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
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.
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.
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.
But sick adults who want to experience getting sexual gratification by watching digital children get molested can still do so.
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.
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.
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?
I have long believed that libertarians are more dangerous to this country than liberals are. Thanks for confirming my view.
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.
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?
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.
This one sentence sends chills down my spine.
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
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.
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.