Max Hardcore Convicted on Obscenity Charges

Max HardcoreI’ve never been a fan of Max Hardcore. I don’t like his movies and I’ve heard rumors about the way he conducts business that give me pause. That said, I’m pretty pissed off that he was found guilty of distributing obscenity last Thursday. The following is, obviously, my own personal opinion.

It is entirely unbelievable to me that sex acts between consenting adults are subject to any kind of government scrutiny whatsoever in the US. If someone wants to be paid to have her head shoved in a toilet bowl while she’s being verbally abused and doggy-styled and someone else wants to pay to watch that, it’s absolutely none of anyone’s business. Not mine, not my elderly next door neighbor’s, not the government’s.

When I was a little younger and a little more willing to accept that obscenity laws were just a fact of life in this business, I felt that people like Max Hardcore were screwing it up for the rest of us. If folks like him would quit making movies that attract attention, the government would leave the porn industry alone. That was naive.

Attacking producers like Hardcore is just going for the low-hanging fruit. When the government’s agenda is nosing around in people’s bedrooms, no one is safe. The UK recently passed a law banning “violent” pornography. Canada’s obscenity laws are shockingly idiotic. Many countries continue to ban pornography outright.

I think for most people, it’s very difficult to stand up and say that you’re pro-pornography and you want to put an end to this ridiculousness. But this kind of activism is long overdue, both inside the industry and in society at large. If you’re interested in reading more or participating in the discourse on this topic, please check out the following links:

AVN coverage
Porn Star Ashley Blue’s reaction to the judgement
Porn Star Dave Cummings’ reaction to the judgement
Gram Ponante’s reaction to the judgement
Mike South’s coverage
US DOJ press release about Stagliano/Evil Angel obscenity indictment
AVN Article: Stagliano/Evil Angel indictment

Share and Enjoy: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Facebook
  • Google
  • bodytext
  • Reddit
  • del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • TwitThis

Tags: , ,


23 Responses to “Max Hardcore Convicted on Obscenity Charges”

  1. G man Says:

    The man seems truly loathsome to me and physically embodies and morally epitomises so much of what is less agreeable about porn. But in no way does that justify the verdict.

    Alison’s entry nails the issues at stake here eloquently. If we want to defend our rights to free sexual expression that includes defending Max Hardcore’s right to be a misogynist creep … or “Two Girls One Cup” for that matter.

    This struggle is not likely to end for a few millennia yet. – It’s the missionary positioned moral hate mongers against the rest of us. And right now those defending free speech and expression are being hit for six in so many public arenas.

    Time to speak up people!

  2. HotScooter2 Says:

    Alison:

    hon i basically agree with you and hope you are doin well.
    like you i can’t stand Max. his films are totally degrading to women. he enjoys bringing himself into the highlight. Though he has not hired anyone under 18 he has had his starlets play the role of someone under 18.thus encouraging regulatory agencies to try to get him for child porn violations.
    I do not think that because he is a creep that he should be convicted. we can only hope that consumer taste will improve and that there will not be a demand for abusive films. But on that one i guess Alison that i am the one being naive.
    i do not see any person being degraded,and i can hope that Max instead of serving time will instead no longer be in demand in the industry

  3. papayaman Says:

    I have viewed some Max Harcore product and I dont see what is sexually stimulating about his propensity for making women vomit and subjecting them to acts that clearly distress them. I have seen fragments of his scene with Mya Mason, a girl whose work I have enjoyed – and there is nothing remotely appealing in the way that he brutalises her to a point where she really does seem extremely distressed (indeed I found it imposible to watch the whole thing). There may be an element of acting in some of these scenes, but the intent is still that we are supposed to be getting off on the brutalisation of a woman. That is something I find personally unacceptable.

    However, I would have to own up to enjoying a small number of his scenes, notably a scene with the delectable Libellule in Universal Max 6 (I think). The point is that he does not indulge in his worst excesses in this scene, maybe because she (or her agent) was careful in specifying what her limits are. So whilst there is some fisting, deepthroating and anal, he does not piss on her, make her puke, or slap her about excessively. The result is that this is the only scene in Universal Max 6 that I find remotely sexy. largely because of the lovely Libellule and the fact that his worst excesses are avoided here.

    Even though I hate the bulk of his stuff I would be extremely pissed off if censorship prevented me from accessing the scenes I find palatable. The scene I have mentioned may well be one of Libellule’s best scenes and it would be unacceptable if we were unable to enjoy such a fine erotic performance by one of the most beautiful porn actresses.

    Certainly I prefer the sight of Libellule getting buggered to viewing the homo-erotic, sadistic content in Mel Gibson’s biopic of Christ, an exercise that seemed remarkably similar to porn, but which was greeted ecstatically by elements of the religious right. What do you suppose the chances are that the right will apply the same criteria to their own imagery as they apply to the imagery of porn? Suffice to say I will not be holding my breath as I wait for them to start criticising some of the more questionable elements of their own belief system.

  4. whackitgood Says:

    It can’t be any worse than 2 girls 1 cup.

    Does anyone know if the women in the videos are suing? Are they complaining? Is he really abusing them? Is it just a show?

    There is a scene on this site with a gal puking after swallowing a ton of loads. I admit it, while I can’t cum while watching that…I like to see her “get it.” Does that make me sick…well kinda, but fuck it. She got paid for it.

    I like pissing videos…also shitting…just the act of doing it is something I like to watch. Now eating shit / smearing it is where I draw the line.

    I’d like to have the ability to watch this stuff instead of being dictated how and what I watch.

    What’s next. No creampies, no penetration, no gay stuff.

    This is just the beginning. Oh yeah, and don’t blame this on Bush.

  5. Strangepork Says:

    Obscenity laws just seem ridiculous to me. Why should it matter what materials somebody else considers to be obscene? It should be legal to film and distribute anything to anybody of legal age who wishes to view it, as long as no crime was committed in the creation of the material.

    Nobody has ever forced me to watch something that I don’t want to see. I can imagine that there are a lot of things I might call “obscene” if I was forced to sit in a courtroom and watch them all day. But that would just be my opinion, and why should that prevent someone else from watching what they want? How is the public being served by this? Who is the victim?

  6. fedor Says:

    2girls1cup is fake.

  7. dphunkt Says:

    the verdict seemed as much a caricature as the Max Hardcore persona. its more than evident too, that this presents evangelical interests in modern governance. i dont think the conviction so much paints graphic porn as bad, as it does ethics as contingency against certain people. say those in businesses not fit to politicize. consent prolly shouldnt present contrasts against moral majority, and theres no reason it should. it was a case of public consent, conglomerated to protect agendas within the enforcement agencies. Florida’s dead to me.

  8. Nova1972 Says:

    Back at school I remember reading about someone famous – don’t remember who though – saying:

    “I disagree with what you say, but I will defend till death your right to say it”.

    Now that in my opinion should become an obligatory lesson for every student in the world, because is the soul of democracy.

    Max’s videos disgust me, but I do defend his right in doing them.

  9. fedor Says:

    Nova1979..That is one of my favorite all time quotes.

    “I may disagree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

    That would be François Marie Aroue. AKA, Voltaire. A true rebel.

    As for the man of the moment, Max. I have seen some of his earlier stuff and found it disturbing but from what I read his modern stuff is very out there.

  10. fedor Says:

    Allison my dear…could we see about getting paragraphs? It really takes away from the flow of discussion to see everything jumbled.

  11. baldguyxxx Says:

    you people(videobox) decry censorship but yet practice it yourselves by refusing to enable my ability to make comments in the review section.You disabled my comments months ago. I have never been told why. My only ability is to leave comments here. Videobox is hypocritical. On one hand condeming censorship and on the other practicing it yourselves. I pay my fees and should be given the same abilities as other customers. enable my comments!!!!!!!!!!

  12. tim Says:

    i don’t know how else to say it, but this is flat out bullshit.

  13. DP Says:

    This is just another link in the chain of the slippery slope in full effect. The start deciding what is obscene and what is not obscene. Then they go after 1 or 2 high profile pornographers to intimidate the rest of the industry. I wonder what it’ll be like in 20 years? In many states, sodomy laws still exist. Under the homegrown terrorist act, anyone who commits any misdemeanor or felony can be deemed a terrorist. When internet 2.0 comes out (which they want to implement in 2012), and everyone who logs on is required to provide a thumbprint, will that be the start of turning porn-lovers into moral terrorists? Will people start getting swat-teamed for joining up on Euro sites to see the content they wish to see?

    Btw, I agree with fedor– we really need the ability to create paragraphs.

  14. DirtyBirdy Says:

    I’m glad we have Ashley Blue weighing in on the subject. After that clip you posted with her on Howard Stern I thought she should have a weekly show so that she could help guide America through these troubling times. ;)

    Apparently Ira Isaacs is also facing obscenity charges.

  15. Itz420 Says:

    I believe in free speech but I also believe there has to be a line. I mean if someone wants to have a limb cut off in a sex tape do we let it happen? What about snuff tapes you guys going to fight for that too. Also, with the arrest of Ira Isaacs for bestiality and defecation tapes, I believe if you want poop and pee on you thats your problem. But what about the abuse of animals, I don’t believe the animals have the right to consent to having sex on film. I would also like to include child porn, while most of us wish these people dead, there is a huge market for that too. Porn has been consistently topping it self for decades and now we are at the point were very strange things are being done to people and animals. My point is were do we draw the line.

  16. lickmylovepump Says:

    Itz420: in the history of the American legal system, there has never, ever, ever been a verified case of “snuff” or limbs getting cut off in a porn film. Child pornography is universally reviled by almost everyone in the adult film industry, as are animal abuse videos, which are subject to legal prosecution. No one here is defending those. So that’s where we draw the line — children and animals and adults who do not give legal consent. There is no such thing as a commercially available snuff/mutilation film and there never has been, and we are talking about commercial material here.

    Having known and met people who are working very hard on these “obscenity” laws — which are selectively enforced by the Bush Administration so that they only get favorable verdicts and headlines — the real issue here is political and financial pressure that is being put on ALL makers and distributors of adult videos. Even if these court cases are unsuccessful (and they usually are — I have little doubt Max’s conviction will be overturned on appeal, as more than one juror has indicated that there is some kind of book deal or payoff in the workds) — they put pressure on everyone in the industry and curtail production and distribution.

    My problem with Max Hardcore and Rob Black and the like is that they deliberately push the boundaries of free speech by putting violence (faked, but hard to tell) and humiliation into their videos, making them impossible even for most porn fans to watch. Because they also make (or their companies produce) more vanilla porn, the entire industry gets lumped in with them, and the line moves from stuff most of us find truly disgusting to stuff that isn’t so bad. There are cases in the courts right now trying to prove that squirting — ejaculation by a human body — is obscene. Bukkake vids (not my cup of tea, but certainly popular with some) have also been targeted.

    When Alberto Gonzalez became attorney general, he said that pornographers were the #1 threat to America. Not terrorists. Porn. If you people are outraged about this (and you should be), then think about that next time you vote for your local prosecutors or national office.

    I don’t like flag burning either but it’s free speech and it’s what this country was founded on. When it is taken away in any form, we ALL lose. Thanks for sharing this news, Allison, and I encourage others to keep abreast of the latest developments. (yes, that is a pun)

    P.S. to the loser who has been deleted from the comment boards: this is a private forum, not a public one. You pay money to join and agree to abide by certain rules, and your participation here is under the jurisdiction of the site owners. Free speech doesn’t mean you can say whatever you want whenever you want in a private forum. I can’t go into my local church and start masturbating during the sermon and shouting about whores and expect to remain a member of that church (though I can restage that scene on film and try to sell it as performance art).

  17. alison Says:

    G man – Thank you. I hope people heed the call to action.

    HotScooter2 – I couldn’t agree with you more. If people didn’t buy it, no one would make it.

    papayaman – That’s a really good point about mainstream movies. Any Hollywood studio can film a movie about a child being molested or a woman being beaten to death and no one bats an eye.

    whackitgood – Are you asking if the girls Max Hardcore has abused are suing or the girls from 2 girls 1 cup?

    Strangepork – Goodness knows if I were forced to watch 80 hours of Max Hardcore I might be a little grumpy too. And yet society trusts people who’ve had to do this with this decision?

    dphunkt – Florida seems to be behind a lot of the problems in this country as of late.

    Nova1972 – Well put.

    fedor – I hope you’re right about 2 girls 1 cup. And I’ll talk to our HTML guy about that.

    baldguyxxx – I dunno what to tell you. I didn’t take away your right to post comments.

    tim – That’s a good way of saying it.

    DP – I worry about that same sort of stuff sometimes. As much as we all want to believe that it couldn’t happen to us, it seems more and more likely every day.

    DirtyBirdy – I just read today that the judge in his case might be recused for having run a porn site of his own.

    Itz420 – I think most people draw the line at legality. It’s not legal to hurt animals or children, so it shouldn’t be legal to film it. It’s not legal to cut anyone’s arm off (so far as I know), so that shouldn’t be done in porn. But adults can consent to a wide variety of sex acts and it’s really patronizing for the government to tell them what they are, in my opinion.

    lickmylovepump – I will definitely continue to post news like this on the blog. It’s not always widely reported and I think it’s important. And thank you for the rest of your comments. You summed up “the line” nicely and your explanation of free speech is right on.

  18. fedor Says:

    Allison…The guy who “directed” 2girls is a very odd Brazilian “shock art” guy who has admitted to using fake poo in previous films so I have no reason to suspect this is real…especially since the interview I read with him on this he wouldn’t admit it was real but he never denied it either.

  19. alison Says:

    Fedor – Is that the same guy who’s being charged with obscenity right now (Ira Isaacs) or some other “shock artist”?

  20. fedor Says:

    No…this guy lives in Brazil. “the City of God”

  21. BB Says:

    Alison, its interesting you mention the new UK laws: “…pornographic material which depicts necrophilia, bestiality or violence which is life threatening or likely to result in serious injury to the anus, breasts or genitals is outlawed.”
    Is everything on this site within this limit? I dont want be subscribing to a website which has illegal material on it!
    Obviously the first two are not relevant, but there are several violent/torture BDSM scenes on here for example “Mistress Astria’s Dungeon” DVD.
    Personally I dont watch scenes like this, but if they are illegal in certain countries shouldnt you put some sort of warning?

  22. Fielding Says:

    Well, I guess I’m in the minority here – minority of one, probably – but the pig got what he deserved and I hope he gets a nice long sentence and fails in his appeal. For me, it’s just not good enough to say “oh, we draw the line at movies containing bestiality, child porn and snuff, but everything else is fine as long as it’s between consenting adults”. There’s the cultural and societal impact of rubbish like this that should be considered, too, and while you can’t stop people utterly degrading themselves in the privacy of their own homes, the depiction of such degradation should NOT be commercially available.

  23. Strangepork Says:

    Fielding: I’m not sure that there really is a “cultural and societal impact” to speak of here. But if so, what of it? Where do we draw the line when we start making it illegal to depict attitudes or behaviors that may have a negative cultural and societal impact? The problem with the way the courts define obscenity is that it is incredibly vague and doesn’t allow or prohibit any specific acts, making it a value judgment on a case-by-case basis. If this conviction stands, look for further cases to follow, going after progressively less extreme types of material.