attack on 1st ammendment, PAC?

[earthbrown]

sickening

http://www.theledger.com/article/20080610/NEWS/806100375/1374&title=To_Jury__Obscene__to_One_Man__a_Day_s_Work



K

[TheMojoPin]

This guy is a supreme scumbag deserving of a heaping helping of street justice, but there's no excuse for the government on any level to try and toss him into jail for making porn. PAC should definitely be involved if they're up for it, and hopefully the ACLU will be or is already involved.

[sailor]

earthbrown and mojo agree? :blink:

porn's a beautiful thing.

[earthbrown]

earthbrown and mojo agree? :blink:

porn's a beautiful thing.

Max is a dirty boy, his stuff is sometimes disgusting, but this is a blatant attack on the 1st amendment.


K

[RAAMONE]

This guy is a supreme scumbag deserving of a heaping helping of street justice, but there's no excuse for the government on any level to try and toss him into jail for making porn. PAC should definitely be involved if they're up for it, and hopefully the ACLU will be or is already involved.

what? yeah its wierd porn but hes not forcing these girls to do anything...he deserves street justice? what?

we all sat around and watched 2 girls 1 cup

[sailor]

what? yeah its wierd porn but hes not forcing these girls to do anything...he deserves street justice? what?

we all sat around and watched 2 girls 1 cup

it's not entirely true that the girls aren't forced. i've seen some expose-type stuff and refuse to watch any more of them kind of like i'd not like to know what's going on at a sausage factory. suffice to say porn girls are often abuse victims before and tricked into doing things they don't want to (given a one-way ticket to cali with a promise of a return trip back home after their boy-girl scene, then told they have to do something like double-anal or they won't be given their ticket back home. they either do something they don't want to or are stranded across the country with no money or other prospects.)

[EliSnow]

In all likelihood, what is going to happen is that the verdict will be overturned on appeal. There has been a number of cases like this before, and a lot of times you see a verdict in the trial court that is later overturned on First Amendment grounds.

Of course, under the obscenity standard set by the U.S. Supreme Court, obscenity is determined by local standards, so there is a chance it may not be overturned.

Also, I don't think this is a PAC matter, really. The guy needs legal and monetary support. The PAC, as far as I know, are more of a "public pressure" group (i.e. they'll protest, make points on tv, etc. than a group to handle or fund a costly appeal process.) I could be wrong.

It's definitely in the ACLU's area, and I had a couple law school teachers who had handled similar cases for the ACLU in the past.

[topless_mike]

first porn, then what? its going to be illegal to look at the hot chick pic thread?

i dont want to live in a country where its illegal to batch.

[RAAMONE]

In all likelihood, what is going to happen is that the verdict will be overturned on appeal. There has been a number of cases like this before, and a lot of times you see a verdict in the trial court that is later overturned on First Amendment grounds.

Of course, under the obscenity standard set by the U.S. Supreme Court, obscenity is determined by local standards, so there is a chance it may not be overturned.

Also, I don't think this is a PAC matter, really. The guy needs legal and monetary support. The PAC, as far as I know, are more of a "public pressure" group (i.e. they'll protest, make points on tv, etc. than a group to handle or fund a costly appeal process.) I could be wrong.

It's definitely in the ACLU's area, and I had a couple law school teachers who had handled similar cases for the ACLU in the past.

the thing that bothers me with stuff like this is the jury...i bet most of them were just church going people who watched one of his films and just said "thats sick you're guilty" without even thinking about anything else...but i guess thats how it is

[Furtherman]

And to think I was going to throw away a box of dental devices.

[MisterSmith]

In all likelihood, what is going to happen is that the verdict will be overturned on appeal. There has been a number of cases like this before, and a lot of times you see a verdict in the trial court that is later overturned on First Amendment grounds.

Of course, under the obscenity standard set by the U.S. Supreme Court, obscenity is determined by local standards, so there is a chance it may not be overturned.

Also, I don't think this is a PAC matter, really. The guy needs legal and monetary support. The PAC, as far as I know, are more of a "public pressure" group (i.e. they'll protest, make points on tv, etc. than a group to handle or fund a costly appeal process.) I could be wrong.
It's definitely in the ACLU's area, and I had a couple law school teachers who had handled similar cases for the ACLU in the past.

This sounds right - and I also believe that PAC is essentially a "counter-pressure group" that stands up for the first amendment as it applies to the media. Meaning, when pressure groups try to get radio jox, TV broadcasters, etc. kicked off the air for saying something legal but "unpopular," the PAC will jump behind them and provide popular support to counter the negative.

They may go beyond media issues, but I think it is their biggest thing.

[EliSnow]

This sounds right - and I also believe that PAC is essentially a "counter-pressure group" that stands up for the first amendment as it applies to the media. Meaning, when pressure groups try to get radio jox, TV broadcasters, etc. kicked off the air for saying something legal but "unpopular," the PAC will jump behind them and provide popular support to counter the negative.

They may go beyond media issues, but I think it is their biggest thing.

The above does not involve the First Amendment.

The First Amendment only stops the government from infringing free speech or free press. There is nothing in the constititution forbidding private groups from putting commercial pressure (threatening boycotts on copmanies' products) in order to achieve an objective.

[LaBoob]

the thing that bothers me with stuff like this is the jury...i bet most of them were just church going people who watched one of his films and just said "thats sick you're guilty" without even thinking about anything else...but i guess thats how it is

Yeah, there is an audience for this kind of porn, but it's certainly not meant to be screened in public in front of people who have never heard of Max Hardcore, who are deciding his fate... scary. I had to agree with him saying how surreal it was. Scary.

[NewYorkDragons80]

hopefully the ACLU will be or is already involved.

http://www.kgal.com/images/Levin_Big.jpg
Damn Kool-aid drinkin, Clintonistas

[MisterSmith]

The above does not involve the First Amendment.

The First Amendment only stops the government from infringing free speech or free press. There is nothing in the constititution forbidding private groups from putting commercial pressure (threatening boycotts on copmanies' products) in order to achieve an objective.



I'm sorry, I didn't write very clearly. What I meant was when somebody in the media says something that is not against FCC regs and would obviously be within their rights to say, but some pressure group tries to get the person fired for religious/racial/etc. reasons.

I widened the use of "first amendment" improperly. I see it as a first amendment issue in that it is protected speech, but the PAC is countering pressure groups, not the government.

[TheMojoPin]

what? yeah its wierd porn but hes not forcing these girls to do anything...he deserves street justice? what?

Personally, yeah, I think he deserves a good beating. The porn he makes is pretty much always bordering on being rape and incredibly aggressive. Yes, the people involved sign a contract, but what he ends up doing ends up pushing the boundaries about as far as they can be pushed, often at times arguably breaking the relatively vague definitions of those contracts. He speciically targets young woman brand new to the industry who typically don't know any better. He's destested widely throughout his own industry for his business tactics and onscreen practices. In short, he's a violent, tiny-pricked scumbag who basically all but rapes and abuses women on camera.

That said, there's realy nothing for the government to go after since he essentially stops just short of truly "crossing the line" criminally thanks to the contracts signed. The charges against him ultimately amount to a man being put on trial for making porn, and that's BS. I loathe the guy and detest what he makes, but it's inexcusable for the government to go after him.

[EliSnow]

I widened the use of "first amendment" improperly. I see it as a first amendment issue in that it is protected speech, but the PAC is countering pressure groups, not the government.

It is protected speech, but only protected by the First Amendment by the government.

The pressure groups, and their members, have their own First Amendment and other rights to make their opinion known and engage in commercial boycotts.

I think you could call this protection of free speech but it's not a "First Amendment issue" unless the government is trying to infringe on the free speech.

[scottinnj]

http://www.kgal.com/images/Levin_Big.jpg
Damn Kool-aid drinkin, Clintonistas

You Sir, are a Great American!

[Dirtybird12]

LOL Throw this shitbag in the hole and let him rot and become someones bitch in prison.
screw the 1st amendment. A jury found him guilty. Thats good ole american justice in action. You may not agree - or like it...but learn to love it and live with it.

Lets find out how "hardcore" max little really is! lol
classic

[IMSlacker]

You may not agree - or like it...but learn to love it and live with it.

Wooooooo!!!