Nina posts on Nina.com:
We have a hundred soldiers a month dying in the middle east and these jokers at Justice have nothing better to do with our money than go after dirty pictures?
It’s enraging and obscene, IMHO.
I may dislike the character of Max Hardcore, and I don’t get off watching his videos, and I know a lot of people think that he goes too far and "deserves" what he gets. I don’t agree.
While we within the porn community, either as producers or consumers of the product, recognize many gradations of porn and content. "This is fine, but that crosses a line," etc. What a lot of us don’t understand is that, to the outside world, we’re all alike, and equally guilty. Those who despise explicit entertainment see little, or no, difference between my "Massage for Couples" tape and "Piss Drinkers #45." It’s all dirt to them.
So, like him or hate him, we must stand behind Max’s right to be offensive. It may be him, now, but they’re gunning for all of us.
They think that, in a "Christian" nation, there would be no porn. What they don’t seem to grasp is that, when you have created such a narrow definition of "good/pure/chaste" you automatically create the catagory of "fallen/disgraced/bad." It can’t be helped, as there is no such thing as a one-sided coin.
Of course, Nina’s right. Whether you despise Max Hardcore’s content, there is no demarcation line between what he does and the porn that you might like. Just as you can’t really find a bright line to distinguish, say, the work of Extreme Associates from other studios that would hold up in a courtroom, you can’t point to any of Hardcore’s stuff and say, “Well, you can isolate THAT scene or THAT video, and for THAT alone, he should be punished.” To do so invites the old “slippery slope” that leads to the elimination of even stuff as tame as Vivid’s movies.
I said it before. And I’ll say it again.
Today it’s yellow video body fluid lust that is outlawed.
Tomorrow it’s white.
Food for thought…
Bravo Nina!!
When producers of more vanilla/MOR content turn their backs on people like Max or Rob Black or JM, they’re essentially inviting wolves into the fold. Yes, it’s true Max attracts unwanted attention from the DOJ by the extreme nature of his videos, and that might not sit easy with the Steves. But a conviction scored against Max would just be the thin end of the wedge. It would set a precedent that would leave ALL adult companies vulnerable. This sort of action by the DOJ should spur all producers and consumers to circle the wagons and support each other.
And the bottom line is, Max has a RIGHT to do what he does. When the industry “polices itself”, doesn’t that just amount to de facto censorship? After all, what’s the point of having free speech, if we’re too afraid to use it?!
Nina writes “So, like him or hate him, we must stand behind Max‚Äôs right to be offensive. It may be him, now, but they‚Äôre gunning for all of us.”
Well Nina, you couldn’t be more wrong on this and neither can any of your friends who have posted above.
Censorship CAN and should be used on occasion. Hollywood polices itself all of the time, why do you think we have the MPAA? Just because you have shot something, that simply does not mean that it can be shown. Nina’s misguided ideas, usually compounded by liberals thinking they know better than most, suggests that it’s a shooters right to be offensive, well, that’s simply nonsense.
With that logic child porn is “ok”. Why not? I mean really, if there is no boundries then why should shooting a girl under 18 but over 15 be illegal?
There MUST be some accountablility in what shooters and porn companies produce and distribute. You guys are no different than Hollywood. Hollywood supports freedom of expression, that’s why it’s called showBUSINESS. But they also understand that not everything that comes down the pike should be allowed. Again, that’s why we have the MPAA. if a filmmaker makes a film that the board deems too violent or too sexual, they slap it with an NC-17, the kiss of death to those of us who make mainstream films because they know that we will never be able to get a good distribution on the product.
The problem with Max is simple, he’s simply trying to convince people that he’s talented, that he’s pushing the boundries when in actuality all he’s doing is proving that he has no respect to his own craft.
Max purposely goes against the grain with what I believe society has already said is a product that we as a society must never allow. Sure, there is a genuine fear with following this line of thinking, but folks, let me remind you of something, having a democracy does not entitle you to do whatever you want, say whatever you want without being checked once or twice on ocassion. Sure, we have liberty, but in a fair and responsible democracy we also have limitations and responsible behaviour and Max has again proved that he simply does not wish to go along with the limits most civil people have set. An that’s fine, but if you play with fire then expect to get burned on ocassion.
Again, Max is getting his due and so he needs to learn to accept it and remember that there is a line you cannot cross.
This is the real problem with the adult industry as there is no real line of accountability. It’s like the wild west. but I believe that very soon if the industry does not straighten up I believe the Feds are going to make that line even more clear. And they should if the industry don’t step up and do what’s right. There should be an established board like the MPAA everyone adheres to, but I fear it’s going to take a Governmental kick in the ass to make it happen, or fear of one.
Casper, your “logic” makes no sense. Hollywood polices itself because its films, unless rated, could be shown to anyone, regardless of age. Adult films, by their nature, are not shown to anyone except adults. Nina’s ideas, rather than being “misguided,” are right on the point. The marketplace will dictate what will and will not be acceptable. Nobody has yet shown that Max Hardcore has broken any law – he depicts adult women as underage, but that is specifically NOT a crime.
Lawman, so there is no line? Don’t be idiotic.
To hide behind the ruse of “the marketplace” of what will be acceptable and won’t be is nonsense, that’s liberal thinking run amuk.
The marketplace can include child porn, and by my last post it’s reached over 300% for accepting of it’s product, so you’re logic would then dictate that it’s okay to see girls under the age of 10 having sex because the marketplace shows a demand for it. Such rubbish.
Again, you cannot build your content on what’s hot on the marketplace. That pretty much makes no sense whatsoever.
The marketplace changes from day to day, what was hot yesterday may not be hot today or tomorrow.
But the issue is not what Max has done, in so much that it’s clear that there is no unified clarification by ALL parties in the industry of what is acceptable and what is not. Sure, some companies have their own set of rules of acceptable material they will or won’t produce, buy or distribute, but we need to take it further and make it more broader, more unified.
And you’re wrong about why Hollywood polices itself. They do it because they do not want the GOVERNMENT policing them. That’s why they created the MPAA.
I’ve had two films go before the MPAA and it’s frustrating as a filmmaker to have yuor film ripped and shredded by a group of people that basically do not understand art. But then again, I’m happy for the MPAA as I’d rather have a board do it than a group of politicians. This is what the “adult” industry needs, a unified board of individuals, a unified rating other than the XXX. Because I’m telling you, the writing is on the wall folks, if the industry leaders don’t do something soon, you can bet your ass that sooner or later the government is going to fix it for you. THAT’S why Hollywood created their board of rating systems, not because of content.
Nina’s got a real flair for glittering generalities: “to the outside world, we‚Äôre all alike”; “It may be [Max], now, but they‚Äôre gunning for all of us.”
Who comprises the “outside world” she’s referring to? Is it that ever-shrinking segment of the public that doesn’t like porn? And who exactly is “gunning for all of us”? She sounds so paranoid.
I know she’s talking about the Christian Right. But we live in a complex world where Mr. Fox News Channel himself, Rupert Murdoch has billions invested in porn’s distribution channels. Not to mention all the other “mainstream” mega-corporations that bankroll those “nasty” Republicans, and whose profits from cable, satellite, etc., are intimately tied to porn’s continuing success.
Does Nina really think that the fate of one extreme sleazebag would spell doom for porn as a whole? Does she really believe that politically powerful (what an understatement!) moguls like Murdoch would allow their rightwing puppets to do anything worse than symbolic damage to his jizz-slathered Golden Goose?
Murdoch, et al., would let the entire adult biz
Ignore that last sentence frag in my prior post (“Murdoch, et al., would let the entire adult biz”). I forgot to delete it.
Nina could do a Max defense fund benefit shoot with Max, i’ll buy it.
When Max met Nina. All for the freedom of speech. Complete Max treatment.
An yes, Rupert Murdoch is allready to his waist in porn, and that is already a big issue among evangelicals. I wonder what Rich Warren, his alleged Pastor thinks about that.