Jurors in Tampa to decide; What is obscene?

TAMPA — A federal jury will soon have the unusual task of deciding what Tampa Bay residents consider obscene, and whether a Hollywood producer's violent pornographic films are unacceptable to the local community.

A judge will rule today on just how much pornography will be displayed in the courtroom as prosecutors present evidence against Paul F. Little of Altadena, Calif., and his company, MaxWorld Entertainment Inc.

Little, also known as Max Hardcore, and MaxWorld are charged with five counts of using a computer server to sell obscene matter and five counts of delivering obscene matter through the U.S. mail.

Little, well-known in the pornography world, has acted in more than 130 movies, directed more than 100 and produced about 30, according to the Internet Movie Database. His films show men inflicting pain or humiliation on women. The movies have scenes that include urinating, vomiting and defecating. Adult actresses in the films are often made up to look like young girls.

Defense attorneys say that what Little and MaxWorld produce and distribute is legal and protected in the marketplace by the First Amendment.

While adult pornography isn't illegal, it can be prosecuted as obscene under the Miller test, named for the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court case Miller vs. California.

The court developed a three-part test to determine obscenity: It must appeal to prurient interests, be patently offensive by community standards and have no literary, scientific, political or artistic value.

Jurors get to decide whether, by the contemporary standards of their community, the material in question would be deemed obscene.

To prove their case, prosecutors plan to show at least 2 1/2-hours of clips produced and directed by Little. But defense attorneys said if jurors are to fairly decide if the pornographic depictions are obscene, the law requires they see the entire movies. That could include up to 8 1/2-hours of porn on five DVDs with titles like Max Hardcore Golden Guzzlers 7 — Euro Edition and Fists of Fury 4 — Euro Edition.

U.S. District Judge Susan C. Bucklew planned to spend Tuesday evening reviewing them before she ruled.

Attorneys with the Justice Department's Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section have flown from Washington, D.C., to try the case. The government announced its charges against Little and MaxWorld in May 2007. He is on trial in the Middle District of Florida because prosecutors purchased the DVDs from Little's Internet Web site and had them sent to a Tampa post office box.

During jury selection, which lasted most of the day Tuesday, one woman said she literally wouldn't be able to stomach watching hours of the type of pornography described in court. She was dismissed after saying the sight of vomit makes her physically ill.

A man who identified himself as a youth pastor was excused from the jury pool after saying he had a previous addiction to porn and didn't want a relapse by having to view it during trial. The judge also dismissed a man who said he had four daughters, and the thought of anyone mistreating any young woman would upset him.

The 12 jurors who will decide the case include an insurance claims adjuster, a nurse, a civil engineer and a pawnshop owner.

The government is seeking forfeiture of the obscene films mentioned in the federal indictment, all gross profits from their distribution and all property used in producing the films, including Little's home and his Internet domain names.

Court resumes at 9:30 a.m. today with opening statements. The trial may last through the start of next week.

Times researcher John Martin contributed to this report. Kevin Graham can be reached at kgraham@sptimes.com or (813) 226-3433.

>>fast facts

Defining obscenity

The 1973 landmark U.S. Supreme Court case Miller vs. California established a standard three-part legal definition of obscenity that jurors must use in considering the case against Paul F. Little, also known as Max Hardcore, and MaxWorld Entertainment Inc.: By community standards, does the material appeal to the prurient interest; is it patently offensive sexual conduct defined by state law; and does the work, taken as a whole, lack serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value?

Comments on this article

by Mo	Jun 2, 2008 3:59 PM
What does it say about society that so many men seem to find it enjoyable to inflict pain and humiliation on women? Hell, meet handbasket.

by Don	May 30, 2008 2:10 PM
I am glad that there are still real attorney's that fight for all of us. Easy to type here hard to fight there.

by Chuck	May 29, 2008 5:53 PM
American people are the victim if a conviction is obtained here. Freedom of speech will have been raped. Also by regulating this, it is no different than third world countries forcing their women to remain covered in public.

by tim	May 29, 2008 10:57 AM
Shouldn't we be tracking down Judges who first say they didn't sign a warrant and then say they did and cops who forge warrants to gain entrance to someone's house?

by Christine	May 29, 2008 10:39 AM
I want to decide what is offensive and what is not on my own. I do not need 12 jurors to do so for me. If porn is a crime who is the victim here??? I hope he walks.

by Chuck	May 28, 2008 7:27 PM
They should pick a jury composed of sailors and let them decide if it is obscene. To each his own, what right does Uncle Sam have to regulate what we watch as long as it is consenting adults?

by Mike	May 28, 2008 4:10 PM
What is obscene here is the fact that tax payer's money is being wasted. Stop trying to legislate morality to me and the rest of the "free world" I have no interest in this mans porno, but I find this a threat to the 1st amendment.

by Bluedog	May 28, 2008 3:56 PM
Shouldnt we be chasing down drug dealers pimps and other low life. AS vile as this stuff maybe it pails in comparison to the civic damage being inflicted on the city by other crimes.

by GVan	May 28, 2008 3:54 PM
I like "Dirty Sanchez VI" and "Midget Circus Show 4" better. They remind me of my younger years. People should be able to watch what they want when they want. As long as the girls claim to be 18, it should be allowed. At least no animals were harmed.

by MSmithJr	May 28, 2008 1:52 PM
You don't see me taking Oprah, Springer or Extreme Akim to court just because I don't watch it.....to each their own.......the DVD probably came from the judge's or prosecutor's personal collection. Hey, they serving popcorn or tissues?

by Mark	May 28, 2008 1:50 PM
"It must appeal to prurient interests, be patently offensive by community standards and have no literary, scientific, political or artistic value." ~ People PUH-lease....if it weren't for porn, we wouldn't have tech like VHS, DVD or the internet.

by Gene	May 28, 2008 10:30 AM
Sign me up for this, I love any movies that involve "urinating, vomiting and defecating."

by Jim	May 28, 2008 10:08 AM
Another waste of government time and money. The women in these videos are all over 18 and performed in them of their own free will, to get paid quite well. Also, no one was forced to order or view this material. More GWB payoff to the religous right.

by H man	May 28, 2008 10:08 AM
Leave this guy alone already. Nothing better to prosecute out there? Jeez

by geezer	May 28, 2008 10:08 AM
I'm pretty liberal but just from the description I don't know what else you would call such filth but obscene. It sounds like it meets every criteria set by the court. Not sure I like the feds cherry-picking the venue to prosecute however.

by solomon	May 28, 2008 10:07 AM
Justice Marshall said: "I don't know a definition of "Obscence" but I know it when I see it-and in one's home-he can watch anything his heart desires- No court and say no-Bucklew need apply that test- on selling videos-charge D taxes--.

by MB	May 28, 2008 10:07 AM
Ewww! Sitting in a room with random jury members watching violent, repulsive "entertainment"? Ewww! Something's not quite right about that.

by Jimmy B	May 28, 2008 10:07 AM
--prosecutors purchased the DVDs from Little's Internet Web site and had them sent to a Tampa post office box-- Isn't this entrapment???

by James	May 28, 2008 10:07 AM
I feel what Mr. Little does is obscene. However he's doing something that appeals to quite a bit of people. As far as I know, no one has complained of abuse against him. So while he may be perverted. He is by no means a criminal. He is within the 1st

by Weeping Freedom of Speec	May 28, 2008 10:04 AM
What's obscene is that this case is another example of disregard by our govt for privacy and freedom of speech; of course it's a waste of money too. Tampa idiots strike again!

by Vincent	May 28, 2008 10:03 AM
Leave Max, Joe and the other smut Kings alone. If you don't watch to watch porn, don't buy the DVD and place it into your DVD player.

by jholmes	May 28, 2008 10:03 AM
I still find it legally interesting that people can be paid to have sex and it is not considered prostitution. Perhaps this film could be considered some sort of safety training film because of the violence.