By: BT

BT — Sat, 04 Oct 2008 11:52:01 +0000

You know the old saying: Be careful what you wish for. Max’s attorneys will appeal this. Sirkin was quoted on AVN this morning, and much of his concerns appeared to be technical – did the judge cross her T’s and dot her I’s, which will be his first attack. But at the end, he remarked that other adult producers should not sleep easily at night because they’re not Max. No one has yet to define what is obscene. To me, that means part of the appeal will be that Max’s content wasn’t obscene, or that no one knows just what is obscene because the community standards test is so vague. I don’t buy this idea that everything is different because of the Internet – that’s just a content delivery system. If the content is obscene, it doesn’t matter how it’s delivered – you don’t produce it; if it’s not obscene it doesn’t matter how it’s delivered – you produce it. If so, and if either party is willing to appeal to the Supremes, you might finally get a definition. I’d like to hear from a real lawyer, but that seems to me like the kind of decision the Supreme Court would want to revisit. Three to five years before that happens. And then, you could be sorry for what you wish for.

Comments on: Max Gets 46 Months and 85,000 Fine

By: BT