Or he could host his empire in Japan, where they have eel porn, and also octopus porn. Cockroach porn, etc. Leeches, earthworms, and so forth. But they blur out pubic hair!
Octopuses don't have pubic hair.
A federal jury in Tampa, Florida convicted a pioneer of gross-out "gonzo" porn last week on obscenity charges stemming from the delivery of his movies over the Internet, despite the fact that he lives and works entirely in California. Paul Little creates porn in Altadena under the names of "Max Hardcore" and "Max Steiner." …
In reality he should be locked up in a cell for ten years with a big nasty man called "mom".
I remember watching a documentary on Channel 4 years ago about a girl trying to break into the Adult industry in the US. The girl visited Max H who's interview technique was to rip her underwear off in front of the documentary crew and force himself on her there and then. When she refused to do something in a scene for him, he became so abusive and threatening to the girl that the documentary TV crew actually had to rescue the girl from his house to prevent further harm to her both physically and psychologically.
While I understand he is not the only bad apple out there ... the fact that this particular asshole has been prosecuted has cheered me up a little.
this is just wrong.
watch out gay porn... there are plenty of homophobes that are "offended" by such material.
i guess this what happens when the intolerant are the majority...
you'd think after all the wars and terrorism people would stop trying to force their views on the world and just live their lives as they see fit, but no... they are "compelled".
It's not like that documentary had an agenda and made things appear worse now is it?
I'm sure Max isn't the most pleasant of gentleman, but the docu story sounds like he was acting criminally, with video evidence to boot. I'm sure any girl who was mistreated for real could report it to the police.
It's a slippery slope most can't help avoid, but just because this Max character doesn't fit in with our own norms doesn't mean it's OK for him to be locked up nefariously. Haven't these prosecutors got something better to do that would really help make Florida a nicer place to live?
Ummm...that's a standard plot for a Max Hardcore scene: girl shows up for porn shoot and is immediately attacked and rather thoroughly degraded.
Are you sure it was a documentary you were watching and not a Max Hardcore DVD?
(His stuff is definitely not to my taste, but it's just acting. Is watching someone pee in a girl's mouth really that much worse than watching them get disemboweled in a Hostel movie?)
If I can't have my hardcore pronz or my delicious flat chest drawings I don't see why people should be allowed to watch man on man action infact what's the point in porn in general...
It's not that I have a problem with it, but if people want to ruin my fun I'll damn well make sure I shit in the pool before I get out.
Just wait till the UK government makes tentical pronz equal to extreme pronz just as they're trying to make loliz equal to CP.
And hey lets face it, if I'm already a criminal why not just go out on a rapeathon - o right becouse sadly I'm a good human being with no wish to hurt anyone, shame the moralist nambies arn't so just. To busy trying to save the world they fail to see that they're making it unlivable. I happen to like vices.
Although the Articles about the states - there are do gooding lunatics here too.
Things not to do in England
Don't smoke - it kills everyone in the world
Don't drink more then 3 units - or you will die!
Don't drive ever - your fuel is destroying the world!
Don't use your technologies - your power usage is destroying the world!
Don't watch pronz! - You will turn into a rapist!
Don't look at drawings of filthy flat chest - You are a peadophile!
Don't let children outside to play! - They will get kidnapped by dirty peadephiles!
Don't leave your children inside watching TV! - They will turn into fat peadophiles!
Don't discipline your children - It hurts their self esteem and it's against the law.
Don't not discipine your children - becouse we'll sue you for the damage they cause.
I think this list could rumble on for a while.
It's a great country it really is, so come on guys lets go down the library, we'll have a wild time!
Hmm, I seem to remember the documentary you mention, except not quite in the same way that you do.
It showed a naiive girl with "Daddy issues" (apparently her father had left when she was young and her "agent" was leading her around by the hand) being drawn into something that she was not ready or prepared for.
If anyone is to blame it is her agent who was more interested in getting his fee than taking care of her.
But this gets away from the issue that, both in the USA and the UK, there are those who don't like pornography and will use (or abuse) any case or any bandwagon they can in order to ensure that *their* tastes govern what *we* are allowed to see (cf the UK's "extreme pornography" legislation).
Of course what they *really* want is to ban *all* porn, but they know that they don't have a chance of getting their way all in one go, so they go for the "soft targets" instead and slowly the thin end of the wedge gets driven in more and more...
Proof of criminal intent, or _mens rea_, is normally essential for a conviction of a criminal offense. But since the offence in question was a breach of Federal obscenity laws, and not Florida laws, I can see why the courts would reject knowing where the servers were located as being a critical element in establishing intent. Even so, this is the sort of thing that "brings the administration of justice into disrepute".
To my knowledge, I have not seen any of this creator/producer's content. However, I doubt it would be to my liking since I am most definitely visually and aurally offended by excretory-based porn as well as pain, degradation, and humiliation. So do you know what I do? I avoid it. Just because I don't like that kind of content doesn't mean somebody else shouldn't be allowed to like it. As long as everyone involved (especially the actors) are performing voluntarily and without coercion, and as long as the content is distributed within the confines of the law (not distributed to people under 18, for example), I see no problem with it.
What somebody wants to do or watch in the privacy of their own home is their own business, not mine. Of course, I bet the guy caught simulating sex with a bicycle in his locked hotel room thought the same thing; now he's on the sex offenders list.
Isn't this essentially a re-run of the Amateur Action BBS case of the early Nineties?
Which is slightly odd, because the case was set up to invoke Tennessee standards, and these days there are several porn sits based in that State.
And it doesn't take much for an English court to decide they have jurisdiction over a libel case. Not even a server presence necessary.
I'm actually not that far from where he'll probably be staying. I may pay him a visit and express my sympathy. The system definitely mimicked his style of attack. I found his work amusing and a bit entertaining, myself. A few bits that were less extreme were a bit arousing, but yeah, his name pretty much tells you all you need to know.
I'm definitely sad to see him prosecuted, though. He was well known in the industry, and I've seen exit interviews with some girls. Things are definitely consensual after all is said and done. Sounds pretty obvious like this documentary in question did their best to make him look bad.
Anti-obscenity laws are very questionable to me. An entire community could be extremely left, or right, and call the expression of a dissenting opinion obscene. Very similar, in fact, to how KKK members were found innocent of murders in light of overwhelming evidence, simply because the jury approved of the murders.
Sorry chris but your comments have the element of common sense and as you know common sense and the law (or politicans) are mutually exclusive.
it is the unfortunate reality that politicans or other fringe elements feel it is their moral duty to impose their own ideals on others. Nothing changes. Whats the saying when the first law was made the first victims were common decency, common law and common sense
Does that make me a baaaaad boy?
I remember the documentary too. I seem to recall that the girl objected to being taken roughly in the throat and almost being asphyxiated. Kinda understable really. If she wasn't prepared for what to expect, someone around her wasn't doing their job properly. She didn't appear to mind to much her appearance in Ben Dover video mind you (as I recall due to the severity of the chaffing I got)so perhaps you guys should look that one up;).
We are really being teased by our betters though. First they legalise pr0n and then they set about trying to ban it by the back door. I thought that was what bad boys did, though I digress. It's ok for them to kill hundreds of thousands of civilians in far off countries but God forbid anyone sees someone else voluntarily having the crap beaten out of them for sexual gratification.
There's nowt as queer as folks.
Mine's the dirty mac with the fake arms and the kleenex in the inside pocket.
wtf are you on? that's close enough to amanfrommars comment.., no scrap that, amanfrommars makes some sense (at least he does to me if you read his stuff properly).
As for the jury verdict, it seems the spirit of Mary 'I don't do blowjobs' Whitehouse is alive. God rest her merry little soul.
"If anyone is to blame it is her agent who was more interested in getting his fee than taking care of her."
...and that is precisely the reason for banning "extreme porn."
What you do in your own home is up to you, but once it becomes commercial, the interests of individuals are too often subjugated to those of the corporation and everyone knows that the law is rather bad at protecting the individual.
Its one thing for your boss to make it clear that if you don't work late on a project you'll be missing a promotion and might be first out when cost-cutting comes around; its quite another when a boss pressures you to do the kind of things described above. Its the same reason we have statutory rape laws - regardless of the possible consent - there is far too much scope for abuse.
As for freedom and tolerance there is a reasonable case for not allowing it. Freedom and tolerance of the individual to speak his mind is one thing - freedom and tolerance for a business to make money any way it wants to is another. Let Max put up his work on the internet without sponsorship or fees - he has a right to be heard.
As for freedom and tolerance for the individual, just try saying that you're a "Christian," "evangelical" or "creationist" in one of these comment pages and feel the love! Finding civility between people of differing views is almost impossible these days. The term "tolerance" is usually misapplied by reserving it only for those who say "anything is ok". That is not tolerance, that is merely a commonly held belief in permissiveness.
So go ahead and assemble a mighty pron collection. Just be tolerant of those who disagree that it is an acceptable business model. If you don't like this idea, remember I'm advocating that all porn should be free...
Paris - you know why!
...who is actually going to watch the porn and be offended by it?
I was under the impression that there were few things in the world more boring than porn that doesn't happen to turn you on, unless you're a fan of poor acting.
If what was involved in making the films wasn't actually criminal (any more than a TV show depicting crime is itself criminal), then as long as the output is kept away from the unassuming public by being charged for, who is going to end up watching it who doesn't want to watch it?
Whilst I personally find Max Harcore's products distasteful, the principle is the important thing here (remember Voltaire*)
From the various articles I have read about the case, some of the jury members have complained that they basically had no choice but to return a guilty verdict:
'It was a travesty but we had no choice because of the way the law is written', one juror told AVN. Several jurors approached Max Hardcore and his attorneys to express their sympathy at having been forced to convict him on the counts due to the "poorly written" law regarding the transportation of obscene material via the internet and the mailing of the DVDs to the middle district of Florida. Another juror reportedly said that if two words in the law had been different, he would have held out for acquittal.
Full article is here: http://www.avn.com/video/articles/30610.html
*although Wikipedia says he never actually said the line "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
I think you're confused. As you say, there is a statutory rape law and others against assault and battery among other things. Those laws are sufficient in themselves to protect the poor little petal from the TV documentary. She wasn't the brightest thing, bless her, but she was being trailed by a whole documentary crew which is more than most other "actresses" have to protect her.
You're wrong too about intolerance. The above case is precisely about intolerance because the State of Florida bent the law in order to go out of their way to prosecute someone "they didn't like". That, my friend, is intolerance.
God help you when they come for the sanctimonious tw@ts.
"Some argue that, since the Internet is available everywhere, obscenity prosecutions can occur anywhere. That's an extreme position, and not even the prosecutors in this case seem to agree with it."
Haven't the French just done a number of people who have written and published the material on UK systems purely on the basis that it could be read in France?
In order to subject speech to state regulation, a court or jury must determine that an average person applying the standards of the community would find the speech offensive, lacking in any serious substantive value, and appealing solely to the prurient interest.
Surely that statement could be applied to all US politicians (and reality shows come to think of it)?
Alien p0rn - now thats extreme
The community standards bit has never made sense to me for things like pr0n-- it is not like a picket fence outside a house or something that the local physical "community" can observe.
It would seem more reasonable to consider the "community" for the purposes of the law to be whoever can or does observe the material-- typically those that are interested (and therefore unlikely to 'convict').
Firstly, I am a woman who is secure in her sexuality.
The actresses perform of their own free will, they are not stupid (smart enough to know what they are getting in for) and many people in all walks of life have to do shitty things to get ahead in their career (everyone has to start somewhere). Their career is sex on camera- go figure. They are getting paid, young actresses making a name for themselves- in it to win it! They are using Max just as he is using them. This should not make him a guilty man!
Do not talk of them as 'exploited victims' -P-lease! Women have always loved to flaunt themselves to catch men and all want to be seen as desirable (except for ugly feminists in denial)- why do you think vain cosmetic surgery, make up, non-casual clothing and extreme dieting exists? And why do you think many women 'let themselves go' after marriage? Has YOUR wife gained 50lbs and no longer puts an effort into her appearance? Do not patronize us females by making out we are helpless, dumb and exploited. Yet we can play that game at our own free will.
I'm sure these girls don't *really* entirely enjoy filming with Max- or any other star/director for that matter- Porn actresses have to have loveless sex with strangers whilst looking like they are REALLY enjoying it, with cameramen everywhere and directors- not exactly horny or a girls' fairytale ending.
If i look at over 95% of porn, I can tell the girl is not *really* enjoying it. And if somebody urinated down your face, you probably wouldn't be smiling either. It's hard to find girls who actually *like* to drink that stuff! Besides, the girls getting upset, unhappy and worn out is all part of the act!!! If they were enjoying it it wouldn't work! It would just be like all that other dull, waste-of-time humorless porn out there (yawn...), it all contributes to Max's cutting edge. Don't tell me you are convinced by these cheesy girls' expressions and pleas?! And if you are and disapprove, why the hell are you watching it?! Or even know who max is? Forced entry hurts, fact- it also hurts your wife...
Just face it- 'we' all like to do the dirty in different ways- and there are many men AND women, myself included, who get off on this kind of dirty. It's like S/M without all the cheesy outfits (well...... i take back that statement...)
To me, Max is the Russ Meyer of the 21st century.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020