In 1998, Los Angeles prosecutors charged Paul Little, better known as Max Hardcore, in connection with Max Extreme 4, arguing that its portrayal of an underage character amounted to child pornography even though the performer herself was unquestionably over eighteen. The case became entangled with a major constitutional dispute over whether the government could criminalize depictions of adults pretending to be minors. Before the matter reached trial in 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition struck down the relevant prohibition as unconstitutional, and the child-pornography counts against Little were dismissed. Prosecutors retained an obscenity misdemeanor, but the jury could not agree on a verdict; a later obscenity charge also ended in a hung jury. Little publicly characterized the proceedings as a waste of government resources, while the case illustrated how extreme adult material could collide with rapidly changing First Amendment law.
Preparing the daily feature…
AI concept artworkArchive Record · 1990s-2000s
The Failed Child-Pornography Case Built Around an Adult Actress Playing a Minor
Max Hardcore and Max Extreme 4 / 1990s-2000s
In 1998, Los Angeles prosecutors charged Paul Little, better known as Max Hardcore, in connection with Max Extreme 4, arguing that its portrayal of an underage character amounted to child pornography even though the performer herself was unquestionably over eighteen. The case became entangled with a major constitutional dispute over whether the government could criminalize depictions of adults pretending to be minors. Before the matter reached trial in 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition struck down the relevant prohibition as unconstitutional, and the child-pornography counts against Little were dismissed. Prosecutors retained an obscenity misdemeanor, but the jury could not agree on a verdict; a later obscenity charge also ended in a hung jury. Little publicly characterized the proceedings as a waste of government resources, while the case illustrated how extreme adult material could collide with rapidly changing First Amendment law.
The daily feature is taking an intermission. There’s still an entire archive to explore.
