“… if you’re going to talk about how far we’ve come when it comes to porn, if you’re going to posit Paul “Max Hardcore” Little as the latest victim of the Bush administration, if you’re going to lament one more strike against your First Amendment rights, you should bear witness as to what a porn star drenched in vomit looks like.”

"..That’s a quote from (link is to a NSFW site) Susannah Breslin, in her response to a Salon column by Glenn Greenwald. Greenwald sets up a false dichotomy between the DoJ’s prosecution of pornographer Max Hardcore, and governmental performance and perpetuation of torture. After making the fairly obvious point that torture is wrong, Greenwald repeatedly asserts that Hardcore’s actions are “fictional” and says that “no real pain was inflicted.” Yet Breslin says the following about Hardcore’s ouvre:

snip//

"At the same time, it couldn’t be more clear that Greenwald couldn’t care less about the real women who were harmed by Hardcore’s pornography production. By dismissing what happened to them as “fiction” he is promulgating the view that pornography performers are lying whores who deserve whatever bad things happen to them. Torture is only wrong when it happens to men, apparently."

"I apologize for linking to Glenn Greenwald"

snip//

(Update: I have been asked to preface this post with a warning that readers may find it disturbing.)

"When I posted a link to Glenn Greenwald’s column the other day, I was unaware of his history as an advocate for torturers. Greenwald has vigorously championed torturers’ rights, has explicitly privileged their version of events over that of their victims, and has asserted — in agreement with the torturers — that “no real pain was inflicted” on the victims.

Of course these aren’t the torturers at Gitmo or Abu Ghraib. It’s the film company of “Max Hardcore,” an extreme pornographer who grossly abused women while filming the proceedings for the entertainment of other men. Hardcore claims his victims were thrilled to be tortured, and Greenwald accepts this point of view unquestioningly."

Amazing what a difference gender makes, huh?

http://www.reclusiveleftist.com/2009/05/25/i-apologize-for-linking-to-glenn-greenwald/

Such an "honorable man".. not.

He relies on the utterances from the women involved without question. Do you suppose that he would do so for an "actual" victim?

He was a lawyer, ferchrisssakes. He should have been acutely aware that torture victims ("real" ones, of course) will often deny victimization because they are under duress. In fact, I'll proffer that he was well aware of such, but was heavily invested in his ridiculous narrative and, per the Greenwald M.O., unable to back down and admit his atrocious duplicity.

Greenwald was contrasting two legal situations, one being the no-brainer conviction of a hard-core porn company, the other being not-so-easily-sanctioned absolution of guys like Dick Cheney, and all the others involved in US atrocities.

If I abstract from that and pretend that there is no such context, then OK, I'll go along with your "analysis". Otherwise, I think you're missing something essential.

Better to have just kept his twisted analogy to himself. It didn't help advance either the cause of the Bush administration detainees or the porn actresses. Principally because it was a ridiculous analogy, topped with presumptive and, ultimately, demeaning language.

Note, BTW, that Greenwald maintained a bias, having been involved in the porn industry just prior to this editorial.

Lotsa press about it. Started, I believe, by the NY Post.

Fair use prevents me from posting the last two paragraphs. Trust me, they're fun.

nothing.

A snippet from Glenn:

A response from the author:


Glenn again:


And, again, the author:


Henceforth from Greenwald: Nada. Zilch.

for is not available".. However, this one..

Judge Sentences Porn Producer To 46 Months In Prison

snip//

TAMPA -
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.

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.

http://tbo.com/news/news/2008/oct/03/judge-sentences-porn-producer-46-month-prison-ar-115204/

In keeping with the spirit of the evening.

my pleasure for the assist.

As usual, I am swamped with books to read, but I'll get to it, eventually.

http://www.amazon.com/No-Place-Hide-Snowden-Surveillance/dp/162779073X

I don't know if the OP has posted for the NSA before.

Yes, it's possible for someone to be tortured in porn and not be able to consent to that torture for various reasons. This point seemed lost on Greenwald.

I see it a lot. Not sure how else to explain it.

For the very reason that he did torture and rape actors and it was giving the "legitimate BDSM" people a headache.

You can read Neesa's terrifying experience with him (and her subsequent quitting from porn because of it).

So basically Greenwald is once again defending scum of the earth acting as if Little did consensual scenes and is entirely dismissive of the very concept that a woman who was tortured by him would just want to GTFO.

Just to prove some damn weak point. Note: I'm pro-porn but I can see the point being made in that article you linked even if I disagree with other details. Max Hardcore is scum, bottom of the barrel, exploitative to the end.

I did note, however, that there is a tremendous amount of amateur BDSM, including female domination. I was excoriated so made a hasty exit.

Oh, and I sold used cars right after college. Somehow that seems important to note.

The issue is very complex and all sides have legitimate concerns. But people wouldn't get the nuance I have such as, I'm against porn wage slavery, but for porn coops (which exist and everyone gets equal proceeds from their efforts), and legal amateur works. Against sex worker wage slavery, but for sex workers unionizing (that exists as well). It's a very deep gray area and too many people on all sides of the issue have knee-jerk reactions.

But this Max Hardcore guy there's really no salvaging him. He didn't tell the performers what was going on, got them in a very threatening situation, then after what he did to them was over he passed it off as necessary for the video. Other BDSM outlets will set stringent rules beforehand, and there are even supervising doms off camera who are making sure that those rules are being met. He got jail time because what he did was indecent, there was no set forth guidelines, he just treated those women like absolute garbage. Torture would be the best definition for what he did to them.

NSA apologists don't want to talk about it, especially when they just got defeated in the House big time.

To paraphrase Greenwald fan DrDawg:

“Greenwald could rape a nun live on NBC and you’d say we weren’t seeing what we were seeing.”

... and, for accuracy's sake, Greenwald's response:

"No – she’d say it was justified and noble – that he only did it to teach us about the evils of rape.”

I'm grabbing my 12 foot pole. Goodnight.

I kid. What are the chances?