The most Hardcore obscenity decision ever

« Hollywood Docket Top 5: Retrans war!; 'South Park' censorship?; Springsteen retreat | Main | Summit sues to stop 'Twilight' documentary »

The most Hardcore obscenity decision ever

Wed Feb 10, 2010 @ 09:57AM PST

By Eriq Gardner

Maxhardcoreyikes A little-noticed Court of Appeal decision last week may not be as shocking as some of the acts of degradation it discusses, but it deserves some edge-of-your-seat attention.

The 11th Circuit has ruled that hard-core materials published on the Internet can be judged "obscene" by a jury in small-town America even if the images were posted by someone thousands of miles away. 

The case involves film producer Paul Little, aka Max Hardcore, whose movies are so cringe-inducing and envelope-pushing in their depictions of humiliation and abuse, they had jurors in a criminal obscenity trial against the gonzo director begging the judge to be shown only short clips. We're talking "fisting," urination and defecation, and porn actresses made-up to look like children. Max Hardcore was sentenced to four years in prison by a Florida District Court.

But Mr. Hardcore doesn't live in Florida, and his films weren't shot there, either. The Justice Department brought its case against the director on the premise that he used computer servers based in the state, as well as the fact that his films were available to customers in the district. The Bush Administration also likely tried the case in Florida because it's home to some of the toughest obscenity laws in the nation, which is helpful when jurors apply the "community standards" test to define what is "obscene."

Little argued on appeal that a local community standard is not the proper approach for judging Internet-based materials.

Now the 11th Circuit disagrees, ruling that materials published online are available to individuals in the "strictest corners of our nation," and that it's fair for them to be judged there.

In reaching its decision, the Court decided to shrug off a good deal of Ashcroft v. ACLU, which ruled as unconstitutional the Child Online Protection Act, especially a concurrence by Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy that expressed grave concern about how national variations in community standards might serve as a potential infringement of First Amendment free speech protections in the digital age.

The U.S. Supreme Court has spent a lot of time over the years reviewing obscenity, including Justice Potter Stewart's famous 1964 statement, "I know it when I see it." Recently, the justices have been shy about reviewing porn, but the Max Hardcore decision could give them another opportunity to address the issue.

Will Justice Clarence Thomas be subjected to a man urinating on a woman?

TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The most Hardcore obscenity decision ever:

The Hollywood Reporter
The Hollywood Reporter, Esq. blog focuses on how the entertainment and media industries are impacted and influenced by the law. It is edited by Matthew Belloni with contributions from veteran legal reporter Eriq Gardner and others. Before joining The Hollywood Reporter, Belloni was a lawyer at an entertainment litigation firm in Los Angeles. He writes a column for THR devoted to entertainment law. Gardner is a New York-based writer and legal journalist. Send tips or comments to [email protected]

The Hollywood Reporter
Contact: Patrice Atiee at 323.525.2014 or [email protected]

The Hollywood Reporter is Your Complete Film Resource

The columnists and bloggers who write for The Hollywood Reporter have their collective finger on the pulse of the boxoffice. Martin Grove and the other THR columnists deliver their thoughts on the film industry in an uncompromised style. Subscribe to THR today and get the latest views from these film experts and get the latest movie reviews as well.