 |
"(Porn Valley Observed is) the smartest and funniest coverage of the adult industry you will read." - About.com |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
Thursday, May 31, 2007
When Feds say "Porn", do they mean Max Hardcore?
 Many people hope so.As with JM's indictment several months ago in Virginia, Max Hardcore's recent obscenity indictment is a return to form. Porn producers are being busted for obscenity, a constantly reinterpreted definition that is nevertheless closer to the hearts of actual people than are 2257 restrictions. Companies like Hardcore, Rob Black/Extreme Associates, and JM Productions have always been lightning rods for the Feds. Recently, however, the fear of being nabbed for faulty recordkeeping has superseded the fear of an obscenity conviction. Had the revised 2257 regulations not been so poorly conceived, they would have landed more producers in trouble. Many producers feel that as long as they don't produce content like Hardcore, Black, and JM, they will be fine. I usually get a lot of angry e-mail when I write something about Hardcore that doesn't call him Satan. For whatever reason, it is easy for me to think Hardcore is a nice guy simply because of the porn he makes; I count as friends a number of pornographers whose work I hate. Not that I hate Hardcore's work - it delivers what it says it will deliver, which is a different criterion from liking what it delivers. Many pornographers are ambivalent about Hardcore. They say that his methods offscreen are just as distasteful as those on camera (I have not experienced this) and therefore want him to fall. But they also feel that Max Hardcore is the Feds' gateway drug to easier obscenity convictions for the rest of the industry. "I don't know if I should be happy or sad about Mr. Little (Paul Little is Hardcore's legal name)," one director told me today. Sending DVDs to a hostile county is one thing, delivering them via the U.S. Mail is another. One of the DVDs Hardcore was indicted for was delivered to a P.O. box. "I'm surprised that people still use the USPS when everyone knows that it's one of those technicalities that can get you popped," a reader commented. A more surprising issue is the number of pornographers who draw a distinction between their work and Hardcore's. Everything is consensual on paper; is Hardcore's work worse because his subjects appear to be having a bad time? What about the contract star who appears to be having a good time but actually isn't? If Hardcore is convicted, he will be forced to cede to the government his house, his websites, and his means of production. The Feds want him gone more than his detractors in the adult industry do. But if Hardcore goes, and Extreme and JM and Chatsworth Pictures follow, nothing stands between those convictions and your sensitive couples' porn. Because chances are the actress doesn't really want to be there, either, and that's obscene, too. My story on Fleshbot: Somehow, the 10-count indictment against Max Hardcore (nee Paul Little) issued from the U.S. District Court, Tampa Division, this week seems conventional. The indictment is for obscenity, not 2257 recordkeeping infringements or, like what befell Al Capone, tax evasion. Hardcore has beaten obscenity charges before during G.W. Bush's first administration, but that was in porn-friendly Los Angeles. This time the 10-count cocktail includes several instances of two-minute clips from Hardcore's websites as well as the European versions of "Fists of Fury" and "Golden Guzzlers".Previously: Untitled Briana Banks project; Anastasia Blue, Where Are You? See also: Indictment text on The Smoking Gun Labels: legal, max hardcore ¶ Thursday, May 31, 2007 
Comments
:
as an owner and fan of max harcore's early work -
(which makes me sound like a first amendment absolutist AND a max hardcore supporter, which makes me a little uncomfortable, because his most recent porn lacks what made his early stuff enjoyable: genuine enthusiasm) - some of which includes the poorly edited fists of fury comp series, i'm obligated to point out an error in the DoJ's fisting note: "insertion of an entire hand into a vagina or anus" having enjoyed multiple hardcore fisting scenes, i've never seen max actually insert his entire hand in any single orifice. in fact, max's consistently incomplete fisting (which, from what i've seen, is always of the vaginal ilk) has left many fellow hardcore consumers feeling sorely disappointed. also, that these indictments were filed in tampa (TAMPA? seriously? what the fuck?) is almost as awesome as the possibility that max could get off on partial fisting grounds.
Incomplete fisting is, I believe, The Greatest Crime of All. I would think that if someone was in the market to get fisted, he/she would feel shortchanged if he/she didn't feel the watchband and maybe a few cufflinks up there.
Post a Comment
#
posted by
 Gram the Man
:
Monday, June 04, 2007
Links to this post : << Home |
July 2002 December 2002 January 2003 January 2005 February 2005 March 2005 April 2005 May 2005 June 2005 July 2005 August 2005 September 2005 October 2005 November 2005 December 2005 January 2006 February 2006 March 2006 April 2006 May 2006 June 2006 July 2006 August 2006 September 2006 October 2006 November 2006 December 2006 January 2007 February 2007 March 2007 April 2007 May 2007 June 2007 July 2007 August 2007 September 2007 October 2007 November 2007 December 2007 January 2008 February 2008 March 2008 April 2008 May 2008 June 2008 July 2008 August 2008 September 2008 October 2008 November 2008 December 2008 January 2009 February 2009 March 2009 April 2009 May 2009 June 2009 18 U.S.C. 2257 Record-Keeping Requirements Compliance Statement This Website fully complies with 18 U.S.C. 2256 and 2257 and the regulations promulgated thereunder. The owners and operators of this Website are secondary producers and are not the primary producer (as defined in 18 U.S.C. 2257) of any of the visual content contained in this Website. All models, actors, actresses and other persons that appear in any visual depiction of actual or simulated sexually explicit conduct appearing or otherwise contained in this Website were over the age of eighteen years at the time of the creation of such depictions. All other pictures, graphics, videos or other visual media displayed on this Website are exempt from the provision of 18 U.S.C. 2257 (a) through (c) and 28 C.F.R. 75 because the pictures, graphics, videos or other visual media: (1) do not consist of depictions of sexually explicit conduct, but are merely depictions of non-sexually explicit nudity, (2) contains only visual depictions of actual sexually explicit conduct made before July 3, 1995, or is produced, manufactured, published, duplicated, reproduced, or reissued before July 3, 1995; (3) contains only visual depictions of simulated sexually explicit conduct; (4) contains some combination of visual depictions described in (2) and (3) above; (5) have been certified by its primary producer to the operators of this Website (as secondary producers) to satisfy the standards under (2) through (4) above. |
