Today's paper | eEdition | Subscribe
The Truth-O-Meter
Latest print edition
St. Petersburg Times
Special report
Video report
Multimedia report
Fill out this form to email this article to a friend
Your name Your email
Recipient email
You may enter up to 20 multiple email addresses, separated by commas.
Your message
Validation Code
Hear
validation
code
  Enter validation code

Judge may spare jury from watching 8 hours of violent porn

By Kevin Graham, Times Staff Writer
In print: Thursday, May 29, 2008


Social Bookmarking
Digg Facebook Stumbleupon
Reddit Del.icio.us Newsvine
ADVERTISEMENT

TAMPA — After just 40 minutes of viewing, a federal judge said Wednesday she is reconsidering her decision to have jurors watch 8 1/2 continuous hours of violent pornography during a Hollywood producer's obscenity trial.

Jurors squirmed in their seats, squinted their eyes and frequently looked away while watching one of the five pornographic films that prosecutors intend to use as evidence against Paul F. Little of Altadena, Calif., and his company, MaxWorld Entertainment Inc.

"I think it will be very difficult for this jury to sit through five of these," U.S. District Judge Susan C. Bucklew said. She planned to think about it overnight and give her decision today.

The judge placed a security officer outside the courtroom Wednesday to stop anyone who looked underage from entering and to warn others about the graphic images being displayed inside.

Little — who produces, directs and stars in his films as Max Hardcore — creates scenes that show him inflicting pain and humiliation on female actresses. His movies include urinating, vomiting and defecating, often on adult women made up to look like young girls.

Little and MaxWorld have been 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. If convicted on all five counts involving the server, Little could get a maximum of 25 years in prison. Convictions on the remaining counts carry a maximum of 45 years. Judges consider a defendant's criminal history and other factors when calculating a sentence.

The Justice Department announced its case against Little and MaxWorld in May 2007 but declined say why they chose to prosecute it in Tampa.

The general manager for a Web site hosting company testified Wednesday that his business hosted Little's Max Hardcore site for at least three years on servers housed in an E Madison Avenue office, just a block from the federal courthouse in downtown Tampa. A postal inspector then testified that she purchased the five DVDs being used at trial by visiting the Max Hardcore site, then had them shipped to a Tampa post office box.

On the Max Hardcore site and during the opening credits of his DVDs, Little calls the depictions in his films an "important aspect of adult relationships."

Defense attorneys say Little's films are legal and protected by the First Amendment.

In deciding whether the films are obscene, jurors will be instructed by the judge to apply the Miller test, which is the U.S. Supreme Court's standard for defining obscenity. The court ruled that for material to be deemed obscene, it must appeal to prurient interest, be patently offensive by community standards and have no literary, scientific, political or artistic value.

The trial resumes today at 9:30 a.m.

Kevin Graham can be reached at kgraham@sptimes.com or (813) 226-3433.



[Last modified: May 31, 2008 07:37 AM]



Comments on this article
by tim May 30, 2008 12:16 PM
Do we really want to make world-wide headlines - again, for being that region of the United States that doesn't believe in the first amendment of the US Constitution?
by Dennis May 30, 2008 11:11 AM
Although you may or may not like his film content, all of us should defend his right to make the films. America...freedom of speech! If you don't like it...don't watch it but don't take away my right to watch it!
by PTH May 30, 2008 11:11 AM
This article neglects that the Miller test requires a work to be judged as a whole in order to determine value. The prosecution is presenting five works where one would do and trying to circumvent the "as a whole" part of the test.
by Gavin May 30, 2008 9:56 AM
We should be very, very dubious of those 'authorities' that assert that they know what is best for us. Freedom of choice ceases to exist when the options thereof are slowly excised by hypocritical infringement upon the basic right to subjectivity.
by Gavin May 30, 2008 9:56 AM
Why is it the immoral majority always persecutes these trials in the land of the undead in order to secure a jury pool of people born before WWI, thus tricking the justice system into asserting a false negative on the Miller Standard?
by chuck May 29, 2008 6:09 PM
If this is so bad and obscene, how is it legal for a postal inspector to purchase this videos? arent they guilty as well? I would bet she used our tax dollars to buy them too, what a waste.
by Mark May 29, 2008 4:45 PM
As long as they don't show "2 Girls and a Cup" the site is just like how it sounds.
by Gene May 29, 2008 4:33 PM
Did they feed the jurors? Some people get squirmish when they don't have a full stomach.
by Elmo May 29, 2008 4:33 PM
After viewing the films, the jury has re-thought their requests for "hot lunches".
by TC May 29, 2008 4:33 PM
I'll volunteer to watch!! Its porn for God sakes...their adults, if you don't like it DON'T watch...one more sign of over sensitivity out there (on and YES I am a woman btw :-)
by Rock May 29, 2008 2:58 PM
I am also a big fan of Max's films, and I do mean big...wink wink... and I don't understand the big fuss. Adults getting paid to act for adults and adults purchasing said material. Why do we need to legislate adult private lives?!?!
by Adult Female in real relationship May 29, 2008 2:48 PM
This man is sick and NOT in keeping with healthy adult activities, put him in jail and save us from the degradation of females in his films.
by bubba May 29, 2008 2:48 PM
Let me watch Let me watch I'll bring the beer save me all that money of renting the movies.
by Logan May 29, 2008 12:22 PM
So, is there a so called "line" this man crossed, and if so, where is this line. The females were paid to be humiliated, not forced, so where is the crime? Obscenity is kind of a vague point in the law.
by Buck May 29, 2008 11:46 AM
Max's films ROCK! The best in the business!
Subscribe to the Times
Click here for daily delivery
of the St. Petersburg Times.

Email Newsletters

ADVERTISEMENT

 
ADVERTISEMENT