Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Max Hardcore Offices Raided by FBI; Servers, Tapes Seized
XBiz News ^ | 05 Oct. 05 | Gretchen Gallen

Posted on 10/10/2005 1:05:39 PM PDT by Drew68

Max Hardcore Offices Raided by FBI; Servers, Tapes Seized

By Gretchen Gallen
Wednesday, October 5, 2005

ALTA DENA, Calif. – The offices of Max Hardcore’s Max World Entertainment were raided Wednesday under the authority of the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section of the Justice Department. The FBI seized five video titles, Hardcore’s attorney Jeffrey Douglas told XBiz, including (ed. movie titles ommitted)

Additionally, the FBI seized all servers belonging to Hardcore with the purpose of copying and returning them, Douglas said. It is not yet known what other office items have been taken as the investigation is ongoing.

By Thursday afternoon, Hardcore's servers had been returned and the website was active.

Hardcore was not present at the time of the raid, and according to Douglas, is presently attending a trade show in Barcelona, Spain.

Douglas said this is the first federal obscenity investigation involving Hardcore and is in any way related to 2257 record-keeping enforcement.

“Once again the government is wasting tax dollars and otherwise invaluable law enforcement resources to try to force a minority view of morality on all of America,” Hardcore said in a statement. “Five of my movies have been targeted by the federal ‘prude’ patrol. There is no indication of any crime to be alleged except obscenity. If indicted, I will fight to protect my liberty as well as the liberty of consenting adults to watch other adults engage in lawful, consensual, pleasurable sexual action. Shame on the Department of Justice. I am proud of my movies and of those who sell them.”

In 2001, Hardcore was prosecuted by the city of Los Angeles for obscenity, which was not resolved until 2004 with a company plea to a public nuisance.

Born Paul Little in 1956, Hardcore’s films have long been considered some of the most controversial in the industry.


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: acluertarians; childporn; doj; libertarians; moralabsolutes; pervertedfilth; porn; pornography
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-195 last
To: little jeremiah
People don't realize that if things aren't turned around, in a generation or two the mayhem from feral humans will be so barbaric that totalitarian clampdown will be inevitable.

I don't disagree with this statement -- I disagree with the means so many social conservatives ( and big government leftists) use to try turn things around. By all means fight porn, etc. -- through private organizations, churches, the bully pulpit, grassroots communications, personal persuasion, by creating an unwelcome atmostphere for pornographers in your community, and on and on!

But when we start giving the federal government, especially, ever-increasing power to ban things by force (whether from the right or the left), we open the door and invite totalitarianism in. As citizens, we should take direct, personal action to create the kind of society we want -- instead of relying on more and more laws and courts to do it for us.

151 posted on 10/10/2005 9:00:06 PM PDT by ellery (The true danger is when liberty is nibbled away, for expedience, and by parts. - Edmund Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: Drew68

I have never heard of this guy! Guess I am glad I haven't.


152 posted on 10/10/2005 9:03:36 PM PDT by ladyinred (It is all my fault okay?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ellery

The problem is that since the ACLU and Larry Flynt got in front of the SCOTUS, it is now forced upon local communities and there isn't a damn thing anyone can do. Porn is now mandatory, at least in the western states I've lived in. Local communities can say little or nothing. And some states - Oregon, for instance, has just about the most liberal laws (like, practically none) regarding obscenity/sex shows. They just made it legal for "shows" to have actual live sex acts. Suppose a small community wanted to have more local restriction?

Too effing bad, they can't. Somebody with money can go to any little conservative community, buy a building, hire some whores, and set up shop.

What we have now is the antithesis of local control. Thanks to porn producers, the ACLU, and the SCOTUS.


153 posted on 10/10/2005 10:00:26 PM PDT by little jeremiah (A vitiated state of morals, a corrupted public conscience, are incompatible with freedom. P. Henry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: ellery

You mention that people should take direct personal action, not relying on courts. Personally, i would love to burn down a bunch of "adult" shops - especially the one on the main street of the small town I live near, that high school and grade school students walk past every day.

But laws are the only way to take care of this kind of stuff, other than vigilanteism. Are you advocating that?

BTW, the mayor didn't want the porn shop there, most citizens didn't want it there, letters to the editor were written, all kinds of stuff - but, no go. Lawyers said that it had to be allowed. So every school day all kinds of kids walk right past it. Often with the proprieter hanging out by the open door.

(It's a very small rural town, just a couple of thousand souls in the town proper.)


154 posted on 10/10/2005 10:10:07 PM PDT by little jeremiah (A vitiated state of morals, a corrupted public conscience, are incompatible with freedom. P. Henry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: mlc9852
You don't think we should have a national police?

Not just NO, but HELL NO! When has one been held accountable for their misdeeds? We managed just fine through 1908 without them, it's just another fed pig trough to feed from, and as corrupt as any fed agency you care to mention. Make them accountable to those that pay them (US), and I'll reconsider. Blackbird.

155 posted on 10/10/2005 10:25:08 PM PDT by BlackbirdSST
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah

Isn't the answer, though, to fight for a Constitutional return to local control (including the right for localities, not the state, to define obscenity? Otherwise you're conceding their argument that the feds have the legitimate power to define obscenity for all of us, and in the process, selling out the Constitution in the process. I think it's a bad, unprincipled and ultimately futile tactic.


156 posted on 10/10/2005 10:34:08 PM PDT by ellery (The true danger is when liberty is nibbled away, for expedience, and by parts. - Edmund Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: ellery
I say all this with the caveat that the FBI does have Constitutional power to get involved in porn-related interstate commerce issues -- it's not clear whether that is the case here.

All internet nude pics, magazines, and video streams can be loosly defined as interstate. According to the Adult Industry, the 2257 law cited in this article will very likely shut down the entire industry. Max Hardcore is the first test of the law. Moving the industry out of the country is rapidly becoming the school of thought as the only solution to avoiding liability and severe imprisonment. Looks like people will be watching Disney movies in late night hotel rooms.

157 posted on 10/10/2005 10:47:09 PM PDT by T. Jefferson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah

Laws are not the only way to take care of this kind of stuff! That is exactly the problem -- socialism has so infected this country that even conservatives have begun to believe that government is the answer to all our problems.

And no, I'm not advocating violence. There are lots of examples of citizens effectively taking matters into our own hands -- for example, the citizen border patrols in Texas and Arizona. Another example is the proposal to use eminent domain to seize Souter's New Hampshire house -- it's certainly generating a ton of outrage and concern among elites who would like to seize our homes to give to developers. How about that guy (I think in Texas) who was photographing license plates at strip clubs? I may or may not agree with that approach, but I do believe that it's valid civil disobedience...and I am sure it scared a heck of a lot of people away from that club and created an unfriendly environment for the owner. I imagine peaceful protests outside porn shops would have an impact -- people may be much less likely to go in and shop if they were going to be publicly heckled first.

Again, I wouldn't do any of this personally -- but I would strongly defend YOUR right to do it! All it takes is some creativity and activism...and the principle of citizen self-sufficiency (vs. citizen dependence on government) would be upheld.


158 posted on 10/10/2005 10:47:24 PM PDT by ellery (The true danger is when liberty is nibbled away, for expedience, and by parts. - Edmund Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: ellery

My honest answer is that both options are too late. The fedgov is already strangulating all of us. It's like an octopus with thousands of poisonous arms. Meanwhile, citizenry have little recourse locally, since state gov'ts are often notorious for being worse blackguards than federal equivalents, and municipal and county boards have very little power to undo, mainly power to tax and further strangulate the people.

It's fast becoming "Whatever is not prohibited is mandatory."


159 posted on 10/10/2005 10:48:36 PM PDT by little jeremiah (A vitiated state of morals, a corrupted public conscience, are incompatible with freedom. P. Henry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: Drew68

Entertainment Tonight years ago did a spot on him and it showed him getting a daily blood test. Something tells me that blood tests arent going to be enough to prevent AIDS from spreading among them. The reporter asked him what he thought of the girls in his "business": "Whore..nothing but whores, the whole lot of them" he said.


160 posted on 10/10/2005 10:52:25 PM PDT by Windsong (FighterPilot)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: T. Jefferson

But "loose" definitions of interstate commerce are exactly the problem. I agree with Justice Thomas that what is needed is a return to a limited, tight definition and use of interstate commerce enforcement.

I don't know, however, about how that works with the Internet...maybe the answer there is for local communities to decide what level of commercial porn production or site hosting they want to allow? That wouldn't prevent people from downloading porn in their own homes, of course...but it would prevent internet porn producers from taking up residence in their communities, IF that's what they wanted to prevent.


161 posted on 10/10/2005 10:55:08 PM PDT by ellery (The true danger is when liberty is nibbled away, for expedience, and by parts. - Edmund Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: Extremely Extreme Extremist
Max Hardcore, on the other hand (no pun intended LOL), borders on some devious s--t. I'm talking stuff you'll find in those "Faces of Deaths" films and other snuff pieces. Real heinous stuff that even most porn aficiondos find disgusting.

You'll find the Libertarians here defending him to the death, just as they do heroin addicts their "right" to shoot up, or mary jane potheads and how they aren't "hurting" anyone by lighting up. And then there is the whole "legalize prostitution" debates brought on by the loony Libertarians as well. I'm sure someone choking on their own vomit from a heroin overdose (i.e. Chris Farley from SNL) is probably reminiscent of Max's films, no?

I'm not for the "big bad gubmint" either, but in this case, if the Feds don't go after this guy, who will? The local lea? He'll just move across state lines and set up shop elsewhere. Hence, the Feds involvement, while rarely a good thing, IS a good thing in this case.

162 posted on 10/10/2005 10:59:55 PM PDT by Windsong (FighterPilot)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: BlackbirdSST

You should really read the Federalist Papers (Madison, etc) on this issue.


163 posted on 10/10/2005 11:06:46 PM PDT by Windsong (FighterPilot)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah
The fedgov is already strangulating all of us. It's like an octopus with thousands of poisonous arms. Meanwhile, citizenry have little recourse locally, since state gov'ts are often notorious for being worse blackguards than federal equivalents, and municipal and county boards have very little power to undo, mainly power to tax and further strangulate the people. It's fast becoming "Whatever is not prohibited is mandatory."

Yes! And what is not mandatory is prohibited. I agree with this assessment wholeheartedly. I disagree that it's too late, though. Let's take our exchange here as an example -- I come from a small-l libertarian-minded, and you come from a socially conservative perspective. Yet we can find strong common ground here on the root of the problem (i.e. lack of local citizen power to decide for themselves what they want their communities to be). I've even been using the ascendency of republican control of government to sell my liberal friends on the need for local, rather than federal control (they're MUCH more receptive to this argument now that the 'toon is out of power...hee).

I guess my point is that it's a better tactic with a much broader potential constituency to fight this on the principle of local control ("you want to live among wall-to-wall porn shops? Fine. But that means I get to live in a community that bans porn shops altogether. Win--win.")

Reagan won by fighting these issues based on broad Constitutional principles rather than on pet issues, and that wasn't so long ago. I think that can happen again. When we give up on that principle and simply start wrestling over which party gets to make the suffocating federal government rules, then federal control wins either way.

164 posted on 10/10/2005 11:10:47 PM PDT by ellery (The true danger is when liberty is nibbled away, for expedience, and by parts. - Edmund Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: ellery

"There are lots of examples of citizens effectively taking matters into our own hands -- for example, the citizen border patrols in Texas and Arizona."

Symbolic. Won't do any good unless/until it changes actual policy. Your ideas sound kind of nice but believe me they're useless. What are a few people holding signs in front of the local pornshop going to do to internet porn conglomerates?


165 posted on 10/10/2005 11:12:07 PM PDT by little jeremiah (A vitiated state of morals, a corrupted public conscience, are incompatible with freedom. P. Henry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: ellery

The problem with your argument is that SCOTUS and associated courts have stolen power they were never meant to have, and everyone has joined in with the theft. So the SCOTUS has stated (since we're talking about porn) that naked dancing, or now in OR, actual live sex acts, as well as just about every kind of porn except underage kids, is "speech" protected under the 1st Amendment.

It's too late. It's undoable, unless there's some kind of serious upheaval. All the citizen protests, all the people deciding they want local control - useless. The ACLU calls the shots now.


166 posted on 10/10/2005 11:15:58 PM PDT by little jeremiah (A vitiated state of morals, a corrupted public conscience, are incompatible with freedom. P. Henry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies]

To: madprof98
More and more, I am convinced that moral relativism and conservatism are completely incompatible. For the relativists, after all, what is there to conserve, and why would anyone bother?

Ding ding ding ding....a winner

167 posted on 10/10/2005 11:23:52 PM PDT by Windsong (FighterPilot)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah

I understand your frustration, and I do think the battle against federal suffocation in all its forms is an uphill, if not futile, battle. But I don't know how to concede defeat without also conceding that the Constitution is dead and obsolete. I just can't do that -- not when so many people have made so many sacrifices for it.

SCOTUS is a problem. However, if we can get more pro-10th-amendment justices like Thomas on the bench, then there's a stronger argument, for example, to overturn the definition of porn as free speech and return to community obscenity standards. We fight one Constitutional argument with another. And in general we redefine the traditional right/left arguments so we're not so deadlocked, beginning with one very simple argument: "who knows more about x issue: you? or some bureaucrat in Washington?"

I've also been encouraged by some recent stirrings in various state and local governments to defy higher levels of government, including SCOTUS (regardless of whether I agree with the particular issue at hand). For example, the federal speed limit was finally undermined when states told the feds to pound salt with their highway funds. A lot of states are defying the feds on medical marijuana (not trying to open up that can of worms, because I know there is a big range of opinion on it -- but I do think it's encouraging to see the states and localities beginning to reassert their power even in the face of SCOTUS rulings). Some cities are even defying the states and feds on terrorism! Please understand that I completely disagree with this, since first of all it's *insane* and second, defense is a legitimate federal power...but I am interested in the precedent set by local defiance. It's a start...


168 posted on 10/10/2005 11:37:42 PM PDT by ellery (The true danger is when liberty is nibbled away, for expedience, and by parts. - Edmund Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah
Symbolic. Won't do any good unless/until it changes actual policy.

I totally disagree. Policy is merely a means to an end (i.e., the goal is not to have a policy...the goal is to decrease/stop illegal border crossings). The beauty of those patrols is that they completely end-ran policy and made it irrelevant...because the citizen patrols actually yielded results! They decreased border crossings in the places they patrolled, and rendered crappy government policy moot. That's my point -- we can't go through traditional government channels to fight governemnt, because that would be useless. We have to end-run it altogether.

If my goal was to fight the decaying effect of porn on society, I don't think I would start with internet porn conglomerates. It's like a war -- you don't start with the most impregnable target...you start with the vulnerable ones. Local porn operations in communities that dislike them are vulnerable. They also cause more of a problem for those communities than at-home, private porn downloads -- because they're flagrant, out in the open, etc. Start by making life unfriendly for them, and you've solved a lot of the local community problems. Aren't you more concerned with a general community openness and acceptance of porn than you are about some guy surruptitiously downloading things in his living room in the middle of the night?

169 posted on 10/10/2005 11:50:45 PM PDT by ellery (The true danger is when liberty is nibbled away, for expedience, and by parts. - Edmund Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: Windsong
You should really read the Federalist Papers (Madison, etc) on this issue.

OK, I'll bite. Forget the FACT that I have both the Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers within arms reach, not to mention the Constitution as well as numerous books regarding Constitutional Law, forget all that. Will the Great Scholarly Windsong feel any obligation to point out what Madison (etc) had to say regarding the institution of a National Police Force, much less a National Morality Police Force?

I'm not for the "big bad gubmint" either, but in this case, if the Feds don't go after this guy, who will? The local lea? He'll just move across state lines and set up shop elsewhere. Hence, the Feds involvement, while rarely a good thing, IS a good thing in this case.

Did you get dizzy spouting that circular nonsense? Blackbird.

170 posted on 10/11/2005 6:21:39 AM PDT by BlackbirdSST
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: Huck

Thought police is what's next...


171 posted on 10/11/2005 7:20:54 AM PDT by stuartcr (Everything happens as God wants it to.....otherwise, things would be different.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: stuartcr

172 posted on 10/11/2005 7:36:09 AM PDT by Huck (Miers Miers Miers Miers Miers--I'm mired in Miers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: madprof98
Interestingly, Clarence Thomas joined the lib-activists on this one, while Rehnquist and Scalia dissented. I suspect personal fondness for porn outweighed conservatism there, as it seems to on this forum as well.

Now you're trashing Clarence Thomas personally? You really need to get laid.

173 posted on 10/11/2005 10:23:31 AM PDT by jmc813 (Bork Miers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: Southside_Chicago_Republican; madprof98
Does anyone believe that the Founders had someone like Max Hardcore in mind when they wrote the Bill of Rights?

The gun grabbers use the exact same argument. "There's no way the founders could have predicted these scary assault weapons"

174 posted on 10/11/2005 10:25:21 AM PDT by jmc813 (Bork Miers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: logician2u
Now that the Taliban's gone, supposedly, from Afghanistan, which country would be receptive to your idea of justice

Here, you touch upon the ultimate fear of people like madprof -- the realization that the war against the current enemy of civilization will banish theocratic politics from polite society in much the same way the war against the Nazis banished genteel anti-Semitism.

175 posted on 10/11/2005 10:32:13 AM PDT by steve-b (A desire not to butt into other people's business is eighty percent of all human wisdom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah
The problem is that since the ACLU and Larry Flynt got in front of the SCOTUS, it is now forced upon local communities and there isn't a damn thing anyone can do.

Nonsense. There is a simple, 100% effective, thing people can do -- refuse to patronize the objectionable business.

Of course, that requires one to believe in the favorite economic system of FReepers, rather than that other one favored at Berkeley and the DUmpster.

176 posted on 10/11/2005 10:35:36 AM PDT by steve-b (A desire not to butt into other people's business is eighty percent of all human wisdom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
I'm still trying to figure out where the FBI became the Porn Police

It happened after they rounded up ALL of the ISLAMOFASCIST SAVAGES WHO WANT TO DESTROY WESTERN CIVILIZATION, and found themselves with nothing useful to do....

177 posted on 10/11/2005 10:40:47 AM PDT by steve-b (A desire not to butt into other people's business is eighty percent of all human wisdom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Drew68

If he'd have just ponied up those campaign contributions to the "right" candidates and party..............


178 posted on 10/11/2005 10:40:47 AM PDT by WhiteGuy (Vote for gridlock)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: steve-b

And if we don't like the meth problem, we should just stop patronizing the meth dealers.

Liberalitarianism makes SO much sense!

Funny that the guys who wrote the Constitution didn't figure out that porn was okay.


179 posted on 10/11/2005 11:07:08 AM PDT by little jeremiah (A vitiated state of morals, a corrupted public conscience, are incompatible with freedom. P. Henry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 176 | View Replies]

To: jmc813
Now you're trashing Clarence Thomas personally?

As I recall, a major item of testimony during his confirmation hearings was his supposed fondness for porn. I had forgotten about it until this particular case came up, and I can't otherwise acccount for his voting with the radicals.

You really need to get laid.

You guys argue so splendidly. After Miers withdraws, maybe GWB will nominate you for the Supreme Court.

180 posted on 10/11/2005 11:18:17 AM PDT by madprof98
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: madprof98

In the final analysis, it is society, not the government, that must decide issues like this.

Momma used to say "You can't legislate morality but that doesn't stop them from trying."

As long as there is a market for Max Hardcore's type of product there will be a Max Hardcore to provide it.


181 posted on 10/11/2005 12:53:55 PM PDT by Chuckster (Neca eos omnes. Deus suos agnoset)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah
BTW, the mayor didn't want the porn shop there, most citizens didn't want it there, letters to the editor were written, all kinds of stuff - but, no go. (It's a very small rural town, just a couple of thousand souls in the town proper.)

So, who are the shop's customers? Simple business economics: No customers = no business. Maybe you don't know your town as well as you think.

182 posted on 10/11/2005 1:21:31 PM PDT by Chuckster (Neca eos omnes. Deus suos agnoset)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: Chuckster

Economics isn't God. Just because something sells enough merchandise to keep in business doesn't somehow make it (a) legitimate according to the actual meaning of the First Amendment or (b) wanted by the vast majority of the community.



183 posted on 10/11/2005 1:30:09 PM PDT by little jeremiah (A vitiated state of morals, a corrupted public conscience, are incompatible with freedom. P. Henry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 182 | View Replies]

To: Drew68

But sick adults who want to experience getting sexual gratification by watching digital children get molested can still do so.


184 posted on 10/11/2005 1:31:16 PM PDT by little jeremiah (A vitiated state of morals, a corrupted public conscience, are incompatible with freedom. P. Henry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: mlc9852

Ypu have it EXACTLY right. Since the only CRIMES the Federal Government ia allowed to punish are Piracy, Counterfeiting and Treason, and since the Secret Service is already dealing with the second one, why not let them handle the other two as well? Disband the FBI, the BATFags, DEA, etcetera, and return crimefighting to the Several States and local governmnets, who can then make whatever agreements they need to, with the other States, to pursue criminals who flee or who commit crimes which go into more than one jurisdiction. As someone once said, ALL crime is LOCAL. Let the crimefighters also be local.


185 posted on 10/11/2005 10:29:16 PM PDT by dcwusmc ("The most dangerous man, to any government, is the man who is able to think things out for himself.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: madprof98

How about conserving the CONSTITUTION? Is that so difficult? As distasteful as porn or private, peaceable drug use or firearmes ownership may be to you, such things are not your business, if you choose not to participate in them, but ARE Constitutionally-PROTECTED activities, as long as no coercion or initiation of force or fraud are involved. Therefore, they are NOT subject to YOUR veto. So deal with it.


186 posted on 10/11/2005 10:36:30 PM PDT by dcwusmc ("The most dangerous man, to any government, is the man who is able to think things out for himself.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: dcwusmc
the only CRIMES the Federal Government ia allowed to punish are Piracy, Counterfeiting and Treason

There's also "Offences against the Law of Nations". I've heard tell that there is an ongoing conspiracy to commit some of those on a mass scale, and stopping it might be SLIGHTLY MORE IMPORTANT than arresting some sad sack who has to get his jollies by jerking off to perverse pictures.

Oh, yeah, I vaguely recall that that guy has something to do with it. Any word on how close the Feds are to catching him?

187 posted on 10/12/2005 6:57:51 AM PDT by steve-b (A desire not to butt into other people's business is eighty percent of all human wisdom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 185 | View Replies]

To: dcwusmc
. . . private, peaceable drug use . . .

I have long believed that libertarians are more dangerous to this country than liberals are. Thanks for confirming my view.

188 posted on 10/12/2005 10:06:09 AM PDT by madprof98
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | View Replies]

To: steve-b

That was just an act of war, not something the FBI should be involved with. What "rights" would you have them read him? The only one I can think of is "You have the right to lay back and watch the grass grow from underneath." Or something to that effect. Perhaps the right to have a nice hot bath in a big vat of boiling oil, an inch at a time. Or the right to learn some of the tricks the VC taught us, involving rats and fire. However, such things as those are outside the purview of the FBI in any case. So my statement stands.


189 posted on 10/12/2005 8:12:21 PM PDT by dcwusmc ("The most dangerous man, to any government, is the man who is able to think things out for himself.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies]

To: madprof98

So you think this country was out of control and running downhill for the first 125 years of its existence< When ANY drug or substance one could ask for was available over the counter to anyone with the money to buy it? Was everyone a raving, ranting addict? Or could the war on some drugs have been just a high-handed way for the government to gain control over the lives of its citizens? Could it have been a "war" in search of some (ANY AT ALL) medical justification to cover up the power grab it really was and is? Could it have been rooted in lies, distortions and fabrications, just as it continues to this very day?

To most of the Anti-WOsD people, including me, it is not and never was about being able to use drugs for recreation. It is about putting the chains of the Constitution back on FedGov AND WELDING THE DAMNED LINKS CLOSED THIS TIME, so it can never escape them again. Got a problem with that?


190 posted on 10/12/2005 8:24:39 PM PDT by dcwusmc ("The most dangerous man, to any government, is the man who is able to think things out for himself.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 188 | View Replies]

To: dcwusmc
That calls for all useful resources (military and civilian) to be applied, not wasted on nonsense such as the subject of this thread.
191 posted on 10/13/2005 6:18:28 AM PDT by steve-b (A desire not to butt into other people's business is eighty percent of all human wisdom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 189 | View Replies]

To: steve-b

I quite agree with respect to wasting time and tax dollars chasing down the rather shady and despicable (but not criminal) character depicted here. Soon or late, he'll get his and it won't be due to FedGov, which is as it should be.


192 posted on 10/13/2005 7:20:02 PM PDT by dcwusmc ("The most dangerous man, to any government, is the man who is able to think things out for himself.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies]

To: Drew68
He makes Larry Flynt look like Walt Disney and your typical Vivid Video production look like wholesome family entertainment.

This one sentence sends chills down my spine.

193 posted on 10/13/2005 7:22:24 PM PDT by Paul C. Jesup
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah

The porn freedom decisions were a little earlier
than Roe IIRC. Probably not the exact same line-up
but a large overlap. I recall reading (on Eagle
Forum) that the porn decisions were unsigned. Robert
Bork discusses how no one, but no one, ever entertained
the notion that pornography was protected under any
Free Speech doctrine until then. See his Slouching
Towards Gomorrah.


194 posted on 10/14/2005 4:30:24 AM PDT by cycjec (doesn't teach or inspire or compel them to think things through)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: Drew68
I'd be willing to bet that 99% of the population who enjoy pornography would find a film by Max Hardcore to be totally repulsive.

Well if I understand you right, you'd lose. If his movies were that unpopular, they wouldn't sell so well. Nasty and perverted don't keep something from being a turnon.

195 posted on 10/26/2005 12:11:59 PM PDT by Yemaja
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-195 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson