Comments on: F**k the Obscenity Prosecution Task Force

By: Mark Draughn

Mark Draughn — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 21:26:01 +0000

Believe me, I’ve got enough righteous indignation to carry me through the Obama administration. (It’s kind of what I do around here.)

I don’t write about 2nd amendment issues much because, well, we’ve had Republicans in charge lately. They haven’t been causing a lot of trouble in that regard, as you’d expect. (Although the first President Bush was quick to sell out gun owners, so it wasn’t exactly a sure thing.)

By: Freemon SandleWould

Freemon SandleWould — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 20:43:52 +0000

Remember your righteous indignation when the Obama troop comes for our guns ( 2nd amendment ) and our 1st amendment ( fairness doctrine re: talk radio )

I agree its a waste and terrible for max. But selective prosecution is in no way limited to the Bush admin and if my guess is correct Obummer is going to be very bad on these issues. If you want to keep the USA free you better not be selective about what amendments you choose to protect or you’ll eventually find your favorites being corroded too ( more that is )

By: Amy Zene

Amy Zene — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 22:09:49 +0000

Couldn’t agree more, JT. The evidence of the films themselves, that showed throat-f*cking to the point of choking and repeat vomiting, and recorded women begging Mr. Little to stop anally penetrating them, was in evidence, and the jury was well within its province when it decided that those physical reactions simply could not be feigned, but depicted actual abuse. One always runs the risk, when depicting pain, of inflicting it, and the jury apparently concluded that was happening. Free speech is a good thing, and I personally would prosecute none of it, but Mr. Little was very likely justly convicted under the law as it stands. Free speech defenders would do much better to turn their attention to the stifling of political speech, the suppression of third parties, and the monopolization of speech in mainstream venues. No one is defending us on that front. Porn we will not run short of.

By: Mark Draughn

Mark Draughn — Sat, 11 Oct 2008 22:38:06 +0000

My response to "jt" grew into a whole post.

By: jt

jt — Sat, 11 Oct 2008 16:58:46 +0000

I couldn’t help but notice you mentioned you’ve never seen a Max Hardcore video. Perhaps you should. Once you have, you may understand how a jury could find his work obscene, based on the old Miller three prong test, and therefor not constitutionally protected speech. The outcome may not be what you would like to see, but the jury based their decision on the state of the law, not how they–or you–would like the law to read. The judge only enforced the law as it currently exists, she didn’t make this stuff up either. If you want guys like Max Hardcore to continue to crank out their particular brand of “art,” then get the law changed and quit pissing on the people who’s only offense is doing their duty under the law and not making up their own along the way in order to get the result you would have preferred.

If you’d like to know a little more about Max Hardcore, Rotten.com did a pretty good bio piece about him a while back: http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/pornographers/max-hardcore/

It’s about the nicest thing ever written about the guy.

By: Mark Draughn

Mark Draughn — Sat, 11 Oct 2008 00:32:04 +0000

Not that you want to get off on a rant :)

I don’t think I agree with everything in your comment, but yeah, our federal government has more important things to worry about than whether some porn producer makes videos that disrespect women.

By: alan

alan — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 21:45:19 +0000

what i dont understand about all the attention given the porn industry is that basic television programing and cable stations produce simulated acts of sex, child pornography, murder, assaults, etc for kids and teens to watch with no end in sight. it seems our government would rather see our kids learn how to do drive by”s, gang rapes, murder, and an assortment of other crimes than for anyone including consenting adults to view 2 or more people engaging in various acts of sex. When they talk about corrupting america, what are they thinking. We have our whole economy in turmoil because these same politicians, while collecting their bribes and getting bj’s from hookers, and anyone else they can, want our resources to focus on locking up a producer who produces a sex video that someone thinks is obscene. I am thinking it is obscene what our politicians have done to the american public and would like anyone of them to stand trial with 12 jurors who are unemployed or have lost their homes. I would like us to start midway to the top, perhaps with the head of fannie may or freddie mac. I would like to know what interest rate they have on their homes. I bet america would find that obscene. i think it is obscene that alberto gonzales is not on trial for the firing of those 9 prosecutors. I think it is clearly obscene that no one has called for the resignation or impeachment of our president at this point, after all, it starts with him. I think one of the most obscene things is that at a time when the government is bailing out so many criminals in the banking, insurance and financial markets, it would focus it’s attention on an obscenity prosecution in hopes of fixing our country and making it a better safer place to raise your kids. here is a quick fix for the government today. make each bank renegotiate each mortgage instead of foreclosing, make prostitution legal, turn it into a business, regulate it, collect tax on it, create new jobs and new industries from it. spend the police time fighting real crime, get the guns off the street, get the drugs out of the schools and lets prosecute some of those who have crushed the american dream with their greed. That might end the obscenities for most of america.