• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Max Hardcore Guilty On All Counts in Obscenity Trial

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
I hate everything he is saying/showing in his videos, BUT I will defend his right to do it. As long as everyone was consenting and knew full well what was going to happen.
 
Originally posted by: dbk
wiki While I don't agree with the verdict, he was playing with fire and got burned.
Click to expand...

that is ridiculous. You can buy movies that show people actually dieing. Horrifically. Hopefully he is able to get an appeal in and this "activist" (to steal a term from the rightwingers) judge is disbarred and thrown off the bench.

He is fucking with the first amendment.
 
YES FLORIDA ADDS ANOTHER VICTIM TO THE LIST!

lol, Mike Diana also only drew pictures, so you know this guy was fucked going in... old people suck
 
Originally posted by: sourceninja
I hate everything he is saying/showing in his videos, BUT I will defend his right to do it. As long as everyone was consenting and knew full well what was going to happen.
Click to expand...

And I'd say Max's fame in the porn world pretty much destroys any chance of claiming he tricked anyone into doing worse stuff than they expected.
 
Originally posted by: shocksyde
Originally posted by: SagaLore
Originally posted by: shocksyde
It's good to know that free speech no longer exists.
Click to expand...

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

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

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?
 
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.
Click to expand...

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

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

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?
Click to expand...
why would that not be free speech? if both parties agree to it, where is the victim? what are we punishing for? because 3rd parties don't like it? MYOB IMO
 
Originally posted by: HardcoreRobot
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.
Click to expand...

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

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

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?
Click to expand...
why would that not be free speech? if both parties agree to it, where is the victim? what are we punishing for? because 3rd parties don't like it? MYOB IMO
Click to expand...

Yep, when somebody is "offended", it suddenly becomes "not free speech". Personally, I think "morality legislature" like Obscenity Laws are obscene and offensive - why can't the idiots who created these laws be tried for obscenity and thrown in jail?

Stupid, stupid FBI! Federal Bullshit Investigators - you heard me Carnivore!

But, overall this means nothing to the porn industry. There's be a new site tomorrow, and it'll be outside of America - and then the FBI can't do jack shit.
 
Originally posted by: HardcoreRobot
why would that not be free speech?
Click to expand...

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

Free speech protects people's rights to express themselves without censorship of the government.

Porn of any type is not an expression of ideas. It is an act. Someone is paid to perform the act. Someone else pays to watch the act. The issue here is not that anybody was stopped from performing said acts, but that people are stopped from viewing it, for the same reason we have plenty of indecent public exposure laws, or laws criminalizing prostitution, etc.

Now, if you really want to push this as a free speech issue, then you wouldn't have a problem if only audio versions of the acts were on the site? Or maybe a written transcript? :roll:
 
Why are people talking about free speech at all?


These films were made in Europe for the European market. They were not intended for the US market as they would not pass obscenity standards.


Max got screwed over, whether you like him and his product or not. The most bizarre thing was that the distributor continued to make these available in the US while the trial was going on.
 
Originally posted by: SagaLore
Originally posted by: HardcoreRobot
why would that not be free speech?
Click to expand...

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

Free speech protects people's rights to express themselves without censorship of the government.

Porn of any type is not an expression of ideas. It is an act. Someone is paid to perform the act. Someone else pays to watch the act. The issue here is not that anybody was stopped from performing said acts, but that people are stopped from viewing it, for the same reason we have plenty of indecent public exposure laws, or laws criminalizing prostitution, etc.

Now, if you really want to push this as a free speech issue, then you wouldn't have a problem if only audio versions of the acts were on the site? Or maybe a written transcript? :roll:
Click to expand...

Roll your eyes all you like, your definition of free speech is horrendously narrow, and your comparison to prostitution is misplaced. I don't have a first amendment right to shoot someone even if that is an "expression" of my ideas. You bring up indecent exposure laws, but did you know that nudity as part of protests has been ruled as protected speech by the Supreme Court if such nudity is related to the issue being protested?

As to your claim that pornography isn't free speech because there is no idea being expressed, what if a mainstream film featured fully exposed sexual acts...the whole film has forfeited it's free speech protection? What if there are 5 such scenes in the film? Where does it cease being art and become pornography, or can pornography never be considered art? The government should not and does not get to make that distinction.

You also seem hung up on the money aspect of free speech, but a journalist is paid to write newspaper articles which are then paid for by customers, so I'm not sure how you are tying that in to this discussion.
 
Originally posted by: SagaLore
Originally posted by: HardcoreRobot
why would that not be free speech?
Click to expand...

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

Free speech protects people's rights to express themselves without censorship of the government.

Porn of any type is not an expression of ideas. It is an act. Someone is paid to perform the act. Someone else pays to watch the act. The issue here is not that anybody was stopped from performing said acts, but that people are stopped from viewing it, for the same reason we have plenty of indecent public exposure laws, or laws criminalizing prostitution, etc.

Now, if you really want to push this as a free speech issue, then you wouldn't have a problem if only audio versions of the acts were on the site? Or maybe a written transcript? :roll:
Click to expand...
You really think film is not a valid medium for expression of ideas? Or does it depend on what is filmed? The latter is censorship, any way you look at it. All that matters is all the parties involved, from the producer to actors to the viewers explicitly gave consent and it is no one's business to tell them otherwise.
 
Originally posted by: SagaLore
Originally posted by: HardcoreRobot
why would that not be free speech?
Click to expand...

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

Free speech protects people's rights to express themselves without censorship of the government.

Porn of any type is not an expression of ideas. It is an act. Someone is paid to perform the act. Someone else pays to watch the act. The issue here is not that anybody was stopped from performing said acts, but that people are stopped from viewing it, for the same reason we have plenty of indecent public exposure laws, or laws criminalizing prostitution, etc.

Now, if you really want to push this as a free speech issue, then you wouldn't have a problem if only audio versions of the acts were on the site? Or maybe a written transcript? :roll:
Click to expand...

Isn't freedom of expression the same thing as freedom of speech? When a dissenter writes an unpopular editorial, even though, it is "written" and not really a speech, isn't this also a form of freedom of "speech"?

Conversely, just because a person is allowed to make speeches, doesn't mean this freedom of speech is not trampled on. For instance, human rights protesters who are arrested and isolated from the world do not have freedom of speech. Yes, they can make all the speeches they want in their jail cells, however, without journalists to capture their side of the story, they are effectively muffled.

Pron is a type of expression. One mans pron is another man's art. One group of people should not dictate to another their views on what is a "act and what is not"... Ultimately, if you really think about it, everything is an act.
 
Grotesque violence offends me more than pornography. Why are movies like the Saw series allowed but porn is often attacked for being obscene?
 
Originally posted by: AstroManLuca
Grotesque violence offends me more than pornography. Why are movies like the Saw series allowed but porn is often attacked for being obscene?
Click to expand...

Because this country is run by puritan assholes.
 
Originally posted by: AstroManLuca
Grotesque violence offends me more than pornography. Why are movies like the Saw series allowed but porn is often attacked for being obscene?
Click to expand...

I rather see grotesque violance. I find shit like this the most distrubing and sickest thing. I would rather see a pool of blood and dead bodies than a cup of vomit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top