Quote:

Well, I've now heard everything. The phrase "artistic message" was used in describing the puke-fest, woman-hating crap that is found in a Paul Little video. And then, in a move that should have drawn a world-class bitch slap, one of Little's scum-sucking attorneys actually had the balls to mention Lenny Bruce (comic genius) and Paul Little (dude who has to dress women up as little girls to manage a 3-inch hardon) in the same sentence. Sad, just sad.

For those of you wraping yourself in first-amendment outrage at this trial, remember that obscenity is NOT protected by the first amendment. That has already been decided by the SC. You have to prove that the material has artistic merit in order to get that protection and cmon, not even Eminence Front could muster that argument with a straight face (although maybe with a hard dick). Actually, most porn wouldn't pass that test but luckily, most porn doesn't get challenged in court. There must be limits folks, like yelling fire in a crowded theatre. I believe what this guy does is well beyond that limit and just cannot be allowed, else it taints all other porn by association.

The noose is tightening...




Hey idiot - Do you even educate yourself on these matters before you ramble off nonsense?

As as I said yesterday, the third prong in the Miller test is most crucial here. The fact that Max Hardcore is basing this content (I happen to think it's garbage, but who am I?) on the fundamental right to free speech...thereby deeming it of political value. I akin this to burning the American flag as a symbol of my right to express the very freedom it provides. The only difference, perhaps lies in poetic undertones...and okay, maybe a little poopy.