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 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 181-195 next last
To: Drew68

OK, I will take your word for it.

Thanks for the research.


21 posted on 10/10/2005 1:26:29 PM PDT by SeeRushToldU_So (It is hotter than two rats screwing in a wool sock in GA.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Huck
Well, I've not seen his work so I can't comment on it.

Let me try to sum it up in language suitable for this forum. Young "girl-next-door" types (actresses range in age from 18 to 23 or so) wearing braces, pigtails and bright colored little-girl clothes and subjected to extremely humiliating, degrading and painful sex. It is not uncommon to see these actresses vomit and burst into tears while being filmed.

22 posted on 10/10/2005 1:26:34 PM PDT by Drew68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Drew68

Max can thank the FBI for the increase in sales this month....


23 posted on 10/10/2005 1:26:42 PM PDT by Pondman88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mlc9852

Either make the penalties so tough the porn industry dies (across the board) or forget about it. Anything else is just a bureaucrat keeping a chair warm. Black and white is efficient. Gray is one big waste of money.


24 posted on 10/10/2005 1:27:11 PM PDT by kinghorse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: mlc9852
If it isn't there, then the FBI has no legal authority to be doing it. Period.

And yes. I'm well aware of how far off from reality this view is. It does not make it the wrong viewpoint. The FedGov has LIMITED powers and duties. Anything not listed is verbotten to them.

This is such an instance.

25 posted on 10/10/2005 1:27:59 PM PDT by Dead Corpse (Anyone who needs to be persuaded to be free, doesn't deserve to be. -El Neil)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: kinghorse
the poster sounded downright saddened by the possibility of someone being abused to the point of quitting porn.

Where on earth did you get that from? I was merely stating one of the reasons why he is not well liked in the industry -an industry I am not employed by, by the way.

26 posted on 10/10/2005 1:28:14 PM PDT by Drew68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Drew68

Bravo! Hope they nail that slimebag


27 posted on 10/10/2005 1:28:39 PM PDT by kisanri
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Drew68

"He's not well-liked within the industry for two major reasons. First, he scares away the new talent."

scared straight? good. it doesn't take talent to whore yourself.


28 posted on 10/10/2005 1:30:53 PM PDT by kinghorse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse

Well, what does that leave them to do? If all this should be handled by local LE, we need to cut their budget.


29 posted on 10/10/2005 1:33:35 PM PDT by mlc9852
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Drew68
I wonder if the FBI agents can sue the agency
if they go blind in the line of duty.
30 posted on 10/10/2005 1:34:13 PM PDT by Edmund Dante
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Drew68

interesting. That explains why the Child exploitation force of the FBI is doing this. Wasn't there a case recently that ruled that producing fictional representations of sex with underaged persons was a crime? Do you agree with that? Similarly, should fictional depictions of rape be allowed, or should that be banned too? It's a very weird area of thought crime we get into. I mean, I guess I am not too keen on obscenity laws. I think the public square should be kept family friendly, but I am not sure at what point we allow the gubmint to confiscate fictional materials.


31 posted on 10/10/2005 1:34:25 PM PDT by Huck ("I'm calling a moratorium on Miers/Bush/GOP bashing--but it won't be easy (thanks tex))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Drew68

I'll have to admit, His work IS fairly disturbing.


32 posted on 10/10/2005 1:35:05 PM PDT by wolfcreek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
So why is the FBI involved?

Read between the lines.

The FBI took his servers, copied all his films, and then returned the servers.

They didn't want to pay those website subscription fees any more.

33 posted on 10/10/2005 1:35:19 PM PDT by UCANSEE2 (I jez calls it az I see it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: mlc9852

So all they have to do is sit around and roust porn producers? Damn am I glad all that terrorism stuff has been cleared up.


34 posted on 10/10/2005 1:36:21 PM PDT by Dead Corpse (Anyone who needs to be persuaded to be free, doesn't deserve to be. -El Neil)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: UCANSEE2

I wouldn't put it past them.


35 posted on 10/10/2005 1:36:45 PM PDT by Dead Corpse (Anyone who needs to be persuaded to be free, doesn't deserve to be. -El Neil)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Huck
Wasn't there a case recently that ruled that producing fictional representations of sex with underaged persons was a crime?

No. The opposite. SCOTUS ruled that FICTIONAL representation of underage children is legal. As an example, a 25 year old girl can legally pretend to be a 15 year old high school girl in a movie and it is not illegal. The law that was challenged would have made the person who made the film with the 25 year old guilty of child porn when clearly no children were involved. It was the correct ruling.

36 posted on 10/10/2005 1:37:51 PM PDT by Phantom Lord (Fall on to your knees for the Phantom Lord)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse

Why does it have to be one or the other? I thought they were involved with both.


37 posted on 10/10/2005 1:38:35 PM PDT by mlc9852
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: mlc9852

And what in the Constitution gives the FedGov authority to legislate porn as a crime?


38 posted on 10/10/2005 1:39:19 PM PDT by Dead Corpse (Anyone who needs to be persuaded to be free, doesn't deserve to be. -El Neil)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Drew68
Here's a Wikipedia summary of his work: Max Hardcore. Yes, it sounds repulsive, but the last time I checked the First Amendment still begins "Congress shall make no law.." What part of "no law" is difficult to understand? If the state wants to deal with it, then fine, but the Feds have no constitutional authority. It seems that the State of California already dealt with it as they saw fit.
39 posted on 10/10/2005 1:39:54 PM PDT by AntiGuv ()
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Drew68

Has the ACLU stepped up to provide Max's legal defense for free yet?


40 posted on 10/10/2005 1:39:57 PM PDT by DTogo (I haven't left the GOP, the GOP left me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 181-195 next 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