Legislating From the Bench

There's no law against either of the following "offenses" (or in the second and much more serious case, there is an asinine and unworkable law that should clearly be trumped by the First Amendment). But that hasn't stopped either of these defendants from getting reamed up the popo by prosecutors and judges who feel that these activities ought to be illegal. In both cases, I find the judicial bullying and grandstanding much more disgusting than the ostensible violation by the alleged perp.

1. A man who took a photograph of an ill woman outside an Edinburgh bar has been fined £100 after being branded "unchivalrous" by a sheriff. The woman had been drinking with friends in an Omni Centre bar when she felt unwell and went outside for air. Sebastian Przygodzki took a photograph with his camera, which upset Rebecca Smith and her friends called police. He was arrested and charged with breach of the peace, and pleaded guilty to the offence at Edinburgh Sheriff Court. Przygodzki, 28, who moved to Scotland two years ago from Krakow, told police he had spent the day taking photographs of performers at the Edinburgh festival, which was in full swing at the time.

When he came across the woman, he considered it "taking a photo of another view of Edinburgh", said his lawyer, Andy Houston. But Sheriff Kenneth Hogg said the matter "could be best described as exceptionally unchivalrous". "The lady concerned was entitled to her privacy and not to have a passing stranger take a photograph," said the sheriff.

Think about that: entitled to privacy — on a public street, while she was defacing it with vomit and being drunk and disorderly. But somehow it was the photographer who got arrested and fined. And by the way, given that the authorities intend to enforce "chivalry," can there be any doubt that if the public puker had been named Robert Smith instead of Rebecca Smith, Przygodzki would have never felt the long arm of the law?

2. I'm sorry I'm going to get slightly less than eloquent here. Being spitting mad will do that to a guy.

File this under "Goddamn Constitution-Raping Fuckwits Who Have Nothing Better To Do With Your Tax Dollars Than Prosecuting People Who Make a Porn Movie — Starring Consenting Adults — That Is Bought and Viewed By Other Consenting Adults":

His pornographic persona, Max Hardcore, is all swagger and sadism — forcing women in his movies to do things that can't be described in a family newspaper.

I can describe them quite frankly on my blog however: Max Hardcore makes movies in which he penetrates the three orifices of consenting young women, then ejaculates and urinates in their mouths.

That may not be your cup of tea. It's not exactly mine either, and it doesn't matter. Let me just remind you: consenting adults.

But in federal court today, as he faced a federal prison sentence, Paul F. Little trembled and begged a woman for mercy.

"It just seems a very high price to pay, I think," Little told U.S. District Judge Susan Bucklew, "and I ask you to understand how much I've suffered." Little and his attorneys argued that his conviction in June for 10 counts of distributing obscene materials over the Internet and through the mail had devastated his business and left him near ruin. That, they said, should be punishment enough. But Bucklew sentenced Little to three years and 10 months in federal prison.

The assclown Tampa judge (Little was dragged all the way from California, where he lives and works, to Tampa because the prosecutors figured he'd be easier to convict there) was concerned that the women in the movie — paid actresses who showed up of their own volition, knew exactly what was required of them, and had no complaints — had been treated roughly while the cameras were rolling.

"Clearly, there seemed to be pain," Bucklew said.

Wow. What part of "Max Hardcore" does Susan Bucklew not understand? And hey, Toots: Why do you reckon Charles Bronson didn't get arrested for blowing scores of people away with his Magnum .44? Why didn't we electrocute Oliver Stone for killing JFK? Oh wait — those were just movies. M-o-v-i-e-s, you total dipstick. Like the kind Paul Little/Max Hardcore made until you and your prissy fucking prosecutors and your handpicked jury of certified morons-with-a-for-profit-book-deal ruined him and sent him to the pokey for the crime of offending the sad jumble of repressed thoughts that you claim as your so-called values. You know, the rest of the country has values too (just read the overwhelmingly pissed reactions from average readers of Tampa Bay Online here), and they include the right to be left alone by the likes of you, and the right to exercise the very First-Amendment rights with which you wipe that ugly dimpled shit-stained protuberance you call an ass.

As for the dumbtard remark that "there seemed to be pain,"

That was acting, Benjamin [Paul Little's lawyer] said. "The person that was involved in the conduct sat [in court] with a smile on her face and wrote your honor a letter saying, 'Judge, this was a beautiful part of my life.' "

Four years in jail. As if Deep Throat and the whole shameful Harry Reems trial never happened.

And it gets worse when you reflect upon it for a minute. Glenn Greenwald aptly describes what happens when the President and Congress greenlight actual sex torture and actual violence and actual bone-chilling humiliation (as in Abu Ghraib and in all the wet dreams experienced by Bush's top war criminal torture apologist John Yoo):

In the Land of the Free: if you're an adult who produces a film using other consenting adults, for the entertainment of still other consenting adults, which merely depicts fictional acts of humiliation and degradation, the DOJ will prosecute you and send you to prison for years. The claim that no real pain was inflicted will be rejected; mere humiliation is enough to make you a criminal. But if government officials actually subject helpless detainees in their custody to extreme mental abuse, degradation, humiliation and even mock executions long considered "torture" in the entire civilized world, the DOJ will argue that they have acted with perfect legality and, just to be sure, Congress will hand them retroactive immunity for their conduct. That's how we prioritize criminality and arrange our value system.

[hat tip: Tom K.]

              =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

P.S. I'm always amused by how obsessed feminist anti-porn crusaders are with penis size. Especially male feminists, at one point or another, always seem to go there. They probably figure they can't lose. Here's how it works: If a male porn star is well endowed, they allege that his cock is by definition an instrument of torture, a brutal weapon assaulting delicate female flesh. See here for such a line of reasoning. And if there's nothing remarkable about the dimensions of the guy's member, there's much inane jolliness about how the actor must have gone into porn to "compensate" for any "shortcomings." With regard to the Paul Little case, that's the response from law professor Eric Fink (see here), with fellow blawger Ann Bartow tittering along.

P.P.S. Got an e-mail from a reader saying that I shouldn't take it out on judge Bucklew: she was just applying the legislature's sentencing guidelines, and it was after all a jury that convicted Little. Fair point, but ultimately unconvincing. The judge (like the law) is an ass. That's because, given her questioning, she could not grasp the concept of a movie — that it's make-belief, play-acting. A five-year-old has a better understanding of what a film is than a magistrate in a Florida court. That's pathetic, and it helped destroy Little's life. Not that Bucklew cares, given this disconcerting little diatribe of hers:

"I don't even think this is a close call," the judge said. The videos portrayed "sadistic conduct. …This is clearly degrading, clearly humiliating and intended to be so."

"Not a close call" — since when? Where? Are we talking about the United States or about Pakistan? How can sending a man to jail for making a dirty movie — in a country that prides itself on being a beacon of free speech — ever not be a close call?

The judge may be right that Little's sex scenes are sadistic, degrading, and humiliating. But there's no law against any of those things, and those weren't the charges. If making a "sadistic" and "degrading" movie is now grounds for prosecution, I expect to soon see Mel Gibson behind bars for making The Passion of the Christ, Brian de Palma for directing Stephen King's Carrie, David Fincher for bringing you Se7en, and the makers of Hostel and Saw and Wolf Creek for filming scenes of gore, humiliation, and depravity that go way beyond anything Paul Little has ever come close to producing.

Comments

[benpal]

It's a sad world. When will the government understand that individuals are born free and are the sole owners of their own body?

[hermesten]

I think your problem with this is demonstrated in your statement about this being a country that "prides itself on free speech." For most of the history of this country speech has been restricted in a variety of ways --and sometimes violently repressed. Anti-war speech, for instance, is even now not suppressed with the same ferocity it was when Wilson was president.

This country prides itself on the image of free speech, not the reality. The "free speech" myth has been accepted uncritically by so many people because speech in this country has been pretty free RELATIVE to other countries.

With what was already there, and after almost a decade of filling law enforcement and the bench at all levels with religious zealots, attacks on any kind of sexual expression are going to get much worse. Yesterday I read about a 15 year old girl that was arrested for distributing "child pornography" because she took photos of HERSELF nude, and sent them to some of her friend's cell phones. The article said they may next arrest the people who received her photos.

And if caribou Barbie gets into office, who knows, we may even seen people being tried for witchcraft.

[Not Luke]

Very good article about Max. I have a couple articles posted on my site about it also. But mine are more from the adult industry's point of view, because that's who reads my blog. It was nice to read yours and I like your take on the situation. Max is a nice guy when you talk to him in person, of course I've not been in one of his movies....

NL
www.LukeIsBack.com

[Nasty Neesa]

Little Paul is tame compared to some.

http://www.deluxepass.com/trackPart.php?siteid=3340&partid=7648& url=http://anonymouse.org/cgi-bin/anon-www.cgi/http://www.clubgape.com