Skip to comments.Max Hardcore Offices Raided by FBI; Servers, Tapes Seized
Posted on 10/10/2005 1:05:39 PM PDT by Drew68
click here to read article
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I could be wrong, but I thought congress already passed a law against digital representations of child porn.
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.
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.
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.
It was struck down. Seems you can't exploit children when these children don't exist to be exploited in the first place.
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.
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.
Thank you for speaking up for common sense.
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.
Interesting take. You could relate it to the pre-hardcore grindhouse "roughies" of the mid 1960s, then.
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.
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.