Max Hardcore Convicted

Yesterday, Paul Little (a.k.a. Max Hardcore) was convicted on 10 counts of distributing obscene materials. (source) The short version: Consenting adults decided to make a movie. Consenting adults starred in the movie. Consenting adults bought the movie. Nevertheless, your government decided that someone should go to prison for it.

And yesterday, twelve of the dumbest motherfuckers in Florida bent the Constitution over and fucked it in the ass.

I don’t like Max Hardcore’s movies. You probably wouldn’t either. I have exercised my right to watch something else, but I certainly don’t mind if my neighbors want to watch his movies. That is what freedom is.

Today, you are less free because of a sleazeball administration and twelve of Florida’s most moronic citizens.

For more posts on obscenity law, click here.

17 Responses to Max Hardcore Convicted

  1. Janet Blank says:

    I just want to compliment you on the eloquence of this post. It’s so perfect that I have absolutely nothing humorous, sarcastic and/or pithy to add. The only problem I have with it is that you wrote it first.

  2. Tom says:

    In the next decade, you and Jennifer are going to be driven to disgusting, anti-social, unspeakable thoughts by child centered music,video,and toy advertising…It is not a stretch to say this realm causes more discontent quantitatively than ten Mr Littles. Keep a clean yellow pad at the ready…
    This decision slaps every legal US citizen in the face with a wet WATCHTOWER{Jehovah Magazine}…’we’ll show you dirty bastards how to run yr life’. What a shitty precedent to set…

    His movies are tough to watch? So is The Wiggles…and the Backyardigans…

  3. Brent E. Dyer says:

    In my opinion, the fundamental problem with the Max Hardcore trial, and all modern obscenity prosecution, is the “community standards” portion of the Miller test.

    Why on earth should it matter whether the majority of the community would approve of what someone watches in the privacy of their own home?

  4. Regarding your first statement, I agree.

    Regarding your second – The reason it matters is because we live in a country where stupid peckerwood mother fuckers still vote for their elected officials on the basis of where they stand on policies allegedly laid down by some imaginary being.

    And, unfortunately, the moralists who believe in this kind of shit are louder than those of us who realize that this is *not* a free country anymore.

    You want to do something about it? Go to that neighbor of yours who still has a “W” sticker on his car, and punch him right in his fucking face.

  5. zabigkahuna says:

    “Regarding your second – The reason it matters is because we live in a country where stupid peckerwood mother fuckers still vote for their elected officials on the basis of where they stand on policies allegedly laid down by some imaginary being.”

    The dangers of allowing said imaginary being to influence people is still as dangerous today as it has always been. When are we going to allow reason and logic to dictate policy rather than some bi-polar schizophrenic celestial being?

  6. blevinsj says:

    The reason why you WANT the community standards to be a functioning part of the Miller test is FREEDOM. The freedom to move to a community that allows certain publications but does not like other publications. The rights guaranteed by the First Amendment are not absolute. The ultimate regulation of an individual right is the right to not have your rights infringed by another. Thus, I want to live in a community that allows Max Hardcore. However, you may want to live in Polk County (where Max is probably not allowed). That is my right and your right, working concurrently.

    In the alternative, if the community standards aspect of Miller were removed, the Moral “Majority” could regulate Max Hardcore nationwide. The regulation would not end at city, country or state lines, it would be total. The fallout from the remove of the standards is the end to a balancing obscenity test. The community standards test allows one to seek out the appropriate community. It is not one’s right to force speech on another. Yes, I agree, it is better to allow it and filter it then to prohibit it. But, if I choose to live in Pat Robertsonville and want naked Adam to be the only form of nudity and my fellow Pat Robertsonville neighbors agree then end of story. It also means that Pat Robertsonville cannot reach EVERYONE. It only affects that community.

    Miller protects us from the Bible Belt and it protects the Bible Belt from us. Everyone wins….except Max Hardcore, I guess…The best thing freedom lovers can do is VOTE.

    Side note: It is interesting that those that advocate free speech always complain that the loudest voices are the voices of regulation. One would presume the opposite…

  7. Blevins,

    How is it “freedom” if I want to live in Polk County (perish the thought), and I want to sell erotic videos to my neighbors, and my neighbors want to buy them, yet some other neighbors get to tell them that they can’t buy them, and me that I can’t sell them?

    Wouldn’t “freedom” be the peckerwoods just staying home and watching Davey & Goliath, while I watch Cum Fiesta?

    Your interpretation of freedom, in this circumstance, is misguided. Freedom is not three wolves and a sheep voting on who they’ll eat for dinner. That is why we have a Constitution — to set a minimum base line for what rights we all enjoy. It is a promise by the government to its people that no matter how bat-shit-crazy the people get, the government will never cross a certain line.

    Every obscenity law is that promise being broken.

  8. Brent E. Dyer says:


    I think you misunderstand my point. One of the fundamental defects of the Miller test as it is applied today is that allows my “community” to set the standard for what speech I can partake of in my own home.

    Miller and its progeny (maybe I should call them the Demon Seed of Miller) were intended to protect the public at large from being unwittingly exposed to materials that would be offensive to the community—either through unsolicited mailings or, presumably, the marquees of adult theatres or shop windows of peep shows.

    Direct mail advertising of pornography and adult theatres are all but extinct, but the Miller test still uses “community standards” as the benchmark—even though the community is no longer involved or affected.

    The Miller test made some sense when it applied to public or quasi-public speech. It makes no sense when it’s applied to private speech. If I live in Pat Robertsonville and I want to watch Max Hardcore in the privacy of my own home, my neighbors should have no say in it, nor should the have the right to stop Max Hardcore from selling me what I want to watch and sending it to me n a plain brown wrapper delivered directly to my mailbox.

    If the leaders of Pat Robertsonville want to pass city ordinances that restrict my ability to have a public showing of Max Hardcore on my front lawn, that’s fine, but it has nothing to do with obscenity. They are simply engaging in reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions on public speech.

    With regard to the side note, government regulation is not “speech,” it’s government action. There is nothing inconsistent about championing free speech and being against government censorship. If people want to argue for regulation of speech, then I support their right to do so. But if they want to censor speech—“obscene” or otherwise—they need to amend the Constitution, not just make up exceptions to the First Amendment that were never intended.

  9. blevinsj says:

    Your own home is protected. Stanley v. Georgia protects your ability to watch anything you wish. The state does not have an interest in kicking down the door to your home based on your choice of entertainment.

    Exceptions exist for ALL rights. So, no amendment is needed to find obscenity unprotected speech. The Constitution lends itself to interpretation. If privacy rights were not read into the Fourth Amendment or the Ninth Amendment, we would have fewer rights regarding free speech and free consumption of ideas in our own home. If we went with a “pure intent” doctrine with every amendment abortion would not be a protected right. So, exceptions are needed.

    Perhaps this was a case of bad lawyering…It seems easy to prove the community standards in Tampa, most strip clubs per captia in America (do not quote that stat). I remember a fond story from law school about a professor who proved the community standard by producing sales receipts for the amount of “adult” business in the community. The lawyer has the responsibility to make the community face itself. This is all conjecture, I have no knowledge of the lawyers involved or the proceedings. Further, it is interesting that the jurors brought verdict…who better to determine the community standard than people from the community. The judge did not decide, a legislator in Tallahassee did not decide…the community decided.

    I agree about the sentiment about obscenity. The best solution is a filter. Allow the public discourse to be wide open and allow individuals to filter their private lives. If individuals took responsibility for only themselves, we would have no problem.

    The mention of the “Side note” was just in reference to allowing the moral majority to ring the loudest. Apathy is the death of democracy. Free speech adovates just need to continue fighting. The problem is that porn is at the forefront of the debate. We need more Flynts in the word that are willing to waive or wear the American flag in the name of freedom….or educate the populous in filters.

  10. Brent E. Dyer says:

    IMHO, Stanley v. Georgia is the greatest First Amendment decision ever. The problem is that, two years later, SCOTUS decided Paris Adult Theatre I and shot it all to hell. Right now, Stanley protects your right to view obscenity in private, but Paris Adult Theatre I takes away the right for anyone to provide you with obscenity to view in private. In other words, you can “talk” to yourself obscenely, but no one else can “talk” to you obscenely, even if all the “talking” goes on in behind closed doors.

    The absurdity of a very similar situation with regard to sex toys was recently recognized by the Fifth Circuit in <Reliable Consultants, Inc. v. Earle. The Fifth Circuit panel realized you can’t tell citizens that they have an absolute right to own dildos while simultaneously telling everyone else that they can’t sell dildos. Imagine the outrage at the NRA if SCOTUS said “the Second Amendment protects your right to bear arms, but nothing says that Congress can’t make it illegal to sell or give away firearms.”

    The right to view obscenity in private necessarily requires the right for someone to provide you with obscenity for private viewing.

    And I’ll say it again, if the material is only being viewed in private and not being viewed by the community in general, then community standards have no place in the evaluation of that material.

  11. Jeff says:

    MarcoRandazza said:
    “And yesterday, twelve of the dumbest motherfuckers in Florida bent the Constitution over and fucked it in the ass.”


    “You want to do something about it? Go to that neighbor of yours who still has a “W” sticker on his car, and punch him right in his fucking face.”

    Dude you’re fucking hilarious! I was laughing my ass off when I read those! I’m with ya all the way man! (I actually live in Florida too)

  12. sam says:

    I wish he would have gotten life in a maximum security prison, what an animal!

  13. sam says:

    I forgot to add, let the other inmates rape him in prison and also urinate in his dirty mouth! listen max, its pay back time! god bless america!

  14. sam says:

    I think we all agree that this “master” monster, be allowed to wear his cowboy hat in prison, I think faggs in his cell will treat him very nicely when raping him wearing his hat, this handsome 350 pounder in his cell will call him “master” while chocking him with pee! god bless america!

  15. Ok, Sam. Enough is enough.

    Further similar posts will be deleted.

  16. Calenleya says:

    I´m not american nor live there, yet this seems to be quite a troubling things to happen.
    Sam, I wonder if you have the ability to see things past the tip of your nose.
    It starts there, but where will it end?
    Who will determine what is obscene in your private rooms?
    Probaply kissing your girlfriend is considered obscene one day by some people, so what will you do then?

    While this ” Max Harcore Obscenity ” might offend some people, there also might be people who like it.
    De facto Max never forced anyone to purchase and watch his movies.
    If you do watch it, while fully know you will take a heavy offense to it, then it is your fault.

    He shot the movies with consensual adults, he paid them, there is nothing wrong about it.
    But since you gave such a clear description of what happens in his movies, I have to wonder why you know it.

    I think thou shall be imprisoned along with the demon called Max Hardcore.
    For thou tainted thy very soul with filth!
    So thou shall endure and share the punishment of the demon to atone for ye sins!
    For that is what shall happen to ye sinners!

    I think you miss the point about where it leads to, total control over you by others.
    They tell you how to live how to look like, how to dress, how to eat and what to eat.
    If people would mind their own busines and life more, and don´t try all the time to put their noses into other peoples buisnes, then the world might be a better place.

    And well god bless america?
    God bless the constitution which is there for a reason.
    If that´s the america you want I pity you.
    But I also will laugh about you, for you would be one of the first people to cry about your lost freedom, and that would be quite entertaining.

  17. Pabs says:

    I agree with the above post.

    I do watch adult material, and it was only after a few years i came across Max Hardcore’s stuff by accident. (Not to my taste, but it takes some finding if you are not specifically looking for that kind of thing.)

    It seems to me Sam, that you have a hidden secret…….there’s no smoke without fire!

%d bloggers like this: