Max Hardcore sent to prison

[JPA]

I did a search for his name on google images with safesearch on moderate and one of the first pictures looks disturbingly likes he's boning a pre-pubescent girl...

That appears to be a common feature in his films:

Although Hardcore often depicts his actresses as young and sometimes beneath the age of consent, they are not actually under 18. In his film Max Extreme 4, an actress over the age of 18 was portraying a character who states that she is 12 years old.[1]

Based on these movies, the city of Los Angeles in 1998 charged him with child pornography and distribution of obscenity. The fact that the actress was over the age of 18 was not disputed; they brought charges based solely on the fact that the actress was portraying a character who was under eighteen years of age.

Just before the case was brought to trial in 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the statute prohibiting adults from portraying children in films and books was unconstitutional (See Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition). Based on this ruling, the child pornography charges against Hardcore were dismissed. The misdemeanor charge of distribution of obscenity was retained, but the jury failed to reach a verdict. An additional obscenity charge was subsequently levied against him by L.A., again resulting in a hung jury. Hardcore commented that "it was a frivolous waste of public resources."[1]

[Artemis]

Do you think after eight hours of watching extreme 'pornography' on a giant screen, someone said "well, I think that's probably about as much as we need to see, now"? "At seven hours we were unsure, but I think we've probably got enough to go on after the eighth." Good grief.

As I've said here once before, I've had dealings with Max Hardcore in the past, and have also met the guy at an exhibition in LA. After watching the documentary somebody else referred to on this thread, I was so upset I contacted him and asked him to explain himself. To his credit, he responded with a fairly lengthy reply, basically saying he was edited badly to make it look like he raped the poor girl in question. After a back-and-forth between me, him and the production company, who were bigger cunts in their responses than he was, I was left none the wiser, but with the distinct impression that not only was the documentary a bit of a stitch up, but that he was still a horrible little short-dicked man.

Freedom of speech is all very well and good but when people are being degraded, exploited and abused, a more important principle is being compromised, that of safety and well being. I've spent a good amount of time with at least one performer who has worked with Max on camera, and said he was fine, but she was, as far as I can tell, the exception. His material is objectionable to any well adjusted person, not because it offends some morals, but because it openly and actively degrades women. Oh, and that's when he's not pretending he's fucking children - if absolutely pushed, I don't have a problem with 'age play' between consenting adults but as a commercial product? Yes, I do.

So in summary, I'm glad he's in prison - he deserves to be, and I hope he's there for a long time.

[actwithoutwords]

An additional obscenity charge was subsequently levied against him by L.A., again resulting in a hung jury.

Must. Not. Find. That. Funny.

[Caroline]

Freedom of speech is all very well and good but when people are being degraded, exploited and abused, a more important principle is being compromised, that of safety and well being. I've spent a good amount of time with at least one performer who has worked with Max on camera, and said he was fine, but she was, as far as I can tell, the exception. His material is objectionable to any well adjusted person, not because it offends some morals, but because it openly and actively degrades women. Oh, and that's when he's not pretending he's fucking children - if absolutely pushed, I don't have a problem with 'age play' between consenting adults but as a commercial product? Yes, I do.

So in summary, I'm glad he's in prison - he deserves to be, and I hope he's there for a long time.

This is basically how I feel but expressed better than I could. The thing about his fims that is most offensive is not the vomit, piss, etc. There are (I believe!) plenty of other films with that sort of thing in out there, and while I think it's pretty gross, people get turned on by all sorts of things, and not one really gets hurt by puke and piss as long as certain standards of hygiene are kept up etc. The thing about his films (and I stress that I have not seen any films, just pictures, and I've read about them), is that the women are clearly shown to be in pain and distress. The last article I read about him was the one linked in (I think) the Date Ariane thread and by the end of it I was literally shaking with rage. Scenes depicting him forcing his cock down women's throats while they are crying and puking are beyond the pale as far as I'm concerned. Even if the women are acting, then they're still doing it for someone to get off on, and honestly, as far as I'm concerned, people who find that arousing have serious problems and should seek help, and not have products created to suit their needs. And if there are worse people than him out there in the porn industry I would be interested to hear about them.*


*Obviously for wanking material. See, this isn't such a a serious post!

[thugler]

what a load of bollocks. 'Freedom of speech is all well and good, but if I'm offended by it, I want it banned and him locked up'

I couldn't care less if he was pretending he was fucking a baby, as long as it's made by consenting adults it's I don't care. Not that I even remotely want to watch his porn, I'm happy to agree that it's pretty disgusting. But to take the stuff that goes on in his films on face value (she looks abused, therefore she is) is a bit short sighted.

[Catalogue Trousers]

My, that Blake Sinclair is a desperate little man, isn't he?

Mary-Sue? Maybe Murder-Sue is more suitable...

Nadine had taken men's cocks in her mouth before but she couldn't remember one being this hard.

This was what a man with power tasted like she thought. A man with real power over women. The man who was going to kill her.

Tears fell down Nadine's face as she savoured the taste of the cruel cock in her lovely mouth.

Oh, God! She thought to herself. Oh God! Why is this turning me on?

She curled her velvet tongue around the huge throbbing organ then used the delicate tip of her tongue to gently lick its raw end.

"Good girl," Panted the man. "Oh yes! Oh yes! OH YES!"

Hot thick cum spurted from his swollen cockhead into Nadine's mouth. There was so much of it. Even his cum had a taste of power about it.

Nadine swallowed it all knowing that she had never tasted cum like it b before and that she never would again. She sucked and licked until every last trace of the potent cum was gone.

Christ. Bring back the touching of special parts pronto

[Artemis]

what a load of bollocks. 'Freedom of speech is all well and good, but if I'm offended by it, I want it banned and him locked up'

Could you go back to what I wrote, read it properly, then respond to it after that, please?

[rudi]

Before I start, this was my favourite comment:

Max Hardcore. Why didn't I go with that?

My porn name, David Snugglealot, really didn't take me very far.

Anyhoo, I'm pretty saddened by the verdict. Obscenity is such a chickenshit law; it entirely depends on the watcher's point of view and owes nothing to the willingness of the makers nor of the credit-card payers.

Do you think after eight hours of watching extreme 'pornography' on a giant screen, someone said "well, I think that's probably about as much as we need to see, now"? "At seven hours we were unsure, but I think we've probably got enough to go on after the eighth." Good grief.

Indeed. Eight hours? I mean, come on. There's enough variety in the MH oeuvre to take up possibly half an hour before you have seen it all. Does the prosecution for a murder get to re-enact it for eight hours in front of the jury?

As I've said here once before, I've had dealings with Max Hardcore in the past, and have also met the guy at an exhibition in LA. After watching the documentary somebody else referred to on this thread, I was so upset I contacted him and asked him to explain himself. To his credit, he responded with a fairly lengthy reply, basically saying he was edited badly to make it look like he raped the poor girl in question. After a back-and-forth between me, him and the production company, who were bigger cunts in their responses than he was, I was left none the wiser, but with the distinct impression that not only was the documentary a bit of a stitch up, but that he was still a horrible little short-dicked man.

And your reportage was a great read too. If people are using a Broomfield doc as a basis for proof then I'm going to start believing that all Eastenders are called Rickaaaaaay.

Freedom of speech is all very well and good but when people are being degraded, exploited and abused, a more important principle is being compromised, that of safety and well being. I've spent a good amount of time with at least one performer who has worked with Max on camera, and said he was fine, but she was, as far as I can tell, the exception. His material is objectionable to any well adjusted person, not because it offends some morals, but because it openly and actively degrades women. Oh, and that's when he's not pretending he's fucking children - if absolutely pushed, I don't have a problem with 'age play' between consenting adults but as a commercial product? Yes, I do.

But that's no reason to lock someone up! All concerned were consenting, he uses a fairly static roster of "actresses" - does he lock them up under the floor between shoots? And, should you have ever wandered into one of his sites, the disclaimer is the first thing you see regarding age, consent and the "re-enactment" angle of his movies. Some people clearly get off on other people throwing up coloured liquids and who am I to tell them they're wrong?

Don't read me wrong for a second; if someone has a complaint against him for assault, or forcing somebody to do anything against their will, or tax evasion or being in the possession of an offensive wife then that should be prosecuted to its reasonable limit, but this smacks of illiberalism of a particularly nasty-tasting kind.

So in summary, I'm glad he's in prison - he deserves to be, and I hope he's there for a long time.

I don't believe he does. We can't lock up people for doing horrible things to each other, surely?

[Sovereign]

Is this constitutional? I saw this on the Gawker article, I'm wondering if anyone who knows about the First Amendment and American law can shed light on this.


Image of Anneth Anneth
4:16 PM on Fri Oct 3 2008

Also, an unconstitutional ruling.

In Miller v. California (1973), a five-person majority created a new test for obscenity: all obscenity is constitutionally protected, unless distributed to minors or unwilling third-parties.

There's no doubt that Max Hardcore is a total cunt, but seriously, why turn such a bastard into a martyr for free speech?

[alan nagsworth]

I don't get it. He's been imprisoned for making & selling hardcore porn? Is that sort of thing specifically against the law in Tampa or something? If it's as simple as someone being offended by what they saw, and pressing charges, then this is a crock of shit.

[jutl]

Is this constitutional? I saw this on the Gawker article, I'm wondering if anyone who knows about the First Amendment and American law can shed light on this.

The Miller Test doesn't actually say that, so I'm not sure what the poster meant. Local communities have the right to define how hardcore something needs to be before it becomes illegally obscene. That's what's happened to Little in Florida. As for all this breast-beating about the First Amendment - no-one sensible believes or maintains that protection of free speech is intended to be unlimited, and the US Supreme Court agreed. 

[Uncle TechTip]

Pylon, I find the idea of him going to prison very amusing, is that so wrong?

Incarcerated by an instrument of the state based on vague & convenient application of the law? Yeah, you ought to find it pretty wrong. Unless you're some kind of cartoon character.

[jutl]

vague & convenient application of the law

Not sure I understand that description... Do you mean that the law requires community representatives to use their judgement to determine if the law has been broken?

[biggytitbo]

Incarcerated by an instrument of the state based on vague & convenient application of the law? Yeah, you ought to find it pretty wrong. Unless you're some kind of cartoon character.

But surely all his violent rape fantasies are going to come true, aren't you pleased for him? Anyway, I don't know what makes you think I believe that people can do anything, however degrading or abusive to others and society in general or that I believe people shouldn't be put in jail or whatever. That's a bit of a cartoon point of view really. Whilst I agree with most of what people have said in this thread I'm not shedding any tears for liberty that this person is in jail and unable to pollute society with this sort of material. And frankly, lets not make this man some kind of martyr for freedom because he likes to film women dressed as children gagging and vomiting because he shoves his cock down their throat when there are so many more deserving cases and more important things to be worrying about.

[Jemble Fred]

Even if the women are acting, then they're still doing it for someone to get off on, and honestly, as far as I'm concerned, people who find that arousing have serious problems and should seek help, and not have products created to suit their needs.

I think this is the bit that thugler missed. Surely the bottom line? Pandering to the perversions of the mentally ill, and making enormous piles of cash from it, really doesn't seem an activity that deserves any fine talk about freedom of speech. Perhaps for his community service he can start making self-help videos for all the people who've bought his products in the past.

His success is understandable though – I can't help deducing that American porn, indeed American sexuality generally, does seem largely based around the debasement of women and the celebration of male supremacy, far more than any other culture. It's nonsense when people say 'pornography degrades women' – what they mean is, 'American pornography degrades women'. Max 'Bleeding Anus Right Now' Hardcore's just taken that a lot further.

[kngen]

And your reportage was a great read too. If people are using a Broomfield doc as a basis for proof then I'm going to start believing that all Eastenders are called Rickaaaaaay.

is that a reference to something Artemis has written before on this subject? Is it still around online, as I'd certainly like to read it.


Anyway, if I was on the jury, I'd probably reluctantly have to let Mr Hardcore off, as yes, obscenity laws are bullshit, and he should be protected by the first amendment. But I'm not (and neither is anyway one else here), so let's just revel in the thought of an utterly vile human being finally getting some just desserts

[aaaaaaaaaargh!]

is that a reference to something Artemis has written before on this subject? Is it still around online, as I'd certainly like to read it.

Here you go (there's a bit of discussion before this post):

http://www.cookdandbombd.co.uk/forums/index.php?topic=14620.msg686825#msg686825

[kngen]

Here you go (there's a bit of discussion before this post):

http://www.cookdandbombd.co.uk/forums/index.php?topic=14620.msg686825#msg686825

cheers for that

[OG Mudbone]

If Max's material was deemed obscene enough for him to go to jail, then what of the material itself? And the thousands/millions who have bought it? I assume those videos of his that the court felt contravened obscenity laws are essentially illegal to buy or own now. So did all of Mr Hardcore's loyal, paying fans effectively break the law by buying obscene material from him? Are they in danger of a knock on the door whatever-city's finest?


_{He says while clearing his hard drive.}

[Part Chimp]

His success is understandable though – I can't help deducing that American porn, indeed American sexuality generally, does seem largely based around the debasement of women and the celebration of male supremacy, far more than any other culture. It's nonsense when people say 'pornography degrades women' – what they mean is, 'American pornography degrades women'. Max 'Bleeding Anus Right Now' Hardcore's just taken that a lot further.

Can you tell me what you're basing that part in bold on?

[wherearethespoons]

_{Being the internet, it's available quite easily.  I find it fucking funny, to be honest, I just can't read it without laughing.}

WARNING! This story contains explicit imaginary descriptions of the rape torture and mutilation of five of the sexiest girls in pop today.

Classic.

[Jemble Fred]

Can you tell me what you're basing that part in bold on?

I'd have thought the phrase 'I can't help deducing' should make it clear that that in terms of general sexuality I'm talking from personal experience, which has suggested a worrying mindset of female subjection and male supremacy throughout the culture. BUT! Of course it's obviously a generalisation, hence the use of the word 'generally'. I don't claim it as fact, but it's just unfailingly the case with those that I know, and is reflected throughout their media and especially pornography.

[Geraint]

If Max's material was deemed obscene enough for him to go to jail, then what of the material itself? And the thousands/millions who have bought it? I assume those videos of his that the court felt contravened obscenity laws are essentially illegal to buy or own now. So did all of Mr Hardcore's loyal, paying fans effectively break the law by buying obscene material from him? Are they in danger of a knock on the door whatever-city's finest?


_{He says while clearing his hard drive.}

the topic I read about it on SA pointed out that the material he was prosecuted for had only been on sale in Europe, and that the prosecutors had done a deal with the distributors in exchange for their immunity. someone was claiming that the videos are now on limited sale in Florida so that he could be prosecuted for them, though i'm not sure as to the truth of that

[El Unicornio, mang]

I don't get it. He's been imprisoned for making & selling hardcore porn? Is that sort of thing specifically against the law in Tampa or something?

Florida has some of the strictest laws regarding nudity and pornography (and the most relaxed laws regarding guns, naturally) so it could be.

[Ignatius_S]

I don't get it. He's been imprisoned for making & selling hardcore porn? Is that sort of thing specifically against the law in Tampa or something? If it's as simple as someone being offended by what they saw, and pressing charges, then this is a crock of shit.

I'm confused as to why he's been charged now, hasn't he be doing the same shtick since the early 90s? And this "8 hours of footage" shown to the jury, did they just get someone to pick the 'highlights' from his vast repertoire? That must've been a wonderful task.

Have a look here - http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/06/11/max_hardcore_convicted/

The reason El Reg covered it a while ago because the reason charges were being brought against him, is that the company that hosts his websites has servers in Tampa.

That documentary about him was on C4 circa 2000 I think.  It was called Hardcore and at one point ....
I'm ambivalent about this.  On the one hand I think his fourth Amendment rights are being ...

Didn't see the doc, but one of my friends mentioned it to me when talking about the above El Reg story – according to him, the crew did indeed insist taking the girl away with them when they made their excuses and left (contrary to the above post, this was meant to be an audition).

I know what you mean about the ambivalency of the case – particularly on how charges were able to be brought.

On a related note, the BBC doc about the producer of the 'Federal Five' porn films was rather disturbing.

[thugler]

I think this is the bit that thugler missed. Surely the bottom line? Pandering to the perversions of the mentally ill, and making enormous piles of cash from it, really doesn't seem an activity that deserves any fine talk about freedom of speech. Perhaps for his community service he can start making self-help videos for all the people who've bought his products in the past.

His success is understandable though – I can't help deducing that American porn, indeed American sexuality generally, does seem largely based around the debasement of women and the celebration of male supremacy, far more than any other culture. It's nonsense when people say 'pornography degrades women' – what they mean is, 'American pornography degrades women'. Max 'Bleeding Anus Right Now' Hardcore's just taken that a lot further.

That's a different argument entirely. You could argue that a lot of porn, not just this, is aimed at people who might have problems mentally. That's an argument that the porn is unethical in some way, not that it's illegal.

As far as I'm concerned, the bottom line is that those taking part consented.

As for being degrading to women, that's one point of view, and not one I tend to agree with. Especially since it's usually women who are making the big bucks being porn actresses rather than men. It's also irrelevant, if a woman wants to do something that you or I consider degrading, ultimately it's up to them, and should be up to them.

[jutl]

It's also irrelevant, if a woman wants to do something that you or I consider degrading, ultimately it's up to them, and should be up to them.

It should be, but very frequently it isn't. How are you distinguishing the self-possessed career-oriented porn performers from the drug-addicted and/or human-trafficked draftees?

[Eight Taiwanese Teenagers]

As for being degrading to women, that's one point of view, and not one I tend to agree with. Especially since it's usually women who are making the big bucks being porn actresses rather than men. It's also irrelevant, if a woman wants to do something that you or I consider degrading, ultimately it's up to them, and should be up to them.

I worry that the kind of things seen in porn films are the main source of sexual education/inspiration for people who don't know any better. I seem to remember reading an article recently about women being disgusted by the now apparent assumption from young men that spraying a female's face with semen is the inevitable end to a bout of sexual intercourse... and that would just be the thin end of the wedge, so to speak, when discussing the likes of Max Hardcore.

[El Unicornio, mang]

A gay friend of mine recently dated a guy who was in a porn film called 110 Degrees in Tucson. I made the terrible mistake of doing a google search for it whilst at work...

You're in pretty deep when you're in Joe Gage territory. And 110° in Tucson is this master's most in-depth bone-stiffener yet: 5 hours of sizzling sex including 1 ½ hours of boiling bonus content! The guys in Tucson know that a little man-to-man action is what a pal is for.

Cop buddies jerkin' it in a cheap motel get sucked into a fuckathon by a deep-holed desk clerk. A pair of punks in a warehouse are shown their real desires by the night watchman. A father and son encounter a burglar and subject him to their own special brand of punishment. Some heat-crazed, heavy-hung and hungry guys have an all-out orgy that's classic Gage. And at a radio station, the night crew, the DJ, a pizza delivery boy plus a listener or two blister the night with double penetrations, multiple orgasms, and sweaty, scummy mansex.

110° in Tucson has TitanMen studs like Ray Dragon and Matt Majors along with new TitanMen like Daxx Reed, a fuck bucket with an endless supply of cum. And several sizzling debuts, with hairy-chested daddy Nathan York playing father and Jacob Riley as a teen punk primed to explode. Because it's not the weather that makes Tucson sizzle--it's the men!!

[rudi]

It should be, but very frequently it isn't. How are you distinguishing the self-possessed career-oriented porn performers from the drug-addicted and/or human-trafficked draftees?

Is there any actual evidence that this is widespread? The US porn industry is worth wayyy too much money to have to stoop to using such unwilling participants. I'd imagine the "straight" film industry has a comparable ratio of drug addicts for a start; should Hollywood be up in front of the beak too?