Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

The site where this link is from is a buisiness site catering to the adult industry and to the best of my knowledge contains no pornographic images.

In 2001, Hardcore was prosecuted by the city of Los Angeles for obscenity, which was not resolved until 2004 with a company plea to a public nuisance.

When one is charged with obscenity in Los Angeles, you can bet the stuff is out there. I'm not going to plead ignorance to Hardcore's work. I have seen it. If you have never seen a Max Hardcore film, you have abolutely never seen anything like it. Watching this film was a stomach-churning experience. There was nothing arousing about it at all.

I'd be willing to bet that 99% of the population who enjoy pornography would find a film by Max Hardcore to be totally repulsive.

He's not well-liked within the industry for two major reasons. First, he scares away the new talent. Young women who find themselves in his films usually are new to the business and typically flee the industry after being subjected to the painful, wholly humiliating and degrading experience of working with this man. Second, he is indefensible. He epitomizes everything that those against pornography rally against. He makes Larry Flynt look like Walt Disney and your typical Vivid Video production look like wholesome family entertainment. That is no hyperbole.

1 posted on 10/10/2005 1:05:44 PM PDT by Drew68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-33 last
To: Drew68

Young women who find themselves in his films usually are new to the business and typically flee the industry after being subjected to the painful, wholly humiliating and degrading experience of working with this man.
---

Why would they work for him then? I agree with his statement about wasting our taxpayer dollars entirely.


98 posted on 10/10/2005 2:37:51 PM PDT by traviskicks (http://www.neoperspectives.com/secondaryproblemsofsocialism.htm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Drew68

Could anyone really be named "Hardcore?"


99 posted on 10/10/2005 2:38:27 PM PDT by ichabod1 (The Governments #1 Defense against Terrorism is Pretending It Wasn't Terrorism~!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Drew68

First they came for Max Hardcore, but I did not speak out, because I was not like Max Hardcore....etc., etc., etc. Then they came for me, but there was no one left to speak out for me.

Right.

Covering this creep under the First Amendment just doesn't cut it, unless we agree that the Constution is a "living document," and that's exactly what most people on this forum say it isn't. Does anyone believe that the Founders had someone like Max Hardcore in mind when they wrote the Bill of Rights? Had there been a Max Hardcore in the days of the Founders, he most likely would have ended up dancing at the end of a rope. In fact, you wouldn't even have to go back that far in American history to find someone like poor ol' Max getting into all kinds of lesser, but still serious, trouble. And worst of all, no one would have spoken out for him. But those were dark, dark days in America -- days reminiscent of Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Russia, and Pol Pot's Cambodia.

And to justify what Max Hardcore does because he is able to make money at what he does is the worst possible argument.

I know I'm taking a big risk, knowing that Max Hardcore is the first of the row of dominoes that will ultimately end with me, but to hell with him anyway.


108 posted on 10/10/2005 3:01:37 PM PDT by Southside_Chicago_Republican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: thompsonsjkc; odoso; animoveritas; mercygrace; Laissez-faire capitalist; bellevuesbest; ...

Moral Absolutes.

The usual porn defenders, with their usual friendly, self-effacing, rational discussion in play.

The citizenry of this country need to seriously consider pornography. Pornography ruins lives and was never considered to be the sort of expression (actually, the Bill of Rights says "speech") protected by the First Amendment. That is, until pornographers, aided by the ACLU went before a bunch of judges who also decided killing unborn babies was a legal act. [Don't know if it was the exact same nine, so no jumping down my throat.]

Freepmail me if you want on/off this pinglist.


120 posted on 10/10/2005 3:45:31 PM PDT by little jeremiah (A vitiated state of morals, a corrupted public conscience, are incompatible with freedom. P. Henry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Drew68

Obscenity should be a state/local issue, as judged by community standards. The only Constitutional justification for the feds to be involved is under interstate commerce -- i.e., if some localities ban this guy's stuff, and he's shipping to those localities anyway; or if it's a multi-state child porn ring.

Maybe that's what's happening here, but I don't see that specified in the article. If the FBI is prosecuting plain obscenity alone, then they're out of bounds -- that should be handled by the state of California.


147 posted on 10/10/2005 7:58:36 PM PDT by ellery (The true danger is when liberty is nibbled away, for expedience, and by parts. - Edmund Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Drew68
I like my adult entertainment tame and sedate. Extreme sex is a turn-off for me - if it involves S&M and real sicko into pain stuff, that's not my cup of tea. Most adults enjoy watching a movie with people making love every now and then but some of the stuff out there is like gross and totally deviant. Eeeeeeeew!

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
148 posted on 10/10/2005 8:03:31 PM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Drew68
The Vivid Video stuff is what most people think of as mainstream. But on the Internet anything goes and some of the porn is in a category that well... is of such a nature "obscenity" doesn't begin to describe that it really doesn't make one feel more sexually charged. Not at all.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
149 posted on 10/10/2005 8:06:45 PM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Drew68

I have never heard of this guy! Guess I am glad I haven't.


152 posted on 10/10/2005 9:03:36 PM PDT by ladyinred (It is all my fault okay?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Drew68

Entertainment Tonight years ago did a spot on him and it showed him getting a daily blood test. Something tells me that blood tests arent going to be enough to prevent AIDS from spreading among them. The reporter asked him what he thought of the girls in his "business": "Whore..nothing but whores, the whole lot of them" he said.


160 posted on 10/10/2005 10:52:25 PM PDT by Windsong (FighterPilot)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Drew68

If he'd have just ponied up those campaign contributions to the "right" candidates and party..............


178 posted on 10/11/2005 10:40:47 AM PDT by WhiteGuy (Vote for gridlock)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Drew68
He makes Larry Flynt look like Walt Disney and your typical Vivid Video production look like wholesome family entertainment.

This one sentence sends chills down my spine.

193 posted on 10/13/2005 7:22:24 PM PDT by Paul C. Jesup
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Drew68
I'd be willing to bet that 99% of the population who enjoy pornography would find a film by Max Hardcore to be totally repulsive.

Well if I understand you right, you'd lose. If his movies were that unpopular, they wouldn't sell so well. Nasty and perverted don't keep something from being a turnon.

195 posted on 10/26/2005 12:11:59 PM PDT by Yemaja
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-33 last

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson