Hardcore pornographer gets 46 month federal sentence

[Admin]

The basic of the story is that a porn producer/actor who has apparently done some pretty disgusting, although completely legal, movies was dragged from his home/office in California to be tried in Tampa, FL where the special "Porn Squad" created by the Bush Administration in 2005 knew they'd get him in front of a moral judge who would ignore the law to convict him. I'd say that he's got a pretty solid Supreme Court case.

http://boingboing.net/2008/10/07/adult-film-director.html

Here is the beginning of the posting. There is a lot more to read at the above link:

A US District Court in Florida has sentenced "extreme shock porn" gonzo director and distributor Max Hardcore, aka Paul F. Little, to four years in prison over obscenity charges. Writing for Salon, Glenn Greenwald wrote that he believes the verdict is a blow to first amendment rights:

“So, to recap, in the Land of the Free: if you’re an adult who produces a film using other consenting adults, for the entertainment of still other consenting adults, which merely depicts fictional acts of humiliation and degradation, the DOJ will prosecute you and send you to prison for years. The claim that no real pain was inflicted will be rejected; mere humiliation is enough to make you a criminal. But if government officials actually subject helpless detainees in their custody to extreme mental abuse, degradation, humiliation and even mock executions long considered “torture” in the entire civilized world, the DOJ will argue that they have acted with perfect legality and, just to be sure, Congress will hand them retroactive immunity for their conduct. That’s how we prioritize criminality and arrange our value system.”

The hometown Tampa, FL paper where Little was convicted wrote about the case in a condemning tone:

His pornographic persona, Max Hardcore, is all swagger and sadism – forcing women in his movies to do things that can't be described in a family newspaper. But in federal court today, as he faced a federal prison sentence, Paul F. Little trembled and begged a woman for mercy. "It just seems a very high price to pay, I think," Little told U.S. District Judge Susan Bucklew, "and I ask you to understand how much I've suffered."

[gsuteke]

I'm not the type to go on a witch hunt but I think the 1st amendment is bent sometimes to the point of being broken.

[DrReality]

Bush, Chaney, Rove, et all acted like they were above the law for a while. That may come back to bite them in the arse. The whole issue of torture seems to looming over the head of several of them . . . . . as it should.

[Plainview1981]

The basic of the story is that a porn producer/actor who has apparently done some pretty disgusting, although completely legal, movies was dragged from his home/office in California to be tried in Tampa, FL where the special "Porn Squad" created by the Bush Administration in 2005 knew they'd get him in front of a moral judge who would ignore the law to convict him. I'd say that he's got a pretty solid Supreme Court case.

http://boingboing.net/2008/10/07/adult-film-director.html

Here is the beginning of the posting. There is a lot more to read at the above link:

He's the type of guy that I wouldn't trust around young children. I'm by no means anti porn, but that guy is a real creep that that could possibly be a child molester or future child molester.

Edited January 13, 2009 by Hotlanta1981

[gsuteke]

He's the type of guy that I wouldn't trust around young children. I'm by no means anti porn, but that guy is a real creep that that could possibly be a child molester or future child molester.

thanks for getting us back on subject.

[Admin]

He's the type of guy that I wouldn't trust around young children. I'm by no means anti porn, but that guy is a real creep that that could possibly be a child molester or future child molester.

No doubt that he is, but are comfortable with sending someone to prison BEFORE they commit a crime? Are you comfortable with removing the guy from his home state where the "crimes" were actually committed to a place where they knew he'd be convicted? The guy appears to be a disgusting human being and wouldn't want him around anyone I know but if he really didn't break any laws then they're basically trying to wipe their butts with the constitution here by sentencing him.

[AHF]

On the original issue on this thread, it is tough to defend the most repulsive and offensive speech. However, I definitely lean towards the side of "disagreeing with you, but defending your right to say it." I would have to dive into a lot more details on the porn and case law on where things like the mock-pedophilia lose their first amendment protection and don't feel like doing that but I will say that generally I would not hesitate to stand up for porn that I personally found distateful as long as it was something that consenting adults chose to do and to purchase.

[Plainview1981]

No doubt that he is, but are comfortable with sending someone to prison BEFORE they commit a crime? Are you comfortable with removing the guy from his home state where the "crimes" were actually committed to a place where they knew he'd be convicted? The guy appears to be a disgusting human being and wouldn't want him around anyone I know but if he really didn't break any laws then they're basically trying to wipe their butts with the constitution here by sentencing him.

Of course not. If no laws are broken he shouldn't be punished. I was just making a simple comment that he is a creepy guy.

[Plainview1981]

You want to talk about hypocrisy it's coming from the citizens of this country who want their freedom but only at the cost of handicapping our country by expecting us to follow the rules of warfare while very few other nations do.

Marion Cobretti: "As long as we play by these bullsh*t rules and the killer doesn't, we're gonna lose!"

That's right. I just took a quote from Cobra.=)

Edited January 13, 2009 by Hotlanta1981

[HawkItus]

Interesting discussion, is it possible we can split the topic? One for the article, the second one about GW and Get-mo?

As for the case, I'm a strong conservative when it comes to my home, but a huge libertarian when it comes to others. If it is not a crime then the government shouldn't have any authority over it. My "pot your black" example is the abuse laws. If a husband or any man physically abuses his wife/gf their is barely any legal ramification. Unless he kills her of course. Yet this guy is hunted down and prosecuted to the fullest extent on a morality charge?

[Admin]

Interesting discussion, is it possible we can split the topic? One for the article, the second one about GW and Get-mo?

As for the case, I'm a strong conservative when it comes to my home, but a huge libertarian when it comes to others. If it is not a crime then the government shouldn't have any authority over it. My "pot your black" example is the abuse laws. If a husband or any man physically abuses his wife/gf their is barely any legal ramification. Unless he kills her of course. Yet this guy is hunted down and prosecuted to the fullest extent on a morality charge?

Yeah good point, I'll see if I can get it split. Thanks for getting us back on point sultan.

Edit - the thread was successfully split. I had never done that before so I wasn't sure what was involved in the process but it was pretty easy.

[Admin]

On the original issue on this thread, it is tough to defend the most repulsive and offensive speech. However, I definitely lean towards the side of "disagreeing with you, but defending your right to say it." I would have to dive into a lot more details on the porn and case law on where things like the mock-pedophilia lose their first amendment protection and don't feel like doing that but I will say that generally I would not hesitate to stand up for porn that I personally found distateful as long as it was something that consenting adults chose to do and to purchase.

I tend to agree with you about defending our rights, even if we don't agree with the person we're defending and with this guy even though he seems like someone that deserves a nice cozy cell with a big cellmate and some grape jelly I have to stand up for him if he didn't violate any laws.

How do you feel about the decision to try him in front of a female judge in Tampa, FL due to the reasoning that they had a distribution center in Orlando and some tapes were mailed to Tampa?

[Admin]

Interesting discussion, is it possible we can split the topic? One for the article, the second one about GW and Get-mo?

As for the case, I'm a strong conservative when it comes to my home, but a huge libertarian when it comes to others. If it is not a crime then the government shouldn't have any authority over it. My "pot your black" example is the abuse laws. If a husband or any man physically abuses his wife/gf their is barely any legal ramification. Unless he kills her of course. Yet this guy is hunted down and prosecuted to the fullest extent on a morality charge?

I feel the same that you do about this and I'm probably a bit libertarian when it comes to protecting the rights of people walking the line of legality like he is but who still stay on the legal side.

Oh the husband thing, of course there is the other side of the coin where a man gets automatically hauled off to jail if a woman claims rape or that he abused her based on her word alone far too often and although he'll often not have to go to jail because the burden of proof couldn't be met it still sucks that a woman wouldn't likely be arrested if a man said he raped or abused him simply based on his word.

[Admin]

Of course not. If no laws are broken he shouldn't be punished. I was just making a simple comment that he is a creepy guy.

Ahh, in that case I agree with you. I'm sure one way or another he'll pay for the things he did on film whether legal or not at some point in his life or after death.

Marion Cobretti: "As long as we play by these bullsh*t rules and the killer doesn't, we're gonna lose!"

That's right. I just took a quote from Cobra.=)

LOL well done Hots.

[HawkItus]

I feel the same that you do about this and I'm probably a bit libertarian when it comes to protecting the rights of people walking the line of legality like he is but who still stay on the legal side.

Oh the husband thing, of course there is the other side of the coin where a man gets automatically hauled off to jail if a woman claims rape or that he abused her based on her word alone far too often and although he'll often not have to go to jail because the burden of proof couldn't be met it still sucks that a woman wouldn't likely be arrested if a man said he raped or abused him simply based on his word.

True, but.....well.....this is off topic.

but can a man truly be raped? no joking, I mean of course in he can be sodomized, but rape in the natural form by a woman? I don't think that is possible.

But, on the topic, I think this will most likely be overturned in the future.

[AHF]

True, but.....well.....this is off topic.

but can a man truly be raped? no joking, I mean of course in he can be sodomized, but rape in the natural form by a woman? I don't think that is possible.

Certainly, he could be raped in the sense that he is not in a state where he can legally consent (under age, inebriated, drugged, etc.) or where the consent is coerced (have sex with me or [fill in sufficiently bad consequence]).

[AHF]

How do you feel about the decision to try him in front of a female judge in Tampa, FL due to the reasoning that they had a distribution center in Orlando and some tapes were mailed to Tampa?

The question there is whether there was jurisdiction in Tampa to charge him. That can be a complicated question and here it seems like a stretch but I couldn't answer this intelligently on these facts from a legal standpoint without looking into the issue. Criminal procedure is not exactly my specialty.