With a bit more seriousness, where should we draw the line? Anyone seen the Gag Factor or Slap Happy series? I, ahem, "heard" they were quite rough, as bad as Max (although without the urine, etc).
with snuff being the exception,we shouldn't
-
There has been a recent cluster of spammers accessing BARFer accounts and posting spam. To safeguard your account, please consider changing your password. It would be even better to take the additional step of enabling 2 Factor Authentication (2FA) on your BARF account. Read more here.
Maxx Hardcore gets 4 year sentence for making porno movies
- Thread starter zombi
- Start date
with snuff being the exception,we shouldn't
Johndicezx9
Rolls with it...
The "Cambria List" seems to be the industry standard.... but then again, maybe not.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Cambria
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Cambria
Not,did you actually read that list? No black on white was one of the items.
"No black men-white women themes"
So the other way around is acceptable?
What a fucking weird ass list. It's amazing how closed minded people were/are.
Johndicezx9
Rolls with it...
Yes, and I read it in conjunction with the write up on the Adam Glasser ("Seymore Butts") case, the first anti-porn case filed in 2001 since 1993.
I thought the "maybe not" would convey the sarcasm of the post, but I see that nuance was missed. It's a list that the porn industry's lawyer came up with to avoid DOJ attention under the current administration. If followed, porn would be pretty... well... bland, IMO, but it sounds lke some you are into some pretty off the wall stuff!
afm199
Well-known member
The problem with the consenting adult issue is the context. You can not legally consent ( or offer waiver of liability) to illegal acts. The goverment here is saying the particular brand of porn in question is illegal, if I get it correctly. As discussed, anyone can consent to anything, that does not remove the liability. I can consent to having my toes cut off by someone while having it filmed, but the person doing the toe cutting is going to get prosecuted regardless.
In other words, government does have an obligation to regulate commerce, regardless of the field.( As they so ably have failed to do in the current credit crunch, allowing 4% of mortgages in the US to become vehicles of such incredible speculation that the financial system is close to collapse.)
So I don't see it as an attack on porn, I see it as regulation ( which I am glad to see, BTW, I see violent porn as not particularly a good influence). Every area of commerce is regulated. Is porn commerce ( remember, this is not private activity here, between consenting adults, it is PUBLIC activity and commerce) or freedom of speech? When it is sold on the market it IS commerce and MUST be regulated.
Unless you believe in the market as the great regulator, in which case, today's market certainly must be pleasing!
In other words, government does have an obligation to regulate commerce, regardless of the field.( As they so ably have failed to do in the current credit crunch, allowing 4% of mortgages in the US to become vehicles of such incredible speculation that the financial system is close to collapse.)
So I don't see it as an attack on porn, I see it as regulation ( which I am glad to see, BTW, I see violent porn as not particularly a good influence). Every area of commerce is regulated. Is porn commerce ( remember, this is not private activity here, between consenting adults, it is PUBLIC activity and commerce) or freedom of speech? When it is sold on the market it IS commerce and MUST be regulated.
Unless you believe in the market as the great regulator, in which case, today's market certainly must be pleasing!
Johndicezx9
Rolls with it...
That's the curious thing about the Frontline piece, as it points out the biggest purveyors of porn now seem to be Comcast, AT&T, Viacom, and a couple of other media giants literally taking it off the streets and placing it in the home... and there is huge profits associated with it. The list came out, it seems to me, to be a "Don't rock the boat, we're making money here!" kind of thing.
Last edited:
afm199
Well-known member
It's not per se. AFAIK. However mutilating your body in a crippling fashion for money will certainly get you locked up.... You for being crazy, the cutter for practcing medicine without a license.
Thus we can tatoo, puncture, fold spindle and mutilate ourselves, but when we go too far we are stopped for our "own good". And the argument can be made that extreme mutilation will also be contrary to public health. With no toes you lose the ability to walk and thus become a hazard to others, as you will trip in on escalators and cause havoc when you fall into a 300 pound fat woman who then crushes a nine year old autistic child.
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2004
- Location
- Charming
- Moto(s)
- bitchin trike with oxygen
- Name
- Piney
- BARF perks
- AMA #: 2815981
Janna
Bring more rat-free wine!
What he said.
Nucking Futs
Active member
AFM- I think this is a slippery slope issue. This "Hardcore" fella was convicted on obsenity charges. Why him and not mainstream movies like "Saw" or some other stupid movie. I know you think this industry should be regulated, but isn't it already regulated through taxes? And don't you think people should vote with thier $? If there is a market for this smut, and no grey area laws were broken ( IMO "obsenity" laws are a joke, c'mon, this is 2008 ) then what is the problem? If you don't like it, and it doesn't hurt others, don't buy it.
afm199
Well-known member
Well others may have been hurt, obscenity is not clearly defined, and no tax is not regulation. Regulation is control over process and content, not cost.
Or to put it another way: If there was a market for dead babies, should it be regulated in order to prevent the increased production of dead babies, or should it not be controlled because the babies are dead?
dissolvedego
New member
no no no. he was charged with obscenity. he wasn't charged with doing anything illegal to those girls. the "crime" he is serving time for is 'corrupting the minds' of people who view his porn. that's what obscenity laws are about, stopping individuals from "harming" the public with media. the "victims" in this case are not the girls but any member of the public who would watch his videos.
nobody should ever be imprisoned under such a law, it is damaging to free speech. what if florida judges decide a subversive writer is harming the public with their books?
the public should never be "protected" from any media or information.
Last edited:
afm199
Well-known member
Well I was partially addressing the previous statement made that "consenting adults" was a standard that allowed just about anything. As far as Maxx goes, yes he is being charged with portraying acts that induce gross disgust.
As far as nobody ever being protected from any media or information, I don't agree. Do you want 12 year olds to form their sexual behavior based on Maxx's portrayals? Or anyone, for that matter? The judge made a call that the abuse Maxx portrayed was grossly disgusting. Larry Flint took it to the Supreme Court, maybe Maxx will. I don't think it will be a huge victory for freedom of speech.
Community standard has been the rule of thumb for a long time. I agree that Floridian judges may not be the best judges of that. I am no big fan of censorship. I do believe in limits.
As far as nobody ever being protected from any media or information, I don't agree. Do you want 12 year olds to form their sexual behavior based on Maxx's portrayals? Or anyone, for that matter? The judge made a call that the abuse Maxx portrayed was grossly disgusting. Larry Flint took it to the Supreme Court, maybe Maxx will. I don't think it will be a huge victory for freedom of speech.
Community standard has been the rule of thumb for a long time. I agree that Floridian judges may not be the best judges of that. I am no big fan of censorship. I do believe in limits.
dissolvedego
New member
i don't disagree with the law that bans minors from viewing porn. adults should be allowed to watch whatever (consenting adult) extreme porn they like, and if they form their sexual behavior on what they see in porn i'd say it's a personal problem. most porn viewers understand that real life sexuality is a lot different.
nobody forces anyone to watch porn (florida's judicial system aside), especially extreme porn which takes a bit more effort to seek out. if people want to seek it out, let them. it's up to the individual to set their own limit of what they are willing to watch.
Nucking Futs
Active member
I just saw a show ( always happy philidelphia) about the character pooping all over the place. Ever seen Borat? It's fiction. Nobody will form thier sexual orientation on fiction. And if they do it's not up to the gov't to protect them from something so stupid. Our society needs to let people be as stupid as they want, instead of coddling thier stupidity. I want the freedom to view people getting abused, even though I don't appreciate the genre. The judge should have realized they were just actors, doing sexual stunts.
Janna
Bring more rat-free wine!
There were no stunt pussies, cutaway shots, Method acting, animatronics or CGI effects in Maxx's films. Real pain, real abuse, real vomit, real tears. There are countless stories (such as one in the documentary Hardcore, apparently*) about how Max mislead, pressured and lied to a lot of these girls, and flat-out refused to stop when they said stop. That approach has NOTHING to do with real BDSM, in which the respect for the safe word is sacrosanct.
Nice. :|
*
Last edited:
Nucking Futs
Active member
And stunt people don't suffer real pain, real abuse, real vomit, real tears? There are stories of abuse you say. Were any abuse charges filed? Sure he mislead, pressured, and lied. But was he convicted of these things? No, he was convicted of obsenity. If he had been convicted of other charges, then he is a criminal. But to charge, try, and convict on obsenity is really a joke. I had to read American Psycho for english lit, and that makes Max Hardcore look like sesame street. And don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of his, just a fan of civil liberties. Without them, you wouldn't be able to watch such screen gems as Saw, or Hill have eyes, or Slaughterhouse, or Hostel, all featuring gross and violent abuse.
Last edited: