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 previous 1-5051-100101-150151-195 next last
To: Dead Corpse
I'm of the opinion that the prevalence of such pornography markets are a symptom of a disease and not the disease itself.

Ultimately, I agree. If I want to make a film as raunchy as Max Hardcore, is it my fault that the film goes on to sell 20, 30 or 50,000 copies? Obviously he is catering to a demographic that is willing to spend hard-earned money on his films.

In a better world, he'd have never made a penny of his work.

101 posted on 10/10/2005 2:41:38 PM PDT by Drew68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
Commerce clause abuse if a major factor in how we got as screwed up as we are.

Libertarians are the kind of people who think the regulation of interstate commerce degrades American society, while the unrestricted production and sale of scatological porn videos elevates it.

102 posted on 10/10/2005 2:43:28 PM PDT by madprof98
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: traviskicks
Why would they work for him then?

I dare say that most young women who enter the porn industry are probably lacking in decision making skills and are unable to comprehend the future ramifications of their actions. I'm sure many have emotional problems and are likely substance abusers.

There are a few, I'm sure, hoping to make a quick buck and get out with as little exposure as possible but my guess is most of these women are pretty messed up to begin with.

103 posted on 10/10/2005 2:46:08 PM PDT by Drew68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: madprof98
Authoritarians like you won't be happy until we are all having missionary position sex through a hole cut in a sheet for procreation purposes only.

Any other barbs you'd like to trade?

As I said, if you want to ban it, then Amend the Constitution. As is, there is no specific power for them to do so.

Unless you are worried that they won't sell pr0n to Alabama but will sell it to New York? That would be a proper application of the Commerce Clause.

104 posted on 10/10/2005 2:50:45 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 102 | View Replies]

To: Wolfie
Forest Hump? Splendor In the *ss?

Haha! How about “Max Hardcore Golden Guzzlers #6.” (you can use your imagination on that one). I didn't want to get the thread pulled before anyone had a chance to see it.

105 posted on 10/10/2005 2:55:31 PM PDT by Drew68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: ichabod1

His real name is Paul Little and he's a scumbag. If "Max Hardcore" didn't exist, the Fem-Nazis would have to invent him. His brand of mysoginistic choke-her-til-she-pukes sex is a psychotic reaction to porn as female sexual empowerment trend in pop culture. It takes dirty movies back from the girls on MTV and returns it to it's raincoat roots.


106 posted on 10/10/2005 2:58:10 PM PDT by Callahan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
Authoritarians like you won't be happy until we are all having missionary position sex through a hole cut in a sheet for procreation purposes only.

Oh, yeah, put the brakes on scatological porn and what's left but that?!? Trouble is, you don't even know how foolish that is because you think in cliches.

What you really want to protect is not free speech (or free anything, for that matter) but porn, drugs and other socially harmful ills. That's what libertarianism is all about: providing government protection for vice. For that reason, I think you have much more in common with the radical left than with the religious right.

107 posted on 10/10/2005 3:00:02 PM PDT by madprof98
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: Drew68

First they came for Max Hardcore, but I did not speak out, because I was not like Max Hardcore....etc., etc., etc. Then they came for me, but there was no one left to speak out for me.

Right.

Covering this creep under the First Amendment just doesn't cut it, unless we agree that the Constution is a "living document," and that's exactly what most people on this forum say it isn't. Does anyone believe that the Founders had someone like Max Hardcore in mind when they wrote the Bill of Rights? Had there been a Max Hardcore in the days of the Founders, he most likely would have ended up dancing at the end of a rope. In fact, you wouldn't even have to go back that far in American history to find someone like poor ol' Max getting into all kinds of lesser, but still serious, trouble. And worst of all, no one would have spoken out for him. But those were dark, dark days in America -- days reminiscent of Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Russia, and Pol Pot's Cambodia.

And to justify what Max Hardcore does because he is able to make money at what he does is the worst possible argument.

I know I'm taking a big risk, knowing that Max Hardcore is the first of the row of dominoes that will ultimately end with me, but to hell with him anyway.


108 posted on 10/10/2005 3:01:37 PM PDT by Southside_Chicago_Republican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Huck

I could be wrong, but I thought congress already passed a law against digital representations of child porn.


109 posted on 10/10/2005 3:02:01 PM PDT by Callahan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: kinghorse
it doesn't take talent to whore yourself.

Man, you're watching the wrong porn.
110 posted on 10/10/2005 3:05:37 PM PDT by LanaTurnerOverdrive
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

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

Did they have AK-47s in mind when they wrote the 2nd Amendment? That's an argument the gun-grabbers use quite often?

I'm not defending Hardore's films. I think they are reprehensible. But apparently he is not breaking the law as it is currently written. The 1st Amendment hasn't evolved as a "living document" in order to protect Max Hardcore. It is right there.

111 posted on 10/10/2005 3:10:45 PM PDT by Drew68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse

The problem with Max Hardcore may be his website which allows anyone to access his movie trailers with no age verification system. I just watched some vile footage & even though I thought it was gross....it is not illegal.

The FBI also shut down 2 other sites: one was for stories only (but they involved child porn) and the other had something to do with soldiers posting photos of dead Iraqis.


112 posted on 10/10/2005 3:11:28 PM PDT by Feiny (When does mama get to hang somebody?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: madprof98

It's interesting that even Max Hardcore doesn't depict rape. The girl gets choked and abused, but she just sort of passively goes along, never losing that drugged-out thousand yard stare.

The only media I've ever seen that really glorifies straight-up rape are those Japanese Hentai cartoons (The Japanese are sick, repressed bunch).

There was a guy named Greg Dark who was making violence-themed porn films and they shut him down pretty quick.

That's the only line left these days.


113 posted on 10/10/2005 3:12:12 PM PDT by Callahan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: Callahan
I could be wrong, but I thought congress already passed a law against digital representations of child porn.

It was struck down. Seems you can't exploit children when these children don't exist to be exploited in the first place.

114 posted on 10/10/2005 3:13:00 PM PDT by Drew68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: feinswinesuksass
The problem with Max Hardcore may be his website which allows anyone to access his movie trailers with no age verification system.

I don't believe age verification systems are mandatory. Seems there was an attempt to make them into law but it was struck down as unduly burdensome. Most sites only make you click a link saying you are over 18.

115 posted on 10/10/2005 3:16:14 PM PDT by Drew68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: Drew68

Sorry, I don't buy it. And it cheapens the meaning of the Bill of Rights to use it to cover a pervert just because he videotapes his perversions and shows them on the web.


116 posted on 10/10/2005 3:16:30 PM PDT by Southside_Chicago_Republican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: Southside_Chicago_Republican
Does anyone believe that the Founders had someone like Max Hardcore in mind when they wrote the Bill of Rights? Had there been a Max Hardcore in the days of the Founders, he most likely would have ended up dancing at the end of a rope.

Thank you for speaking up for common sense.

117 posted on 10/10/2005 3:17:28 PM PDT by madprof98
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: Drew68
Seems you can't exploit children when these children don't exist to be exploited in the first place.

Seemed so to the judges on the Supreme Court. 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.

118 posted on 10/10/2005 3:22:16 PM PDT by madprof98
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: Callahan
It takes dirty movies back from the girls on MTV and returns it to it's raincoat roots.

Interesting take. You could relate it to the pre-hardcore grindhouse "roughies" of the mid 1960s, then.

119 posted on 10/10/2005 3:42:12 PM PDT by Heyworth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: thompsonsjkc; odoso; animoveritas; mercygrace; Laissez-faire capitalist; bellevuesbest; ...

Moral Absolutes.

The usual porn defenders, with their usual friendly, self-effacing, rational discussion in play.

The citizenry of this country need to seriously consider pornography. Pornography ruins lives and was never considered to be the sort of expression (actually, the Bill of Rights says "speech") protected by the First Amendment. That is, until pornographers, aided by the ACLU went before a bunch of judges who also decided killing unborn babies was a legal act. [Don't know if it was the exact same nine, so no jumping down my throat.]

Freepmail me if you want on/off this pinglist.


120 posted on 10/10/2005 3:45:31 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 1 | View Replies]

To: madprof98; little jeremiah
"I suspect personal fondness for porn outweighed conservatism there, as it seems to on this forum as well."

Well, don't you know Jefferson and Madison had this in mind when telling the King to take a hike? I mean what would we do without our right to see girls vomit on screen?

Will the last conservative out please turn off the lights?

121 posted on 10/10/2005 3:52:20 PM PDT by Sam's Army (Intense and spicy, with a hint of sarcasm and a dry finish.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: mlc9852
The Constitution doesn't address quite a few things that the FBI may be involved in.

Actually, it does...

Amd X. 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.

All of which is ignored, but there nonetheless. Blackbird.

122 posted on 10/10/2005 3:53:16 PM PDT by BlackbirdSST
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: BlackbirdSST

We didn't have an FBI when the Constitution was written. You don't think we should have a national police? Just let the states handle it?


123 posted on 10/10/2005 3:55:17 PM PDT by mlc9852
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: Sam's Army; madprof98

"Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains upon their own appetites--in proportion as their love of justice is above their rapacity;--in proportion as their soundness and sobriety of understanding is above their vanity and presumption;--in proportion as they are more disposed to listen to the counsels of the wise and good, in preference to the flattery of knaves. Society cannot exist, unless a controlling power upon the will and appetite is placed somewhere: and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of intemperate minds can not be free. Their passions forge their fetters."
-- Edmund Burke

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.


124 posted on 10/10/2005 4:08:49 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 121 | View Replies]

To: madprof98
I suspect personal fondness for porn outweighed conservatism there, as it seems to on this forum as well.

Right, and anyone who opposes the WOD is a pothead, and anyone who opposes hate crime laws is a racist. Take your ad hominems to DU.

125 posted on 10/10/2005 4:09:28 PM PDT by ThinkDifferent (I am a leaf on the wind)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: madprof98

There's no thinking going on in minds like that. It's the Beavis and Butthead philosophy. Actually they're probably more civilized and mature in viewpoint.


126 posted on 10/10/2005 4:11:12 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 107 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah

We could be witnessing the fall of America.

Wolf


127 posted on 10/10/2005 4:11:44 PM PDT by RunningWolf (tag line limbo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: RunningWolf

Not could be. Are.

But - we can't see the future. We don't know what kind of plans are in motion already, and the Supreme is the actual controller. That relates again to the Evil discussion, I plan to get that written up today.

Did you see the list of Benjamin Franklin's virtures I posted? I'll put it here because it's pretty interesting. It's in his Autobiography. He devised the virtures from various readings and figured out a plan to develop them.

Benjamin Franklin's List of Virtues

1. Temperance - Eat not to dullness, drink not to elevation.
2. Silence - Speak not but what may benefit others or yourself; avoid trifling conversation.
3. Order - Let all things have their places; let each part of your business have its time.
4. Resolution - Resolve to perform what you ought; perform without fail what you resolve.
5. Frugality - Make no expense but to do good to others or yourself, that is, waste nothing.
6. Industry - Lose no time; be always employed in something useful; cut off all unnecessary actions.
7. Sincerity - Use no hurtful deceit; think innocently and justly, and, if you speak, speak accordingly.
8. Justice - Wrong none by doing injuries, or omitting the benefits that are your duty.
9. Moderation - Avoid extremes; forbear resenting injuries so much as you think they deserve.
10. Cleanliness - Tolerate no uncleanliness in body, clothes, or habitation.
11. Tranquility - Be not disturbed at trifles, or at accidents, common or unavoidable.
12. Chastity - Rarely use venery but for health or offspring, never to dullness, or weakness, or the injury of your own or another's peace or reputation.
13. Humility - Imitate Jesus and Socrates.

I like number 4 especially.


128 posted on 10/10/2005 4:20:37 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 127 | View Replies]

To: Heyworth

Over the last couple decades, pornographers have had alot of success "mainstreaming" their business. Witness Jenna Jameson hosting show on the "E" Channel and those "porn star" t-shirts Christina Agulera display in US Magazine. Porn has achieved never-before-seen degree of hipness, partly due to re-branding sleaze as pseudo-feminist sexual empowerment. Girls can be bad, just like the guys, etc. Then out from under his rock crawls Max Hardcore with his blatant mysogyny, pedophilic tendencies and scatalogical obsessions--just vile enough to disgust even "enlightened" minds and remind people of the sickness and hate behind all the glitz, girl power and libertarian glee. Ironically, the porn industry has more to fear from Max Hardcore than it's opponents do. He's a gift to Concerned Women for America.


129 posted on 10/10/2005 4:24:06 PM PDT by Callahan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah
I agree, the Constitution has been corrupted so much it is hard to see it in America anymore.

If it is child pornography, then they should be shot.

Wolf
130 posted on 10/10/2005 4:24:07 PM PDT by RunningWolf (tag line limbo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: Drew68

There are probably many professions and money making activities that some of us might look down upon. The question is should we judge (legally) certain activites and interfere with an individuals right to contract? I'd say no.


131 posted on 10/10/2005 4:29:57 PM PDT by traviskicks (http://www.neoperspectives.com/secondaryproblemsofsocialism.htm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: Drew68
Finally, after one hundred posts, we get to the crux of the matter:

In a better world, he'd have never made a penny of his work.

And I might add that, in an earlier time, Mr. Hardcore would have been tarred, feathered and given a ride out of town on a rail long before the matter came to the attention of any law enforcement agency or the courts.

132 posted on 10/10/2005 4:42:35 PM PDT by Chuckster (Neca eos omnes. Deus suos agnoset)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: traviskicks
There are probably many professions and money making activities that some of us might look down upon. The question is should we judge (legally) certain activites and interfere with an individuals right to contract?

Ah, the RIGHT TO CONTRACT! For libertarians, the only real right. The rest of us can just sit around and stew in the garbage these freedom-lovers make their stock in trade.

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?

133 posted on 10/10/2005 4:43:13 PM PDT by madprof98
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: Chuckster
And I might add that, in an earlier time, Mr. Hardcore would have been tarred, feathered and given a ride out of town on a rail long before the matter came to the attention of any law enforcement agency or the courts.

My son lived for several years in one of those "developing" countries dear to the hearts of liberals, for its constitution enshrined all the imaginary rights they (and so many of their libertarian allies) hold dear. But the real law was in the hands of anonymous mobs. When criminal activity took place in the villages, a band of men would go out at night, nab the suspected perpetrator and kill him. On paper, of course, capital punishment had been abolished even for the most heinous murders.

If the leftists keep getting their way, we will see the return of mob rule here too, I suspect, and it won't be pretty, because some of the suspected perpetrators will surely be innocent.

134 posted on 10/10/2005 4:48:56 PM PDT by madprof98
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

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.

Interesting observation. You might be correct. I've often wondered if there will be a breaking point when a large segment of society stands up and says, "Enough!" and instead of bloviating, something actually happens.

135 posted on 10/10/2005 4:59:37 PM PDT by Drew68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: Proud_USA_Republican
If Max takes a 22 year old consenting adult, dresses her up in a cheerleading outfit, and has sex with her on film, its not a crime.

And here's another question I've long wondered about... Why is it that bondage movies with sex are considered obscene, and therefore illegal, and there are some violent porn movies with really horrible stuff that's also being prosecuted, but movies of "Ultimate Fighting" are OK, as are the "Faces of Death" movies, which show actual films of horrible human deaths and injuries. What is it about the sex, along with violence, fictionalized or not, that makes it illegal. This is something that's worried me for a very long time. When you can take two legal acts, film them together, and the film suddenly becomes illegal. How does that work?

Mark

136 posted on 10/10/2005 5:25:34 PM PDT by MarkL (I didn't get to where I am today by worrying about what I'd feel like tomorrow!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: Drew68
apparently he is not breaking the law as it is currently written.

Of course he is. Federal obscenity laws are not restricted just to child porn.

TITLE 18 - PART I - CHAPTER 71 - OBSCENITY § 1466. Engaging in the business of selling or transferring obscene matter

The 1st Amendment hasn't evolved as a "living document" in order to protect Max Hardcore. It is right there.

Sorry, but the first amendment has never protected obscenity.

137 posted on 10/10/2005 5:25:35 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe
Of course he is.

You may want to email that link to various prosecuting attorneys as they seem to be having a hard time (no pun intended) on getting obscenity convictions against pornographers.

138 posted on 10/10/2005 5:42:26 PM PDT by Drew68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe
Sorry, but the first amendment has never protected obscenity.

Certainly true but it seems the definition of "obscenity" has often caused prosecuters to throw up their hands in despair.

139 posted on 10/10/2005 5:44:03 PM PDT by Drew68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: Drew68

Let a jury watch this stuff and then decide if it's obscene.


140 posted on 10/10/2005 5:48:44 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

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

Me too! I had to read the headline twice as I thought that they were talking about M-M-Max Headroom.

141 posted on 10/10/2005 5:56:34 PM PDT by meyer (The DNC prefers advancing the party at the expense of human lives.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: madprof98
Truth is, the kind of country that treats Max Hardcore material as worthy of protection is NOT the kind of country I want to live in. I hope they shut him down - and shut down anybody else inclined to follow his lead.

Bump what you said.
142 posted on 10/10/2005 6:03:34 PM PDT by AD from SpringBay (We have the government we allow and deserve.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
. . 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...

Me too, although it would seem that some FBI agents don't really want that duty. They'd rather be fighting the War on Terror, which has consumed so much of the FBI's time since 9/11 that new criminal cases are down 70% from the 2000 level.

Other agencies are having to pick up the slack, according to news reports.

Maybe we'll eventually have a porn control agency along the lines of the DEA or the BATF so the FBI can get back to its primary mission, whatever that is. Oh, yeah -- to investigate certain crimes after they've been committed. I think that was what J. Edgar Hoover always advocated as the purpose of the FBI; he was adamantly opposed to a "national police force." Nobody in authority at the FBI apparently shares that view these days.

143 posted on 10/10/2005 7:38:12 PM PDT by logician2u
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: madprof98
Truth is, the kind of country that treats Max Hardcore material as worthy of protection is NOT the kind of country I want to live in. I hope they shut him down - and shut down anybody else inclined to follow his lead.

Interesting comment, madprof.

Maybe you'd prefer, as someone suggested, that characters like him be tarred and feathered and run out of town on a rail? Is that the kind of justice you'd like to see?

Now that the Taliban's gone, supposedly, from Afghanistan, which country would be receptive to your idea of justice for pornographers? Would you want to live there?

144 posted on 10/10/2005 7:44:59 PM PDT by logician2u
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: Phantom Lord
As is often said, maintaining free speech requires defending speech with which you object.

Often said but seldom understood. Too often ignored, especially when adrenalin-charged arguments revolve around such things as "protecting the children" and "fighting terrorism."

And, just when you think the opponents of free speech are starting to come around, they invariably throw a curve ball like, "Well, pornography is not really speech!"

145 posted on 10/10/2005 7:52:11 PM PDT by logician2u
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Drew68

Read this part again:

"Society cannot exist, unless a controlling power upon the will and appetite is placed somewhere: and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of intemperate minds can not be free. Their passions forge their fetters."
-- Edmund Burke

Burke, from what I have read, had a great influence on many of the founding fathers. A republic such as ours can only exist if the people in general have a modicum of self control, which thoughtful people understand must be informed by universal religious principles.

"If men will not be governed by the Ten Commandments, they shall be governed by the ten thousand commandments." --G. K. Chesterton

Feral humans cannot control themselves, and if the society has enough of them, such anarchy will ensue that people will be begging for martial law. This isn't theory, it will happen. Unless something changes. The road we're on now inevitably leads to the ultimate in jack booted thugism.

"Does history warrant the conclusion that religion is necessary to morality -- that a natural ethic is too weak to withstand the savagery that lurks under civilization and emerges in our dreams, crimes, and wars? ... There is no significant example in history, before our time, of a society successfully maintaining moral life without the aid of religion." ---Will and Ariel Durant

"History fails to record a single precedent in which nations subject to moral decay have not passed into political and economic decline. There has been either a spiritual awakening to overcome the moral lapse, or a progressive deterioration leading to ultimate national disaster." -- General Douglas MacArthur


146 posted on 10/10/2005 7:53:47 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 135 | View Replies]

To: Drew68

Obscenity should be a state/local issue, as judged by community standards. The only Constitutional justification for the feds to be involved is under interstate commerce -- i.e., if some localities ban this guy's stuff, and he's shipping to those localities anyway; or if it's a multi-state child porn ring.

Maybe that's what's happening here, but I don't see that specified in the article. If the FBI is prosecuting plain obscenity alone, then they're out of bounds -- that should be handled by the state of California.


147 posted on 10/10/2005 7:58:36 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 1 | View Replies]

To: Drew68
I like my adult entertainment tame and sedate. Extreme sex is a turn-off for me - if it involves S&M and real sicko into pain stuff, that's not my cup of tea. Most adults enjoy watching a movie with people making love every now and then but some of the stuff out there is like gross and totally deviant. Eeeeeeeew!

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
148 posted on 10/10/2005 8:03:31 PM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Drew68
The Vivid Video stuff is what most people think of as mainstream. But on the Internet anything goes and some of the porn is in a category that well... is of such a nature "obscenity" doesn't begin to describe that it really doesn't make one feel more sexually charged. Not at all.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
149 posted on 10/10/2005 8:06:45 PM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Extremely Extreme Extremist
The issue here is who draws the line. Obscenity standards belong with the local community, not the feds. If you give the feds the power to dictate what is obscene, then you also concede that they have the de facto power to dictate what is not.

In other words, if you object to the idea that the feds can force your locality to accept obscenity that exceeds your particular community standards, then you should fight against instances where the feds force a given locality to forgo gross things that are acceptable by its particular community standards.

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.

150 posted on 10/10/2005 8:19:33 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 78 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 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