Welcome to Gaia! ::

So I was on Rotten earlier and found this interesting enough to discuss. So I'm going to post the article. Please tell me what you think.

Please be warned there is some graphic laguage and scenes depicted. We are all adults so I'm hoping for some maturity but, please give me your feed back on this.

I found it wrong and the girls stupid but, to each their own I suppose. I'll talk more as people reply.

[b]By THOMAS W. KRAUSE | The Tampa Tribune

Published: May 29, 2008

Updated: 05/29/2008 04:18 pm

Editor's note: This story contains graphic language that may offend some readers.

TAMPA - A panel of jurors saw an extreme hard-core pornographic movie today and is expected to see many more as it weighs whether a California porn producer, who uses the name Max Hardcore, has violated criminal obscenity laws.

Today, U.S. District Judge Susan Bucklew decided federal prosecutors can show excerpts of the movies, rather than the DVDs in their entirety, as they put on their case. Defense lawyers for Max Hardcore, whose real name is Paul F. Little, argued that jurors need to see the entirety of the movies because the repetition of the acts is a necessary component.

"Over a period of time, the shock is blunted," defense lawyer Jeffrey J. Douglas said. "That is part of the presentation. That is part of the DVD."

Federal prosecutor Lisamarie Freitas argued that the defense is trying to "desensitize" jurors.

Defense attorneys decided they will show the jurors the remainder of each movie as part of its cross examination.

Little and his company, MaxWorld Entertainment, face five counts each of distributing obscene materials over the Internet and five counts each of distributing obscene material through the mail. If convicted, each charge includes a maximum punishment of five years imprisonment.

A federal indictment alleges that Little, through his entertainment company, distributed pornographic films to post office boxes in Tampa. It also alleges that Little and MaxWorld promoted the films via a Web site by transmitting over the Internet five obscene video clips as promotional trailers.

The prosecutors were flown in from Washington where they work for the U.S. Department of Justice Child Exploitation and Obscenities Section.

To determine whether the material is obscene, jurors will have to use a test set up by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1972.

Jurors must determine:
Whether "the average person applying contemporary community standards" would find the work, as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest

Whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by state law.

Whether the work, as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value."

For about 40 minutes Wednesday and for more than an hour this morning, the entire DVD "Max Extreme 20" was shown to jurors.

As the DVD began, the jurors sat mostly stone faced. Two women blushed and smiled slightly. One woman sat wide-eyed.

The DVD progressed, and the smiles vanished. Hands often covered mouths. Men and women fidgeted in their seats.

Expressions turned to concern as women onscreen screamed in pain during some scenes.

In one scene, Little slaps a woman repeatedly, curses at her and urinates on her. She vomits.

"That's OK," Little says in the film. "You look better with puke on your face."

As the rough sex continues, they discuss her fictional 12-year-old daughter. Little, playing the role of Max Hardcore, tells the woman he had sex with the "preteen."

In another scene, a younger woman says she is a virgin. The Hardcore character gives her a modeling job.

He grabs her neck and the back of her hair, and forces her into a sex act. The girl vomits.

Several of the jurors wince. One man rubs his closed eyes for several seconds.

During a sex act, the young woman begins to scream.

"I've got to move," she says. "Ow, ow, ow."

Hardcore slaps away her hands.

"Stop, stop, stop," she says. "Can we stop for a minute? Can we have a break?"

The scene ends abruptly but begins again and lasts for several more minutes.

At the end of the movie, Little interviews the woman, now clothed.

He asks her whether she did anything she didn't want to. She smiles and says she did not.

She says it was a difficult scene, but she thought it came out well.

"I'd love to work with you again," she says.

The screen fades to black/color]

*looking at the poll again* I don't know if I would put the man in prison for creating it if the participants were willing. I'd fine him a whole hell of a lot, and if he did it again, I'd revoke any license he had to make this stuff, if a license is necessary. Find some way to block him out.

....ew. crying

I'd say the only questionable material presented is actually including the footage where the model asks him to stop and get ignores her. That was obviously real, not acting.

But that's questionable because he may not have realized, maybe he thought she was ad-libbing, and because it's probable he stopped the second time she asked, no harm no foal. I do kinda think they should have edited it out.

As for the material?

That's like showing a white supremacist a movie about Harriet Tubman and asking if the material is offensive.

Obviously if you aren't into hardcore rape/bondage/scat/etc. you are going to think there's something wrong with it and it should be banned. But it's freedom of expression, even if some people just don't get it.