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

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-195 next last
The site where this link is from is a buisiness site catering to the adult industry and to the best of my knowledge contains no pornographic images.

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.

When one is charged with obscenity in Los Angeles, you can bet the stuff is out there. I'm not going to plead ignorance to Hardcore's work. I have seen it. If you have never seen a Max Hardcore film, you have abolutely never seen anything like it. Watching this film was a stomach-churning experience. There was nothing arousing about it at all.

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.

He's not well-liked within the industry for two major reasons. First, he scares away the new talent. Young women who find themselves in his films usually are new to the business and typically flee the industry after being subjected to the painful, wholly humiliating and degrading experience of working with this man. Second, he is indefensible. He epitomizes everything that those against pornography rally against. He makes Larry Flynt look like Walt Disney and your typical Vivid Video production look like wholesome family entertainment. That is no hyperbole.

1 posted on 10/10/2005 1:05:44 PM PDT by Drew68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Drew68; Jersey Republican Biker Chick
Gee, I hope my e mail address won't be cross referenced for my Federal Background Investigation.
 
Owl_Eagle

(If what I just wrote makes you sad or angry,

 it was probably sarcasm)

2 posted on 10/10/2005 1:09:59 PM PDT by South Hawthorne (In Memory of my Dear Friend Henry Lee II)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Drew68

OK, so it's repulsive. So the federal gubmint should shut them down?


3 posted on 10/10/2005 1:11:54 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 1 | View Replies]

To: Owl_Eagle

You in big trouble, mister!!


4 posted on 10/10/2005 1:12:48 PM PDT by Jersey Republican Biker Chick (People too weak to follow their own dreams, will always find a way to discourage yours.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Drew68

Sounds like the Feds are getting Hard Core with THEM!


5 posted on 10/10/2005 1:13:42 PM PDT by funkywbr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Huck

Had the same thought. I don't buy into such things as Max peddles, but I'm still trying to figure out where the FBI became the Porn Police. I musta missed that article the last time I read the Constitution...


6 posted on 10/10/2005 1:14:40 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 3 | View Replies]

To: Drew68

It's a good thing you re-viewed these movies for us, thanks.


7 posted on 10/10/2005 1:15:26 PM PDT by stuartcr (Everything happens as God wants it to.....otherwise, things would be different.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Drew68

Nope. Never heard of him.


8 posted on 10/10/2005 1:15:57 PM PDT by Constitution Day (When life gives you lemons, just shut up and eat your damn lemons.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Drew68

Max must be selling enough films to keep body and soul together so somebody is watching it.


9 posted on 10/10/2005 1:17:26 PM PDT by sgtbono2002
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse

I remember reading statistics on % of hotel guests who access porn from their rooms, and it was over 50%, as I recall. I think the story had to do with Rupert Murdoch, because he peddles that stuff to hotels everywhere. I just think it's a big fat waste of time, but some ppl like stuff like that: go after porn, go after marijuana, and pass anti flag burning amendments.


10 posted on 10/10/2005 1:17:41 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 6 | View Replies]

To: stuartcr

The sacrifice is simply staggering.

My bet is these jezebels knock on this creep's door when everyone else gives em the boot. Glad to know all the terrorists are all rounded up.

the poster sounded downright saddened by the possibility of someone being abused to the point of quitting porn. My head hurts.


11 posted on 10/10/2005 1:18:29 PM PDT by kinghorse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Drew68
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

I am sure a man as scrupulous and conscientious as Mr. Hardcore is very meticulous about verifying the ages of the "performers" in his "productions".
12 posted on 10/10/2005 1:19:19 PM PDT by Thrusher ("...there is no peace without victory.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Drew68

It's official. I'm over the hill and out of touch with the culture. I've never heard of this person.


13 posted on 10/10/2005 1:20:19 PM PDT by SE Mom (Keep an open mind; nothing will fall out.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Huck
OK, so it's repulsive. So the federal gubmint should shut them down?

No, but there's a line in porn that shouldn't be crossed. I have no problem with mainstream, run-of-the-mill porn. These are your Vivid Video, the Adam and Eve, the companies that just produce regulare porn.

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.

14 posted on 10/10/2005 1:20:31 PM PDT by Extremely Extreme Extremist (Harmful or Fatal if Swallowed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Huck
OK, so it's repulsive. So the federal gubmint should shut them down?

I'm not necessarily advocating that. Certainly this man knows enough to dot his "i's" and cross his "t's" when it comes to the work he does. I'm certain that he diligently verifies the ages of the actresses in his films. And certainly these actresses are adults and have no one but themselves to blame when they show up on the set of one of his films.

But to say he stretches the boundries is an understatement. He steps waaaaay over the line. It is difficult to say there is nothing wrong with adults enjoying pornography and then try to defend one of Max's films.

I really don't know. If he isn't breaking any laws, then he isn't breaking any laws. Truthfully, Max Hardcore's films were the inevitable evolution of an industry that is constantly trying to see how far it can go and what it can get away with.

15 posted on 10/10/2005 1:21:24 PM PDT by Drew68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Drew68

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


16 posted on 10/10/2005 1:22:11 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 15 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse

I wasn't aware the Constitution addressed porn.


17 posted on 10/10/2005 1:22:11 PM PDT by mlc9852
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Extremely Extreme Extremist
And? Pass an Amendment then. If there is evidence other crimes have been comitted, then try him on those crimes.

This is a waste of tax payer money.

18 posted on 10/10/2005 1:22:24 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 14 | View Replies]

To: mlc9852

That was my point. It doesn't. So why is the FBI involved?


19 posted on 10/10/2005 1:23:10 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 17 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse

The Constitution doesn't address quite a few things that the FBI may be involved in.


20 posted on 10/10/2005 1:23:47 PM PDT by mlc9852
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

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]

To: Thrusher
I am sure a man as scrupulous and conscientious as Mr. Hardcore is very meticulous about verifying the ages of the "performers" in his "productions".

One would think. However, the way the courts have begun to interpret the law, mens rea is unconstitutionally not required. Regardless of the due dilligence that may have been exercised, one can and will be convicted if a jury can be convinced that minors were filmed in a sexual context. Parents have been convicted for baby pictures; the children themselves have been convicted for autophotography.

Same problem exists when environmental laws are violated: ignorance and/or good faith errors are not permitted as defenses. In other words, criminal law has begun to be enforced as though it was merely administrative regulations (where mens rea is not required, but also where a civil fine is supposed to be the maximum penalty.)

The Framers didn't put an explicit requirement for mens rea into the Constitution, for two reasons. One is that it was so fundamental to Anglo-Saxon legal principles, they simply assumed it as a bedrock part of common law. But more importantly, they thought they had written a Constitution that severely restricted the authority of the Federal government, and that it was only authorized to criminalize a few things. Thomas Jefferson enumerated them in the Kentucky Resolutions:

... the Constitution of the United States, having delegated to Congress a power to punish treason, counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States, piracies, and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations, and no other crimes whatsoever; and it being true as a general principle, and one of the amendments to the Constitution having also declared, that "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people," therefore the act of Congress, passed on the 14th day of July, 1798, and intituled "An Act in addition to the act intituled An Act for the punishment of certain crimes against the United States," as also the act passed by them on the -- day of June, 1798, intituled "An Act to punish frauds committed on the bank of the United States," (and all their other acts which assume to create, define, or punish crimes, other than those so enumerated in the Constitution,) are altogether void, and of no force; and that the power to create, define, and punish such other crimes is reserved, and, of right, appertains solely and exclusively to the respective States, each within its own territory.

41 posted on 10/10/2005 1:40:31 PM PDT by sourcery (Givernment: The way the average voter spells "government.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Drew68

I would have posted the same thoughts, almost verbatim.

Well stated.


42 posted on 10/10/2005 1:40:42 PM PDT by relictele (How can Hillary run the country when she couldn't manage a household of 3?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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

Actually, it's exactly the opposite - SCOTUS ruled that such a thing was not a crime.

43 posted on 10/10/2005 1:41:04 PM PDT by Senator Bedfellow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse

Nothing - therefore all porn is perfectly legal. Is that the answer you want?


44 posted on 10/10/2005 1:41:35 PM PDT by mlc9852
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Phantom Lord

Thanks. I knew it came up. I couldn't recall the details. Was it a diary or something? Anyway, I just think it's bizarre to start criminalizing fantasy and fiction, no matter how twisted you or I might think it is. Don't you? Isn't this a bit much? You hate to have to defend this sort of stuff, but there has to be a line somewhere, no?


45 posted on 10/10/2005 1:42:29 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 36 | View Replies]

To: Drew68
Shame on the Department of Justice. I am proud of my movies and of those who sell them.

He would be hung tomorrow in my world.

46 posted on 10/10/2005 1:43:07 PM PDT by MeneMeneTekelUpharsin (Freedom is the freedom to discipline yourself so others don't have to do it for you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Huck
It's a very weird area of thought crime we get into.

It is. Personally, if the actress is 18 or older, she is allowed to act in an X-rated film. Period. That's the law. When we start getting into the "fictional representation of children" it becomes subjective. What exactly constitutes dressing like or looking like or "fictionally representing" a child?

However, in Max's films, no effort is spared to make his actresses appear as child-like as possible.

47 posted on 10/10/2005 1:43:53 PM PDT by Drew68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: mlc9852

What I want is irrelevent. But that is the correct answer. Unless some other crime has been comitted, the FBI had no legal authority to raid this guys business.


48 posted on 10/10/2005 1:44:51 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 44 | View Replies]

To: AntiGuv

"...the last time I checked the First Amendment still begins "Congress shall make no law.."

And they should have stopped at that.


49 posted on 10/10/2005 1:44:58 PM PDT by flashbunny (Sorry, but I'm allergic to KoolAid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

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

I googled and took a sneak peek - here it is summed up:

Urination
Defecation
Fisting
Choking
Rough anal sex
Gagging

All performed on teeny-bopping, middle-school looking girls.

This isn't porn, this is legalized snuff child pornography masquerading as "art."

50 posted on 10/10/2005 1:45:35 PM PDT by Extremely Extreme Extremist (Harmful or Fatal if Swallowed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]


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