Max Hardcore - Hero or Zero ?

[gonzo]

Ive started working on the Word Press front end a little.
Interested in your thoughts on the first post.

http://oprano.com/blog/?p=8

[Toby]

Julie's account of her "encounter" with Max is just plain creepy. The part about wanting her to leave her car somewhere else speaks volumes. Those that did so were pretty much at his mercy, with no option to just get up and walk out.

[miz_wright]

You know, when the Klan comes up in conversation about the South, I have a singular response. I don't like the Klan, I don't agree with their ideology or methodology, their history, or anything that they stand for. I have no desire to be associated with it in any way.

I am Southern, it's often assumed that I or a family member aligns my/ourselves with the Klan. I don't. What I *DO* is support their unassailable right to voice those opinions and assemble freely with like-minded folks.

Why? Because there are other people who won't like the fact that maybe I hang out with people who wear leather and carry whips, and would say that is hurtful and hateful. But just because it's not MY kink doesn't mean it's my place to deny someone else the same rights I demand for myself.

[softball]

Originally Posted by LizAEBN

You know, when the Klan comes up in conversation about the South, I have a singular response. I don't like the Klan, I don't agree with their ideology or methodology, their history, or anything that they stand for. I have no desire to be associated with it in any way.

I am Southern, it's often assumed that I or a family member aligns my/ourselves with the Klan. I don't. What I *DO* is support their unassailable right to voice those opinions and assemble freely with like-minded folks.

Why? Because there are other people who won't like the fact that maybe I hang out with people who wear leather and carry whips, and would say that is hurtful and hateful. But just because it's not MY kink doesn't mean it's my place to deny someone else the same rights I demand for myself.

l think everyone has their own lines in the sand. What I do is so far removed from Max, it is not even an issue for me. However, I draw my personal line at Max, the Sweets and any number or Russians doing abusive shit. I don't want to be tarred by that brush.
As far as alowing the Klan a right of association, I am not quite sure. Would you allow a bunch of Muslim terrorists the right of association in a Mosque when clearly their intentions are bad? Personally I would allow neither.

[miz_wright]

Originally Posted by rhetorical

l think everyone has their own lines in the sand. What I do is so far removed from Max, it is not even an issue for me. However, I draw my personal line at Max, the Sweets and any number or Russians doing abusive shit. I don't want to be tarred by that brush.
As far as alowing the Klan a right of association, I am not quite sure. Would you allow a bunch of Muslim terrorists the right of association in a Mosque when clearly their intentions are bad? Personally I would allow neither.

For me, the problem becomes who gets to draw that line in the sand and decide what is a "bad intention"? Who's to say that my church isn't "bad" because I (hypothetically) I believe Jesus was the son of G_d - or that he was a heretic? Or because I don't believe in G_d at all?

So, yeh, Muslims following their faith as they interpret it should be allowed to assemble in like groups. If Americans are honest about it, our nation was begun by "terrorists." Not all attacks are Islamic in origin, either - despite popular perception.

Frankly, white male Protestants frighten me much more. So, again, the question becomes - who draws the line in the sand about what's acceptable? I don't like the questions the Max case raises because it becomes an incredibly slippery slope. I know people who genuinely enjoy being choked with cock or pissed on. I am not going to say they are wrong for that, because to do so means someone, somewhere, will say that if it's wrong to do a throat-choke, someone else will think that a cream pie or facial is just as wrong.

It's a dangerous fucking line to walk. I like freedom, and I am not a fan of the idea of a nanny state.

[tony404]

Originally Posted by LizAEBN

For me, the problem becomes who gets to draw that line in the sand and decide what is a "bad intention"? Who's to say that my church isn't "bad" because I (hypothetically) I believe Jesus was the son of G_d - or that he was a heretic? Or because I don't believe in G_d at all?

So, yeh, Muslims following their faith as they interpret it should be allowed to assemble in like groups. If Americans are honest about it, our nation was begun by "terrorists." Not all attacks are Islamic in origin, either - despite popular perception.

Frankly, white male Protestants frighten me much more. So, again, the question becomes - who draws the line in the sand about what's acceptable? I don't like the questions the Max case raises because it becomes an incredibly slippery slope. I know people who genuinely enjoy being choked with cock or pissed on. I am not going to say they are wrong for that, because to do so means someone, somewhere, will say that if it's wrong to do a throat-choke, someone else will think that a cream pie or facial is just as wrong.

It's a dangerous fucking line to walk. I like freedom, and I am not a fan of the idea of a nanny state.

Freedom is a nice word but you cant yell fire in a crowded theatre. There are lines if you want to cross them you got to be willing to pay the price. Also if the chicks were really into what he was doing I can see that but I have heard a bunch of stories where that isnt the case at all. girls new to the biz have no idea who he is.Are sent by dont give a fuck agents.In the words of the senator who told Paul cambria you dont police yourselves we will do it for you. unfortunately our industry is too short sighted to do it themselves.

[bluemoney]

Real piece of work ain't he!

[RawAlex]

I would have to say that for me, Max ain't a hero. If anything, he is exactly the type of "evil dirty pornographer" that the moral majority types use to paint us into a corner.

While I don't like to see anyone in the business end up in jail or face charges, I have less of a problem when the government hits the most extreme cases and perhaps helps to draw a bit of a line in the sand between acceptable and unacceptable. The more that the good gets defined, the easier the rest of us can breathe.

I would hate to think the number of girls he has scared out of the business by making them choke and puke and pissing down their throats. Makes me wonder a little bit about him as a person too.

[softball]

I like freedom as well. And I lost a friend who died with a smile on his face and an electrical cord around his neck. I guess you could say he achieved the impossible. He came and went at the same time.
Being in Vancouver, I have worked with many girls who went through the Sweet mill and it was nasty, very nasty. Perhaps worse than Max. However, some did enjoy the abuse as a fanatsy.
The Sweet decision in a Canadian court was kind of bittersweet. The perpetrators of some very abusive and sould destroying shit walked away free and clear. I think they should have suffered consequences because somewhere in the world, the worst of those guys is still abusing people.
However, that decision made whatever I do so legal it squeaks. Shooting porn in Canada is a pretty good option nowadays, because we have access to good talent and never ever wory about a knock on the door and some local cop fucking up our lives.
I do hope, however, Max spends enough time in jail to ponder his miserable existance. Perhaps the best outcome would be a successful appeal, if that is possible, and people will sit up and take notice of what they are doing.

[miz_wright]

Originally Posted by rhetorical

I like freedom as well. And I lost a friend who died with a smile on his face and an electrical cord around his neck. I guess you could say he achieved the impossible. He came and went at the same time.
Being in Vancouver, I have worked with many girls who went through the Sweet mill and it was nasty, very nasty. Perhaps worse than Max. However, some did enjoy the abuse as a fanatsy.
The Sweet decision in a Canadian court was kind of bittersweet. The perpetrators of some very abusive and sould destroying shit walked away free and clear. I think they should have suffered consequences because somewhere in the world, the worst of those guys is still abusing people.
However, that decision made whatever I do so legal it squeaks. Shooting porn in Canada is a pretty good option nowadays, because we have access to good talent and never ever wory about a knock on the door and some local cop fucking up our lives.
I do hope, however, Max spends enough time in jail to ponder his miserable existance. Perhaps the best outcome would be a successful appeal, if that is possible, and people will sit up and take notice of what they are doing.

I don't know Max, so I can't say anything about him personally. What I *can* speak to are my concerns as a citizen. And the question in this whole case for me is whether I am comfortable creating a boundary on what is obscene - and the Miller test maintains the standard of that which is "patently offensive."

Which keeps coming back to "for whom?" I can't speak for you about that - Stagliano clearly has had a successful career, so clearly, the community standard test doesn't work if people are buying it. Protect the kids, protect against non-consensual violence - but not on a basis of "I think it's icky."

[CWDW]

Originally Posted by LizAEBN

I don't know Max, so I can't say anything about him personally. What I *can* speak to are my concerns as a citizen. And the question in this whole case for me is whether I am comfortable creating a boundary on what is obscene - and the Miller test maintains the standard of that which is "patently offensive."

Which keeps coming back to "for whom?" I can't speak for you about that - Stagliano clearly has had a successful career, so clearly, the community standard test doesn't work if people are buying it. Protect the kids, protect against non-consensual violence - but not on a basis of "I think it's icky."

Agreed. People should be able to do all the weird sick shit they really want to do.

The real problem I see (like in Julie's story about Max) is that there are girls doing things that they don't really want to do for whatever reason: money, pressure, whatever. It's the calculated coercion of women to do things that hurt them that bothers me. It's a "gentle" form of rape to manipulate the situation and apply pressure in the right ways in order to force someone's consent. But this is not a problem that can really be addressed in a courthouse. And when you add to that cocktail a woman who is unsure of herself and easily led, well...assholes get ripped and shit happens.

So yeah, I think that anybody should be able to get abused on camera if that's what they're really into. But unfortunately a lot of the time the women who really want that and the ones that are being coerced are actually one and the same- a lot of the attraction to that kind of shit is based in childhood trauma and other things that might skew one's judgement.

But- and that's a BIG BUT- I STILL think people should have the right to do what they want to. I don't want anybody coming along to tell me I can't enjoy MY freedoms- one of which is working in this business. I just wish there were more safety nets for these women and less predators masquerading as boyfriends, husbands, agents, directors, etc.

[TheEnforcer]

Originally Posted by LizAEBN

I don't know Max, so I can't say anything about him personally. What I *can* speak to are my concerns as a citizen. And the question in this whole case for me is whether I am comfortable creating a boundary on what is obscene - and the Miller test maintains the standard of that which is "patently offensive."

Which keeps coming back to "for whom?" I can't speak for you about that - Stagliano clearly has had a successful career, so clearly, the community standard test doesn't work if people are buying it. Protect the kids, protect against non-consensual violence - but not on a basis of "I think it's icky."

Sums it up pretty nicely as usual Liz. Certainly not my type of porn at all but I'm not comfortable with the government saying it's worthy of censorship.

[softball]

I just wish there were more safety nets for these women and less predators masquerading as boyfriends, husbands, agents, directors, etc.

but you wouldn't take away their freedom to do this?

[CWDW]

Originally Posted by rhetorical

but you wouldn't take away their freedom to do this?

Nope. O_o

It could be argued that ALL porn producers are predatory wolves manipulating and coercing innocent, lost women into all sorts of sodomy etc. Ask any right-wing "civilian"! Peddlers of filth etc. should all be shut down according to them!

It's dangerous to start in with allowing anybody to say what another group does is "gross" or "wrong" and should be outlawed. Pretty soon we're all fucked and nobody's getting any reach-around.

For instance, I really like The Fashionistas but there are plenty of people who would find that sort of content offensive to say the least and would outlaw it immediately if they could get away with it. Personally I believe in a person's right to choose, even if I think their choice sucks because I want that freedom for myself. Simple as that.

[miz_wright]

Originally Posted by rhetorical

but you wouldn't take away their freedom to do this?

It's been proven time and time again you can't legislate morality. Neither can we effectively legislate thought crime. One person's brutality is another person's orgasm. There is no effective way beyond socialisation and education to break those patterns of abuse.

Originally Posted by Toby

While I think Max got hosed in court, and that people have the right to view that kind of material if they choose, I do have problem with deliberately creating a situation where a model feels she can't just gather up her stuff and walk out if her own personal line in the sand is crossed.

Toby, the argument could be made that any and all content puts a performer in that position. Indeed, the Dworkin feminists HAVE made that argument.

So... What's the solution in these cases? An entry test for performers/ managers/ shooters? Who writes it? Who determines what an acceptable level of "mental stablility" gets the passing grade?

[Toby]

Originally Posted by LizAEBN

,,Toby, the argument could be made that any and all content puts a performer in that position. Indeed, the Dworkin feminists HAVE made that argument.

So... What's the solution in these cases? An entry test for performers/ managers/ shooters? Who writes it? Who determines what an acceptable level of "mental stablility" gets the passing grade?

What I think or what the Dworkin's think is irrelevant. The only ones whose opinions matter are the models themselves. If they feel overly coerced, repeatedly, then it's wrong. A contract lawyer would have a field day with that in a contract dispute case.

The solution is for models to inform each other, and the entire industry in extreme or repeat offender cases. It's far easier these days than in the past, where it had to be more or less word of mouth. Had blogs, etc. been as prevalent at the time of Julie's encounter with Max, and had she posted about it, how many models would have refused to work for him, or at least made sure they had the option to get up and walk out to their own car and leave?

[miz_wright]

Originally Posted by Toby

What I think or what the Dworkin's think is irrelevant. The only ones whose opinions matter are the models themselves. If they feel overly coerced, repeatedly, then it's wrong. A contract lawyer would have a field day with that in a contract dispute case.

The solution is for models to inform each other, and the entire industry in extreme or repeat offender cases. It's far easier these days than in the past, where it had to be more or less word of mouth. Had blogs, etc. been as prevalent at the time of Julie's encounter with Max, and had she posted about it, how many models would have refused to work for him, or at least made sure they had the option to get up and walk out to their own car and leave?

You make an interesting point here about models contacting one another. There are a lot of ways the performers could benefit if they worked together on this and other concerns. Small consortiums of sex workers have done so in the past to excellent effect, but the phrase "herding cats" comes to mind.

[miz_wright]

Distillation of my thought, to the shortest point: Yeh, he's a hero, no I don't hafta like it.

Further food for thought: Thirty-three years ago, a certain magazine publisher we all hold up as a paragon for our rights as filthy pornographers was also arrested for obscenity. Just for showing some labia. Because he was just "going too far."

[softball]

Originally Posted by LizAEBN

Distillation of my thought, to the shortest point: Yeh, he's a hero, no I don't hafta like it.

Further food for thought: Thirty-three years ago, a certain magazine publisher we all hold up as a paragon for our rights as filthy pornographers was also arrested for obscenity. Just for showing some labia. Because he was just "going too far."

Before that there was Lenny Bruce. Possibly the greatest free speech crusader ever. And he suffered greatly for it.

Satire is tragedy plus time. You give it enough time, the public, the reviewers will allow you to satirize it. Which is rather ridiculous, when you think about it.
- Lenny Bruce (1925 - 1966)

[miz_wright]

Originally Posted by rhetorical

Before that there was Lenny Bruce. Possibly the greatest free speech crusader ever. And he suffered greatly for it.

... kinda my point.

[softball]

Originally Posted by LizAEBN

... kinda my point.

I understand, but I certainly don't put Max in the company of Lenny Bruce or Larry Flynt. Lenny and Larry were/are crusaders with a mission and Lenny Bruce preached in a tougher environment than Larry or anything we have experienced. Max is an asshole with camera....nothing else. Now his legal situation might be of interest to our business, but I do not wish to be associated with Max or the Sweets in any way shape or form. Like kiddy porn, these people are bad for business and cross my line.

[Toby]

While I think Max got hosed in court, and that people have the right to view that kind of material if they choose, I do have problem with deliberately creating a situation where a model feels she can't just gather up her stuff and walk out if her own personal line in the sand is crossed.

[vdc-Loki]

personally I don't like Max, his movies, or his "curious George" dressing style (see image below lol) he's one of the MOST known people in the adult industry, and also in my experience kind of the "standard" when it comes to outsider's points of view of the industry.

To many times I've ran into one of two statements from people when they find out I'm in the adult industry....

(1) oh... you don't do that kiddie porn stuff do you?

(2) oh... you mean that violent stuff like that Max Hardcore guy does?

Max IS deff one of the reasons we have a bad rep, granted he's not the only reason.

I do applaud him for his 'efforts' for free speech, but I still just don't like him.

oh and as for the image..... Curious Max!



-Loki-

[Mediaguy]

Originally Posted by gonzo

Ive started working on the Word Press front end a little.
Interested in your thoughts on the first post.

http://oprano.com/blog/?p=8

Get rid of the Bangkok Quarter-Pounders and I say it's a potentially good idea.

[Mediaguy]

Liz: Good words, soundly voiced (though I think the Klan is sicker than Max Hardcore by far).

Rhetorical: are you comparing what a terrorist would inflict on innocent (non-consensual) people the same as Max's schtick?

CWDW:

But unfortunately a lot of the time the women who really want that and the ones that are being coerced are actually one and the same- a lot of the attraction to that kind of shit is based in childhood trauma and other things that might skew one's judgement.

I don't know that I'd agree with the "actually one and the same" line - that would be hard to claim, stats wise, on the vast preponderence of adult performers...

Yes some people with "bad" or "hard" backgrounds can be led to this work, but not the same as with say stripclubs, which are a lifestyle. Adult actors aren't constantly "doing it" and "getting dirty" on a daily basis. And some of these same "types" end up in regular office jobs where they end up used and abused by higher-ups...

I've known people who shoot for programs featuring very abusive-looking content here in Montreal, and they all know it's basically play-acting, and they love their jobs and go back to them without the need for the money due to whatever child traumas that might lead to needs for abuse, drug dependency and what not...

If that sort of "abuse" were real in the shoots, somebody somewhere would call the cops...

It's all theatre.

[thepunisher]

indeed you have some points.

[softball]

All this freedom shit is well and good until someone loses an eye.....
The internet is an oddball in that it creates that which never existed. Sure you can say there always were extreme fantasies and possibly even experienced by the few that managed to meet like minded people. But it is my instinct that there are a whole lot of fetishes that have been created in the past few years as people push the envelope of extremel. Not for erotic purposes but to make money. And there is a lot of it. I think you have to think about the next generation who have total access to total extreme and wonder if this is really good for a society. And I really don't mean just porn. Any kind of extreme. Jackass is a tame example, but look at the culture it has spawned. Kids dropping batteries on their head from rooftops. Stupid and harmful stuff. So, think about this when you talk about freedom. Do you want a world where extreme is normal? Do you want a society that celebrates and rewards stupidity? And think about this. If you do want this "freedom", do you think your country will have been dumbed and numbed to the point you lose it when China drops that collective battery on your collective heads in the next hundred years?

[miz_wright]

You know, frankly? If we are stupid enough as a culture to think that Johnny KNoxville and Steve-O are people to emulate, then... Yeh. We deserve to be eclipsed culturally.

For a lot of people, my life as it stands would be problematic. I make choices willingly and with full knowledge and consent many wouldn't and would find to be abhorrent. You can't yell "fire" in a crowded theatre because it jeopardises the lives of others - which point I made above, with reference specifically to keeping people safe.

Let's be completely honest here, guys. You don't like MAX so you think it's OK. His methods may suck, but it's not the content that's the problem - and that's what the case was about. The problem everyone has with Max is about him as a person and his business methods - and that's fine. But that's not the question at hand, and while it's an easy tangle to get in, it's really immaterial. 'Cos to the best of my knowledge, he wasn't put away for how the talent was treated - the trial was about shipping of "obscene materials." Same with Stagliano's case, if I am not mistaken.

As far as the legal ramifications, my personal stance on the case as it has been tried remains the same: I don't have to like his content to stand behind his right to shoot it. His methods weren't on trial here.

[Toby]

Originally Posted by LizAEBN

As far as the legal ramifications, my personal stance on the case as it has been tried remains the same: I don't have to like his content to stand behind his right to shoot it. His methods weren't on trial here.

Unless I've missed it, I don't think Gonzo's blog post or any of the replies in this thread are disagreeing on that point.

[softball]

You don't like MAX so you think it's OK

I have never met the man. I have no opinion on that.

[miz_wright]

Originally Posted by Toby

Unless I've missed it, I don't think Gonzo's blog post or any of the replies in this thread are disagreeing on that point.

Nope, but that's the only bit I can speak to.

[edit to add]

Actually, it kinda seems to be tied in. Perception of questionable methods give rise to tacit approval of his being jailed for something related.

[gonzo]

Originally Posted by Toby

Unless I've missed it, I don't think Gonzo's blog post or any of the replies in this thread are disagreeing on that point.

I think she got the spirit of the blog entry and that was do you think hes a hero or a zero.

I was pretty dumbfounded that to find out that many people think hes some sort of martyr like Larry Flynt fighting for freedom of speech.

Max is out for Max. And anyone thats spent any time with him knows that to be a fact.

[RawAlex]

Originally Posted by gonzo

I think she got the spirit of the blog entry and that was do you think hes a hero or a zero.

I was pretty dumbfounded that to find out that many people think hes some sort of martyr like Larry Flynt fighting for freedom of speech.

Max is out for Max. And anyone thats spent any time with him knows that to be a fact.

The worst part is that when Max started out, his stuff was actually pretty good. Fresh girls, hot hardcore, a little intense at times but nothing off the Richter scale.

Then he discovered "the power", and his stuff turned into gagging, puking, pissing, and other forms of domination sex and not clearly consentual acts. Somewhere along the line, Max really seemed to lose the plot, and he ended up way out there - and now he is way in there, doing time for the "crime".

I can't put Max and Larry Flynt together, they just aren't the same sort of players.

[CWDW]

Wow there's so many good points I think you guys have this subject pretty well covered...but I always have something to add.

Originally Posted by Mediaguy

Get rid of the Bangkok Quarter-Pounders and I say it's a potentially good idea.

ZOMG LOL thanks for that.

Originally Posted by Mediaguy

CWDW:

I don't know that I'd agree with the "actually one and the same" line - that would be hard to claim, stats wise, on the vast preponderence of adult performers...

Yes some people with "bad" or "hard" backgrounds can be led to this work, but not the same as with say stripclubs, which are a lifestyle. Adult actors aren't constantly "doing it" and "getting dirty" on a daily basis. And some of these same "types" end up in regular office jobs where they end up used and abused by higher-ups...

I've known people who shoot for programs featuring very abusive-looking content here in Montreal, and they all know it's basically play-acting, and they love their jobs and go back to them without the need for the money due to whatever child traumas that might lead to needs for abuse, drug dependency and what not...

If that sort of "abuse" were real in the shoots, somebody somewhere would call the cops...

It's all theatre.

I think they are into it and are not going to call anybody about it. I'm not demonizing the "abuse". I'm just saying that you're going to find abused women doing these things in a high percentage, women who's internal guidance system is fucked, and have been conditioned to enjoy weird shit. Please understand that I'm into some weird shit myself so I'm not judging, I'm just saying that unfortunately sex workers of all types are in a very precarious position of having to make decisions and read people and use their intuition for their survival that even the most well-adjusted would have trouble navigating, and unfortunately a lot of these women have "distorted" guidance systems and terrible self-parenting skills. It's hard to "stop the abuse" when that's all you know.

I know all sex workers are not victims of child abuse. But I am willing to bet that a LOT are, or are at least vulnerable. And anyway I'm not saying that all the "abuse" is bad either...I'm just saying that there are a lot of women who HAVE been abused and who are vulnerable to being manipulated into doing things that hurt them. So when they run into the guy who is NOT play-acting they might not know how to run.

Being a twisted person myself I know that the familiar seems safe. But sometimes familiar does not mean safe. That's all.

Originally Posted by Toby

What I think or what the Dworkin's think is irrelevant. The only ones whose opinions matter are the models themselves. If they feel overly coerced, repeatedly, then it's wrong. A contract lawyer would have a field day with that in a contract dispute case.

The solution is for models to inform each other, and the entire industry in extreme or repeat offender cases. It's far easier these days than in the past, where it had to be more or less word of mouth. Had blogs, etc. been as prevalent at the time of Julie's encounter with Max, and had she posted about it, how many models would have refused to work for him, or at least made sure they had the option to get up and walk out to their own car and leave?

Yes.

Originally Posted by rhetorical

Two comments....
As far as models go, I would say that the majority of girls I have shot have a damaged past. One could argue that we all do, but in this case I have noticed a recurring theme of some kind of abuse. I work with my talent for multiple days and have them back to do it again fairly regularly and over the past decade of shooting, I can honestly say that this very common.

Around here, we have a local board where people post looking for work and advice. A lot of girls have been warned off possibly dangerous situations. If not publicly, certainly in private. I have advised many girls of producers that I know, or guys that are just gwc's (guys with cameras), where a potential problem could develop. It isn't perfect but its something.

You are awesome.

Originally Posted by rhetorical

All this freedom shit is well and good until someone loses an eye.....
The internet is an oddball in that it creates that which never existed. Sure you can say there always were extreme fantasies and possibly even experienced by the few that managed to meet like minded people. But it is my instinct that there are a whole lot of fetishes that have been created in the past few years as people push the envelope of extremel. Not for erotic purposes but to make money. And there is a lot of it. I think you have to think about the next generation who have total access to total extreme and wonder if this is really good for a society. And I really don't mean just porn. Any kind of extreme. Jackass is a tame example, but look at the culture it has spawned. Kids dropping batteries on their head from rooftops. Stupid and harmful stuff. So, think about this when you talk about freedom. Do you want a world where extreme is normal? Do you want a society that celebrates and rewards stupidity? And think about this. If you do want this "freedom", do you think your country will have been dumbed and numbed to the point you lose it when China drops that collective battery on your collective heads in the next hundred years?

Yes, we're fucked. But being policed by an overzealous government is not a solution.

Originally Posted by Hell Puppy

My dad always sums up personal freedom very succinctly.

"Your right to swing your fist stops at the tip of my nose."

I am going to use that.

And Gonzo- to answer your question? Zero.

[TheEnforcer]

Originally Posted by LizAEBN

You know, frankly? If we are stupid enough as a culture to think that Johnny KNoxville and Steve-O are people to emulate, then... Yeh. We deserve to be eclipsed culturally.

For a lot of people, my life as it stands would be problematic. I make choices willingly and with full knowledge and consent many wouldn't and would find to be abhorrent. You can't yell "fire" in a crowded theatre because it jeopardises the lives of others - which point I made above, with reference specifically to keeping people safe.

Let's be completely honest here, guys. You don't like MAX so you think it's OK. His methods may suck, but it's not the content that's the problem - and that's what the case was about. The problem everyone has with Max is about him as a person and his business methods - and that's fine. But that's not the question at hand, and while it's an easy tangle to get in, it's really immaterial. 'Cos to the best of my knowledge, he wasn't put away for how the talent was treated - the trial was about shipping of "obscene materials." Same with Stagliano's case, if I am not mistaken.

As far as the legal ramifications, my personal stance on the case as it has been tried remains the same: I don't have to like his content to stand behind his right to shoot it. His methods weren't on trial here.

Intelligent women are SOOOOOOOOO hot!!!!! Once again Liz nails it.

[gonzo]

Originally Posted by LizAEBN

You know, frankly? If we are stupid enough as a culture to think that Johnny KNoxville and Steve-O are people to emulate, then... Yeh. We deserve to be eclipsed culturally.

For a lot of people, my life as it stands would be problematic. I make choices willingly and with full knowledge and consent many wouldn't and would find to be abhorrent. You can't yell "fire" in a crowded theatre because it jeopardises the lives of others - which point I made above, with reference specifically to keeping people safe.

Let's be completely honest here, guys. You don't like MAX so you think it's OK. His methods may suck, but it's not the content that's the problem - and that's what the case was about. The problem everyone has with Max is about him as a person and his business methods - and that's fine. But that's not the question at hand, and while it's an easy tangle to get in, it's really immaterial. 'Cos to the best of my knowledge, he wasn't put away for how the talent was treated - the trial was about shipping of "obscene materials." Same with Stagliano's case, if I am not mistaken.

As far as the legal ramifications, my personal stance on the case as it has been tried remains the same: I don't have to like his content to stand behind his right to shoot it. His methods weren't on trial here.

As much as I hate to admit it Liz is right.
Max got popped for someone else shipping his vids on his behalf that was orded from his website. That aint right.

However it does kind of remind me of Al Capone where the Feds were going to get him on anything they could no matter what.

I dont agree with the terms of his conviction but as Mike South said theres no way he didnt know he was a target for years.

[softball]

He was a ticking time bomb and a fool. I agree with Gonzo on the Al Capone comparison. I think we are discussing a principle not a specific conviction. In that light, I think his conviction has nothing to do with free speech or the right to make pornography. Every society has a right to protect itself from that which it feels is harmful. That might not be a popular thought around here, but it works for me. I am sure a lot of people were outraged by Capone falling on a tax beef, but who cares really? I think in the United States there is a majority (silent?) who protect free speech and there is a vocal minority who want to throttle it and a minority of those who want to push the limits. I know that I have the right to do what I do because other pushed that envelope before me and I acknowledge their contribution to my well being. But on the other hand I have to go with my heart and that says Max is poison and bad for business.

[Hell Puppy]

My dad always sums up personal freedom very succinctly.

"Your right to swing your fist stops at the tip of my nose."

[spazlabz]

ewwwwwww that pic of Max reminds me of Fred Phelps


spaz