Max Hardcore and Ira Isaacs and Obscenity

[The Newswire]

I'd like to take a moment out from my busy schedule of rolling around on the floor laughing at the recent obscenity prosecutions in the United States, in order to comment on them. Veteran adult video performer and producer Max Hardcore was just found guilty of obscenity in Florida. For those who are unaware of his oeuvre, Max Hardcore...

Read the full article

[One Eyed Cat]

I'll have to look up the case. He will probably win based on a SCOTUS precedent regarding the customer's right to such material. The California Judiciary redeemed itself on 5/15 in my book. Not sure what you are talking about there. They'll probably end up taxing production, however. I think 50% is the figure floating around the legislature.

OEC

PS: I just remembered: Extreme Associates lost and were denied cert. I still think he'll win though.

[Amelia G]

I'll have to look up the case. He will probably win based on a SCOTUS precedent regarding the customer's right to such material. The California Judiciary redeemed itself on 5/15 in my book. Not sure what you are talking about there. They'll probably end up taxing production, however. I think 50% is the figure floating around the legislature.

OEC

PS: I just remembered: Extreme Associates lost and were denied cert. I still think he'll win though.

The Extreme Associates case was special because Rob Black (definitely no relation) taunted the government to come and get him and then whined like a bitch and asked for charity from the industry when the government did exactly what he had dared them to do and gotten publicity out of daring them to do.

There have been all sorts of different % rates bandied about for possible taxation on mainstream adult video, but it is doubtful any will pass as the industry simply does not have the money and putting such onerous taxes on one segment of media, no matter what anyone thinks of it, is simply attempting to backdoor legislating away someone's First Amendment rights. In my opinion, the only porn producers who support such a tax are mostly precisely those who produce material which in fact has no artistic, literary, or scientific merit and says absolutely nothing politically.

[One Eyed Cat]

The Extreme Associates case was special because Rob Black (definitely no relation) taunted the government to come and get him and then whined like a bitch and asked for charity from the industry when the government did exactly what he had dared them to do and gotten publicity out of daring them to do.

There have been all sorts of different % rates bandied about for possible taxation on mainstream adult video, but it is doubtful any will pass as the industry simply does not have the money and putting such onerous taxes on one segment of media, no matter what anyone thinks of it, is simply attempting to backdoor legislating away someone's First Amendment rights. In my opinion, the only porn producers who support such a tax are mostly precisely those who produce material which in fact has no artistic, literary, or scientific merit and says absolutely nothing politically.

Yeah Extreme Associates were a bunch of wankers. That's still a bad precedent to set. Also, it shows the arbitrariness of these constitutionally dubious obscenity laws. That's just improper application of statute that debases the rule of law.I don't support a tax. I just read about it in following the conservative histrionics to the Cali Supreme Court ruling. I think it may come in California. It's pretty stupid as it will just drive them to Nevada or even offshore.

[Malixe]

The main lesson Judge Kozinski has probably learned from all this is, 'Don't let your college age son be your webmaster'.

(Apparently I don't visit here frequently enough to be allowed to post URL's. I understand the reasoning behind that, but it's still annoying. Anyway, the link I would refer you to is to be found at the 10zenmonkeys blog under /here-comes-the-judges-porn/ )

From the post, and quoting the judge:

" "Everyone in the family stores stuff there, and I had no idea what some of the stuff is or was — I was surprised that it was there. I assumed I must have put it there by accident, but when the story broke, [my son] Yale called and said he's pretty sure he uploaded a bunch of it. I had no idea, but that sounds right, because I sure don't remember putting some of that stuff there.


It's worth remembering that Kozinski has always been an unashamed advocate for freedom of speech — and he has a sense of humor. (When Mattel sued over the song Barbie Girl, Judge Kozinski wrote in his legal opinion that "The parties are advised to chill.") When confronted about the dirty images by the L.A. Times, he argued that at least some of the pictures were funny. Some might be offensive, he conceded, but he didn't think any matched the legal definition of obscene. "

[Velvet-Tongue]

Max Hardcore and his violent, throat fucking of barely legal girls in children's clothing adventures.

[One Eyed Cat]

The main lesson Judge Kozinski has probably learned from all this is, 'Don't let your college age son be your webmaster'.

(Apparently I don't visit here frequently enough to be allowed to post URL's. I understand the reasoning behind that, but it's still annoying. Anyway, the link I would refer you to is to be found at the 10zenmonkeys blog under /here-comes-the-judges-porn/ )

From the post, and quoting the judge:

" "Everyone in the family stores stuff there, and I had no idea what some of the stuff is or was — I was surprised that it was there. I assumed I must have put it there by accident, but when the story broke, [my son] Yale called and said he's pretty sure he uploaded a bunch of it. I had no idea, but that sounds right, because I sure don't remember putting some of that stuff there.


It's worth remembering that Kozinski has always been an unashamed advocate for freedom of speech — and he has a sense of humor. (When Mattel sued over the song Barbie Girl, Judge Kozinski wrote in his legal opinion that "The parties are advised to chill.") When confronted about the dirty images by the L.A. Times, he argued that at least some of the pictures were funny. Some might be offensive, he conceded, but he didn't think any matched the legal definition of obscene. "

Kozinski of the 9th Circuit? Can someone give me citations and urls for all this? This is kind of interesting.

OEC

PS: Found the blog. Women dressed up like cows? That's not bestiality. Kozinski is known as a hardcore 1st Amendment advocate. Odd stuff but it doesn't surprise me much.

[funkatron]

... now I am a total prude because I draw the line sexually way before I start vomiting on someone’s cock.

Disappointing.

[Amelia G]

The main lesson Judge Kozinski has probably learned from all this is, 'Don't let your college age son be your webmaster'.

(Apparently I don't visit here frequently enough to be allowed to post URL's. I understand the reasoning behind that, but it's still annoying. Anyway, the link I would refer you to is to be found at the 10zenmonkeys blog under /here-comes-the-judges-porn/ )

From the post, and quoting the judge:

" "Everyone in the family stores stuff there, and I had no idea what some of the stuff is or was — I was surprised that it was there. I assumed I must have put it there by accident, but when the story broke, [my son] Yale called and said he's pretty sure he uploaded a bunch of it. I had no idea, but that sounds right, because I sure don't remember putting some of that stuff there.


It's worth remembering that Kozinski has always been an unashamed advocate for freedom of speech — and he has a sense of humor. (When Mattel sued over the song Barbie Girl, Judge Kozinski wrote in his legal opinion that "The parties are advised to chill.") When confronted about the dirty images by the L.A. Times, he argued that at least some of the pictures were funny. Some might be offensive, he conceded, but he didn't think any matched the legal definition of obscene. "

Wow, the judge is having his son take the fall for him. That is either really lame or really savvy or both.

The subdomain where the materials were found was the judge's name specifically and not his son's.

[Amelia G]

Kozinski of the 9th Circuit? Can someone give me citations and urls for all this? This is kind of interesting.

OEC

PS: Found the blog. Women dressed up like cows? That's not bestiality. Kozinski is known as a hardcore 1st Amendment advocate. Odd stuff but it doesn't surprise me much.

Also "video of a half-dressed man cavorting with a sexually-aroused farm animal."

[DoctorZ]

Sounds kinky.

Oh wait, it is.

[One Eyed Cat]

Also "video of a half-dressed man cavorting with a sexually-aroused farm animal."

Damn. Where does it say that? I only clicked on the blog. Guess it's time to quarantine Kozinski in a factory farm away from the other animals. This will have the somewhat ironic effect of making obscenity prosecutions far more likely in the 9th Circuit. He had a broard reading of the 1st. I guess it was self-serving as well.

OEC

[Amelia G]

Damn. Where does it say that? I only clicked on the blog. Guess it's time to quarantine Kozinski in a factory farm away from the other animals. This will have the somewhat ironic effect of making obscenity prosecutions far more likely in the 9th Circuit. He had a broard reading of the 1st. I guess it was self-serving as well.

OEC

It's in the XBiz articles.

Honestly, I really doubt the judge is some kind of beastie perv. He probably really did just have some stuff he thought was funny to send friends and sometimes folks over a certain age do not realize how accessible some things can be online or how permanent.

If community standards are the yardstick for any of this, however, I don't think you can get much more respectable than sitting on the bench, so, if it might be in a judge's collection, then it can't be obscene.

[One Eyed Cat]

It's in the XBiz articles.

Honestly, I really doubt the judge is some kind of beastie perv. He probably really did just have some stuff he thought was funny to send friends and sometimes folks over a certain age do not realize how accessible some things can be online or how permanent.

If community standards are the yardstick for any of this, however, I don't think you can get much more respectable than sitting on the bench, so, if it might be in a judge's collection, then it can't be obscene.

Hope so. Kozinski is a well-respected jurist. He would more accurately be described as a small l libertarian.

http://lessig.org/blog/2008/06/the_kozinski_mess.html
That guy says it was some youtube film of a guy running from a donkey taking a shit.

[Amelia G]

Hope so. Kozinski is a well-respected jurist. He would more accurately be described as a small l libertarian.

http://lessig.org/blog/2008/06/the_kozinski_mess.html
That guy says it was some youtube film of a guy running from a donkey taking a shit.

I understand, of course, why a judge would take such material down, once it was brought into the public eye. But, in a way, if it was not that bad, and was obviously for humor and not prurient interest, then it is sort of a shame that people can't see that for themselves.

[Morning Glory]

Not obscene.

but when it comes to that, like all things the courts can really do whatever they want to. In other words, if they really want to charge someone than they can make it stick, even thought they are just charging him because they don't like what he does.

I hear that max hardcore is a nice guy in real life that just acts like an asshole for a living. he may or may not be a depraved maniac. I'm sure that some, but not all of his girls are either. Probably most of his viewers are though, so that's the problem.

[One Eyed Cat]

I understand, of course, why a judge would take such material down, once it was brought into the public eye. But, in a way, if it was not that bad, and was obviously for humor and not prurient interest, then it is sort of a shame that people can't see that for themselves.

It took me a good 20 minutes to find the countervailing arguments. The only point of question is the photo supposedly depicting bestiality. Looks like he may be being smeared. I am not going to search youtube for it, but it does sound like a stretch calling it bestiality. This is being presented to us with a lot of inaccuracies. Kozinski may well have been on SCOTUS ... under virtually any republican not named Bush. He has a strong libertarian streak and more consistent view on the constitution than socially conservative Roe hitmen like Alito. His intellect would be hard to match by any of those folks. It's a shame either way.

OEC

[Malixe]

[QUOTE=Amelia G]Wow, the judge is having his son take the fall for him. That is either really lame or really savvy or both.

That's one way it can be slanted, but while I haven't been following it avidly, just with mild interest, at least one article I read recounted it pretty much exactly the other way around.

The judge *took* responsibility for the images, and defended them, albeit without great enthusiasm, but he also said he didn't remember posting some of them. Of course the media, unable to show the images, resorts to the most lurid, sensationalist descriptions they can summon up. But if you care to track down the images themselves, they are generally tamer than they sound. As another poster points out, two naked women done up in bodypaint to resemble cows is *not* "bestiality" by any stretch of the imagination.

The 'abovethelaw' legal blog (again I don't have the seniority to post a URL, but I'll get there eventually I suppose) posts an email they received from the judge in response to their query:

As for the other matter, the server was maintained by my son, Yale, for the entire family. Pictures, documents, music, audio and other items of personal and family interest are stored there so various family members can reach them from wherever they happen to be. Everyone in the family stores stuff there, and I had no idea what some of the stuff is or was -- I was surprised that it was there. I assumed I must have put it there by accident, but when the story broke, Yale called and said he's pretty sure he uploaded a bunch of it. I had no idea, but that sounds right, because I sure don't remember putting some of that stuff there.

I consider the server a private storage device, not meant for public access. I'd have been more careful about its contents if I had known that others could access it.

Seems like the judge is guilty of some serious internet naivete, but it doesn't seem to me like he's passing the buck. I don't know about you, but I shudder to think what could wind up posted on MY website if it were accessible to other members of MY family to upload their favorite material to. It probably wouldn't be nearly as interesting, but it would be more obnoxious.

[One Eyed Cat]

[QUOTE=Malixe]

Wow, the judge is having his son take the fall for him. That is either really lame or really savvy or both.

That's one way it can be slanted, but while I haven't been following it avidly, just with mild interest, at least one article I read recounted it pretty much exactly the other way around.

The judge *took* responsibility for the images, and defended them, albeit without great enthusiasm, but he also said he didn't remember posting some of them. Of course the media, unable to show the images, resorts to the most lurid, sensationalist descriptions they can summon up. But if you care to track down the images themselves, they are generally tamer than they sound. As another poster points out, two naked women done up in bodypaint to resemble cows is *not* "bestiality" by any stretch of the imagination.

The 'abovethelaw' legal blog (again I don't have the seniority to post a URL, but I'll get there eventually I suppose) posts an email they received from the judge in response to their query:

As for the other matter, the server was maintained by my son, Yale, for the entire family. Pictures, documents, music, audio and other items of personal and family interest are stored there so various family members can reach them from wherever they happen to be. Everyone in the family stores stuff there, and I had no idea what some of the stuff is or was -- I was surprised that it was there. I assumed I must have put it there by accident, but when the story broke, Yale called and said he's pretty sure he uploaded a bunch of it. I had no idea, but that sounds right, because I sure don't remember putting some of that stuff there.

I consider the server a private storage device, not meant for public access. I'd have been more careful about its contents if I had known that others could access it.

Seems like the judge is guilty of some serious internet naivete, but it doesn't seem to me like he's passing the buck. I don't know about you, but I shudder to think what could wind up posted on MY website if it were accessible to other members of MY family to upload their favorite material to. It probably wouldn't be nearly as interesting, but it would be more obnoxious.

Could you pm me the link? I'm mostly just curious as Kozinski is a major player in the federal judiciary.