laws and locking up people they think are obscene? Should the providers be forced to block access to certain sites in certain towns if that town finds it obscene?

If a woman was harmed against her will then she should press charges and the asshole should fry but what they are currently sending him to jail for, imo, is flat out dangerous.
 

cubby1223

Lifer
May 24, 2004
13,518
42
86
Originally posted by: QueBert
Originally posted by: Baked
This guy has no business in the business. He's a very very sick and twisted asshole.

I agree, I think a lot of the females are naive about just how bad his videos are. A good sign of bad they are. I read an interview with a female who had "heard" of him but didn't know a whole lot. She ended up in one of his videos, and without warning he ran up behind her and crammed his fist into her pussy. She had no idea he was going to do that, she said she started to freak out and cry and he just slapped the shit out of her and told her to take it. Also I read next to no females ever return to do a 2nd video. If he pays well you'd think females would be fighting each other to return to shoot more scenes with him.

It reminds me somewhat of the Ghetto Gaggers site, the chicks have to know what they're getting into. But until they're actually there doing it, they have no idea how bad it's going to be. A lot go "oh I can handle this!" before the scene starts, but none come back to film again.

Max is a piece of shit who prays on weak females, I have no sympathy for him and hope a man in Prison is a fan of his work and gives him the reverse treatment.
That corresponds with everything I've read from personal accounts written across the internet, including him *not* paying what was originally agreed on. To all, sorry, ATOT would ban me for posting such links. ;)

It goes back to the point that the girls really are often not told who they are working for until they arrive on location the day of. Anyone who thinks otherwise is naive to how the industry works. Jenna Jameson has full control over her career. But Jane Nobody-Cares-About has little control if any.
 

DangerAardvark

Diamond Member
Oct 22, 2004
7,559
0
0
The whole "artistic value" argument is bullshit. Obscenity should not be a legal concept, period. All the Miller vs California case did was set up a special case where freedom of speech can be suspended on an arbitrary, subjective basis.
 

QueBert

Lifer
Jan 6, 2002
22,553
834
126
Originally posted by: Steve
Originally posted by: QueBert
Originally posted by: Baked
This guy has no business in the business. He's a very very sick and twisted asshole.

I read an interview with a female who had "heard" of him but didn't know a whole lot. She ended up in one of his videos, and without warning he ran up behind her and crammed his fist into her pussy. She had no idea he was going to do that, she said she started to freak out and cry and he just slapped the shit out of her and told her to take it. Also I read next to no females ever return to do a 2nd video. If he pays well you'd think females would be fighting each other to return to shoot more scenes with him.

It reminds me somewhat of the Ghetto Gaggers site, the chicks have to know what they're getting into. But until they're actually there doing it, they have no idea how bad it's going to be. A lot go "oh I can handle this!" before the scene starts, but none come back to film again.

I highly doubt any of that crap is true. What's your source?

Mine is someone who works in the industry. He says (quote): "Max's reputation is known wide and far in this industry. The girl is clearly told what will be involved and she can choose to do the job or not to. The idea that any performer is forced into working with Max is completely untrue."

this is from an article on him

There are good reasons Hardcore is among the most hated men in the industry. He's rumored to have put several actresses in the hospital, and most starlets refuse to work with him; porn queen Nici Sterling calls him a "psychopath." "Apparently they think I play a little rough," he says of the European sex stars who dodge him in Maxed Out 2. Watching the video, it's not hard to imagine why. After finishing Sabine's aforementioned anal scenes, he grabs her hair and begins to plow her face, covering her in spit, cum, and makeup smear--what Max calls "giving a facial." "The only way you're able to get the saliva out is to take your cock and choke the girl," he once told Adult Video News. Mere dirty-sex aesthetics, you might say, except that by now it's obvious the actress is not at all "into it"--her eyes look dead, her mind perhaps in the far-off place you're supposed to go in moments like these. When it's over, the camera lingers above her, leering triumphantly. Fake lashes barely cling on, and her eyes well up with tears as the subtitles read: "Oh my God! Like on the phone all you said was you wanted to cuddle." Then: "This is one fucked-out stupid wise and beautiful woman! Go Max!!"

also, like I said if females must HATE him after the first time they work with him. or they'd return to make more videos. If you like Bangbros you can typically see whatever female you like in dozens of videos from them. I've never read an interview with a female who liked being in his videos, the few interviews I've read the girls had nothing but bad things to say about him. One said "out of the blue he just rammed his cock in my ass, with no lube or anything" Max's, you see one, his attitude is shitty. a quote from Max himself

"We're not killing girls," Max told Adult Video News. "We're not hurting them more than minor discomfort. What's the big deal? When you get a girl and give her a good working over, you take her to the extreme of pain and pleasure, and that's exciting."

Exciting for who? he also seems to routinely tell the girls in his video to "shut up and take it, I don't care if it hurts it feels good for my dick" A lot of the females in his video are barly 18 amateurs who has no idea what they're getting into. You never see any known females in his videos because they know what the hell is going on, take a dumb 18 year old off the street and offer them a couple grand they'll probably fall for it though. If the girls in his videos did their homework about him I doubt he'd be in the porn business. I saw 2 of his videos about 10 years ago and the girls were crying and going "ouch that hurts" and it didn't seem like acting to me. He's a piece of shit.

 

91TTZ

Lifer
Jan 31, 2005
14,374
1
0
Originally posted by: SagaLore
Originally posted by: HardcoreRobot
why would that not be free speech?

Explain to us how it has to do with any kind of speech?

You're obviously not informed of the laws in this country. Art and movies are considered "speech" in court.
 

JEDI

Lifer
Sep 25, 2001
29,391
2,736
126
Originally posted by: QueBert
also, like I said if females must HATE him after the first time they work with him. or they'd return to make more videos. If you like Bangbros you can typically see whatever female you like in dozens of videos from them. I've never read an interview with a female who liked being in his videos, the few interviews I've read the girls had nothing but bad things to say about him. One said "out of the blue he just rammed his cock in my ass, with no lube or anything"

name that video!!!!!!!
 

sourceninja

Diamond Member
Mar 8, 2005
8,805
65
91
Originally posted by: DrPizza
Originally posted by: shocksyde
Originally posted by: SagaLore
Originally posted by: shocksyde
It's good to know that free speech no longer exists.

Being paid money to vomit after a forceful deep throat is NOT free speech.

If he had the proper consent forms then his ass is covered. I'm not refering to that aspect of, though.

If someone wanted to commit suicide & signed consent forms allowing someone to shoot them and videotape it, it certainly isn't "free speech." (going for the obvious extreme) WTF makes someone think that anything you film automatically falls under free speech?


If someone wanted to commit suicide & signed consent forms allowing someone to shoot them and videotape it, it certainly isn't "free speech." (going for the obvious extreme) WTF makes someone think that anything you film automatically falls under free speech?[/quote]

Why not? Why is it illegal to kill myself? What if I want to kill myself to make a statement about how our government is ruining the lives of the people? What if I want to kill myself to make a statement about how futile life really is? Why not?

If you have a reason to video tape it, it is free speech. If it does not harm others, and it is not shoved down your throat, then it should be legal.

Killing myself should be legal. Failing an attempt at killing myself (which harms others others in time and cost to save my ass) should be illegal. I have the same stance on drugs. Drug use may increase crime, but we have laws to deal with the crimes that drug users might commit to buy drugs. If you can do drugs without stealing, murdering, etc, it is none of my business.

I have no desire to see this kind of porn. I find it distasteful, offensive, and disturbing. So I simply choose not to watch it.
 

sourceninja

Diamond Member
Mar 8, 2005
8,805
65
91
Originally posted by: DangerAardvark
The whole "artistic value" argument is bullshit. Obscenity should not be a legal concept, period. All the Miller vs California case did was set up a special case where freedom of speech can be suspended on an arbitrary, subjective basis.

What is obscene? What is your standard. I find pop music obscene. It rapes my childhood. I however, do not find anything wrong with normal porn. One of my co-workers says that he wishes he knew who watched porn, because he would not want to be in the same room with someone who watched porn. He said they are disturbed degenerates who have no self control and will one day act out all their sick fantasies. He is afraid to leave his children with someone who might watch porn because they may rape his kids. So now we have to ban pop music and all porn. My mom finds metal music obscene. So that is gone. John McCain finds Mixed Martial arts and the UFC obscene, so that is gone. I have a friend who's religion views giving blood as an abomination. That is worse than obscene. That is gone. My same friend finds low cut shirts on women to be Obscene. So that is gone.

Is this obscene?http://modelmayhm-2.vo.llnwd.n...0/11/46bc97741e328.jpg

My brother-in-law said he would not want to see that because it makes him uncomfortable that his 13 year old son might see that and think of sex. He said that if that was on a billboard he would seriously think about getting his church to write letters. I find it to be a emotionally (not sexually) stirring piece of art.

What is your line? You are not being forced to watch it. It's like fighting against metal music. No one is forcing you to buy it. If nobody liked it, it would not exist. The fact it sells millions shows it is not obscene to a vast group of people in the world.
 

ConstipatedVigilante

Diamond Member
Feb 22, 2006
7,670
1
0
Originally posted by: sourceninja
Originally posted by: DangerAardvark
The whole "artistic value" argument is bullshit. Obscenity should not be a legal concept, period. All the Miller vs California case did was set up a special case where freedom of speech can be suspended on an arbitrary, subjective basis.

What is obscene? What is your standard. I find pop music obscene. It rapes my childhood. I however, do not find anything wrong with normal porn. One of my co-workers says that he wishes he knew who watched porn, because he would not want to be in the same room with someone who watched porn. He said they are disturbed degenerates who have no self control and will one day act out all their sick fantasies. He is afraid to leave his children with someone who might watch porn because they may rape his kids. So now we have to ban pop music and all porn. My mom finds metal music obscene. So that is gone. John McCain finds Mixed Martial arts and the UFC obscene, so that is gone. I have a friend who's religion views giving blood as an abomination. That is worse than obscene. That is gone. My same friend finds low cut shirts on women to be Obscene. So that is gone.

Is this obscene?http://modelmayhm-2.vo.llnwd.n...0/11/46bc97741e328.jpg

My brother-in-law said he would not want to see that because it makes him uncomfortable that his 13 year old son might see that and think of sex. He said that if that was on a billboard he would seriously think about getting his church to write letters. I find it to be a emotionally (not sexually) stirring piece of art.

What is your line? You are not being forced to watch it. It's like fighting against metal music. No one is forcing you to buy it. If nobody liked it, it would not exist. The fact it sells millions shows it is not obscene to a vast group of people in the world.
I agree with everything you said, but...come on, Jehovah's Witnesses? They don't count.
 

DangerAardvark

Diamond Member
Oct 22, 2004
7,559
0
0
Originally posted by: sourceninja
Originally posted by: DangerAardvark
The whole "artistic value" argument is bullshit. Obscenity should not be a legal concept, period. All the Miller vs California case did was set up a special case where freedom of speech can be suspended on an arbitrary, subjective basis.

What is obscene? What is your standard. I find pop music obscene. It rapes my childhood. I however, do not find anything wrong with normal porn. One of my co-workers says that he wishes he knew who watched porn, because he would not want to be in the same room with someone who watched porn. He said they are disturbed degenerates who have no self control and will one day act out all their sick fantasies. He is afraid to leave his children with someone who might watch porn because they may rape his kids. So now we have to ban pop music and all porn. My mom finds metal music obscene. So that is gone. John McCain finds Mixed Martial arts and the UFC obscene, so that is gone. I have a friend who's religion views giving blood as an abomination. That is worse than obscene. That is gone. My same friend finds low cut shirts on women to be Obscene. So that is gone.

Is this obscene?http://modelmayhm-2.vo.llnwd.n...0/11/46bc97741e328.jpg

My brother-in-law said he would not want to see that because it makes him uncomfortable that his 13 year old son might see that and think of sex. He said that if that was on a billboard he would seriously think about getting his church to write letters. I find it to be a emotionally (not sexually) stirring piece of art.

What is your line? You are not being forced to watch it. It's like fighting against metal music. No one is forcing you to buy it. If nobody liked it, it would not exist. The fact it sells millions shows it is not obscene to a vast group of people in the world.

Did you read past the first line of my post? I'm against the legal definition of obscenity. My argument isn't that porn has no artistic value, it's that it shouldn't have to have any to be protected as free speech.
 

sourceninja

Diamond Member
Mar 8, 2005
8,805
65
91
Originally posted by: DangerAardvark
Originally posted by: sourceninja
Originally posted by: DangerAardvark
The whole "artistic value" argument is bullshit. Obscenity should not be a legal concept, period. All the Miller vs California case did was set up a special case where freedom of speech can be suspended on an arbitrary, subjective basis.

What is obscene? What is your standard. I find pop music obscene. It rapes my childhood. I however, do not find anything wrong with normal porn. One of my co-workers says that he wishes he knew who watched porn, because he would not want to be in the same room with someone who watched porn. He said they are disturbed degenerates who have no self control and will one day act out all their sick fantasies. He is afraid to leave his children with someone who might watch porn because they may rape his kids. So now we have to ban pop music and all porn. My mom finds metal music obscene. So that is gone. John McCain finds Mixed Martial arts and the UFC obscene, so that is gone. I have a friend who's religion views giving blood as an abomination. That is worse than obscene. That is gone. My same friend finds low cut shirts on women to be Obscene. So that is gone.

Is this obscene?http://modelmayhm-2.vo.llnwd.n...0/11/46bc97741e328.jpg

My brother-in-law said he would not want to see that because it makes him uncomfortable that his 13 year old son might see that and think of sex. He said that if that was on a billboard he would seriously think about getting his church to write letters. I find it to be a emotionally (not sexually) stirring piece of art.

What is your line? You are not being forced to watch it. It's like fighting against metal music. No one is forcing you to buy it. If nobody liked it, it would not exist. The fact it sells millions shows it is not obscene to a vast group of people in the world.

Did you read past the first line of my post? I'm against the legal definition of obscenity. My argument isn't that porn has no artistic value, it's that it shouldn't have to have any to be protected as free speech.


I'm sorry, I'm very tired, I misread your post. I will do 20 pushups in punishment (and because I didn't get to work out today). I think I was just feeling argumentative. I mean I even started to post a rebuttal to this post.
 

QueBert

Lifer
Jan 6, 2002
22,553
834
126
Originally posted by: Steve
That article is over ten years old. More on it later.

Ok, so it's decade plus old, if anything he's gotten worse. People like him don't magically become nicer as time passes. The bottom line, no well known porn stars will work with him and many have called him everything from a psycho to an abusive asshole. I'm all for free speech, but I saw him slap the shit out of a girl in a video. If I did that in real life I would go to jail, she didn't press charges I guess, but it's on fucking video! For shit like that he belongs in prison no 2 ways about it. He should be in Rikers getting throat fucked until he pukes to see what it feels like.

You can see videos of his where the females ask him to stop because he's hurting them and he keeps right on plowing them. In real life if I kept fucking a girl after she asked to stop, that would be rape. The girls don't press charges (I guess I dunno if any have) but again the proof is on fucking video! even if they agreed to sex before, once they say "stop!" and it's not part of the script it's rape. And the assfuck himself has said in interviews that a lot of the girls are in pain and want him to stop, but pain is part of the pleasure so it's worth it for them to hurt so he can bust his nutt.

there is nothing redeeming about him.