A young singer has been charged with a 20-year felony of making child abuse material and posting it on YouTube after an internet prank went terribly wrong.
Guitarist Evan Emory, 21, visited a classroom in Muskegon, Michigan and filmed himself singing in front of a class of first graders.
He then went back to an empty classroom and re-filmed himself singing a song with sexually explicit lyrics. Splicing the two videos together he made it look like the children were dancing to the sexual lyrics before posting it on YouTube in January.
He was initially invited to perform at the school by teachers after telling them the video was part of a personal project.
The video has subsequently been taken down.
But while the prank became an underground hit, police in Muskegon county took a different opinion.
They arrested Emory and hauled him before a court on Wednesday, charging him with making child sexually abusive material - a 20-year felony.
Although no children were actually present for the filming of the explicit version at Beechnau Elementary School, prosecutors say that it is still an offence.
Prosecutor Tony Tague said that while Michigan law ‘provides penalty’ for those who actually manufacture child sexual abusive material it also: ‘Has a provision for those who make it appear that the children were actually abused.
'I take this case very seriously,' he said.
'I think it's not only important for the children in Muskegon but through the state of Michigan.
'This is a law that is on the books and I think it's important that we send a message that children are off limits for this type of activity.'
Basically, he sang a nice song for a class of young children, and recorded that. He then sang a song about sex in the same classroom, with no kids, and spliced the vid to make it look like he sang to kids about sex.
He's looking at facing 20 years for "abusing" the children who weren't actually there.
Seems to me to be one of those ridiculous "only in America" type things. It's obvious that posting a vid of those kids without their permission is wrong, but wrong in the sense that he should take down the vid, which he did.
It almost blows my mind how they could even consider what he did was worth 20 years.
Do you think the punishment fits the crime? What would a reasonable punishment for what he did?
What a silly waste of the taxpayers money in my opinion. If he had sung that version with the kids present I might get it but it seems hard to abuse children that are not there......
A reasonable punishment is possible a fine and some community service, 20 years in prison is absolutely a joke.. seems in Canada most don't even get 10 years for stabbing someone to death etc. Remove the video, pay a fine and do some community service at a school.. that's my opinion.
is this a joke? that's not pornography, and he didn't abuse anyone because it was purely crafted via computer. this is almost as bad as the kid that got thrown in jail for farting
I would actually face palm if a punishment that severe actually ended going through. I don't really see the seriousness in what he did, especially if the intention was humor. If anything make him pay a fine/do community work, but I don't see the harm here.
I know this guy, he was a server of mine a couple months ago. Lots of talent he doesn't know what to do with. He puts together different types of shows (comedy acts, etc...). Overall, a good guy. It is insane he is facing that much time. I am sure it will be dramatically reduced. What is even more insane to me, is that he lives in Muskegon, Mi. This is a city with 25+% unemployment. There are people being shot for no reason on a regular basis. A friend of mines brother was killed there a few months ago. I worked there and people were doing meth in our parking lot. The city is falling apart, and they are worried about some comedy prank.
Prosecutor Tony Tague said that while Michigan law ‘provides penalty’ for those who actually manufacture child sexual abusive material it also: ‘Has a provision for those who make it appear that the children were actually abused.
This is so stupid I let go of the child I was abusing and he escaped.
...Thought about the impact it could have on these children? What the fuck? I don't buy for a second that this will earn him a conviction. As fucked up as the criminal justice system is, I refuse to accept that he will be actually proven guilty, and if so, charged with anything more than a slap on the wrist.
While I don't know all the details, jail-time doesn't even seem appropriate in this case, let alone twenty years. Fine him, make him do some community service, throw him in prison when hes no danger to anyone? I don't agree with it.
On February 19 2011 05:34 Roe wrote: is this a joke? that's not pornography, and he didn't abuse anyone because it was purely crafted via computer. this is almost as bad as the kid that got thrown in jail for farting
The judge probably wont be an idiot and he wont get charged but then again... I wouldnt want to be in that dilemma... maybe its good for his career... publicity is good publicity
On February 19 2011 05:33 QuothTheRaven wrote: Wow 20 years in prison is ridiculous. I could see giving him a slap on the wrist with some community service or something, but prison time?
Ya, this is exactly what I though yesterday when I read this story. Sending him to prison is fucking harsh. Sending him to prison for 20 years is outrageous.
If movie directors that portray children ever experiencing any hardship (sexual or otherwise) (obviously not real hardship, just the portrayal of which) don't get sent to jail, then why the hell should this guy? (I'm not saying movie directors should be, just pointing out the contradiction).
Edit: Regarding the post after mine, even murders don't get 20 years in many cases o.O Edit: whoops, thought that this guy was already convicted of the charge...
20 years is a little too high but i think a strong punishment is needed in this case. Imagine what would happen if some stupid troll think the vid is real and copy it?
I can't help but think of another case similar to this + Show Spoiler +
should this woman be going to jail then? she's actually abusing the child, physically, in a sexual manner. compare the two videos, and see who might be going to jail and who's getting away.
I'd like to quote a comment from the youtube video:
If he's convicted, all of those kids are going to find out about this 20 years later and be completely baffled by the stupidity of our justice system.
Sure, he probably won't be convicted to twenty years; it's all just a publicity stunt or an attempt at deterrence. But it sure impacts the credibility of the justice system if you're pulling out the big guns for this instead of caring about the real problems.
this is mind boggling. Prosecutor Tony Tague, you're a fucking joke. learn to enjoy humor.
might as well put all the directors and actors that had minors curse i movies put in jail. natalie portman from the professional? she wanted to have sex with the dude. this is like a robber breaking into a house and gets injured in the process then sues the home owner.
this is making me sick. where the fuck is justice in this.
I think (and hope) that this is more on the line of "scaring the shit out of that guy" before they decide to sentence him to something like community service / a fine / whatever... (if that was really the intention of the judges, I would find it pretty funny actually.. pranking the prankster, but we will never know).
It they are serious though, that would be some of the biggest bullshit ever...
I agree that 20 years is a ridiculous punishment, but this guy deserves to go to jail for this. I would say 3-12 months max. Doing something like this to innocent kids is sick, but come on guys, lets be reasonable.
Was anyone able to find the original video? I wanna see for myself to see how bad this really is. im sure it is if he's getting jail time but i wanna see it for myself
On February 19 2011 05:45 Apocalyptic wrote: I agree that 20 years is a ridiculous punishment, but this guy deserves to go to jail for this. I would say 3-12 months max. Doing something like this to innocent kids is sick, but come on guys, lets be reasonable.
On February 19 2011 05:45 Apocalyptic wrote: I agree that 20 years is a ridiculous punishment, but this guy deserves to go to jail for this. I would say 3-12 months max. Doing something like this to innocent kids is sick, but come on guys, lets be reasonable.
What did he do to the kids that's sick? The only thing the kids got was a clean song and a chance to have fun in class.
If the kid deserves to be punished it's for lying about the reasons to gain access to the school or something along those lines. I'm sure there's something there, but probably like a misdemeanor... which is all he deserves.
The guy doesn't deserve anything more than being called an idiot. There is so many grounds on which you can prove that this case has no merit whatsoever that I'm not even gonna go into it. Even if he actually sang the song infront of the kids, its a goddamn song, he didn't go upto the kids and demonstrated on them what the words in the song meant. I really feel sorry for the guy.
On February 19 2011 05:45 Apocalyptic wrote: I agree that 20 years is a ridiculous punishment, but this guy deserves to go to jail for this. I would say 3-12 months max. Doing something like this to innocent kids is sick, but come on guys, lets be reasonable.
Could you clarify what exactly he did? Because in fact, he didn't do a god damn thing to anybody.
Obviously the prosecutor is mentally retarded. I don't see anybody going after the pope for his child abuse crimes and this poor kid might get convicted for video editting.
This thing shouldn't go to a court or anything , at tops a fine ... for being innapropriate or something but like ... prison , court , 20 years for a simple little joke that can be so easily fixed by just taking the video down ? This court is out of order !
LOL, maximum penalty they can give you is 16 years in Denmark, regardless of crime. And that is only in the most extreme crcumstances. (can be given more than once though; longest time served in history of Denmark is 33years for killing 4 police officers)
Prison time, let alone 20 years, is an absolute joke considering this a prank video. Community service with a fine is more adequate. No doubt that he went to far executing the prank, but 20 years? Get a fucking grip.
Instead of posting 'AMERICA - FUCK YEA' I'll direct you to this excellent article by the Economist. Do read it. greatly summarizes my position. http://www.economist.com/node/16636027
There is little to be said, for this. Yes the internet is making law enforcement difficult. But they need to loosen up, any jail time let alone 20 years for this. Seems ridiculous
On February 19 2011 05:47 I_Love_Bacon wrote: If the kid deserves to be punished it's for lying about the reasons to gain access to the school or something along those lines. I'm sure there's something there, but probably like a misdemeanor... which is all he deserves.
Maybe this is just a litigation trick. Go for the 20 years felony because if you aim lower, he'll get off? You're right, though. It reminds me of the deception that went into the production of Borat.
I'm from Michigan and watching this makes me laugh. No wonder our state is one of the worst states to live at, because all our tax dollars are going towards stupid shit like this.
On February 19 2011 05:42 NB wrote: 20 years is a little too high but i think a strong punishment is needed in this case. Imagine what would happen if some stupid troll think the vid is real and copy it?
I don't think you understand the concept of trolling very well.
OT: If this guy does get 20 years for this he will likely be stabbed if the news of his 'pedophilia' gets inside the cells. Poor guy doesn't look like he can last in prison.
Definitely shouldn't be charged as a pedofile. However, did he even have permission to show the faces of the children? That's actually a really big deal in Canada, never mind showing the children in a video singing about sex. Up in BC at least, you need permission from the parent's to take photo's of children as well as what it's to be used for- bait and switch would certainly be filed under the Privacy Act. It's difficult enough just to take a couple photo's in the teacher's program for evidence of your pedagogy.
In BC, publishing/ posting this video with children's faces clearly visible would definitely be considered an invasion of privacy and he'd probably be hauled into court in a lawsuit.
This is insane and sad. The dude is a young guy and he didn't do anything that wrong. Can I go to jail now for having a prank call video on youtube too?
20 years is destroying someones life. He's 21 and 20 years in jail is taking out the main part of his life, what does he come do once he gets out? Not the greatest education etc.
Just try putting yourself in his shoes, it is so unreasonable on so many levels. I'm not sure what to think of the US anymore, but this is outright ridicolous.
if this was local i'd set up protests on how fucking retarded this case is. if you're local, please write a letter or some shit because this is one of the most retarded thing i've ever heard. they're putting innocent man in jail because fucktards without sense of humor finds this offensive when no crime was committed. get a word out to dave chappelle and other various entertainers who have done similar things like this in their film/skit/short. since they all deserve 20 years in jail according to this law.
Wat? He was responsible enough not to have sung the song in front of the kids, and it's debatable whether that would have caused much damage either... how is this abusive? I understand that the parents are pissed, but..
If he gets convicted I'll change my life plans around, get a law degree (if you even need one, which I would almost doubt from reading this tripe), and become the DA for that county and bring up ridiculous charges against the current DA for being an idiot. I'm sure there's some ridiculous law we can prove he's broken.
He's attempting to ruin somebody's life. This has nothing to do with justice. The DA is the biggest jackass I've seen on the internet in ages, and that's saying something.
Well, what he's being charged with carries a maximum sentence of 20 years. This situation is really a perversion of what that law was designed to prevent (things like photoshopped or digitally edited child porn). There's no way the prosecutor will seek that, nor would a judge impose it. The real troubling part about it will be if he has to register as a sex offender. What he did was pretty stupid, but hopefully he gets off with a fine or community service.
On February 19 2011 05:56 Skillz_Man wrote: This is insane and sad. The dude is a young guy and he didn't do anything that wrong. Can I go to jail now for having a prank call video on youtube too?
20 years is destroying someones life. He's 21 and 20 years in jail is taking out the main part of his life, what does he come do once he gets out? Not the greatest education etc.
Just try putting yourself in his shoes, it is so unreasonable on so many levels. I'm not sure what to think of the US anymore, but this is outright ridicolous.
What province are in? Because although he didn't do anything worthy of a life sentence, he definitely would've been in the wrong in BC by posting children's faces clearly visible for a purpose entirely different than parents would've been led to believe (if he even bothered to get parent's permission at all.) But maybe BC is a little more hyper about these things than the rest of Canada.
the US is becoming more and more like a fascist theocracy. Censorship is on the rise and Dumb stuff like this happens. Has he really offended someone? No. Parents should care about other things not dumb pranks like this. I am very offended by the video of the 2 year old that was dressed like Madonna that was posted that little girl has litttle to no idea what she really is doing and she is encouraged to do it despite it being degrading and outrageously stupid. What the little girls parents are obliging her to do is real child abuse. Not a dumb prank that wasn´t even real, its all editing its fake and not real.
On February 19 2011 05:50 Hans-Titan wrote: LOL, maximum penalty they can give you is 16 years in Denmark, regardless of crime. And that is only in the most extreme crcumstances. (can be given more than once though; longest time served in history of Denmark is 33years for killing 4 police officers)
Prison time, let alone 20 years, is an absolute joke considering this a prank video. Community service with a fine is more adequate. No doubt that he went to far executing the prank, but 20 years? Get a fucking grip.
Instead of posting 'AMERICA - FUCK YEA' I'll direct you to this excellent article by the Economist. Do read it. greatly summarizes my position. http://www.economist.com/node/16636027
So if you want to become a serial killer, go to Denmark.
hes not gonna get sent to jail, calm down everybody. OP only said he was charged with what theyd escribe as a "twenty-year felony", meaning probably that's the maximum possible sentence. This guy will lawyer up, his lawyer will tell the hick ass county to STFU and dare them to go to trial (as if they could find twelve jurors to convict this guy). And then finally the whole thing will be settled out of a court for a tiny fraction of the initial charge, probably community service like yall are saying.
What, this is ridiculous. I'd understand that if he got a heavy fine, and max 6 months. I cannot fathom being registered as a sex offender or a max sentence of 20 years. Our Justice system is so skewed, it's laughable. We ignore certain crimes or lightly slap rich CEOs who steal hundreds of millions from innocent people who have ruined lives after. (or they have such a nice comfy jailhouse, completely free from normal prisoners).
On February 19 2011 05:59 BroOd wrote: Well, what he's being charged with carries a maximum sentence of 20 years. This situation is really a perversion of what that law was designed to prevent (things like photoshopped or digitally edited child porn). There's no way the prosecutor will seek that, nor would a judge impose it. The real troubling part about it will be if he has to register as a sex offender. What he did was pretty stupid, but hopefully he gets off with a fine or community service.
shh no one follows the story after the sensible ending they just look at the big show put on to get attention. sex offender status is really different depending on state but most of them reign an archaic program put in place during like the 70's that puts a rapist in the same category as the streaker, most of them are under reform currently though due to that bit of oversight but it'll be a long time before the revisions are actually in place.
On February 19 2011 05:29 iCCup.Diamond wrote: What a silly waste of the taxpayers money in my opinion. If he had sung that version with the kids present I might get it but it seems hard to abuse children that are not there......
Aren't prisons in the U.S. privatized, meaning that this will "create jobs"?
On February 19 2011 06:04 CarlyZerg wrote: hes not gonna get sent to jail, calm down everybody. OP only said he was charged with what theyd escribe as a "twenty-year felony", meaning probably that's the maximum possible sentence. This guy will lawyer up, his lawyer will tell the hick ass county to STFU and dare them to go to trial (as if they could find twelve jurors to convict this guy). And then finally the whole thing will be settled out of a court for a tiny fraction of the initial charge, probably community service like yall are saying.
You're right. This is easier to defend than it is to prosecute.
On February 19 2011 05:47 Spekulatius wrote: American law continues to baffle me...
Yeah, me too. I don't get this at all.
Of course, the parents are upset because their kids are in a video for the whole world to see online(without consent.) I can see why they would be upset. BUT I just don't understand the charges or the possible sentence. It seems made up on the spot, what a fucking joke.
This is almost as bad as the reaction to the Aqua Teen Hunger Force guys putting up those signs(in Boston, was it?) to advertise a new season.
This appears to be another case of The Internet People vs. The Old People. They just don't get the joke, never will, and by the end of it they fool themselves into believing they stand for something.
On February 19 2011 05:59 BroOd wrote: Well, what he's being charged with carries a maximum sentence of 20 years. This situation is really a perversion of what that law was designed to prevent (things like photoshopped or digitally edited child porn). There's no way the prosecutor will seek that, nor would a judge impose it. The real troubling part about it will be if he has to register as a sex offender. What he did was pretty stupid, but hopefully he gets off with a fine or community service.
shh no one follows the story after the sensible ending they just look at the big show put on to get attention. sex offender status is really different depending on state but most of them reign an archaic program put in place during like the 70's that puts a rapist in the same category as the streaker, most of them are under reform currently though due to that bit of oversight but it'll be a long time before the revisions are actually in place.
I hadn't even considered the "sex offender" side of it.
I wonder, if he's even sentenced to something like 3 months (still too much) if he'd have to register, seeing as how it involves children in a roundabout way.
On February 19 2011 05:50 Hans-Titan wrote: LOL, maximum penalty they can give you is 16 years in Denmark, regardless of crime. And that is only in the most extreme crcumstances. (can be given more than once though; longest time served in history of Denmark is 33years for killing 4 police officers)
Prison time, let alone 20 years, is an absolute joke considering this a prank video. Community service with a fine is more adequate. No doubt that he went to far executing the prank, but 20 years? Get a fucking grip.
Instead of posting 'AMERICA - FUCK YEA' I'll direct you to this excellent article by the Economist. Do read it. greatly summarizes my position. http://www.economist.com/node/16636027
So if you want to become a serial killer, go to Denmark.
2 recorded cases of serial killers in Denmark since 1900. One was a child murderer in the 1920s - jailed for life but died after 13 years; other was an Iranian refuge in the 1990s - declared insane he still sits in a closed facility in Denmark, where he will remain until he dies unless he is declared healthy.
This has got to be a joke. Pranking the prankster, right? But seriously, there is no way that this guy should go to jail. In fact, I believe that the most the government can possibly do is have him issue a public apology. He didn't hurt anybody, and how exactly is this hurting any children. Some parents are being WAAAAAYYY too sensitive here.
Is this like an April Fool's day two months early thing? Honestly this is one of the stupidest things I've ever came across. I'm almost obliged to think that there is a hidden agenda even like the judge has a kid who goes to that school, but that is just my speculation.
On February 19 2011 06:12 Krehlmar wrote: America, what do you expect?
There we go read the title skim though the op then post generic crap. I can change you with being a money launder for a gang doesn't mean the charges would stick. This is mostly to scare the kid and people not to be doing sexual jokes etc around kids, it's just concerned parents seeking the maximum they can find, doesn't mean crap until it's a conviction.
On February 19 2011 06:18 hp.Shell wrote: This seems like a violation of free speech, if he gets charged at all. Where are our rights now?
I agree. Since when are you not allowed to say sexual things to kids or swear etc. Sad thing is, very few people will actually try to do anything about it. Once it happens to them it will be too late.
The only thing like said he could be charged for is showin they're faces without permission. But even then, what is that actually gonna effect? Maybe give him a 2k fine & a formal apology, anything beyond that is beyond insane.
On February 19 2011 06:09 3clipse wrote: What a farce. This undermines the serious of ACTUAL child abuse.
many variations of abuse falls under this category (child abuse).
from my perspective this entire situation's idiotic.
a 20 year old involving kids in a sexual song... right. one less idiot off the streets. i mean the guy exerted an obscene gesture torward children, though he thought his intentions were innocent, they werent.
You got to be fucking kidding me. How is it going to impact the children when they weren't even involved? It was edited. I mean seriously. Good thing I never got charged for half the pranks that I did.
Sure, you need the parent's consent if it's for commerce, but this was clearly intended for a select audience.
On February 19 2011 06:18 hp.Shell wrote: This seems like a violation of free speech, if he gets charged at all. Where are our rights now?
I agree. Since when are you not allowed to say sexual things to kids or swear etc. Sad thing is, very few people will actually try to do anything about it. Once it happens to them it will be too late.
The only thing like said he could be charged for is showin they're faces without permission. But even then, what is that actually gonna effect? Maybe give him a 2k fine & a formal apology, anything beyond that is beyond insane.
You aren't there are Obscenity laws depending on where you live dealing with things of that nature being said in public, especially in schools freedom of speech is very limited.
On February 19 2011 05:45 Apocalyptic wrote: I agree that 20 years is a ridiculous punishment, but this guy deserves to go to jail for this. I would say 3-12 months max. Doing something like this to innocent kids is sick, but come on guys, lets be reasonable.
Could you clarify what exactly he did? Because in fact, he didn't do a god damn thing to anybody.
Obviously the prosecutor is mentally retarded. I don't see anybody going after the pope for his child abuse crimes and this poor kid might get convicted for video editting.
1. He posted a video of little children without the consent of any parents. That's illegal.
2. He posted what appeared to be sexually explicit content aimed at kids. Regardless of the fact that it was secretly spliced, the intent was that he directed sexual lyrics at children. That is SUCH a big no-no, it shouldn't even have to be explained.
No, he probably won't go to jail for twenty years, but he's gonna get his ass sued so hard, and he deserves it. And his reputation is done. I'm a graduate student of education (soon to be a teacher) and I'm currently taking a class where I'm learning all about these kinds of lawsuits, and which ones are constitutional (and which ones aren't). This is absolutely an invasion of privacy (among other things) and he deserves to pay the consequences.
Yeah, I get it. It's *just* a YouTube video. And to a lot of people without kids or who are immature or who have never been in contact with pedophilia or these kinds of lawsuits before, it may seem like not a big deal. But there's absolutely several things he did legally wrong and he's going to be brought up on some charges.
The twenty years of jail time might be too harsh, but the fact that he should be punished for committing some pretty unsafe illegal activity isn't an overreaction. Stop thinking like that kid and think like parents or schoolchildren or teachers. You don't get a free pass from the law for being an idiot.
Any judge who lets him see a significant amount of jail time for this should be removed from his/her position. If he posted the video without consent then yeah, that is an issue, but abusing children is seriously pushing it.
On February 19 2011 05:45 Apocalyptic wrote: I agree that 20 years is a ridiculous punishment, but this guy deserves to go to jail for this. I would say 3-12 months max. Doing something like this to innocent kids is sick, but come on guys, lets be reasonable.
Could you clarify what exactly he did? Because in fact, he didn't do a god damn thing to anybody.
Obviously the prosecutor is mentally retarded. I don't see anybody going after the pope for his child abuse crimes and this poor kid might get convicted for video editting.
1. He posted a video of little children without the consent of any parents. That's illegal.
2. He posted what appeared to be sexually explicit content aimed at kids. Regardless of the fact that it was secretly spliced, the intent was that he directed sexual lyrics at children. That is SUCH a big no-no, it shouldn't even have to be explained.
No, he probably won't go to jail for twenty years, but he's gonna get his ass sued so hard, and he deserves it. And his reputation is done. I'm a graduate student of education (soon to be a teacher) and I'm currently taking a class where I'm learning all about these kinds of lawsuits, and which ones are constitutional (and which ones aren't). This is absolutely an invasion of privacy (among other things) and he deserves to pay the consequences.
Yeah, I get it. It's *just* a YouTube video. And to a lot of people without kids or who are immature or who have never been in contact with pedophilia or these kinds of lawsuits before, it may seem like not a big deal. But there's absolutely several things he did legally wrong and he's going to be brought up on some charges.
The twenty years of jail time might be too harsh, but the fact that he should be punished for committing some pretty unsafe illegal activity isn't an overreaction. Stop thinking like that kid and think like parents or schoolchildren or teachers. You don't get a free pass from the law for being an idiot.
On February 19 2011 05:45 Apocalyptic wrote: I agree that 20 years is a ridiculous punishment, but this guy deserves to go to jail for this. I would say 3-12 months max. Doing something like this to innocent kids is sick, but come on guys, lets be reasonable.
Could you clarify what exactly he did? Because in fact, he didn't do a god damn thing to anybody.
Obviously the prosecutor is mentally retarded. I don't see anybody going after the pope for his child abuse crimes and this poor kid might get convicted for video editting.
1. He posted a video of little children without the consent of any parents. That's illegal.
2. He posted what appeared to be sexually explicit content aimed at kids. Regardless of the fact that it was secretly spliced, the intent was that he directed sexual lyrics at children. That is SUCH a big no-no, it shouldn't even have to be explained.
No, he probably won't go to jail for twenty years, but he's gonna get his ass sued so hard, and he deserves it. And his reputation is done. I'm a graduate student of education (soon to be a teacher) and I'm currently taking a class where I'm learning all about these kinds of lawsuits, and which ones are constitutional (and which ones aren't). This is absolutely an invasion of privacy (among other things) and he deserves to pay the consequences.
Yeah, I get it. It's *just* a YouTube video. And to a lot of people without kids or who are immature or who have never been in contact with pedophilia or these kinds of lawsuits before, it may seem like not a big deal. But there's absolutely several things he did legally wrong and he's going to be brought up on some charges.
The twenty years of jail time might be too harsh, but the fact that he should be punished for committing some pretty unsafe illegal activity isn't an overreaction. Stop thinking like that kid and think like parents or schoolchildren or teachers. You don't get a free pass from the law for being an idiot.
The kids themselves weren't harmed or exposed in any way to sexuality. In fact, they probably enjoyed the song he sung them in class, so if anything what he did for them was nice.
I haven't seen the video and I don't want to blindly support what the guy did, because it was a stupid thing to do regardless, but I really doubt what he did was a crime worthy of punishment beyond a few hours of community service and a fine.
This whole thing just seems like a huge overreaction. The kids were not harmed or subjected to inappropriate material IN ANY WAY. They probably never saw the video, and by the time they're old enough to see and understand the video they won't even look the same anymore.
What really pisses me off is how anal retentive the prosecutors seem in their comments. It's like they're out for blood
On February 19 2011 05:45 Apocalyptic wrote: I agree that 20 years is a ridiculous punishment, but this guy deserves to go to jail for this. I would say 3-12 months max. Doing something like this to innocent kids is sick, but come on guys, lets be reasonable.
Could you clarify what exactly he did? Because in fact, he didn't do a god damn thing to anybody.
Obviously the prosecutor is mentally retarded. I don't see anybody going after the pope for his child abuse crimes and this poor kid might get convicted for video editting.
2. He posted what appeared to be sexually explicit content aimed at kids. Regardless of the fact that it was secretly spliced, the intent was that he directed sexual lyrics at children. That is SUCH a big no-no, it shouldn't even have to be explained.
Can you actually take a second to explain to me why it is such a big no-no? Honestly. It was fake. He didn't actually abuse anyone. The children weren't there. Who cares that he lets on that he sung in front of a group of kids, as long as he didn't actually do it?
What if I showed you a video of me killing a man, only to show you that I had actually cleverly edited it such that it was all fake. Would you still have me thrown in prison for life because of some murder I never actually committed?
On February 19 2011 06:32 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: 2. He posted what appeared to be sexually explicit content aimed at kids. Regardless of the fact that it was secretly spliced, the intent was that he directed sexual lyrics at children. That is SUCH a big no-no, it shouldn't even have to be explained.
Can you actually take a second to explain to me why it is such a big no-no? Honestly. It was fake. He didn't actually abuse anyone. The children weren't there. Who cares that he lets on that he sung in front of a group of kids, as long as he didn't actually do it?
What if I showed you a video of me killing a man, only to show you that I had actually cleverly edited it such that it was all fake. Would you still have me thrown in prison for life because of some murder I never actually committed?
There's actually a discussion about this in the commentary for Superbad.
You know that scene in the "drawing pictures of dicks" flashback where the little girl picks up the fat, veiny dick drawing and freaks out? Apparently they had to have a lot of legal clearance for that one sequence involving signed affidavits by everyone involved in the filming that she a) wasn't actually looking at a picture of a dick and b) didn't know what the scene was, only that she was to be really scared at what she looked at.
On February 19 2011 05:45 Apocalyptic wrote: I agree that 20 years is a ridiculous punishment, but this guy deserves to go to jail for this. I would say 3-12 months max. Doing something like this to innocent kids is sick, but come on guys, lets be reasonable.
Could you clarify what exactly he did? Because in fact, he didn't do a god damn thing to anybody.
Obviously the prosecutor is mentally retarded. I don't see anybody going after the pope for his child abuse crimes and this poor kid might get convicted for video editting.
2. He posted what appeared to be sexually explicit content aimed at kids. Regardless of the fact that it was secretly spliced, the intent was that he directed sexual lyrics at children. That is SUCH a big no-no, it shouldn't even have to be explained.
Can you actually take a second to explain to me why it is such a big no-no? Honestly. It was fake. He didn't actually abuse anyone. The children weren't there. Who cares that he lets on that he sung in front of a group of kids, as long as he didn't actually do it?
What if I showed you a video of me killing a man, only to show you that I had actually cleverly edited it such that it was all fake. Would you still have me thrown in prison for life because of some murder I never actually committed?
This is exactly the point. The magic of video editing tricked some uptight adults into thinking what he did was real. They got angry, charged him with crimes he didn't commit, and when it came to light that he didn't actually do what the video depicted him doing those adults clamored for alternative charges so that they don't look like fools who got tricked.
So, DarkPlasmaBall,
2. He posted what appeared to be sexually explicit content aimed at kids. Regardless of the fact that it was secretly spliced, the intent was that he directed sexual lyrics at children. That is SUCH a big no-no, it shouldn't even have to be explained.
You do need to explain that. If the intent of a video that Triscuit makes is to show a murder, but that murder didn't actually happen, should he be charged for murder?
err, a few hours in com service? maybe a few hundred bucks in fine along with it?
and that's taking that WAY TOO FAR.
A friend of mine says he should probably just spend a night or two at a station for that kinda stuff, and my mum read the story and rolled her eyes when she spotted where it's going on.
And now, a warning: This next part is going to be very judgmental about the american government(US as a whole and each state), so those that think everything's peachy down there should not hit the spoiler tags. + Show Spoiler +
Seriously, do you know when the give us our first sex ed class in israel?
third frickin' grade.
pervert count? pretty much average.
teen pregnancy? pretty much non existent.
Why? because we teach our kids that it's bad to have unprotected sex, unless you want a baby.
instead of telling them not to have sex and burying our heads in the sand, we see that the problem is that teens are very hormonal and sexual beings, which means they WILL have sex, no matter how many times you'll tell 'em their dick'll fall off; So instead of just shoving your head in the sand(or up your own ass), teach the kid a thing or two about making sure he doesn't knock a girl up, or so that he won't get some fatal disease that will kill him about 5 years after contracting the disease.
In a way, you guys are still stuck in the victorian age... sex is taboo, anything related to sex is taboo
no wonder you guys have one of the highest rates of divorced couples on the planet. if the marriages are forced(the dad knocks the mommy up, then has to marry her or something like that) then it sure as hell ain't going to hold.
On February 19 2011 05:45 Apocalyptic wrote: I agree that 20 years is a ridiculous punishment, but this guy deserves to go to jail for this. I would say 3-12 months max. Doing something like this to innocent kids is sick, but come on guys, lets be reasonable.
Could you clarify what exactly he did? Because in fact, he didn't do a god damn thing to anybody.
Obviously the prosecutor is mentally retarded. I don't see anybody going after the pope for his child abuse crimes and this poor kid might get convicted for video editting.
1. He posted a video of little children without the consent of any parents. That's illegal.
2. He posted what appeared to be sexually explicit content aimed at kids. Regardless of the fact that it was secretly spliced, the intent was that he directed sexual lyrics at children. That is SUCH a big no-no, it shouldn't even have to be explained.
No, he probably won't go to jail for twenty years, but he's gonna get his ass sued so hard, and he deserves it. And his reputation is done. I'm a graduate student of education (soon to be a teacher) and I'm currently taking a class where I'm learning all about these kinds of lawsuits, and which ones are constitutional (and which ones aren't). This is absolutely an invasion of privacy (among other things) and he deserves to pay the consequences.
Yeah, I get it. It's *just* a YouTube video. And to a lot of people without kids or who are immature or who have never been in contact with pedophilia or these kinds of lawsuits before, it may seem like not a big deal. But there's absolutely several things he did legally wrong and he's going to be brought up on some charges.
The twenty years of jail time might be too harsh, but the fact that he should be punished for committing some pretty unsafe illegal activity isn't an overreaction. Stop thinking like that kid and think like parents or schoolchildren or teachers. You don't get a free pass from the law for being an idiot.
Ugh, you're the type of person that gets worked up over the most trivial of issues :X. How you think it "shouldn't have to be explained," when it's quite obvious the majority of posts here completely disagree with you is hilarious. Taxpayer money being wasted to trivial shit like this is bothering enough in itself, despite the "20 years" shit. Fuck, I don't even think he should have to pay a fine since it was taken down anyways. Slap on the wrist, maybe a sup-$1,000 fine.
I've seen movies where it appears that a child is being shot, slapped, murdered, but no harm was actually caused to the child... IMO arrest movie producers and video editors in Hollywood. Anyone seen Black Hawk Down?
That would totally solve the problem. Pisses me off to see people abusing the poorly written law to ruin an innocent persons life. Good job American legal system. Good job.
You guys are forgetting that he hasnt been convicted yet. I can almost guarantee that he will never get anywhere close to 20 years if there is any jail time. Probably just a fine and community service if hes found guilty. This is just basically to scare him and to discourage any of these future shenanigans that may take place. You guys are so cynical.
He clearly didn't know this would get him in trouble, and he clearly has regret of ever posting it on youtube. 20 years is just ridiculous! He ain't a pedo from the looks of it. Throwing someone 20 years in jail pretty much destroys their lives.
On February 19 2011 06:48 Moody wrote: I've seen movies where it appears that a child is being shot, slapped, murdered, but no harm was actually caused to the child... IMO arrest movie producers and video editors in Hollywood. Anyone seen Black Hawk Down?
That would totally solve the problem. Pisses me off to see people abusing the poorly written law to ruin an innocent persons life. Good job American legal system. Good job.
You thought process is beyond illogical. Just because someone is caught on video doesn't make them an actor. The kids you see in movies? Actors. The kids in these youtube videos? Not actors. See a pattern?
This person is not innocent. I agree that he doesn't deserve 20 years, and the judicial system will probably agree also. But it's laughable if you think the judicial system can selectively prosecute cases using objective laws.
typical example of the justice system picking some random dude to make an example of over some obscure segment of criminal law. bullshit in my opinion if he was a famous musician, think he would have gotten 20 years if he had sung the song in front of them? probably not, he would be then required to make a donation to the school and be on his happy way.
This is stupid, let youtube pranks get charged for 20 years and let cocaine dealers get 2years -.- makes sense Bunch of ignorant rednecks that know nothing on society bringing down youtubers -.-
Thought our Constitution protected us from "Cruel and unusual punishment".
Though i find the accused a retard for doing that("Are you brain stupid boy?"), i feel 20 years is too much. A hefty fine and Community service would be fine.+ Show Spoiler +
What a bunch of crap, these people are wasting time on money on a "crime" that has no victims. These prosecutors are communists and I hope he challenges the law.
confusing someone mentioned earlier in the thread that filming kids without consent is illegal? i didn't know that, but i'll go along with it (although i'd love a source just for general knowledge's sake cause tbh it sounds ridiculous). either way, i thought he filmed himself singing the song, with kids being in the shot occasionally? being in the shot occasionally clearly cannot constitute 'filming kids' since you'll have to admit everyone shooting anything in public probably has some kids in the shot somewhere -- illegal?
the other part is faking it to make it look real -- also makes no sense. where do you draw the line between what acts that weren't committed deserve persecution (that even sounds funny to read) and which don't?
On February 19 2011 07:01 Reborn8u wrote: Caution sexually offensive material
check out 4:45
What a bunch of crap, these people are wasting time on money on a "crime" that has no victims. These prosecutors are communists and I hope he challenges the law.
Those are child actors though and they have consent. The other kids, didn't even though they weren't even privy of what the guy was doing when he shot the other piece. It's pretty ridiculous. Way to waste more tax payer dollars on something so trivial.
On February 19 2011 07:04 JeeJee wrote: confusing someone mentioned earlier in the thread that filming kids without consent is illegal? i didn't know that, but i'll go along with it (although i'd love a source just for general knowledge's sake cause tbh it sounds ridiculous). either way, i thought he filmed himself singing the song, with kids being in the shot occasionally? being in the shot occasionally clearly cannot constitute 'filming kids' since you'll have to admit everyone shooting anything in public probably has some kids in the shot somewhere -- illegal?
the other part is faking it to make it look real -- also makes no sense. where do you draw the line between what acts that weren't committed deserve persecution (that even sounds funny to read) and which don't?
hmm sucks for mr emory.
If you film anyone, you usually have to get their consent. :/
"only in America" pretty much sums this up. While it isn't TRUE, retarded stuff like this 'does' happen elsewhere, we just hear all about it happening in america.
I, as most thinking people seem to agree with, find this to be ridiculous and hope it gets thrown out of court.
He's looking at facing 20 years for "abusing" the children who weren't actually there.
Seems to me to be one of those ridiculous "only in America" type things. It's obvious that posting a vid of those kids without their permission is wrong, but wrong in the sense that he should take down the vid, which he did.
It almost blows my mind how they could even consider what he did was worth 20 years.
Do you think the punishment fits the crime? What would a reasonable punishment for what he did?
He isn't on trail for abusing children that weren't actually there. Instead he is charged with making child abusive material which is the intent of producing the material which he has done. I can see it being more serious as children are involved and not a politician or a banker which could be more forgiving in this current time. Unfortunately for the guy, he probably outraged a number of parents and school officials to get the book thrown at him, if the performance was out of the school, in the park or at a discrete venue he mightn't gotten away with it. Americans are just more vocal when they're outraged .... 20 years is a little excessive perhaps 2 weeks and some community service would be more a reasonable punishment imo.
On February 19 2011 05:29 Templar. wrote: A reasonable punishment is possible a fine and some community service, 20 years in prison is absolutely a joke.. seems in Canada most don't even get 10 years for stabbing someone to death etc. Remove the video, pay a fine and do some community service at a school.. that's my opinion.
in what way is this reasonable? he didnt do ANYTHING wrong.
WTF, it was a frekane prank. What is not in the best taste? Probably. It is worth destroying a man's life and sending him to prison for 20 years. I dont think so.
Man I hate our justice system. Criminals go free because of douchy double jeopardy. Innocent man jailed for 14 years released but due to no "innocent" wording in his release he doesn't get any compensation. Now this, I am just amazed.
I was first gonna write something, then deleted it. Worded it differently but deleted it. This is some seriously stupid shit, give him a slap on the wrist and educate him on why this is wrong. Add some community service and be done with it. Not fucking rocket science. If anything it's shit like this which proves iq-tests are mandatory before someone is allowed to work as a public servant.
maybe the prosecutor was turned on by the video and is going overboard on the prosecution to hide his pedophilia, that seems more likely than somebody actually thinking this deserves 20 years in jail.
On February 19 2011 05:44 jinorazi wrote: this is mind boggling. Prosecutor Tony Tague, you're a fucking joke. learn to enjoy humor.
might as well put all the directors and actors that had minors curse i movies put in jail. natalie portman from the professional? she wanted to have sex with the dude. this is like a robber breaking into a house and gets injured in the process then sues the home owner.
this is making me sick. where the fuck is justice in this.
Funny story. There actually was a guy who broke into a house in the USA. The family was out on vacation and the idiot managed to trap himself in the garage. He spent 8 days there eating dogfood and Pepsi. When the family came back he sued them ... and, of course he won ... 500 thousand dollars... because of the "inhuman conditions he had to live in... And now you tell me, can this justice system fuck over a guy who hasn't done anything wrong worth mentioning? Anyone ever was on youtube? Or any other video site? There's tons of that stuff there.
This is ridiculous... I hope that guy doesn't lose, after all it's only a prosecution, and not the police or such exactly.
That is stupid if he gets 20 years. Many other people do this kind of shit all the time. Who the heck signed a bill saying that making a video with kids dancing to sexual lyrics is illegal? It's a friggin edited video.
On February 19 2011 07:04 JeeJee wrote: confusing someone mentioned earlier in the thread that filming kids without consent is illegal? i didn't know that, but i'll go along with it (although i'd love a source just for general knowledge's sake cause tbh it sounds ridiculous). either way, i thought he filmed himself singing the song, with kids being in the shot occasionally? being in the shot occasionally clearly cannot constitute 'filming kids' since you'll have to admit everyone shooting anything in public probably has some kids in the shot somewhere -- illegal?
the other part is faking it to make it look real -- also makes no sense. where do you draw the line between what acts that weren't committed deserve persecution (that even sounds funny to read) and which don't?
hmm sucks for mr emory.
If you film anyone, you usually have to get their consent. :/
i highly doubt that is true, as otherwise paparazzi's wouldn't exist. filming in public has to be available to anyone without consent, i'm 99% sure this is the case, but i will go and do more research on it now.
On February 19 2011 05:45 Apocalyptic wrote: I agree that 20 years is a ridiculous punishment, but this guy deserves to go to jail for this. I would say 3-12 months max. Doing something like this to innocent kids is sick, but come on guys, lets be reasonable.
Could you clarify what exactly he did? Because in fact, he didn't do a god damn thing to anybody.
Obviously the prosecutor is mentally retarded. I don't see anybody going after the pope for his child abuse crimes and this poor kid might get convicted for video editting.
1. He posted a video of little children without the consent of any parents. That's illegal.
2. He posted what appeared to be sexually explicit content aimed at kids. Regardless of the fact that it was secretly spliced, the intent was that he directed sexual lyrics at children. That is SUCH a big no-no, it shouldn't even have to be explained.
No, he probably won't go to jail for twenty years, but he's gonna get his ass sued so hard, and he deserves it. And his reputation is done. I'm a graduate student of education (soon to be a teacher) and I'm currently taking a class where I'm learning all about these kinds of lawsuits, and which ones are constitutional (and which ones aren't). This is absolutely an invasion of privacy (among other things) and he deserves to pay the consequences.
Yeah, I get it. It's *just* a YouTube video. And to a lot of people without kids or who are immature or who have never been in contact with pedophilia or these kinds of lawsuits before, it may seem like not a big deal. But there's absolutely several things he did legally wrong and he's going to be brought up on some charges.
The twenty years of jail time might be too harsh, but the fact that he should be punished for committing some pretty unsafe illegal activity isn't an overreaction. Stop thinking like that kid and think like parents or schoolchildren or teachers. You don't get a free pass from the law for being an idiot.
Might? Lol you're a joke of a human being.
Gee thanks. How constructive. Would you care to have any sort of conversation involving the topic at hand?
On February 19 2011 06:40 Triscuit wrote: Can you actually take a second to explain to me why it is such a big no-no? Honestly. It was fake. He didn't actually abuse anyone. The children weren't there. Who cares that he lets on that he sung in front of a group of kids, as long as he didn't actually do it?
What if I showed you a video of me killing a man, only to show you that I had actually cleverly edited it such that it was all fake. Would you still have me thrown in prison for life because of some murder I never actually committed?
The debate that they're going to argue over in court will probably be whether or not the video was convincing enough to to trick the average person into thinking that he actually sung the sexual video to the little kids. From the looks of it (and please correct me if I'm wrong), it appears as if the video was spliced so well (and there were no other indicators of clarification) that people were immediately outraged when they saw the video. It wasn't obviously a fake movie and there were no disclaimers or anything like that.
If this is truly the case, then it's not good enough (from a legal standpoint), to attempt to tell everyone: 1. It's a fake; the kid is just an immature idiot teehee; 2. The teacher who was responsible for that class isn't unprofessional and shouldn't be fired for letting a kid sing sexual songs to little kids (which would be standard protocol); 3. The school shouldn't be sued for hiring such a dimwit as a guest speaker (which would be standard protocol); 4. Parents, don't ever worry about anything like this ever again! Reputations will be permanently ruined, there will be consequences because of the viral video, and inevitable defamation will ensue directly because of the lie that is that spliced video.
It really seems like the prosecution has a case for taking the kid to court. And again, I don't think he's going to jail for twenty years. But I think he's going to get sued at least. There are legal problems that need to be recognized, and I think the people who just post one-liners on this thread like "This is the dumbest case ever" haven't ever read court cases that go on in schools.
lol this is ridiculous, i just don't even understand how they could equate this to like murder or something. Obviously he should probably have thought about getting charges pressed against him, but really he probably expexted just a minor penalty, mostly a warning. yea travis basically sums it up, just wtf?
On February 19 2011 05:45 Apocalyptic wrote: I agree that 20 years is a ridiculous punishment, but this guy deserves to go to jail for this. I would say 3-12 months max. Doing something like this to innocent kids is sick, but come on guys, lets be reasonable.
Could you clarify what exactly he did? Because in fact, he didn't do a god damn thing to anybody.
Obviously the prosecutor is mentally retarded. I don't see anybody going after the pope for his child abuse crimes and this poor kid might get convicted for video editting.
2. He posted what appeared to be sexually explicit content aimed at kids. Regardless of the fact that it was secretly spliced, the intent was that he directed sexual lyrics at children. That is SUCH a big no-no, it shouldn't even have to be explained.
Can you actually take a second to explain to me why it is such a big no-no? Honestly. It was fake. He didn't actually abuse anyone. The children weren't there. Who cares that he lets on that he sung in front of a group of kids, as long as he didn't actually do it?
What if I showed you a video of me killing a man, only to show you that I had actually cleverly edited it such that it was all fake. Would you still have me thrown in prison for life because of some murder I never actually committed?
He used video of children without their consent in a sexually explicit video they did not know they would be a part of. How hard is that to understand. And to those who don't have a clue about the US penal system ... 20 years is the maximum ... rarely are you given the max sentence for something like this.
This is an overreaction by TLers moreso than whoever is prosecuting.
On February 19 2011 05:45 Apocalyptic wrote: I agree that 20 years is a ridiculous punishment, but this guy deserves to go to jail for this. I would say 3-12 months max. Doing something like this to innocent kids is sick, but come on guys, lets be reasonable.
Could you clarify what exactly he did? Because in fact, he didn't do a god damn thing to anybody.
Obviously the prosecutor is mentally retarded. I don't see anybody going after the pope for his child abuse crimes and this poor kid might get convicted for video editting.
2. He posted what appeared to be sexually explicit content aimed at kids. Regardless of the fact that it was secretly spliced, the intent was that he directed sexual lyrics at children. That is SUCH a big no-no, it shouldn't even have to be explained.
Can you actually take a second to explain to me why it is such a big no-no? Honestly. It was fake. He didn't actually abuse anyone. The children weren't there. Who cares that he lets on that he sung in front of a group of kids, as long as he didn't actually do it?
What if I showed you a video of me killing a man, only to show you that I had actually cleverly edited it such that it was all fake. Would you still have me thrown in prison for life because of some murder I never actually committed?
He used video of children without their consent in a sexually explicit video they did not know they would be a part of. How hard is that to understand. And to those who don't have a clue about the US penal system ... 20 years is the maximum ... rarely are you given the max sentence for something like this.
This is an overreaction by TLers moreso than whoever is prosecuting.
The only thing he should receive is a community service/fine because he didn't actually abuse or change their lives. If you keep arguing the route of the prosecutors you will have to come down on the people i linked in my video who sexually abused that girl on stage in front of a bunch of closet lesbian pedos.
On February 19 2011 05:45 Apocalyptic wrote: I agree that 20 years is a ridiculous punishment, but this guy deserves to go to jail for this. I would say 3-12 months max. Doing something like this to innocent kids is sick, but come on guys, lets be reasonable.
Could you clarify what exactly he did? Because in fact, he didn't do a god damn thing to anybody.
Obviously the prosecutor is mentally retarded. I don't see anybody going after the pope for his child abuse crimes and this poor kid might get convicted for video editting.
2. He posted what appeared to be sexually explicit content aimed at kids. Regardless of the fact that it was secretly spliced, the intent was that he directed sexual lyrics at children. That is SUCH a big no-no, it shouldn't even have to be explained.
Can you actually take a second to explain to me why it is such a big no-no? Honestly. It was fake. He didn't actually abuse anyone. The children weren't there. Who cares that he lets on that he sung in front of a group of kids, as long as he didn't actually do it?
What if I showed you a video of me killing a man, only to show you that I had actually cleverly edited it such that it was all fake. Would you still have me thrown in prison for life because of some murder I never actually committed?
He used video of children without their consent in a sexually explicit video they did not know they would be a part of. How hard is that to understand. And to those who don't have a clue about the US penal system ... 20 years is the maximum ... rarely are you given the max sentence for something like this.
This is an overreaction by TLers moreso than whoever is prosecuting.
Honestly it doesnt matter that the max sentence is 20 years. This kid doesn't deserve a single day in prison for what he did, The prosecutor is comparing this video that he did that was clearly fake to child pornography: Where kids are forced to have sex with other kids or an adult is having sexual intercourse with children. Is this image not coming through? How can you compare the two?
On February 19 2011 07:04 JeeJee wrote: confusing someone mentioned earlier in the thread that filming kids without consent is illegal? i didn't know that, but i'll go along with it (although i'd love a source just for general knowledge's sake cause tbh it sounds ridiculous). either way, i thought he filmed himself singing the song, with kids being in the shot occasionally? being in the shot occasionally clearly cannot constitute 'filming kids' since you'll have to admit everyone shooting anything in public probably has some kids in the shot somewhere -- illegal?
the other part is faking it to make it look real -- also makes no sense. where do you draw the line between what acts that weren't committed deserve persecution (that even sounds funny to read) and which don't?
hmm sucks for mr emory.
If you film anyone, you usually have to get their consent. :/
i highly doubt that is true, as otherwise paparazzi's wouldn't exist. filming in public has to be available to anyone without consent, i'm 99% sure this is the case, but i will go and do more research on it now.
Film and photography have different laws. If you are filming for commercial use then yes, you need written permission. However, if it isn't for commercial purposes and you cannot identify the subjects, you have no case.
If I were the judge I would give him a $500 dollar fine and give him community service. That would be the end of it. I would tell the young chap I'm disappointed in him and the prosecutor to stop wasting my time.
Wow ... do people not understand of using video footage without consent? Sure the prosecutor is angling this as a sexual crime (which is kinda iffy). But this guy should be punished for using video footage without proper consent. And I'll bet money he won't get any jail time (if any ... certainly only a few months).
He just be tried with the possibility of a sizable fine and community service at most. Jail time for deceiving people and misconduct seems kinda ridiculous. That said, I am not an expert in law.
On February 19 2011 07:04 JeeJee wrote: confusing someone mentioned earlier in the thread that filming kids without consent is illegal? i didn't know that, but i'll go along with it (although i'd love a source just for general knowledge's sake cause tbh it sounds ridiculous). either way, i thought he filmed himself singing the song, with kids being in the shot occasionally? being in the shot occasionally clearly cannot constitute 'filming kids' since you'll have to admit everyone shooting anything in public probably has some kids in the shot somewhere -- illegal?
the other part is faking it to make it look real -- also makes no sense. where do you draw the line between what acts that weren't committed deserve persecution (that even sounds funny to read) and which don't?
hmm sucks for mr emory.
If you film anyone, you usually have to get their consent. :/
i highly doubt that is true, as otherwise paparazzi's wouldn't exist. filming in public has to be available to anyone without consent, i'm 99% sure this is the case, but i will go and do more research on it now.
Film and photography have different laws. If you are filming for commercial use then yes, you need written permission. However, if it isn't for commercial purposes and you cannot identify the subjects, you have no case.
yeah i have been reading about it for the past little while. canada-specific stuff, since i'm canadian, but i can't imagine it would be too different in the states. basically he did nothing illegal by filming those kids without their consent as far as i can see (just the filming part, i have no comments on the faking-sexual-stuff part)
On February 19 2011 07:40 lac29 wrote: Wow ... do people not understand of using video footage without consent? Sure the prosecutor is angling this as a sexual crime (which is kinda iffy). But this guy should be punished for using video footage without proper consent. And I'll bet money he won't get any jail time (if any ... certainly only a few months).
nah, i can come film you anytime if you're in a public place. at least here in canada that's what i'm reading in the law.
I'm not sure if an elementary school is considered a public place ... especially since this guy actually had to get permission to come and perform. You can't just go to an elementary school and start filming kids.
well, if it's private property (i'm still iffy on this part; i believe the grounds of a public school are public property, not sure about the actual building though.. but let's assume it is), then they can tell him to stop and he'd have to stop. obviously nobody told him to stop so he's fine, assuming there are no signs that say otherwise.
On February 19 2011 07:44 lac29 wrote: I'm not sure if an elementary school is considered a public place ... especially since this guy actually had to get permission to come and perform. You can't just go to an elementary school and start filming kids.
True, but 20 years for something such as that? I mean, a small fine or community service is understandable, but this takes it miles too far imho..
Ok so he is not the brightest bulb around but he did not actually sing this to the children... Sure he should get a slap on the wrist, but this is ridiculous.
I don't know if the parents understand that his mindset was "innocent enough" and he was just making a video to be funny. 20 years is basically wasting his life for something people honestly won't even remember.
Offenders who have been sentenced to prison for murder or manslaughter will serve an average of 19.1 years in prison under the minimum 85% of sentence served policy compared to 13.1 years under the old parole system and 12.2 years when early prison release existed (chart 8).
This is in Florida I just took the first google result I picked. The graphs are also outdated to 2004 but the point is that they want him to serve a longer sentence than if he just killed someone + Show Spoiler +
oh America the lulz I wouldn't have if not for your very existence what saddens me the most is the fact that only a very small percentage of the country is actually that stupid and "afraid", in a sense of overreaction. those law enforcements have no clue what child abuse is, and IMHO are just looking for their 15 minutes of fame with this.
On February 19 2011 07:56 Djzapz wrote: Free the man and give him a million dollars for wasting his time and ruining his public image and most likely part of his life for absurd childish BS.
He hasn't done anything that harms society in any way. That's not child porn at all. The fact that people think it might be is frightening.
On February 19 2011 07:54 DayJP wrote: oh America the lulz I wouldn't have if not for your very existence what saddens me the most is the fact that only a very small percentage of the country is actually that stupid and "afraid", in a sense of overreaction. those law enforcements have no clue what child abuse is, and IMHO are just looking for their 15 minutes of fame with this.
the prosecutors are not spending their time to get 15 minutes of fame is that even a legitimate argument
On February 19 2011 07:56 Djzapz wrote: Free the man and give him a million dollars for wasting his time and ruining his public image and most likely part of his life for absurd childish BS.
He hasn't done anything that harms society in any way. That's not child porn at all. The fact that people think it might be is frightening.
Totally agree.
It's amazing that invasion of privacy, illegal activity, and the inevitable destruction of reputations can be revered and considered not to have harmed society in any way.
On February 19 2011 07:56 Djzapz wrote: Free the man and give him a million dollars for wasting his time and ruining his public image and most likely part of his life for absurd childish BS.
He hasn't done anything that harms society in any way. That's not child porn at all. The fact that people think it might be is frightening.
Totally agree.
I agree as well. He may have done something wrong, but deserves no more than a slap on the wrist. The authorities need to be focusing on people who are actually raping and murdering. It's upsetting that our tax dollars go to crap like this.
On February 19 2011 07:56 Djzapz wrote: Free the man and give him a million dollars for wasting his time and ruining his public image and most likely part of his life for absurd childish BS.
He hasn't done anything that harms society in any way. That's not child porn at all. The fact that people think it might be is frightening.
Totally agree.
It's amazing that invasion of privacy, illegal activity, and the inevitable destruction of reputations can be revered and considered not to have harmed society in any way.
i think the people thinking its ok to send this guy to jail can do more harm to society than this guy and his video.
but they don't sue southpark for singing songs to kids about prostitutes and all the other shit just cuz its a cartoon? and they don't chase down all the people posting pedobear shit on the internet? I am very sensitive about the children subject as well, but hes not a fuckin child molester for crying out loud.. 20 years?! just wow
On February 19 2011 07:56 Djzapz wrote: Free the man and give him a million dollars for wasting his time and ruining his public image and most likely part of his life for absurd childish BS.
He hasn't done anything that harms society in any way. That's not child porn at all. The fact that people think it might be is frightening.
Totally agree.
It's amazing that invasion of privacy, illegal activity, and the inevitable destruction of reputations can be revered and considered not to have harmed society in any way.
i think the people thinking its ok to send this guy to jail can do more harm to society than this guy and his video.
I would argue that there are some people in the middle between "He did nothing wrong" and "Send him away for twenty years". Some people recognize that he did enough things wrong that he's probably going to get sued and end up with some other consequences.
On February 19 2011 08:06 Touch wrote: Thing is, he didn't hurt anyone, not even indirectly.
On February 19 2011 08:12 gurrpp wrote: wow this is kind of fucked up. I don't see why this should be a criminal offense since he didn't harm anyone and it was done in good fun.
Sounds like a good defense against arson. Would you use it?
He's not being charged for physically harming people.
This case has a better chance with libel than child porn.
Who's responsible? The guy for not getting parents consent for being filmed (regardless of content I'm asking) or the teacher for giving consent on behalf of parents and not checking specifically what they will be filmed for? I'm guessing if you are at school, it falls on the teacher.
Iirc its typical for hidden cam/reality types of shows to be vague on their waiver to 'trick' people to consenting and still be legal. I'm not sure of the specifics, but it seems like there's a grey line.
On February 19 2011 07:56 Djzapz wrote: Free the man and give him a million dollars for wasting his time and ruining his public image and most likely part of his life for absurd childish BS.
He hasn't done anything that harms society in any way. That's not child porn at all. The fact that people think it might be is frightening.
Totally agree.
It's amazing that invasion of privacy, illegal activity, and the inevitable destruction of reputations can be revered and considered not to have harmed society in any way.
i think the people thinking its ok to send this guy to jail can do more harm to society than this guy and his video.
I would argue that there are some people in the middle between "He did nothing wrong" and "Send him away for twenty years". Some people recognize that he did enough things wrong that he's probably going to get sued and end up with some other consequences.
i agree. this isn't a child porn case. evan should be sued for what he did, he was stupid for not planning this and wasn't ready for the consequences. but to say his a child molester is wrong.
a simple disclaimer in the beginning of the video could have avoided this...
On February 19 2011 06:09 3clipse wrote: What a farce. This undermines the serious of ACTUAL child abuse.
many variations of abuse falls under this category (child abuse).
from my perspective this entire situation's idiotic.
a 20 year old involving kids in a sexual song... right. one less idiot off the streets. i mean the guy exerted an obscene gesture torward children, though he thought his intentions were innocent, they werent.
but 20 sentencing this guy to 20 years is harsh
He didn't actually do any of it in front of the children though. Read the OP.
On February 19 2011 08:12 gurrpp wrote: wow this is kind of fucked up. I don't see why this should be a criminal offense since he didn't harm anyone and it was done in good fun.
Sounds like a good defense against arson. Would you use it?
He's not being charged for physically harming people.
In Arson, you ARE hurting people by destroying their property. He's not even hurting peoples' property.
On February 19 2011 06:09 3clipse wrote: What a farce. This undermines the serious of ACTUAL child abuse.
many variations of abuse falls under this category (child abuse).
from my perspective this entire situation's idiotic.
a 20 year old involving kids in a sexual song... right. one less idiot off the streets. i mean the guy exerted an obscene gesture torward children, though he thought his intentions were innocent, they werent.
but 20 sentencing this guy to 20 years is harsh
He didn't actually do any of it in front of the children though. Read the OP.
On February 19 2011 08:06 Touch wrote: Thing is, he didn't hurt anyone, not even indirectly.
On February 19 2011 08:12 gurrpp wrote: wow this is kind of fucked up. I don't see why this should be a criminal offense since he didn't harm anyone and it was done in good fun.
Sounds like a good defense against arson. Would you use it?
He's not being charged for physically harming people.
In Arson, you ARE hurting people by destroying their property. He's not even hurting peoples' property.
he hurt the sensitive parent's feelings. these parents won't back down so easily after seeing their kids be exposed to vulgar language. and after they find out that its actually fake? they're even in more rage and would sue the crap out of him.
This reminds me of the Duke Lacrosse scandal. I haven't done any research but I would bet this district attorney is up for re-election soon and is trying to make a name for himself by ruining someone else's life. If that's the case hopefully he will be disbarred as well. It's absolutely pathetic how fucked the justice system is in America.
On February 19 2011 08:06 Touch wrote: Thing is, he didn't hurt anyone, not even indirectly.
On February 19 2011 08:12 gurrpp wrote: wow this is kind of fucked up. I don't see why this should be a criminal offense since he didn't harm anyone and it was done in good fun.
Sounds like a good defense against arson. Would you use it?
He's not being charged for physically harming people.
In Arson, you ARE hurting people by destroying their property. He's not even hurting peoples' property.
And the invasion of privacy and destruction of reputations isn't harming people? That's what this idiot did. To quote myself earlier:
It's not good enough (from a legal standpoint), to attempt to tell everyone who watched the video: 1. It's a fake; the kid is just an immature idiot teehee; 2. The teacher who was responsible for that class isn't unprofessional and shouldn't be fired for letting a kid sing sexual songs to little kids (which would be standard protocol); 3. The school shouldn't be sued for hiring such a dimwit as a guest speaker (which would be standard protocol); 4. Parents, don't ever worry about anything like this ever again! Reputations will be permanently ruined, there will be consequences because of the viral video, and inevitable defamation will ensue directly because of the lie that is that spliced video.
Does anybody have a working link to the video? We can't really comment much on something without seeing what he actually did.
Also, 20 years seems like a cruel and/or unusual punishment for this offense. The children were not present, and there was no actual pornography if I wasn't mistaken. I'm not qualified in how the Bill of Rights applies to school, but shouldn't this guy be protected under the first amendment? I can't see him getting 20 years. Maybe something for putting the kids in the video without consent...but 20 years seems ridiculous.
I haven't seen the video in question, but it seems clear from the description that it's an example of that nihilistic moral absurdism which is so common on the internet these days, and other places. It's funny because it's wrong. People are more afraid to take things too seriously these days than they are to let their integrity slip. Why is it even funny to watch little kids dance merrily to sexually explicit lyrics? Because kids are dumb and they'll dance to anything? That's part of it. But obviously the other part that their innocence is being exploited is also prevalent. It's awkward and absurd, and people thus embrace it specifically because it's immoral, even if only mildly so.
I'm not saying this should be illegal. But a parent has the right to decide what images of their children are portrayed in wide publicity. And i can certainly understand why the parents of these children would be upset.
On February 19 2011 08:22 Omigawa wrote: This reminds me of the Duke Lacrosse scandal. I haven't done any research but I would bet this district attorney is up for re-election soon and is trying to make a name for himself by ruining someone else's life. If that's the case hopefully he will be disbarred as well. It's absolutely pathetic how fucked the justice system is in America.
You are talking about a system where it is illegal for tornados to enter certain cities. In washington you are forbidden to have sex with a virgin... EVER. In one state the law states that it is only alowd to shoot indians out of a wagon. If you are looking at the worlds most stupid laws, you will see that the USA has more than all other countries combined. (there is a state that forbids whaling but it has no shore. That is except you hunt whales from out of your car, of course. True story)
If it were my child in that video I would definitely be offended. But to be honest, when I first heard of the concept of the vid I actually did find it amusing. You know how that saying goes, if it happens to someone else it's funny.
This got me thinking... if the alternate shots had the singer singing lyrics about violence... would there be an equal amount of outrage? It seems that society gets offended by sex first before violence.
Hilarious, better but him behind bars for a long time, sexual offenders just keep on going if let out.
Sadly where I live he could've probably molested all the kids in the class and get nothing for it. I really hate the differences in justice systems around the world. This is bit too much though.
Nonsense like this makes me speechless. If I were a parent of one of the "abused" children I'd file a complaint that my tax money is being wasted on such a ridiculous case.
I guess it was wrong because he used the kids' faces without their permission. Maybe give him a stern warning or something? I guess a few nights in jail, a written apology, and community service time perhaps.
This is retarded, there is no crime. He made a funny joke who fucking cares. On Tosh.0 they had a 7 year old kid cursing out Daniel Tosh....Parents need to take the big stick out of their ass and lighten up.
Someone slip them some weed brownies or something so they chill the fuck out.
On February 19 2011 05:50 Hans-Titan wrote: LOL, maximum penalty they can give you is 16 years in Denmark, regardless of crime. And that is only in the most extreme crcumstances. (can be given more than once though; longest time served in history of Denmark is 33years for killing 4 police officers)
Prison time, let alone 20 years, is an absolute joke considering this a prank video. Community service with a fine is more adequate. No doubt that he went to far executing the prank, but 20 years? Get a fucking grip.
Instead of posting 'AMERICA - FUCK YEA' I'll direct you to this excellent article by the Economist. Do read it. greatly summarizes my position. http://www.economist.com/node/16636027
Don't post false information. 16 years is the maximum penalty for a "regular" murder in Denmark, but in extreme cases (serial killers, child murderers etc) they get locked up indefinitely - strictly speaking the term is "detained until reformed/healthy enough to rejoin society", but fact remains they never get out. Ever.
On February 19 2011 05:45 Apocalyptic wrote: I agree that 20 years is a ridiculous punishment, but this guy deserves to go to jail for this. I would say 3-12 months max. Doing something like this to innocent kids is sick, but come on guys, lets be reasonable.
Anyone with a slight sense of intelligence will realize that this shouldn't be considered in any way a criminal act, I don't understand how someone could be so incredibly stupid not to see that. The level of hypocrisy is just beyond belief...
The people who are prosecuting this kid are the sick and twisted ones... Completely ridiculous and moronic. They are probably trying to make an example out of this poor kid and if he does go to jail his live will never be the same, all because he spliced a sexual explicit song in with some pictures of kids...
He is not to blame at all. It was a good prank. Fuck the world, this pisses me off.
On February 19 2011 09:26 Yergidy wrote: The people who are prosecuting this kid are the sick and twisted ones... Completely ridiculous and moronic. They are probably trying to make an example out of this poor kid and if he does go to jail his live will never be the same, all because he spliced a sexual explicit song in with some pictures of kids...
True that, following the law doesn't make you any less of a scum. Obviously we can't charge people for making stupid accusations but I sure feel that the prosecutors and police are worthy of the same treatment as the cruelest criminals.
EDIT: Well, no I don't mean all that, the police has to act if charges are made and they have to do it by the book... the book is just so dumb =(
The link in the OP even says "child pornography", what the fuck? I can't see how these children in any way can.. nah I don't even wanna write about this. I knew people were stupid but this? Holy crap, sometimes I just want to give up all hope and become a hero in some game. 20 years for video editing.. Might wanna arrest these guys too I guess: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cds7lSHawAw&feature=aso
I cannot even begin to fathom how fucking stupid this is. No amount of rationality could ever justify the fact that this has even gone so far as to consider a jail sentence, let alone a punishment of that degree.
I would be surprised if this guy was actually charged with any kind of anti-kiddy sex statute. Then again, who knows what kind of laws they have passed in Michigan.
I'm sure the defendant will think twice now when doing these idiotic youtube videos. Ppl with responsibilities, like a teacher, should be aware that the internet is a very public place.. >.<
The same sentence Varg Vikernes recieved in Norway for stabbing his bandmate and burning 3 churches and another building. Insanity. I really hope he can afford a good lawyer, or for fucks sake go 100grand in debt for one.
Does the sentence have something to do with the sexual aspect of the song? I mean child abuse can be described as more than just sexual. Take the will ferrell clip on funnyordie where his little 3 year old niece is holding a beer yelling at him. Its amazing. But some dickwad could potential say the child is being encouraged to drink.
The US jail system is so so so scary for me... because of stories like this - and the insane amount of time given to drug dealers and users. Once your in jail... your gone till you get out. No one even listens to reason anymore at the point, just the law.
I don't get how this was meant to be a "prank." And it's just a really stupid thing to do. As for it not being real...
Dean Boland, an Ohio lawyer known for often testifying in child pornography cases in defense of the accused offenders, wanted to show how "fake" child porn isn't harmful at all. http://pinoytutorial.com/techtorial/dean-boland-photoshop-expert-for-fake-child-porn-busted/ Essentially he purchased photos from a photo-taking company and spliced them to create child pornography, to show that fake porn doesn't harm the child and isn't illegal. He was then sued for his picture by the child's parents, because although his point was to show you can create a new image out of anything, he didn't have to turn it into child porn.
I have no idea what the video actually includes, but if the above situation teaches you anything, it's.... don't make sexual children stuff. It's really, really, really stupid.
On February 19 2011 08:06 Touch wrote: Thing is, he didn't hurt anyone, not even indirectly.
On February 19 2011 08:12 gurrpp wrote: wow this is kind of fucked up. I don't see why this should be a criminal offense since he didn't harm anyone and it was done in good fun.
Sounds like a good defense against arson. Would you use it?
He's not being charged for physically harming people.
In Arson, you ARE hurting people by destroying their property. He's not even hurting peoples' property.
And the invasion of privacy and destruction of reputations isn't harming people? That's what this idiot did.
[...]
Reputations will be permanently ruined, there will be consequences because of the viral video, and inevitable defamation will ensue directly because of the lie that is that spliced video.
Invasion of privacy: "1) intrusion on one's solitude or into one's private affairs; 2) public disclosure of embarrassing private information; 3) publicity which puts him/her in a false light to the public; 4) appropriation of one's name or picture for personal or commercial advantage."
1) I'd say that children being at school is not exactly a "private affair" or "intrusion of solitude" 2) children being at school doesn't fall under "embarrassing private information" either 3) somewhat debatable, but considering there was a disclaimer explaining that the video is staged should rule this out, too (you know, like the disclaimers they put in tv shows e.g. "all characters and events in this show - even those based on real people - are entirely fictional"). Not to mention that anybody with a semi-functional brain would realize that the kids were most certainly not dancing to offensive lyrics even without reading the disclaimer... 4) now, that's a point he can be sued over, but it most certainly doesn't warrant a 20-years sentence or any jail time for that matter
destruction of reputations!? Whose? The children's? Or maybe the teachers'? Or the principal's? The video doesn't claim that any of the officials were involved in creating or approved of the material, and in addition there was a disclaimer that actually says the exact opposite. A case (a stupid one but nevertheless) could be made that the video could be interpreted in an unfavorable way for some officials, but this doesn't warrant a prison sentence.
Furthermore, neither "invasion of privacy" nor "destruction of reputations" is why everybody in this thread feels the urge to face palm. The reasons is that some crazy prosecutor somehow came to the idea to file a sexual abuse charge!
p.s. Astonishing how you can even dare to compare a disclosed internet joke with a life-endangering, possibly life-claiming, property destroying crime like arson.
Punishment does not fit the crime. The guy is an idiot, that can not be argued, but to spend 20 years behind bars for a prank like that? He deserves a fuck ton of community service and a fine, but not jail time.
The only crime i can see is publishing pictures of some children without permission. Happens 10000 times a day on facebook. He maybe even had the permission to publish the children with the original, clean video. Changing the "light" the children appear in without getting a new permission may not be morally correct, but this shit happens on a daily basis in talk / reality shows, even news interviews etc. too.
And manipulating a video to look like there´s something wrong going on cant be illegal. Or Hollywood would have a serious problem. Sure, there is a border. But i doubt it has been passed by some children seemingly listening to a dirty song. kesha lady gaga and katy perry shower you with tainted lyrics all day long.
To me this looks like another example of the legal framework working for the rich, not for justice.
wow.... considering all the messed up stuff I've seen online I am baffled how this could be going to court. I really hope he doesn't get any punishment because for a crime to have taken place there must be victims and there are none.
Edit: if anyone should be in jail it's those crazy pageant moms
Although I agree that 20 years is ridiculous. I think(I am not a lawyer) what he did was illegal in the US. See law here You can't even draw a picture of underage kids in a sexual manner. The law is pretty strict on these things.
I live in Michigan so this news is doubly disappointing, this guy didnt even remotely hurt anyone and hes not a pedophile so why charge him with a felony?
Legally I think its messed up they can even make a case against him I hope he gets a good lawyer.
I'm fairly sure people would just laugh at that where I live, and sure as hell he wouldn't be put on a trial, especially not charged with 20 years in jail.
Our max sentence for committing a murder is lower than that, which is dumb but thats a whole another story.
Why do we waste our money prosecuting this? Did he do something in bad taste - yes. Did he do something that would deserve all this money going into the case for a joke - no.
1) I'd say that children being at school is not exactly a "private affair" or "intrusion of solitude" 2) children being at school doesn't fall under "embarrassing private information" either 3) somewhat debatable, but considering there was a disclaimer explaining that the video is staged should rule this out, too (you know, like the disclaimers they put in tv shows e.g. "all characters and events in this show - even those based on real people - are entirely fictional"). Not to mention that anybody with a semi-functional brain would realize that the kids were most certainly not dancing to offensive lyrics even without reading the disclaimer... 4) now, that's a point he can be sued over, but it most certainly doesn't warrant a 20-years sentence or any jail time for that matter
destruction of reputations!? Whose? The children's? Or maybe the teachers'? Or the principal's? The video doesn't claim that any of the officials were involved in creating or approved of the material, and in addition there was a disclaimer that actually says the exact opposite. A case (a stupid one but nevertheless) could be made that the video could be interpreted in an unfavorable way for some officials, but this doesn't warrant a prison sentence.
Furthermore, neither "invasion of privacy" nor "destruction of reputations" is why everybody in this thread feels the urge to face palm. The reasons is that some crazy prosecutor somehow came to the idea to file a sexual abuse charge!
p.s. Astonishing how you can even dare to compare a disclosed internet joke with a life-endangering, possibly life-claiming, property destroying crime like arson.
I agree wholeheartedly with your reaction and response. Like I said earlier, there is no legitimate case against this guy. As stupid as he comes off, there is no reason for him to be locked up. A simple fine and community hours would suffice.
i still have to say what he did is incredibly retarded and not funny, but just even thinking of judging him for it just beats that record of retardness he just set.
Well hang on presumably 20 years is the legis mandated maximum penalty for the crime he was charged with right. He hasn't been sentenced yet?
20 years would obviously be excessive, he won't receive that.
On the issue of the act itself though, I can't see why it doesn't fall within the scope of the relevant criminal statute. And I can say for sure if I was a parent and saw my child dancing to that stuff on youtube, I'd be apopleptic. (Not that that of itself is a reason to criminalize the conduct, just as an aside.)
Oh finally, please don't confuse "suits" and criminal acts. Criminal law for crimes, tort law for civil actions. This story is about the criminal statute.
Re possible civil actions, I don't know, you could try torts of trespass (purpose of entry outside agreed scope - should be relatively easy to argue, at first blush), assault (seeing a guy sing sexually predatory/explicit songs at your child on video could arguably give rise to reasonable apprehension of future battery/criminal acts - hard to argue because of relative remoteness of the threatened physical contact; I'd still argue it myself but it's weak), and probably also infliction of mental distress with the plantiff being the parents and possibly also teachers (this is the wishywashiest of these torts which makes it harder to argue but easier to win, depends a lot on the actual facts eg. how freaky/unsettling the video footage actually is, how freaked out the parents got (eggshell skull principle etc) - def worth arguing, hard to predict likelihood of success).
On February 19 2011 08:12 gurrpp wrote: wow this is kind of fucked up. I don't see why this should be a criminal offense since he didn't harm anyone and it was done in good fun.
Sounds like a good defense against arson. Would you use it?
He's not being charged for physically harming people.
Responding with superior sarcasm, mental harm holds importance as well in a court, which was also not in play here. Did the children suffer from mental damage? All I see are overzealous parents and you.
When I was 5-7years old I knew ALOT of offensive songs and rhymes. I bet kids still do today and even if he sang the offensive song infront of them they would not have suffered any harm at all.
I bet he would face a softer penalty for just diddling the kids.
So basically they're prosecuting him for making materials which made it seem like.. kids heard something their parents didn't want them to hear. From which follows that making kids hear something their parents don't want them to hear is a crime.
On February 19 2011 10:35 chocopan wrote: Re possible civil actions, I don't know, you could try torts of trespass (purpose of entry outside agreed scope - should be relatively easy to argue, at first blush), assault (seeing a guy sing sexually predatory/explicit songs at your child on video could arguably give rise to reasonable apprehension of future battery/criminal acts - hard to argue because of relative remoteness of the threatened physical contact; I'd still argue it myself but it's weak), and probably also infliction of mental distress with the plantiff being the parents and possibly also teachers (this is the wishywashiest of these torts which makes it harder to argue but easier to win, depends a lot on the actual facts eg. how freaky/unsettling the video footage actually is, how freaked out the parents got (eggshell skull principle etc) - def worth arguing, hard to predict likelihood of success).
did you even read the case?
there is no trespass. he was an invitee of the school to perform a song for the children, which he did.
there is no assault. there is no reasonable apprehension of bodily harm. the kids did not hear the sexually-explicit version.
there is no IIED or NIED - he sung a chaste song to children, just as advertised.
there is no eggshell skull plaintiff here (even if the parents could argue eggshell skull vicariously through their children, which in many states they cannot).
for reals, read the case. don't act like a first year law student who reads two sentences and tries to go to town on it
I dont really think his video from the description was in good taste and i suppose it could affect reputation of those children/parents/school( i dunno, did his video show faces of those children?) and some sort of fine and taking video down is called for. But prison time, and child molester/porn stamp in his records, way too much i think.
He did a nice thing for the children by entertaining them with a wholesome song at school. The children involved were not a part of the tawdry version and likely will never see it. People post offensive videos all the time; the children are not victims in this. Even if it were my child in that video, I would testify on his behalf and thank him for providing my kid with a nice repose from our filthy public schooling system.
On February 19 2011 05:45 Apocalyptic wrote: I agree that 20 years is a ridiculous punishment, but this guy deserves to go to jail for this. I would say 3-12 months max. Doing something like this to innocent kids is sick, but come on guys, lets be reasonable.
Umm... the kids weren't harmed at all... it was just a video edit, and you still think he deserves to go to jail?
Fortunately, I'm assuming he'll be given a trial with a jury.
Fortunately, no reasonable person is going to lock this guy away for this.
Unfortunately, it's the United States and more ridiculous shit happens on a regular basis in those courts. We're all going "Are you fucking kidding me?", just like I'm sure he is right now. Best of luck.
Dumbest shit in the world, seriously. If he doesn't beat this case, then he will appeal all the way to supreme court if he needs to. I don't think they will make this stick. Jesus listen to the fucking idiots who are against him in that newsclip in the OP.
On February 19 2011 11:33 annul wrote: did you even read the case?
there is no trespass. he was an invitee of the school to perform a song for the children, which he did.
When you invite someone, there is no trespass. You are correct. However, the grant is not without limits. For example, if you invite a salesperson into your home to discuss a product purchase, and then the salesman goes on to cook dinner in your kitchen (without you giving them permission to do so), that is beyond the scope of the original consent to allow entry, hence trespass may lie. On these facts, he entered the school purporting one purpose, but had another. One clearly not anticipated by the school staff. Hence, trespass may lie.
there is no assault. there is no reasonable apprehension of bodily harm. the kids did not hear the sexually-explicit version.
Whether the apprehension was reasonable is a question of fact. The issue of law would be if the anticipated physical contact was too remote. I expect myself a court would find it was indeed to remote. As I said in my original post, I wouldn't expect a tort of assault to be successful on these facts. I'd still argue it however.
As regards your final point, that the children did not hear the sexual version, I like that one. Actually since it was on youtube they may have heard it but thats a factual issue. The interesting legal one is whether the apprehension has to be on the part of the child, or whether the aprehension of a parent would also satisfy the requirements of the tort of assualt. I'm not sure of the case law on this point although I'm pretty sure some would exist. Anyone? (Esp. in US jurisdictions?)
there is no eggshell skull plaintiff here (even if the parents could argue eggshell skull vicariously through their children, which in many states they cannot)
I have no info on the facts on this point in this case. Just raised it as an example of the sorts of things you would want to look into if you wanted to try and argue mental distress in this kind of factual scenario. Re vicariousness, depends who is the plaintiff. An eggshell parent can most certainly bring an action for distress consequent upon threats to their child, at least in the jurisdictions I am familiar with. It may be the case this has been limited by statute in some jurisdictions. ?
for reals, read the case. don't act like a first year law student who reads two sentences and tries to go to town on it
Your points are strong enough to stand without having to resort to ad hominem. ; )
On February 19 2011 11:33 annul wrote: did you even read the case?
there is no trespass. he was an invitee of the school to perform a song for the children, which he did.
When you invite someone, there is no trespass. You are correct. However, the grant is not without limits. For example, if you invite a salesperson into your home to discuss a product purchase, and then the salesman goes on to cook dinner in your kitchen (without you giving them permission to do so), that is beyond the scope of the original consent to allow entry, hence trespass may lie. On these facts, he entered the school purporting one purpose, but had another. One clearly not anticipated by the school staff. Hence, trespass may lie.
cooking dinner in my house involves fire pots and pans and my food
if the salesman sang a song in my living room without me looking i wouldnt be mad
Dunno if this helps but there have been a number of threads over the years with polls about TL users MB ratings. It always turns out that INTJ INTP are top.
I got pissed after reading 4 pages of comments "20 years is way too much". Can you fucking have a clue before posting your comments. 20 years is just the standard maximum sentence at stakes, it doesn't mean the judge will give him 20 years, the judge is usually smart and knows how to handle his hammer.
Cool story, US legal system. Anyways, he got charged, he hasn't been prosecuted yet. But the fact that this is an actual case is ridiculous. I've wondered how anyone can take what the US legal system is and does seriously for years now, but I guess for corporations and, through taxes, the state itself, the retardation the US legal system poses is just perfect, so why change it in order to gain freedom of the people in any way? That's one thing the republicans managed to perfectly abuse for years, after all, the imaginary invisible guy that some other imaginary guy supposedly wrote a book about a couple of thousand years go, says so. Better believe him, or else!
- it has nothing to do with child abuse. It was a bit over the top, take the video down and make him apologize but leave it at that. Even 6 months would be ridiculous. But... 20 years...TWENTY???? That is barbaric arbitrariness. What is this? Some deveolpments in the USA remind me more and more of the Europe of ~1100, the dark age while other parts are such a great, free and creative society. I wish so much that the Tea Party, creationist, FOX news, let's bomb some other countries they might be evil side loses.
- how can the parents of the children in the video sleep well at night when they know that another mother and father probably cry every night right now because their son might face a life in jail for a joke?
- how can the persecutors and police look into the mirror without being ashamed of themselves? These hypocrits.
What this makes me think is that America has some kind of movement, Dominionism I think it is called, that mirrors what is going on in the Arab world with Islamism*.
*Please look up the word if you think I am referring to Muslims or Islam because I am not.
I feel really sorry for the guy who may be facing 20 years of jail time for the "crime" that he has committed. As others have suggested, community service or something along those sorts would be reasonable but I can't fathom the current penalty of 20 years, honestly fuck that.
How does this not fall under the First Amendment? Even if it had been in front of the kids I still think it would be freedom of speech, and that fact that it wasn't makes this totally ridiculous. I hope he gets off and sues the county/state for wrongful imprisonment.
I don't understand what crime was committed here. If he gets ANY punishment whatsoever it is fucking disgusting. The fact that he is going through any of this is totally fucked up. wow. wow. wow.
Doesn't this violate freedom of speech or something. But why in the fuck someone would go through that much trouble to make some asinine video is beyond me.
On February 19 2011 13:49 Bosu wrote: I don't understand what crime was committed here. If he gets ANY punishment whatsoever it is fucking disgusting. The fact that he is going through any of this is totally fucked up. wow. wow. wow.
Agreed, there is no reason for even community service or any other light penalty. The only thing that may be to a small degree, 'wrong' is showing the kids without parental consent or whatever, but that doesn't warrant a penalty other than the removal of the video from the net.
this is so stupid. ive seen so many songs and movies and videos in my lifetime that involve killing children and death and despair along with raping women and even men. this guy is tryin to make a joke, but how are the PARENTS even involved?! when i was 10 i would have LOVED to have been in a youtube video where all my friends could see me. that was the shit back in the day, so wait wait, you're not getting the point..
TL;DR Stop trolling on the internet, because now we're going to get filtered and sent to jail for saying anything remotely offensive. Way to go, this is just the first step to start jamming internet laws down our throats in America, fucking retarded.
Definitely not just an America thing. In Europe they can charge you with child pornography if you look at pictures of women that are age 18+ but LOOK younger than that. Even if you can prove that the models are 18+, you still go to jail for posession of child pornography. Absolutely ridiculous.
The main driving factor behind laws like that are of course: feminist organizations.
If you think America has it bad, always remember, Europe has it even worse.
I still wonder if those guys actually think about what stupid stuff like that makes your legal system look like.
I will be honest, i have no idea how the american legal system actually works. But the impression an outsider gets is that it seems to mostly be a playground for lawyers that want to make themselves known by trying to exploit some ill-worded laws or court decisions in the most ridiculous way possible. The sentence is then decided mostly upon which side has the more expensive lawyer, that is more experienced in exploiting strange customs in court, instead of actual facts. Important facts can often not be used in court because of whatever reason. Also, if you want money, you only need to find a rich person/organisation and sue them if they did not explicitly tell you not to microwave your cat, or that coffee is, in fact, hot. An automatic glass-door needs to be flastered by so many different warning signs that you can not look through the glass-door anymore. The quality of a prosecutor is determined mostly based on his conviction rate. Somehow, charging people with insane claims only to gain some media, or to again abuse some obscure rule, instead of something sensible is common practice. This is the picture that i, and i think most people i know, have of the US legal system. Of course, noone i know has ever had anything to do with it directly. So basically, either your justice system does not work like it is supposed to at all, or it has a massive image problem.
On February 19 2011 13:13 Fenrax wrote: - how can the parents of the children in the video sleep well at night when they know that another mother and father probably cry every night right now because their son might face a life in jail for a joke?
- how can the persecutors and police look into the mirror without being ashamed of themselves? These hypocrits.
It's astounding what people will do to not look stupid. Or for money.
This guy shouldn't get any jail time. There would be no "destroying of reputations" or whatever bullshit DarkPlasmaBall was going on about, if people didn't make such a huge deal about this in the first place. Nobody would care. Except some uptight parents who couldn't take a joke.
Now those children will be known as the kids whose parents are litigious, butthurt morons that actively tried to ruin someone's life for no reason.
I was trying to be more civil about this discussion before, but honestly the more I think of it, the more pissed off I get.
On February 19 2011 14:59 Simberto wrote: I still wonder if those guys actually think about what stupid stuff like that makes your legal system look like.
I will be honest, i have no idea how the american legal system actually works. But the impression an outsider gets is that it seems to mostly be a playground for lawyers that want to make themselves known by trying to exploit some ill-worded laws or court decisions in the most ridiculous way possible. The sentence is then decided mostly upon which side has the more expensive lawyer, that is more experienced in exploiting strange customs in court, instead of actual facts. Important facts can often not be used in court because of whatever reason. Also, if you want money, you only need to find a rich person/organisation and sue them if they did not explicitly tell you not to microwave your cat, or that coffee is, in fact, hot. An automatic glass-door needs to be flastered by so many different warning signs that you can not look through the glass-door anymore. The quality of a prosecutor is determined mostly based on his conviction rate. Somehow, charging people with insane claims only to gain some media, or to again abuse some obscure rule, instead of something sensible is common practice. This is the picture that i, and i think most people i know, have of the US legal system. Of course, noone i know has ever had anything to do with it directly. So basically, either your justice system does not work like it is supposed to at all, or it has a massive image problem.
Stop,
I assume you are referring to the McDonalds coffee lawsuit. And I assume you know nothing about the actual case. The women in that case had to undergo skin gaffes because the burns were so sever.
The sweatpants Liebeck was wearing absorbed the coffee and held it next to her skin. A vascular surgeon determined that Liebeck suffered full thickness burns (or third-degree burns) over 6 percent of her body, including her inner thighs, perineum, buttocks, and genital and groin areas. She was hospitalized for eight days, during which time she underwent skin grafting. Liebeck, who also underwent debridement treatments, sought to settle her claim for $20,000, but McDonalds refused.
Well, I can understand how some ppl are up in arms over this, but I blame the media headline for it. The singer was charged with the offence which carries a maximum penalty of 20 years, but that is because there was nothing else to charge him for. If he gets convicted, it'll be up to the judge to set the sentence.
A lot of people are saying that the police shouldn't charge him, but really, they are missing the point - under USA's separation of systems, it is not up to the Executive branch to determine if he has broken the law or not. It is up to the Judiciary.
On February 19 2011 14:59 Simberto wrote: I still wonder if those guys actually think about what stupid stuff like that makes your legal system look like.
I will be honest, i have no idea how the american legal system actually works. But the impression an outsider gets is that it seems to mostly be a playground for lawyers that want to make themselves known by trying to exploit some ill-worded laws or court decisions in the most ridiculous way possible. The sentence is then decided mostly upon which side has the more expensive lawyer, that is more experienced in exploiting strange customs in court, instead of actual facts. Important facts can often not be used in court because of whatever reason. Also, if you want money, you only need to find a rich person/organisation and sue them if they did not explicitly tell you not to microwave your cat, or that coffee is, in fact, hot. An automatic glass-door needs to be flastered by so many different warning signs that you can not look through the glass-door anymore. The quality of a prosecutor is determined mostly based on his conviction rate. Somehow, charging people with insane claims only to gain some media, or to again abuse some obscure rule, instead of something sensible is common practice. This is the picture that i, and i think most people i know, have of the US legal system. Of course, noone i know has ever had anything to do with it directly. So basically, either your justice system does not work like it is supposed to at all, or it has a massive image problem.
Stop,
I assume you are referring to the McDonalds coffee lawsuit. And I assume you know nothing about the actual case. The women in that case had to undergo skin gaffes because the burns were so sever.
The sweatpants Liebeck was wearing absorbed the coffee and held it next to her skin. A vascular surgeon determined that Liebeck suffered full thickness burns (or third-degree burns) over 6 percent of her body, including her inner thighs, perineum, buttocks, and genital and groin areas. She was hospitalized for eight days, during which time she underwent skin grafting. Liebeck, who also underwent debridement treatments, sought to settle her claim for $20,000, but McDonalds refused.
I stated multiple times that i do not no anything about how your legal system. I just said that it has an image problem. And, after reading that link you posted, i still think that that is stupid. It simply slips my mind how someone who drips coffee onto her lap, by her own fault, can than sue the company providing the coffee because it was hot, and actually win. Maybe i do not have the right mind for this stuff, but that seems insane to me. People are not babies, so it you can not demand that everything is children-proof, and can not damage people, even if handled totally wrong. Coffee is supposed to be hot. Putting very hot stuff on your skin is not a good idea. If you do so, even if by accident, it is your own fault, and not the fault of the person supplying the hot stuff, which probably even tells you that it is hot, also everyone who orders a coffee should know that it is hot anyway, since coffee is supposed to be hot. So i do not understand how a court could rule that the company providing the coffee should pay 2.86 million, or 640000$. But for that amount of money, i would probably spill a cup of hot coffee onto my loin any day.
On February 19 2011 14:59 Simberto wrote: I still wonder if those guys actually think about what stupid stuff like that makes your legal system look like.
I will be honest, i have no idea how the american legal system actually works. But the impression an outsider gets is that it seems to mostly be a playground for lawyers that want to make themselves known by trying to exploit some ill-worded laws or court decisions in the most ridiculous way possible. The sentence is then decided mostly upon which side has the more expensive lawyer, that is more experienced in exploiting strange customs in court, instead of actual facts. Important facts can often not be used in court because of whatever reason. Also, if you want money, you only need to find a rich person/organisation and sue them if they did not explicitly tell you not to microwave your cat, or that coffee is, in fact, hot. An automatic glass-door needs to be flastered by so many different warning signs that you can not look through the glass-door anymore. The quality of a prosecutor is determined mostly based on his conviction rate. Somehow, charging people with insane claims only to gain some media, or to again abuse some obscure rule, instead of something sensible is common practice. This is the picture that i, and i think most people i know, have of the US legal system. Of course, noone i know has ever had anything to do with it directly. So basically, either your justice system does not work like it is supposed to at all, or it has a massive image problem.
Stop,
I assume you are referring to the McDonalds coffee lawsuit. And I assume you know nothing about the actual case. The women in that case had to undergo skin gaffes because the burns were so sever.
The sweatpants Liebeck was wearing absorbed the coffee and held it next to her skin. A vascular surgeon determined that Liebeck suffered full thickness burns (or third-degree burns) over 6 percent of her body, including her inner thighs, perineum, buttocks, and genital and groin areas. She was hospitalized for eight days, during which time she underwent skin grafting. Liebeck, who also underwent debridement treatments, sought to settle her claim for $20,000, but McDonalds refused.
I stated multiple times that i do not no anything about how your legal system. I just said that it has an image problem. And, after reading that link you posted, i still think that that is stupid. It simply slips my mind how someone who drips coffee onto her lap, by her own fault, can than sue the company providing the coffee because it was hot, and actually win. Maybe i do not have the right mind for this stuff, but that seems insane to me. People are not babies, so it you can not demand that everything is children-proof, and can not damage people, even if handled totally wrong. Coffee is supposed to be hot. Putting very hot stuff on your skin is not a good idea. If you do so, even if by accident, it is your own fault, and not the fault of the person supplying the hot stuff, which probably even tells you that it is hot, also everyone who orders a coffee should know that it is hot anyway, since coffee is supposed to be hot. So i do not understand how a court could rule that the company providing the coffee should pay 2.86 million, or 640000$. But for that amount of money, i would probably spill a cup of hot coffee onto my loin any day.
You're correct it's absolutely absurd, serious amendments need to be made to stop morons like that form taking advantage of others due to their own profound stupidity and greed.
20 years is too much. And this is coming from someone who hates this guy. Not because what he did is "wrong". Its just ridiculously unfunny and a complete and total modern cliche to try to shock with this kind of humor to get hits on fooltube. What he did wasnt an act against morality, its an act against hilarity.
I say give him a couple years probation, but forbid him to tell any jokes or make any youtube vids for 20 years for having dog crap sense of humor.
Or how about this, have him remake a different youtube vid. And in this one hes not allowed to use any shock value or sex appeal, or anything like that. Force him to actually BE witty and do something genuinely ironic or full of crystal clear talent, no gimmicks. If he accomplishes it, then he goes free. If he cant (because he cant), he goes to jail.
If the justice system is going to be unfair and random, lets at least use it to prove various interesting points about humanity.
On February 19 2011 14:59 Simberto wrote: I still wonder if those guys actually think about what stupid stuff like that makes your legal system look like.
I will be honest, i have no idea how the american legal system actually works. But the impression an outsider gets is that it seems to mostly be a playground for lawyers that want to make themselves known by trying to exploit some ill-worded laws or court decisions in the most ridiculous way possible. The sentence is then decided mostly upon which side has the more expensive lawyer, that is more experienced in exploiting strange customs in court, instead of actual facts. Important facts can often not be used in court because of whatever reason. Also, if you want money, you only need to find a rich person/organisation and sue them if they did not explicitly tell you not to microwave your cat, or that coffee is, in fact, hot. An automatic glass-door needs to be flastered by so many different warning signs that you can not look through the glass-door anymore. The quality of a prosecutor is determined mostly based on his conviction rate. Somehow, charging people with insane claims only to gain some media, or to again abuse some obscure rule, instead of something sensible is common practice. This is the picture that i, and i think most people i know, have of the US legal system. Of course, noone i know has ever had anything to do with it directly. So basically, either your justice system does not work like it is supposed to at all, or it has a massive image problem.
Stop,
I assume you are referring to the McDonalds coffee lawsuit. And I assume you know nothing about the actual case. The women in that case had to undergo skin gaffes because the burns were so sever.
The sweatpants Liebeck was wearing absorbed the coffee and held it next to her skin. A vascular surgeon determined that Liebeck suffered full thickness burns (or third-degree burns) over 6 percent of her body, including her inner thighs, perineum, buttocks, and genital and groin areas. She was hospitalized for eight days, during which time she underwent skin grafting. Liebeck, who also underwent debridement treatments, sought to settle her claim for $20,000, but McDonalds refused.
I stated multiple times that i do not no anything about how your legal system. I just said that it has an image problem. And, after reading that link you posted, i still think that that is stupid. It simply slips my mind how someone who drips coffee onto her lap, by her own fault, can than sue the company providing the coffee because it was hot, and actually win. Maybe i do not have the right mind for this stuff, but that seems insane to me. People are not babies, so it you can not demand that everything is children-proof, and can not damage people, even if handled totally wrong. Coffee is supposed to be hot. Putting very hot stuff on your skin is not a good idea. If you do so, even if by accident, it is your own fault, and not the fault of the person supplying the hot stuff, which probably even tells you that it is hot, also everyone who orders a coffee should know that it is hot anyway, since coffee is supposed to be hot. So i do not understand how a court could rule that the company providing the coffee should pay 2.86 million, or 640000$. But for that amount of money, i would probably spill a cup of hot coffee onto my loin any day.
You're correct it's absolutely absurd, serious amendments need to be made to stop morons like that form taking advantage of others due to their own profound stupidity and greed.
So you have never spilled anything on yourself before? I don't see how this women is a "moron" for having an accident. McD's severed the coffee at an unsafe temperature she had ever right to sue. It was only a matter of time before someone hurt themselves with the coffee being severed at that temperature.
But the incident this thread is about is absurd when no crime was actually committed only a crass attempt at comedy.
This trial is barely entering the red tape. it will be shut down lonnnnnnnnnnng before a sentence is called. Not only is this a net neutrality issue, its a free speech issue and the American government is smarter than that. Meanwhile; i wonder if /b/ knows....
*sigh* Why do people hear "20 years" and assume that's what he's facing?
It's a maximum penalty for an offence. Unless he has serious prior convictions and the circumstances of this offence were much more aggravated, he will face nowhere near such a penalty.
Thread title is completely misleading. Seriously, there's 15 pages of raging over the inappropriateness of a penalty that he wont receive and that people simply dont understand...
He should probably get in trouble for publishing videos of other people's children. But that's nothing.
I don't really get what the big deal is. There's worse things on youtube. It falls under parody. So yeah. This is just a bunch of old farts/Christians still living 20 years in the past.
The way I see it, a group of adults are trying to screw over someone's life for a minuscule mistake. (If they're trying hard for 20 years in jail) These people are thinking they stand for something good, but if they're going that extreme, then I can't distinguish who the bad guy is here.
On February 19 2011 16:11 Brett wrote: *sigh* Why do people hear "20 years" and assume that's what he's facing?
It's a maximum penalty for an offence. Unless he has serious prior convictions and the circumstances of this offence were much more aggravated, he will face nowhere near such a penalty.
Thread title is completely misleading. Seriously, there's 15 pages of raging over the inappropriateness of a penalty that he wont receive and that people simply dont understand...
Because here in europe, people get charged with something remotely similar to what they will receive if found guilty usually. Or, i actually thing that they do not get charged with a specific amount of years beforehand, but after the trial the prosecutor says "I think he is guilty and get 12 years", and the defender say something like "Ok, he is guilty, but it is not that bad, he should get 5 years", and then actual penalty is something in between. I am no expert in the legal system, but it works something like that. So when they say someone is charged with 20 years, we expect that if they are found guilty, they will get something in that general ballpark as a sentence. And not some hours of community service, or something like that. Because if the crime actually deserves only that much punishment, why did they not simply charge them with that to begin with? If someone is charged with 20 years, we think that the prosecutor thinks that that is what they should get.
Those guys need to chill the fuck out, seirously. he edited the video, i mean if i edited a video of me shooting JFK in the head does that make me the murderer of him?
Of course, no.
Lol ppl these days cant understand humor sometimes. Even Oprah got trolled by 4chan before with OVER 9000 PENISES
Imo, Eddie Van Halen should be brought up on charges too, look at the explicit material in this video with kids and also filmed in a class room! (omg might be NSFW)
Honestly this is pretty stupid that this guy could be given 20 years in jail for this.
On February 19 2011 16:11 Brett wrote: *sigh* Why do people hear "20 years" and assume that's what he's facing?
It's a maximum penalty for an offence. Unless he has serious prior convictions and the circumstances of this offence were much more aggravated, he will face nowhere near such a penalty.
Thread title is completely misleading. Seriously, there's 15 pages of raging over the inappropriateness of a penalty that he wont receive and that people simply dont understand...
Because here in europe, people get charged with something remotely similar to what they will receive if found guilty usually. Or, i actually thing that they do not get charged with a specific amount of years beforehand, but after the trial the prosecutor says "I think he is guilty and get 12 years", and the defender say something like "Ok, he is guilty, but it is not that bad, he should get 5 years", and then actual penalty is something in between. I am no expert in the legal system, but it works something like that. So when they say someone is charged with 20 years, we expect that if they are found guilty, they will get something in that general ballpark as a sentence. And not some hours of community service, or something like that. Because if the crime actually deserves only that much punishment, why did they not simply charge them with that to begin with? If someone is charged with 20 years, we think that the prosecutor thinks that that is what they should get.
In every single post you have now stated that you do not know how the legal system works (be it american or european), yet you continue posting about it in great length and detail as if you did. Why? Just drop the issue. All you bring to the table are arguments based on your "feeling" about the topic without backing it up with actual knowledge or research.
P.S.: Feel free to browse german news for all the headlines were lawyers or victims "demand" ridiculous amounts of jail time - because it's the theoretical upper limit of the law and they want the media attention.
I am pretty sure that almost nobody in this thread actually knows how any legal system works, since you basically need to be a lawyer to do so, and most people are not lawyers (which is a good thing). I am just being honest about it. If this means that i have no right to talk, then i think this thread should be pretty empty.
Aaaand this is the reason why I permanently left America in the first place. I have either become disgusted at what my country has become, or got old enough to realize what it always was. Regardless, I think I could go the rest of my life without ever stepping foot in it again and be perfectly happy.
On February 19 2011 15:57 Mellotron wrote: 20 years is too much. And this is coming from someone who hates this guy. Not because what he did is "wrong". Its just ridiculously unfunny and a complete and total modern cliche to try to shock with this kind of humor to get hits on fooltube. What he did wasnt an act against morality, its an act against hilarity.
I say give him a couple years probation, but forbid him to tell any jokes or make any youtube vids for 20 years for having dog crap sense of humor.
Or how about this, have him remake a different youtube vid. And in this one hes not allowed to use any shock value or sex appeal, or anything like that. Force him to actually BE witty and do something genuinely ironic or full of crystal clear talent, no gimmicks. If he accomplishes it, then he goes free. If he cant (because he cant), he goes to jail.
If the justice system is going to be unfair and random, lets at least use it to prove various interesting points about humanity.
LOL I love your way of thinking. Achieve 1mill youtube hits or else fine/jailtime. Hahaha, the shame would be punishment enough.
It that episode he made it appear that he was in a playground with child while he was naked. Showing childred your dong is arguably worse than singing about sex that they way or may not understand.
So logically, Daniel Tosh should be thrown in jail for his comedy routine. This may be in different states, but the principle is the same.
On February 19 2011 17:14 treekiller wrote: anyone see the most recent tosh.0?
It that episode he made it appear that he was in a playground with child while he was naked. Showing childred your dong is arguably worse than singing about sex that they way or may not understand.
So logically, Daniel Tosh should be thrown in jail for his comedy routine. This may be in different states, but the principle is the same.
Actually, Daniel Tosh should be thrown in jail for his comedy routine. He ruins a show with being unfunny.
On February 19 2011 17:14 treekiller wrote: anyone see the most recent tosh.0?
It that episode he made it appear that he was in a playground with child while he was naked. Showing childred your dong is arguably worse than singing about sex that they way or may not understand.
So logically, Daniel Tosh should be thrown in jail for his comedy routine. This may be in different states, but the principle is the same.
Actually, Daniel Tosh should be thrown in jail for his comedy routine. He ruins a show with being unfunny.
You should be thrown in jail for not having a sense of humor. Tosh is awesome.
On February 19 2011 17:14 treekiller wrote: anyone see the most recent tosh.0?
It that episode he made it appear that he was in a playground with child while he was naked. Showing childred your dong is arguably worse than singing about sex that they way or may not understand.
So logically, Daniel Tosh should be thrown in jail for his comedy routine. This may be in different states, but the principle is the same.
Actually, Daniel Tosh should be thrown in jail for his comedy routine. He ruins a show with being unfunny.
You should be thrown in jail for not having a sense of humor. Tosh is awesome.
On a scale of comedians, he ranks somewhere between Sara Silverman and Yucko the Clown.
They prosecute a person that makes a funny/weird video, while they are at court, why dont they bring in a cat for jury duty and get a goat to be a witness and I might approve of this.
"The goat was horrified when he saw something that obviosly aimed to be a pseudo-childpornographic, he was so chocked that he called the internetpolice"
On February 19 2011 16:11 Brett wrote: *sigh* Why do people hear "20 years" and assume that's what he's facing?
It's a maximum penalty for an offence. Unless he has serious prior convictions and the circumstances of this offence were much more aggravated, he will face nowhere near such a penalty.
Thread title is completely misleading. Seriously, there's 15 pages of raging over the inappropriateness of a penalty that he wont receive and that people simply dont understand...
Because here in europe, people get charged with something remotely similar to what they will receive if found guilty usually. Or, i actually thing that they do not get charged with a specific amount of years beforehand, but after the trial the prosecutor says "I think he is guilty and get 12 years", and the defender say something like "Ok, he is guilty, but it is not that bad, he should get 5 years", and then actual penalty is something in between. I am no expert in the legal system, but it works something like that. So when they say someone is charged with 20 years, we expect that if they are found guilty, they will get something in that general ballpark as a sentence. And not some hours of community service, or something like that. Because if the crime actually deserves only that much punishment, why did they not simply charge them with that to begin with? If someone is charged with 20 years, we think that the prosecutor thinks that that is what they should get.
Let me explain it to you (I am a practising criminal lawyer with 4 years experience post admission).
A single criminal charge is composed of certain elements. When these elements are all present a charge is proven. These elements are more often than not quite general so as to 'catch' numerous acts which a person may perform. This is done to limit the amount of offences it is necessary to create.
Accordingly, the vast majority of criminal offences are able to be proven despite various differences in the acts committed by a person. Eg. a charge of "theft" can be proven where a person with no job or home steals a toothbrush in a shop, and it can be proven where a gainfully employed person breaks into a house and steals a million dollar painting for the purpose of adding it to their collection. As you can see no doubt see in the two examples, there is a variance in the seriousness of the offence.
In order for a sentencing body to be able exercise its discretion in attributing an appropriate penalty to these two examples of "theft", the criminal law prescribes a maximum penalty to that offence of theft. Here in Australia, the maximum penalty for a single charge of theft is 10 years imprisonment. Now, OBVIOUSLY, my client who is charged with stealing a toothbrush because he has no money, absent any other factors, is not going to be sent to gaol for 10 years...
The law also understands that some people will have varying antecedents. Some people will present on a charge of theft for the first time in their life... others may be career criminals facing their 12th theft charge. The prescription of a maximum penalty further allows the sentencing body to recognise the previous character of the offender. Thus if two people steal a toothbrush because they are homeless and jobless, yet Offender A is there in Court for the first time, whilst the Offender B is there for the 6th time for such a charge... The penalties will vary: A) might get a good behaviour bond, B might be facing an immediate term of imprisonment.
There are numerous other sentencing considerations to be thrown into the mix before a penalty is ever imposed, but I will not go into those here; no doubt you get my point. That is why these sorts of articles are stupid. They sensationalise it by saying "20 years!" when there is absolutely no chance of that ever occuring. Thus my comments that the preceding 15 pages of rage at him facing a 20 year sentence are slightly misplaced...
I'm pretty surprised by the reactions in this thread. I think a lot of people don't really understand the criminal justice system and are reacting way too strongly to this case.
Yeah, the guy was arraigned and charged with a felony that carries a penalty of up to 20 years. That does not mean, in any way shape or form, that he'll be convicted of that felony and sentenced to 20 years in jail. My mind would be blown if that were to happen. I've seen people get arrested on attempted murder charges, arraigned on manslaughter charges, plead guilty to an assault charge, and end up serving no time. There's very little connection between arraignments and punishment when it comes to felonies.
What will probably happen is that his lawyer and the DA's office will come to some sort of resolution that's agreeable to the parents of the children (who were victimized by being portrayed in that song) and to this guy's lawyer. It might involve a little jail time - he did make a pretty horrendously stupid and ignorant decision that caused a lot of people a lot of mental distress - but he's not going to get 20 years, not even close.
Really guys, the vitriol being dumped on the DA's office here is pretty unfounded. Parents are upset - they're seeing their children depicted in an obscene manner. These are real people with real grievances, who've been put into serious distress. The DA's office is absolutely right to charge him with a serious felony - it shows that the office takes their concerns seriously and will respond to them accordingly. You might feel differently if it was a picture of your little girl smiling and laughing as a guy sings about pedophilia and the video was up on youtube for the world to see.
Really, the DA's office can always bring new charges, or reduce the charges pending additional facts or new developments. These decisions are always made on a very tight timetable - they arrested him and had to arraign him within 24 hours, so they decided to play it safe and charge him with a serious crime that shows they listen to the parents in their community. They can go pretty much anywhere from here - more serious or less serious - but the charges that are presented to you at arraignments rarely bear more than a resemblance to what you'll see at sentencing.
Lastly, I'll admit that I'm an ADA myself, for what that's worth - whether you think that makes my opinion more valuable or more biased is for you to decide.
On February 19 2011 08:06 Touch wrote: Thing is, he didn't hurt anyone, not even indirectly.
On February 19 2011 08:12 gurrpp wrote: wow this is kind of fucked up. I don't see why this should be a criminal offense since he didn't harm anyone and it was done in good fun.
Sounds like a good defense against arson. Would you use it?
He's not being charged for physically harming people.
In Arson, you ARE hurting people by destroying their property. He's not even hurting peoples' property.
And the invasion of privacy and destruction of reputations isn't harming people? That's what this idiot did.
[...]
Reputations will be permanently ruined, there will be consequences because of the viral video, and inevitable defamation will ensue directly because of the lie that is that spliced video.
Invasion of privacy: "1) intrusion on one's solitude or into one's private affairs; 2) public disclosure of embarrassing private information; 3) publicity which puts him/her in a false light to the public; 4) appropriation of one's name or picture for personal or commercial advantage."
1) I'd say that children being at school is not exactly a "private affair" or "intrusion of solitude" 2) children being at school doesn't fall under "embarrassing private information" either 3) somewhat debatable, but considering there was a disclaimer explaining that the video is staged should rule this out, too (you know, like the disclaimers they put in tv shows e.g. "all characters and events in this show - even those based on real people - are entirely fictional"). Not to mention that anybody with a semi-functional brain would realize that the kids were most certainly not dancing to offensive lyrics even without reading the disclaimer... 4) now, that's a point he can be sued over, but it most certainly doesn't warrant a 20-years sentence or any jail time for that matter
destruction of reputations!? Whose? The children's? Or maybe the teachers'? Or the principal's? The video doesn't claim that any of the officials were involved in creating or approved of the material, and in addition there was a disclaimer that actually says the exact opposite. A case (a stupid one but nevertheless) could be made that the video could be interpreted in an unfavorable way for some officials, but this doesn't warrant a prison sentence.
Furthermore, neither "invasion of privacy" nor "destruction of reputations" is why everybody in this thread feels the urge to face palm. The reasons is that some crazy prosecutor somehow came to the idea to file a sexual abuse charge!
p.s. Astonishing how you can even dare to compare a disclosed internet joke with a life-endangering, possibly life-claiming, property destroying crime like arson.
Actually this sort of thing could be very damaging to a teacher's reputation- maybe not a veteran, but definitely a new teacher. Whatever happens in the classroom is the teacher's responsibility and the fact that this jokester got in and out of the class with video footage for a less than reputable purpose would definitely show a new teacher in poor light to administration, parents, and board members. (Serious misjudge of character on who the teacher is bringing into the class as guests.) Probably not enough to get a teacher fired, but definitely enough to get some unfavourable attention early in a teacher's career.
There's also the matter of- did he get permission to film the children in the first place? If he did, it is better for him- except that he then lied about his purpose and didn't really have permission. If he didn't he was publishing footage of children which is taken very seriously at least in BC. If only because some parents are in hiding from the non-custodial parent/ abusive partner and don't want the child's location to be found.
People ask what did he do wrong? It's just a prank. Yes, it's a prank, a prank involving children where there's a lot of momma bears. Seriously, try filming children with the intention of broadcasting without permission or performing any sort of research for the purpose for publishing. People are really protective of their children. Can you blame them?
I do think he was in the wrong. Not 20 year sentence in the wrong. Not sex-offender wrong. But definitely wrong and very dumb.
On February 19 2011 16:11 Brett wrote: *sigh* Why do people hear "20 years" and assume that's what he's facing?
It's a maximum penalty for an offence. Unless he has serious prior convictions and the circumstances of this offence were much more aggravated, he will face nowhere near such a penalty.
Thread title is completely misleading. Seriously, there's 15 pages of raging over the inappropriateness of a penalty that he wont receive and that people simply dont understand...
Because here in europe, people get charged with something remotely similar to what they will receive if found guilty usually. Or, i actually thing that they do not get charged with a specific amount of years beforehand, but after the trial the prosecutor says "I think he is guilty and get 12 years", and the defender say something like "Ok, he is guilty, but it is not that bad, he should get 5 years", and then actual penalty is something in between. I am no expert in the legal system, but it works something like that. So when they say someone is charged with 20 years, we expect that if they are found guilty, they will get something in that general ballpark as a sentence. And not some hours of community service, or something like that. Because if the crime actually deserves only that much punishment, why did they not simply charge them with that to begin with? If someone is charged with 20 years, we think that the prosecutor thinks that that is what they should get.
Let me explain it to you (I am a practising criminal lawyer with 4 years experience post admission).
A single criminal charge is composed of certain elements. When these elements are all present a charge is proven. These elements are more often than not quite general so as to 'catch' numerous acts which a person may perform. This is done to limit the amount of offences it is necessary to create.
Accordingly, the vast majority of criminal offences are able to be proven despite various differences in the acts committed by a person. Eg. a charge of "theft" can be proven where a person with no job or home steals a toothbrush in a shop, and it can be proven where a gainfully employed person breaks into a house and steals a million dollar painting for the purpose of adding it to their collection. As you can see no doubt see in the two examples, there is a variance in the seriousness of the offence.
In order for a sentencing body to be able exercise its discretion in attributing an appropriate penalty to these two examples of "theft", the criminal law prescribes a maximum penalty to that offence of theft. Here in Australia, the maximum penalty for a single charge of theft is 10 years imprisonment. Now, OBVIOUSLY, my client who is charged with stealing a toothbrush because he has no money, absent any other factors, is not going to be sent to gaol for 10 years...
The law also understands that some people will have varying antecedents. Some people will present on a charge of theft for the first time in their life... others may be career criminals facing their 12th theft charge. The prescription of a maximum penalty further allows the sentencing body to recognise the previous character of the offender. Thus if two people steal a toothbrush because they are homeless and jobless, yet Offender A is there in Court for the first time, whilst the Offender B is there for the 6th time for such a charge... The penalties will vary: A) might get a good behaviour bond, B might be facing an immediate term of imprisonment.
There are numerous other sentencing considerations to be thrown into the mix before a penalty is ever imposed, but I will not go into those here; no doubt you get my point. That is why these sorts of articles are stupid. They sensationalise it by saying "20 years!" when there is absolutely no chance of that ever occuring. Thus my comments that the preceding 15 pages of rage at him facing a 20 year sentence are slightly misplaced...
In ways I completely agree with you but in other ways you have to look at the rediculous charge. NO, this guy is not getting a 20 year sentence for posting an edited youtube video. YES this charge is rediculous. Even if what he did had legal consequences there should be different scales to a law. Not only is the charge rediculous but the media coverage is even worse, Media and lawyers are very similar because of the general bending that happens when trying to get fame. Sadly coverage on this topic can't be black and white because that isn't received well. Another part of this is that the 20 year sentence won't really come to fruition but it makes the situation more drastic and raises the chance of a conviction (which is probably what the DA wants).
The sad thing is... The problems with america only start with politicians and lawyers bending the rules, it ends with the abuse of Free speech (for and against) and mixed with entrepreneurship you get a horrible situation.
On February 19 2011 16:11 Brett wrote: *sigh* Why do people hear "20 years" and assume that's what he's facing?
It's a maximum penalty for an offence. Unless he has serious prior convictions and the circumstances of this offence were much more aggravated, he will face nowhere near such a penalty.
Thread title is completely misleading. Seriously, there's 15 pages of raging over the inappropriateness of a penalty that he wont receive and that people simply dont understand...
Because here in europe, people get charged with something remotely similar to what they will receive if found guilty usually. Or, i actually thing that they do not get charged with a specific amount of years beforehand, but after the trial the prosecutor says "I think he is guilty and get 12 years", and the defender say something like "Ok, he is guilty, but it is not that bad, he should get 5 years", and then actual penalty is something in between. I am no expert in the legal system, but it works something like that. So when they say someone is charged with 20 years, we expect that if they are found guilty, they will get something in that general ballpark as a sentence. And not some hours of community service, or something like that. Because if the crime actually deserves only that much punishment, why did they not simply charge them with that to begin with? If someone is charged with 20 years, we think that the prosecutor thinks that that is what they should get.
Let me explain it to you (I am a practising criminal lawyer with 4 years experience post admission).
A single criminal charge is composed of certain elements. When these elements are all present a charge is proven. These elements are more often than not quite general so as to 'catch' numerous acts which a person may perform. This is done to limit the amount of offences it is necessary to create.
Accordingly, the vast majority of criminal offences are able to be proven despite various differences in the acts committed by a person. Eg. a charge of "theft" can be proven where a person with no job or home steals a toothbrush in a shop, and it can be proven where a gainfully employed person breaks into a house and steals a million dollar painting for the purpose of adding it to their collection. As you can see no doubt see in the two examples, there is a variance in the seriousness of the offence.
In order for a sentencing body to be able exercise its discretion in attributing an appropriate penalty to these two examples of "theft", the criminal law prescribes a maximum penalty to that offence of theft. Here in Australia, the maximum penalty for a single charge of theft is 10 years imprisonment. Now, OBVIOUSLY, my client who is charged with stealing a toothbrush because he has no money, absent any other factors, is not going to be sent to gaol for 10 years...
The law also understands that some people will have varying antecedents. Some people will present on a charge of theft for the first time in their life... others may be career criminals facing their 12th theft charge. The prescription of a maximum penalty further allows the sentencing body to recognise the previous character of the offender. Thus if two people steal a toothbrush because they are homeless and jobless, yet Offender A is there in Court for the first time, whilst the Offender B is there for the 6th time for such a charge... The penalties will vary: A) might get a good behaviour bond, B might be facing an immediate term of imprisonment.
There are numerous other sentencing considerations to be thrown into the mix before a penalty is ever imposed, but I will not go into those here; no doubt you get my point. That is why these sorts of articles are stupid. They sensationalise it by saying "20 years!" when there is absolutely no chance of that ever occuring. Thus my comments that the preceding 15 pages of rage at him facing a 20 year sentence are slightly misplaced...
In ways I completely agree with you but in other ways you have to look at the rediculous charge. NO, this guy is not getting a 20 year sentence for posting an edited youtube video. YES this charge is rediculous. Even if what he did had legal consequences there should be different scales to a law. Not only is the charge rediculous but the media coverage is even worse, Media and lawyers are very similar because of the general bending that happens when trying to get fame. Sadly coverage on this topic can't be black and white because that isn't received well. Another part of this is that the 20 year sentence won't really come to fruition but it makes the situation more drastic and raises the chance of a conviction (which is probably what the DA wants).
The sad thing is... The problems with america only start with politicians and lawyers bending the rules, it ends with the abuse of Free speech (for and against) and mixed with entrepreneurship you get a horrible situation.
The DA's office does not "want" a conviction per se. They want justice done. That means responding to the needs of the community, the reality of the facts and applying a fair bit of empathy for the victim and the defendant. In this case, it's pretty obvious that he deserves some degree of punishment, so yes, the office does "want" a conviction, but I can't possibly imagine anyone really expecting this guy to face 20 years. The office certainly wouldn't recommend that much at sentencing.
To be quite frank, what the DA's office really wants is a deal - one that satisfies the community while serving the interests of justice and saving the public (and the DA's staff) the time and expense of a trial.
And yes, the DA's office IS concerned with it's image - that's just a reality of local politics - but it's silly to call this a purely politically-motivated prosecution (I'm not accusing you of saying this, just making a rhetorical point.) He's clearly done a serious wrong - people should wait until a deal is formed or a trial is conducted before getting up on a soapbox and damning the DA's office and its conduct.
EDIT: In fact, I'll add one more thing - it's not necessarily a bad thing that the DA's office is concerned with it's public image. If they genuinely feel that they're doing a good job reducing crime, shouldn't they be advertising that fact to make people feel more secure? Isn't that one of the primary goals of law enforcement - reducing the fear of crime?
On February 19 2011 16:11 Brett wrote: *sigh* Why do people hear "20 years" and assume that's what he's facing?
It's a maximum penalty for an offence. Unless he has serious prior convictions and the circumstances of this offence were much more aggravated, he will face nowhere near such a penalty.
Thread title is completely misleading. Seriously, there's 15 pages of raging over the inappropriateness of a penalty that he wont receive and that people simply dont understand...
Because here in europe, people get charged with something remotely similar to what they will receive if found guilty usually. Or, i actually thing that they do not get charged with a specific amount of years beforehand, but after the trial the prosecutor says "I think he is guilty and get 12 years", and the defender say something like "Ok, he is guilty, but it is not that bad, he should get 5 years", and then actual penalty is something in between. I am no expert in the legal system, but it works something like that. So when they say someone is charged with 20 years, we expect that if they are found guilty, they will get something in that general ballpark as a sentence. And not some hours of community service, or something like that. Because if the crime actually deserves only that much punishment, why did they not simply charge them with that to begin with? If someone is charged with 20 years, we think that the prosecutor thinks that that is what they should get.
Let me explain it to you (I am a practising criminal lawyer with 4 years experience post admission).
A single criminal charge is composed of certain elements. When these elements are all present a charge is proven. These elements are more often than not quite general so as to 'catch' numerous acts which a person may perform. This is done to limit the amount of offences it is necessary to create.
Accordingly, the vast majority of criminal offences are able to be proven despite various differences in the acts committed by a person. Eg. a charge of "theft" can be proven where a person with no job or home steals a toothbrush in a shop, and it can be proven where a gainfully employed person breaks into a house and steals a million dollar painting for the purpose of adding it to their collection. As you can see no doubt see in the two examples, there is a variance in the seriousness of the offence.
In order for a sentencing body to be able exercise its discretion in attributing an appropriate penalty to these two examples of "theft", the criminal law prescribes a maximum penalty to that offence of theft. Here in Australia, the maximum penalty for a single charge of theft is 10 years imprisonment. Now, OBVIOUSLY, my client who is charged with stealing a toothbrush because he has no money, absent any other factors, is not going to be sent to gaol for 10 years...
The law also understands that some people will have varying antecedents. Some people will present on a charge of theft for the first time in their life... others may be career criminals facing their 12th theft charge. The prescription of a maximum penalty further allows the sentencing body to recognise the previous character of the offender. Thus if two people steal a toothbrush because they are homeless and jobless, yet Offender A is there in Court for the first time, whilst the Offender B is there for the 6th time for such a charge... The penalties will vary: A) might get a good behaviour bond, B might be facing an immediate term of imprisonment.
There are numerous other sentencing considerations to be thrown into the mix before a penalty is ever imposed, but I will not go into those here; no doubt you get my point. That is why these sorts of articles are stupid. They sensationalise it by saying "20 years!" when there is absolutely no chance of that ever occuring. Thus my comments that the preceding 15 pages of rage at him facing a 20 year sentence are slightly misplaced...
In ways I completely agree with you but in other ways you have to look at the rediculous charge. NO, this guy is not getting a 20 year sentence for posting an edited youtube video. YES this charge is rediculous. Even if what he did had legal consequences there should be different scales to a law. Not only is the charge rediculous but the media coverage is even worse, Media and lawyers are very similar because of the general bending that happens when trying to get fame. Sadly coverage on this topic can't be black and white because that isn't received well. Another part of this is that the 20 year sentence won't really come to fruition but it makes the situation more drastic and raises the chance of a conviction (which is probably what the DA wants).
The sad thing is... The problems with america only start with politicians and lawyers bending the rules, it ends with the abuse of Free speech (for and against) and mixed with entrepreneurship you get a horrible situation.
The DA's office does not "want" a conviction per se. They want justice done. That means responding to the needs of the community, the reality of the facts and applying a fair bit of empathy for the victim and the defendant. In this case, it's pretty obvious that he deserves some degree of punishment, so yes, the office does "want" a conviction, but I can't possibly imagine anyone really expecting this guy to face 20 years. The office certainly wouldn't recommend that much at sentencing.
To be quite frank, what the DA's office really wants is a deal - one that satisfies the community while serving the interests of justice and saving the public (and the DA's staff) the time and expense of a trial.
And yes, the DA's office IS concerned with it's image - that's just a reality of local politics - but it's silly to call this a purely politically-motivated prosecution (I'm not accusing you of saying this, just making a rhetorical point.) He's clearly done a serious wrong - people should wait until a deal is formed or a trial is conducted before getting up on a soapbox and damning the DA's office and its conduct.
EDIT: In fact, I'll add one more thing - it's not necessarily a bad thing that the DA's office is concerned with it's public image. If they genuinely feel that they're doing a good job reducing crime, shouldn't they be advertising that fact to make people feel more secure? Isn't that one of the primary goals of law enforcement - reducing the fear of crime?
While this guy did do something that is wrong and can cause duress to the parents of the video I don't think that even proposing a sentence that has 20 years remotely tied to it is correct. While the DA does want justice it also wants a conviction rate. I grew up in Ventura, CA and the DA's pride is a 98% conviction rate (do you think 98% of people prosecuted are guilty?). No this is not purely politically motivated but because of the media coverage and the unprecedence of the crime itself makes it a political case (at least for us).
It is a good thing that the DA has a positive public image, but not sacrificing justice for that image (I'm not saying that they are). I really don't have a problem with the DA or legal system with this case but really I, and others, have a problem with the severity of the charge and the manipulation that is often seen by lawyers to win a case. When it comes to the justice system there shouldn't be a "Winner" and a "Loser" there should be a "this guy is guilty/not guilty based on the facts as they are in reality, not the twisted image of facts presented by teh defense".
On February 19 2011 16:11 Brett wrote: *sigh* Why do people hear "20 years" and assume that's what he's facing?
It's a maximum penalty for an offence. Unless he has serious prior convictions and the circumstances of this offence were much more aggravated, he will face nowhere near such a penalty.
Thread title is completely misleading. Seriously, there's 15 pages of raging over the inappropriateness of a penalty that he wont receive and that people simply dont understand...
Because here in europe, people get charged with something remotely similar to what they will receive if found guilty usually. Or, i actually thing that they do not get charged with a specific amount of years beforehand, but after the trial the prosecutor says "I think he is guilty and get 12 years", and the defender say something like "Ok, he is guilty, but it is not that bad, he should get 5 years", and then actual penalty is something in between. I am no expert in the legal system, but it works something like that. So when they say someone is charged with 20 years, we expect that if they are found guilty, they will get something in that general ballpark as a sentence. And not some hours of community service, or something like that. Because if the crime actually deserves only that much punishment, why did they not simply charge them with that to begin with? If someone is charged with 20 years, we think that the prosecutor thinks that that is what they should get.
Let me explain it to you (I am a practising criminal lawyer with 4 years experience post admission).
A single criminal charge is composed of certain elements. When these elements are all present a charge is proven. These elements are more often than not quite general so as to 'catch' numerous acts which a person may perform. This is done to limit the amount of offences it is necessary to create.
Accordingly, the vast majority of criminal offences are able to be proven despite various differences in the acts committed by a person. Eg. a charge of "theft" can be proven where a person with no job or home steals a toothbrush in a shop, and it can be proven where a gainfully employed person breaks into a house and steals a million dollar painting for the purpose of adding it to their collection. As you can see no doubt see in the two examples, there is a variance in the seriousness of the offence.
In order for a sentencing body to be able exercise its discretion in attributing an appropriate penalty to these two examples of "theft", the criminal law prescribes a maximum penalty to that offence of theft. Here in Australia, the maximum penalty for a single charge of theft is 10 years imprisonment. Now, OBVIOUSLY, my client who is charged with stealing a toothbrush because he has no money, absent any other factors, is not going to be sent to gaol for 10 years...
The law also understands that some people will have varying antecedents. Some people will present on a charge of theft for the first time in their life... others may be career criminals facing their 12th theft charge. The prescription of a maximum penalty further allows the sentencing body to recognise the previous character of the offender. Thus if two people steal a toothbrush because they are homeless and jobless, yet Offender A is there in Court for the first time, whilst the Offender B is there for the 6th time for such a charge... The penalties will vary: A) might get a good behaviour bond, B might be facing an immediate term of imprisonment.
There are numerous other sentencing considerations to be thrown into the mix before a penalty is ever imposed, but I will not go into those here; no doubt you get my point. That is why these sorts of articles are stupid. They sensationalise it by saying "20 years!" when there is absolutely no chance of that ever occuring. Thus my comments that the preceding 15 pages of rage at him facing a 20 year sentence are slightly misplaced...
In ways I completely agree with you but in other ways you have to look at the rediculous charge. NO, this guy is not getting a 20 year sentence for posting an edited youtube video. YES this charge is rediculous. Even if what he did had legal consequences there should be different scales to a law. Not only is the charge rediculous but the media coverage is even worse, Media and lawyers are very similar because of the general bending that happens when trying to get fame. Sadly coverage on this topic can't be black and white because that isn't received well. Another part of this is that the 20 year sentence won't really come to fruition but it makes the situation more drastic and raises the chance of a conviction (which is probably what the DA wants).
The sad thing is... The problems with america only start with politicians and lawyers bending the rules, it ends with the abuse of Free speech (for and against) and mixed with entrepreneurship you get a horrible situation.
The DA's office does not "want" a conviction per se. They want justice done. That means responding to the needs of the community, the reality of the facts and applying a fair bit of empathy for the victim and the defendant. In this case, it's pretty obvious that he deserves some degree of punishment, so yes, the office does "want" a conviction, but I can't possibly imagine anyone really expecting this guy to face 20 years. The office certainly wouldn't recommend that much at sentencing.
To be quite frank, what the DA's office really wants is a deal - one that satisfies the community while serving the interests of justice and saving the public (and the DA's staff) the time and expense of a trial.
And yes, the DA's office IS concerned with it's image - that's just a reality of local politics - but it's silly to call this a purely politically-motivated prosecution (I'm not accusing you of saying this, just making a rhetorical point.) He's clearly done a serious wrong - people should wait until a deal is formed or a trial is conducted before getting up on a soapbox and damning the DA's office and its conduct.
EDIT: In fact, I'll add one more thing - it's not necessarily a bad thing that the DA's office is concerned with it's public image. If they genuinely feel that they're doing a good job reducing crime, shouldn't they be advertising that fact to make people feel more secure? Isn't that one of the primary goals of law enforcement - reducing the fear of crime?
While this guy did do something that is wrong and can cause duress to the parents of the video I don't think that even proposing a sentence that has 20 years remotely tied to it is correct. While the DA does want justice it also wants a conviction rate. I grew up in Ventura, CA and the DA's pride is a 98% conviction rate (do you think 98% of people prosecuted are guilty?). No this is not purely politically motivated but because of the media coverage and the unprecedence of the crime itself makes it a political case (at least for us).
It is a good thing that the DA has a positive public image, but not sacrificing justice for that image (I'm not saying that they are). I really don't have a problem with the DA or legal system with this case but really I, and others, have a problem with the severity of the charge and the manipulation that is often seen by lawyers to win a case. When it comes to the justice system there shouldn't be a "Winner" and a "Loser" there should be a "this guy is guilty/not guilty based on the facts as they are in reality, not the twisted image of facts presented by teh defense".
To be honest, yes, at least 98% of the people who are charged with crimes are guilty of something. I arraigned over a hundred guys today (9 hours in criminal court ugh), and they were pretty much all guilty. One or two were charged with a crime which we couldn't make out in court, so a couple charges could have been dropped, but they pled out to a lesser offense anyways. There were a couple crackheads who might not have been in possession at the time, strictly speaking, but they're crackheads. If they weren't in possession at that exact moment, then they were beforehand or afterwards - they're crackheads, it's what they DO.
So it's not really fair to say "well it's bullshit to charge him with X when they can't win on X at trial" because this happens ALL THE TIME. If we only charged on what we could win at trial, there would be a lot less prosecutions. That doesn't mean that those guys aren't guilty, and shouldn't be prosecuted in the first place. We might be only able to prove their guilt to a 99.8% degree of certainty. But I can say that, if I had serious reservations about a defendant's guilt, nobody in my office would ever ask me to push a jail-time case forward. I mean, I've prosecuted guys in bullshit cases, but if the case is really bullshit then they get time served or an ACD or a treatment program, not jail time. People are NOT getting railroaded into jail-time on shitty cases.
Hahahahaha Imagine him in the felony prison, and his cell mates goes all like "ey, I kidnapped 43 boys in my van, had my way with them and murdered them. What did you do to get here?" "I made a fake youtube video of me singing a dirty song to children." Man, this is so wrong :p
ok, I'll conced teh point that charging a criminal for a more serious offense and reducing it to a more appropriate charge is common and the hype over that unjustice isn't justified but just because it happens 100 times a day doesn't make it the right way... While I am not a law student or lawyer you don't have to be one to know when something is done with the right intentions in the wrong way.
Meh, this is retarted... 20 years?? I love how the newscaster was like "he's chain and shackled"...because thats all so very necessary. Give him a fine, slap him on the wrist and send him on his way. The only thing he did that was wrong was not censor the kids faces.
On February 19 2011 18:53 DwD wrote: Yeah jailtime sounds really really harsh but imagine if it was your kid in the video.. At least he could've blurred the faces..
Even if it was my kid I would do with a harsh fine. 20 Years for a prank that didn't even really involve the kids is just stupid.
Even if he did sing it in front of the kids how can he actually be punished with a prison sentence? To even consider that shows a fucking broken community. Bible thumping morons with no knowledge of how the internet works.
On February 19 2011 19:01 VTArlock wrote: Meh, this is retarted... 20 years?? I love how the newscaster was like "he's chain and shackled"...because thats all so very necessary. Give him a fine, slap him on the wrist and send him on his way. The only thing he did that was wrong was not censor the kids faces.
Hypothetical - I take a picture of your 5-year-old niece, put a word bubble next to her mouth with the caption "I love big hairy cocks" and post it on every telephone pole in the county where you live. The girl's mother calls you up, crying her eyes out, and her father is in a blinding rage. Would you be ok with giving me a fine and a slap on the wrist? Now imagine I did that to twenty other kids. So, twenty counts of the same offense, and you're still ok with a fine and a slap on the wrist?
On February 19 2011 19:01 VTArlock wrote: Meh, this is retarted... 20 years?? I love how the newscaster was like "he's chain and shackled"...because thats all so very necessary. Give him a fine, slap him on the wrist and send him on his way. The only thing he did that was wrong was not censor the kids faces.
Hypothetical - I take a picture of your 5-year-old niece, put a word bubble next to her mouth with the caption "I love big hairy cocks" and post it on every telephone pole in the county where you live. The girl's mother calls you up, crying her eyes out, and her father is in a blinding rage. Would you be ok with giving me a fine and a slap on the wrist? Now imagine I did that to twenty other kids. So, twenty counts of the same offense, and you're still ok with a fine and a slap on the wrist?
You'd really want someone that does that to go to prison for 20 years?
On February 19 2011 19:01 VTArlock wrote: Meh, this is retarted... 20 years?? I love how the newscaster was like "he's chain and shackled"...because thats all so very necessary. Give him a fine, slap him on the wrist and send him on his way. The only thing he did that was wrong was not censor the kids faces.
Hypothetical - I take a picture of your 5-year-old niece, put a word bubble next to her mouth with the caption "I love big hairy cocks" and post it on every telephone pole in the county where you live. The girl's mother calls you up, crying her eyes out, and her father is in a blinding rage. Would you be ok with giving me a fine and a slap on the wrist? Now imagine I did that to twenty other kids. So, twenty counts of the same offense, and you're still ok with a fine and a slap on the wrist?
Yes, even though you are causing duress to these people, it is a bad moment in their life... Maybe a day- a fine and community service would be more than enough punishment for making a joke video that w/ lack of forsight was probably seen as harmless.
On February 19 2011 19:01 VTArlock wrote: Meh, this is retarted... 20 years?? I love how the newscaster was like "he's chain and shackled"...because thats all so very necessary. Give him a fine, slap him on the wrist and send him on his way. The only thing he did that was wrong was not censor the kids faces.
Hypothetical - I take a picture of your 5-year-old niece, put a word bubble next to her mouth with the caption "I love big hairy cocks" and post it on every telephone pole in the county where you live. The girl's mother calls you up, crying her eyes out, and her father is in a blinding rage. Would you be ok with giving me a fine and a slap on the wrist? Now imagine I did that to twenty other kids. So, twenty counts of the same offense, and you're still ok with a fine and a slap on the wrist?
Yes, even though you are causing duress to these people, it is a bad moment in their life... Maybe a day- a fine and community service would be more than enough punishment for making a joke video that w/ lack of forsight was probably seen as harmless.
People get community service for getting caught with a joint or shoplifting a pair of underwear from Duane Reede on their second or third offense. Twenty or more counts of what I just described doesn't strike you as more severe?
The reason this is so much more serious is that there's a victim here. The first thing I was told when I started at the DA's office was "you never make an offer (at arraignments) when there's a victim." Why is that the policy? Because we don't want them coming to us later on and saying "How could you let that guy go with a violation and community service? Do you have any idea what happened to my family? I had people laughing at me in the streets, people looking away from me at the grocery store, my mother called me on the phone and said that she heard my daughter was in a sex tape, I was walking down the street and someone yelled that my daughter was a little whore and probably liked being in that video, my daughter won't leave the house because older kids are laughing at her and calling her names at school, etc."
Basically, they don't know how seriously these families were impacted. Their office needs time to investigate and create a resolution that's agreeable for all the parties and that serves the interests of justice. So yes, charging a heavy felony at arraignments is perfectly reasonable. Maybe some of these families were seriously traumatized. Maybe they weren't really that affected and they're just mugging it up for the press. The point is that the DA's office has the flexibility to react accordingly, but you bet your ass that, at arraignments, they're going to err on the side of caution.
EDIT: Going to bed, can't continue the discussion any longer, but thanks for keeping it civil :-)
Yes, distribution of a sex tape can hinder someones life... While I couldn't watch the video so I don't know the severity of his crime you can't say that there was a victim in the face of anonymity. With 20 or so kids in the class, as long as one child wasn't targeted it isn't victimizing a child. I agree that what he did was wrong and deserves some punishment but to even suggest a title of child abuse and upwards of 20 years in jail is absurd. This video is 1 pissed off parent away from just being a bad video that youtube takes down instead of a serious charge and probable jail time.
such things are possible only in the USA, thats the american dream for you ! being sued and endangered with 20 years jail time for a stupid prank that didnt even involve these kids directly, seriously, how retarded some ppl can be ? theres gotta be some limit to this...
Well after thinking about it, i'm quite sure this is an invasion of privacy. So a punishment should be guaranteed. 20 years is obviously way over the top but it seems to be an american custom to overcharge. Anyways, it all depends on the judges view on the children's privacy.
All in all it seems fair to me that he gets punished, but imo it shouldn't be more than a fine or community service. Saying this has anything to do with pedophilia is utter nonsense.
Well, the prosecutors are asking for 20 years, that doesn't mean he will be getting 20 years. Besides, I think that the court needs to have a benchmark and this is just an opportune way to do it.
Edit: But 20 years is really a bit too much if the kids were not abused.
this is a joke of a case, what he did was wrong thats plain to see but the video had been removed, the damage he did caused nothing like 20 years worth of life to the children, not even the potential, when this man comes out after what will probably be 10-15 years if he gets no appeals, guess who he HATES, thats right the US government.
It's hilarious how every time a story about some dumb shit regarding the law is posted, people go around and say that they lose all faith in humanity. The only reason you even heard about it is because it is so stupid and it will draw hits.
Gah, people stop buying into the Daily Mail hype it's a tabloid "newspaper" nothing more. For example if I litter while driving on the road the maximum penalty is something like $3,000 but because I only happened throw out a packet of chips the fine would be $80 out of the maximum $3,000 (which would be like dumping an entire trailer load of rubbish).
The maximum penalty for this guy is 20 years but he will never get it because the offence wasn't severe enough. The Daily Mail will word it to sound like it is but if you read critically all the police said is they were treating the incident seriously as oppossed to not bothering at all. Worst thing this kid will get is a fine and feel incredibly embarrassed.
So I ask again: everything you read from the Daily Mail (and Telegraph) treat like it's written by some dirt journalist (which it is )
I read about a guy once that got like 20ish years too for being charged with selling drugs, even though he had proof that he needed the drug for his back he was even in a wheel chair, the police had kept an eye on him for months but no proof was found, but they didn't care and send his ass to jail anyway, it took i think 2 years before his case was taken up again and he got set free
I don't wanna sound like an idiot, but isn't this America in a nutshell? I love America and alot of it's people, but shit like this has always been the international face of America. You need some serious clean-up work done to your country. "America is the greatest country in the world" blabla, no it's not, not by far, so open your eyes people and get with the rest of the world. sheez
On February 19 2011 19:01 VTArlock wrote: Meh, this is retarted... 20 years?? I love how the newscaster was like "he's chain and shackled"...because thats all so very necessary. Give him a fine, slap him on the wrist and send him on his way. The only thing he did that was wrong was not censor the kids faces.
Hypothetical - I take a picture of your 5-year-old niece, put a word bubble next to her mouth with the caption "I love big hairy cocks" and post it on every telephone pole in the county where you live. The girl's mother calls you up, crying her eyes out, and her father is in a blinding rage. Would you be ok with giving me a fine and a slap on the wrist? Now imagine I did that to twenty other kids. So, twenty counts of the same offense, and you're still ok with a fine and a slap on the wrist?
Yes, even though you are causing duress to these people, it is a bad moment in their life... Maybe a day- a fine and community service would be more than enough punishment for making a joke video that w/ lack of forsight was probably seen as harmless.
People get community service for getting caught with a joint or shoplifting a pair of underwear from Duane Reede on their second or third offense. Twenty or more counts of what I just described doesn't strike you as more severe?
The reason this is so much more serious is that there's a victim here. The first thing I was told when I started at the DA's office was "you never make an offer (at arraignments) when there's a victim." Why is that the policy? Because we don't want them coming to us later on and saying "How could you let that guy go with a violation and community service? Do you have any idea what happened to my family? I had people laughing at me in the streets, people looking away from me at the grocery store, my mother called me on the phone and said that she heard my daughter was in a sex tape, I was walking down the street and someone yelled that my daughter was a little whore and probably liked being in that video, my daughter won't leave the house because older kids are laughing at her and calling her names at school, etc."
Basically, they don't know how seriously these families were impacted. Their office needs time to investigate and create a resolution that's agreeable for all the parties and that serves the interests of justice. So yes, charging a heavy felony at arraignments is perfectly reasonable. Maybe some of these families were seriously traumatized. Maybe they weren't really that affected and they're just mugging it up for the press. The point is that the DA's office has the flexibility to react accordingly, but you bet your ass that, at arraignments, they're going to err on the side of caution.
EDIT: Going to bed, can't continue the discussion any longer, but thanks for keeping it civil :-)
OK you just made a perfect case for everyone saying the US is a bunch of nutjobs. It is a youtube video. Noone was hurt. Noone cares about these videos. They make some people chuckle for a few seconds and then they move on. There are thousands if not millions of those on the internet. This has nothing to do with justice.
20 years is just a giude line. He will never get that but if it was a worse case he could. It's like if you get caught selling a pound of weed and it's your 1st felony you are facing 10 years but everyone get 30-90 days with a couple years suspended w/ probation. These punishments sorta balance the system in the laws eyes also. If your tryed for selling weed and armed robbery for example and they cant get you on the armed robbery for lack of evidence or something they will give you like 3 years on the same charge (sellin weed) they normally hand 30-90 days out for.
On February 19 2011 22:39 Kar98 wrote: Gah, people stop buying into the Daily Mail hype it's a tabloid "newspaper" nothing more. For example if I litter while driving on the road the maximum penalty is something like $3,000 but because I only happened throw out a packet of chips the fine would be $80 out of the maximum $3,000 (which would be like dumping an entire trailer load of rubbish).
The maximum penalty for this guy is 20 years but he will never get it because the offence wasn't severe enough. The Daily Mail will word it to sound like it is but if you read critically all the police said is they were treating the incident seriously as oppossed to not bothering at all. Worst thing this kid will get is a fine and feel incredibly embarrassed.
So I ask again: everything you read from the Daily Mail (and Telegraph) treat like it's written by some dirt journalist (which it is )
Yes, but it is still a fucking joke to even receieve any punishment for that, I don't know how he holds it together in court, I would be so fucking angry.
The court systems dont understand the internet or computers. No punishments ever fit. Doesnt america love punishing people for doing nothing...land of the free right.
Next up: Johnny Depp arrested for murdering people on a pirate ship. Multiple people were killed in this event, where said person stabbed multiple pirates with swords, in order to find a treasure chest. The accused person keeps saying he's an actor and it's "pretend" killing.
What the hell????????? The ONLY thing I can think of doing wrong with editing a video of children appearing in it is filiming them without approval.... But even then he had approval to film them in the first place and just edited the video... The "law"... retarded bullshit.... I don't understand why I can't use a natural plant that grows anywhere on earth the way I want but this... The guy din't even physically do anything to anyone... Flag the video, don't let those children see it and it's a victim-less "crime".
lol this is exactly the type of news that people on TL love arguing about...
If he would of told parents what he was doing, he could of gotten enough parents too say okay. Because he didn't, the video should of been removed and that'd be the end of it. done.
Just in case anyone is wondering, it appears that he is being charged with violating Michigan Penal Code Section 750.145c. I will try to summarize the relevant parts, and you guys can judge whether you think his actions violated the statute.
Of course, this entire analysis is distinct from the question of whether this statute makes sense, or whether construing it to apply to a situation like this makes sense. I will leave that question to those of you who have been arguing it, I am simply trying to provide some text and analysis of the relevant law to inform your opinions.
Sec. 750.145c(2) provides: "A person who...makes...any child sexually abusive material is guilty of a felony, punishable by imprisonment for not more than 20 years..."
Sec. 750.145c(1)(m): "Child sexually abusive material" means any depiction...which...appears to include a child engaging in a listed sexual act..."
Sec 750.145c(1)(a): "Appears to include a child" means that the depiction appears to include...a person who is less than 18 years of age, and the depiction meets either of the following conditions: (i) It was created using a depiction of any part of an actual person under the age of 18, [second condition omitted.]
Sec. 750.145c(1)(h): "Listed sexual act" means sexual intercourse, erotic fondling, sadomasochistic abuse, masturbation, passive sexual involvement, sexual excitement, or erotic nudity.
Sec. 750.145c(j): "Passive sexual involvement" means an act, real or simulated, that exposes another person to or draws another person's attention to an act of sexual intercourse, erotic fondling, sadomasochistic abuse, masturbation, sexual excitement, or erotic nudity because of viewing any of these acts or because of the proximity of the act to that person, for the purpose of real or simulated overt sexual gratification or stimulation of 1 or more of the persons involved.
So, here's my take on the statute:
First, it does not matter whether he actually exposed any children to any explicit material or performed any explicit acts with them present. From the text of subsections (1)(m) and (1)(a), there is a violation if the material appears to include a child engaging in any listed sexual act and was created using a depiction of any part of an actual child. The video in this case was created using depictions of actual children, so the only real question is whether the children appear to be engaging in a listed sexual act.
Next, listed sexual acts include not only the expected items such as sexual intercourse, fondling, etc., but also a nebulous act called "passive sexual involvement." I have not seen the video, but from the reports it sounds as though it did not include any hint of children engaged in actual or simulated sexual activity or nudity, but instead listening to a vulgar song. It seems like the passive sexual involvement act is the only match.
Finally, passive sexual involvement is an act, real or simulated, that: 1) exposes another person to or draws to another person's attention to an act of sexual intercourse, 2) because of viewing any of these acts or because of the proximity of the act to that person, 3) for the purpose of real or simulated overt sexual gratification of 1 or more of the persons involved.
It seems like this will be the real crux of the issue. Clearly the first requirement is met because the video depicts a simulated act of drawing the children's attention to an act of sexual intercourse. Lyrics. The second seems to be tough. Does listening to a song about sex acts constitute "viewing" the acts? That seems to be a stretch. Perhaps there is an argument that having children listen to a song about sex acts is putting them in proximity to the sex acts. Either way, it seems like this requirement will be tough for the prosecution to prove. The third requirement, whether it was for the purpose of real or simulated overt sexual gratification, also seems tough to show. It may depend on the exact content of the video and might turn on the answer to some silly question - such as whether he was pretending to get turned on or acting sexually gratified at any point in the video.
My final judgment is that even though the statute is written very broadly, it seems to be a bit of a stretch to say that the children depicted were engaged in the simulated act of passive sexual involvement based on the reports of the video. However, I have not seen the video.
"Listed sexual act" means sexual intercourse, erotic fondling, sadomasochistic abuse, masturbation, passive sexual involvement, sexual excitement, or erotic nudity.
Doesn't the US justice system have better things to do than waste their time on crap like that? Make the guy pay a fine or make him do some community work, but 20 years is just absurd.
I think it's easier for most people on a gaming forum to relate to the guy charged. How would you have reacted if you were one of the parents, having your kid in a movie where this guy sings such things?
20 years is obviously a joke, but think about the parents and their kids for a moment. The guy should be punished in one way or another.
This is just a pathetic waste of taxpayer money. The poor dude is gonna spend a lot in legal fees too, defending yourself regardless of guilt is expensive.
On February 20 2011 02:07 EvilNalu wrote: Just in case anyone is wondering, it appears that he is being charged with violating Michigan Penal Code Section 750.145c. I will try to summarize the relevant parts, and you guys can judge whether you think his actions violated the statute.
Of course, this entire analysis is distinct from the question of whether this statute makes sense, or whether construing it to apply to a situation like this makes sense. I will leave that question to those of you who have been arguing it, I am simply trying to provide some text and analysis of the relevant law to inform your opinions.
Sec. 750.145c(2) provides: "A person who...makes...any child sexually abusive material is guilty of a felony, punishable by imprisonment for not more than 20 years..."
Sec. 750.145c(1)(m): "Child sexually abusive material" means any depiction...which...appears to include a child engaging in a listed sexual act..."
Sec 750.145c(1)(a): "Appears to include a child" means that the depiction appears to include...a person who is less than 18 years of age, and the depiction meets either of the following conditions: (i) It was created using a depiction of any part of an actual person under the age of 18
Sec. 750.145c(1)(h): "Listed sexual act" means sexual intercourse, erotic fondling, sadomasochistic abuse, masturbation, passive sexual involvement, sexual excitement, or erotic nudity.
Sec. 750.145c(j): "Passive sexual involvement" means an act, real or simulated, that exposes another person to or draws another person's attention to an act of sexual intercourse, erotic fondling, sadomasochistic abuse, masturbation, sexual excitement, or erotic nudity because of viewing any of these acts or because of the proximity of the act to that person, for the purpose of real or simulated overt sexual gratification or stimulation of 1 or more of the persons involved.
So, here's my take on the statute:
First, it does not matter whether he actually exposed any children to any explicit material or performed any explicit acts with them present. From the text of subsections (1)(m) and (1)(a), there is a violation if the material appears to include a child engaging in any listed sexual act and was created using a depiction of any part of an actual child. The video in this case was created using depictions of actual children, so the only real question is whether the children appear to be engaging in a listed sexual act.
Next, listed sexual acts include not only the expected items such as sexual intercourse, fondling, etc., but also a nebulous act called "passive sexual involvement." I have not seen the video, but from the reports it sounds as though it did not include any hint of children engaged in actual or simulated sexual activity or nudity, but instead listening to a vulgar song. It seems like the passive sexual involvement act is the only match.
Finally, passive sexual involvement is an act, real or simulated, that: 1) exposes another person to or draws to another person's attention to an act of sexual intercourse, 2) because of viewing any of these acts or because of the proximity of the act to that person, 3) for the purpose of real or simulated overt sexual gratification of 1 or more of the persons involved.
It seems like this will be the real crux of the issue. Clearly the first requirement is met because the video depicts a simulated act of drawing the children's attention to an act of sexual intercourse. Lyrics. The second seems to be tough. Does listening to a song about sex acts constitute "viewing" the acts? That seems to be a stretch. Perhaps there is an argument that having children listen to a song about sex acts is putting them in proximity to the sex acts. Either way, it seems like this requirement will be tough for the prosecution to prove. The third requirement, whether it was for the purpose of real or simulated overt sexual gratification, also seems tough to show. It may depend on the exact content of the video and might turn on the answer to some silly question - such as whether he was pretending to get turned on or acting sexually gratified at any point in the video.
My final judgment is that even though the statute is written very broadly, it seems to be a bit of a stretch to say that the children depicted were engaged in the simulated act of passive sexual involvement based on the reports of the video. However, I have not seen the video.
i dont see how this is different to any tv show or film. they never say "hey we are a tv show" people just realise it isnt real. now some have warnings before they start that the show may contain x y or z that you may find offensive, so surely he should be charged with a violation of those regulations, which i would imagine is a fine?
this law seems to be completely superfluous to any actual situations, if he did it to real kids then child porn laws would cover it?
On February 20 2011 03:08 turdburgler wrote: i dont see how this is different to any tv show or film. they never say "hey we are a tv show" people just realise it isnt real. now some have warnings before they start that the show may contain x y or z that you may find offensive, so surely he should be charged with a violation of those regulations, which i would imagine is a fine?
this law seems to be completely superfluous to any actual situations, if he did it to real kids then child porn laws would cover it?
I think you may be misunderstanding the statute. This is one of Michigan's child porn laws. There is no requirement that the material be "real." It is enough that it appears to include a child as defined in 750.145c(1)(a). There is no requirement that the conduct actually involves exposing any child to sex acts, only that it appears to. The act may be real or simulated.
I would agree with your assessment that production of some tv shows or films might be conduct prohibited by this statute. For instance, it would seem that if I made a movie including a scene where a child walks in on his parents having sex, the prosecutor would be able to argue I violated the statute and the arguments would be similar to the present case.
Of course, keep in mind that this is a Michigan State statute. It only applies within the state of Michigan.
On February 20 2011 02:18 nkr wrote: I think it's easier for most people on a gaming forum to relate to the guy charged. How would you have reacted if you were one of the parents, having your kid in a movie where this guy sings such things?
20 years is obviously a joke, but think about the parents and their kids for a moment. The guy should be punished in one way or another.
I think I would want to tell this guy how dumb his actions are, maybe tell him some awfull words to his face and then forget about him.
But seriously .. did the children even see the video ?
On February 20 2011 02:18 nkr wrote: I think it's easier for most people on a gaming forum to relate to the guy charged. How would you have reacted if you were one of the parents, having your kid in a movie where this guy sings such things?
20 years is obviously a joke, but think about the parents and their kids for a moment. The guy should be punished in one way or another.
I would want him to take it down, and he did that. My kid would not have been there to hear the song, and would probably not know that the video even existed. If I was a parent and heard that the guy might get 20 years, I would go protest the ruling myself and do anything in my power to make sure the guy doesn't get the rest of his young life taken away from him.
On February 19 2011 22:44 LuckyLuke43 wrote: I don't wanna sound like an idiot, but isn't this America in a nutshell? I love America and alot of it's people, but shit like this has always been the international face of America. You need some serious clean-up work done to your country. "America is the greatest country in the world" blabla, no it's not, not by far, so open your eyes people and get with the rest of the world. sheez
I don't want to argue about whether America is the greatest country in the world, or the efficiency of its court system, but fringe examples like this are certainly not a good example upon which to judge a whole country. I could find ridiculous cases from any country in the world.
The judge will condemn him to a harsh sentence (20 years or perhaps less) because it is what society wants. Clearly the parents are outraged and if he goes against their call, any future projects or interests he has that are relative to democratic results, this will put a damper on it.
On February 20 2011 02:18 nkr wrote: I think it's easier for most people on a gaming forum to relate to the guy charged. How would you have reacted if you were one of the parents, having your kid in a movie where this guy sings such things?
20 years is obviously a joke, but think about the parents and their kids for a moment. The guy should be punished in one way or another.
I wonder what the song was... and if it wasn't a famous song what the lyrics were. I remember there being advertisments for children hip hop songs that were pretty lude material (not many rap songs don't have some) and those kids were actually involved in the filming of that. yeah this guy did not have approval to edit the video in this manner but he did have the authority to tape the children, what happens in the editing process doesn't really matter... If it did then green screen would be a huge controversy.
On February 20 2011 04:20 Bloodash wrote: faith in humanity -100
My sentiments exactly. The staggering amount of ignorance in this thread, the speed and confidence with which people rush to judgment without possessing even the slightest amount of legal knowledge, and the enormous number of people who are so out of touch with normal human emotions that they can't understand why and how these people have been victimized, really makes me afraid for how the internet is affecting the mental and social development of today's young adults.
But then, what would I know? I'm apparently "retarted", to quote one of our more prescient posters, for being part of our legal system.
On February 19 2011 19:01 VTArlock wrote: Meh, this is retarted... 20 years?? I love how the newscaster was like "he's chain and shackled"...because thats all so very necessary. Give him a fine, slap him on the wrist and send him on his way. The only thing he did that was wrong was not censor the kids faces.
Hypothetical - I take a picture of your 5-year-old niece, put a word bubble next to her mouth with the caption "I love big hairy cocks" and post it on every telephone pole in the county where you live. The girl's mother calls you up, crying her eyes out, and her father is in a blinding rage. Would you be ok with giving me a fine and a slap on the wrist? Now imagine I did that to twenty other kids. So, twenty counts of the same offense, and you're still ok with a fine and a slap on the wrist?
Yeah, I think a fine and a slap on the wrist sounds commensurate with the harm done there, although if you literally did it twenty times in series, I think mandatory mental health treatment, counseling and probation are reasonable responses. (Doing the same antisocial thing twenty times says a lot more about your predilections than doing one antisocial thing.) The actual crime sounds significantly less hurtful than your hypothetical (since the kids aren't singled out in the video -- the focus is on the dude) so I think a fine and a slap on the wrist is appropriate for that, too.
Hypothetical - I make a video that makes twenty mothers call your office crying for an evening and drives twenty fathers into a blinding rage. Would you be OK with charging me with a felony sex offense, which, if I am convicted, will brand me for the next seventy years of my life, making it nearly impossible for me to hold a productive job in America or live together normally with my community? If the answer is yes, then I would use much stronger words than "retarted" to describe what I think of your involvement in our legal system.
On February 19 2011 19:01 VTArlock wrote: Meh, this is retarted... 20 years?? I love how the newscaster was like "he's chain and shackled"...because thats all so very necessary. Give him a fine, slap him on the wrist and send him on his way. The only thing he did that was wrong was not censor the kids faces.
Hypothetical - I take a picture of your 5-year-old niece, put a word bubble next to her mouth with the caption "I love big hairy cocks" and post it on every telephone pole in the county where you live. The girl's mother calls you up, crying her eyes out, and her father is in a blinding rage. Would you be ok with giving me a fine and a slap on the wrist? Now imagine I did that to twenty other kids. So, twenty counts of the same offense, and you're still ok with a fine and a slap on the wrist?
Yeah, I think a fine and a slap on the wrist sounds appropriate. The actual crime sounds significantly less hurtful than your hypothetical (since the kids aren't singled out in the video -- the focus is on the dude) so I think a fine and a slap on the wrist is appropriate for that, too.
Hypothetical - I make a video that makes twenty mothers call your office crying for an evening and drives twenty fathers into a blinding rage. Would you be OK with charging me with a felony sex offense, which will brand me for the next seventy years of my life, making it nearly impossible for me to hold a productive job in America or live together normally with my community? If the answer is yes, then I would use much stronger words than "retarted" to describe what I think of your involvement in our legal system.
I'm fine with the DA's office's decision on a conceptual level, but I don't know enough about the relevant statute and case law to say whether I'd do the same thing or not.
The point is, this is just his arraignment. So yes, the charges will be much heavier than what he'll actually face. I looked at a rap sheet just the other day where the guy was arraigned on attempted murder 2 (max 25 years), charged with manslaughter, and pled to a felony assault w/ intent to cause serious physical injury w/ a deadly weapon. He did a couple years and got probation.
This guy probably won't even get a few years. He's probably looking at a few months, a couple dozen handwritten letters of apology, and a plea to an A misdemeanor. But you better believe that he'll be hit with a serious felony at arraignments to show how seriously the local DA's office takes his disgusting disregard for the feelings of these children and their families as opposed to his personal amusement.
And it's just ridiculous to think he'll be branded some kind of sex offender. There's just no way that's going to happen.
On February 19 2011 19:01 VTArlock wrote: Meh, this is retarted... 20 years?? I love how the newscaster was like "he's chain and shackled"...because thats all so very necessary. Give him a fine, slap him on the wrist and send him on his way. The only thing he did that was wrong was not censor the kids faces.
Hypothetical - I take a picture of your 5-year-old niece, put a word bubble next to her mouth with the caption "I love big hairy cocks" and post it on every telephone pole in the county where you live. The girl's mother calls you up, crying her eyes out, and her father is in a blinding rage. Would you be ok with giving me a fine and a slap on the wrist? Now imagine I did that to twenty other kids. So, twenty counts of the same offense, and you're still ok with a fine and a slap on the wrist?
Yeah, I think a fine and a slap on the wrist sounds appropriate. The actual crime sounds significantly less hurtful than your hypothetical (since the kids aren't singled out in the video -- the focus is on the dude) so I think a fine and a slap on the wrist is appropriate for that, too.
Hypothetical - I make a video that makes twenty mothers call your office crying for an evening and drives twenty fathers into a blinding rage. Would you be OK with charging me with a felony sex offense, which will brand me for the next seventy years of my life, making it nearly impossible for me to hold a productive job in America or live together normally with my community? If the answer is yes, then I would use much stronger words than "retarted" to describe what I think of your involvement in our legal system.
I'm fine with the DA's office's decision on a conceptual level, but I don't know enough about the relevant statute and case law to say whether I'd do the same thing or not.
The point is, this is just his arraignment. So yes, the charges will be much heavier than what he'll actually face. I looked at a rap sheet just the other day where the guy was arraigned on attempted murder 2 (max 25 years), charged with manslaughter, and pled to a felony assault w/ intent to cause serious physical injury w/ a deadly weapon. He did a couple years and got probation.
This guy probably won't even get a few years. He's probably looking at a few months, a couple dozen handwritten letters of apology, and a plea to an A misdemeanor. But you better believe that he'll be hit with a serious felony at arraignments to show how seriously the local DA's office takes his disgusting disregard for the feelings of these children and their families as opposed to his personal amusement.
And it's just ridiculous to think he'll be branded some kind of sex offender. There's just no way that's going to happen.
Well, you're the expert here, so I assume you're right and that he's likely to get a reasonable sentence. But you can hardly blame non-lawyers for thinking (ridiculously) that he stands some non-negligible risk of actually being convicted of the charges he is being arraigned under, which would indeed make him a sex offender.
On February 19 2011 19:01 VTArlock wrote: Meh, this is retarted... 20 years?? I love how the newscaster was like "he's chain and shackled"...because thats all so very necessary. Give him a fine, slap him on the wrist and send him on his way. The only thing he did that was wrong was not censor the kids faces.
Hypothetical - I take a picture of your 5-year-old niece, put a word bubble next to her mouth with the caption "I love big hairy cocks" and post it on every telephone pole in the county where you live. The girl's mother calls you up, crying her eyes out, and her father is in a blinding rage. Would you be ok with giving me a fine and a slap on the wrist? Now imagine I did that to twenty other kids. So, twenty counts of the same offense, and you're still ok with a fine and a slap on the wrist?
Yeah, I think a fine and a slap on the wrist sounds appropriate. The actual crime sounds significantly less hurtful than your hypothetical (since the kids aren't singled out in the video -- the focus is on the dude) so I think a fine and a slap on the wrist is appropriate for that, too.
Hypothetical - I make a video that makes twenty mothers call your office crying for an evening and drives twenty fathers into a blinding rage. Would you be OK with charging me with a felony sex offense, which will brand me for the next seventy years of my life, making it nearly impossible for me to hold a productive job in America or live together normally with my community? If the answer is yes, then I would use much stronger words than "retarted" to describe what I think of your involvement in our legal system.
I'm fine with the DA's office's decision on a conceptual level, but I don't know enough about the relevant statute and case law to say whether I'd do the same thing or not.
The point is, this is just his arraignment. So yes, the charges will be much heavier than what he'll actually face. I looked at a rap sheet just the other day where the guy was arraigned on attempted murder 2 (max 25 years), charged with manslaughter, and pled to a felony assault w/ intent to cause serious physical injury w/ a deadly weapon. He did a couple years and got probation.
This guy probably won't even get a few years. He's probably looking at a few months, a couple dozen handwritten letters of apology, and a plea to an A misdemeanor. But you better believe that he'll be hit with a serious felony at arraignments to show how seriously the local DA's office takes his disgusting disregard for the feelings of these children and their families as opposed to his personal amusement.
And it's just ridiculous to think he'll be branded some kind of sex offender. There's just no way that's going to happen.
Well, you're the expert here, so I assume you're right and that he's likely to get a reasonable sentence. But you can hardly blame non-lawyers for thinking (ridiculously) that he stands some non-negligible risk of actually being convicted of the charges he is being arraigned under, which would indeed make him a sex offender.
To be quite honest, I blame the education system for not providing students with even a basic understanding of the criminal justice system, and the news media for failing to provide any context beyond what will attract the most viewers. But unfortunately, I have to get to work, since I'm already going to be late =(
On February 19 2011 05:34 Roe wrote: is this a joke? that's not pornography, and he didn't abuse anyone because it was purely crafted via computer. this is almost as bad as the kid that got thrown in jail for farting
lol.. I thought some guy spent 20 years preparing a prank on someone.. was thinking it would be crazy lol.. but youtube hasnt been around for 20 years so wasnt sure.. anyway.. was completely wrong..
On February 20 2011 04:00 LoLAdriankat wrote: Yeah, the American justice system fucking blows. The judges are morons.
Most people in America don't know how their own justice system works and "judging" by the knee-jerk reaction to the summary of this case showing the same supposed ridiculousness as prosecutor is.
On February 19 2011 19:01 VTArlock wrote: Meh, this is retarted... 20 years?? I love how the newscaster was like "he's chain and shackled"...because thats all so very necessary. Give him a fine, slap him on the wrist and send him on his way. The only thing he did that was wrong was not censor the kids faces.
Hypothetical - I take a picture of your 5-year-old niece, put a word bubble next to her mouth with the caption "I love big hairy cocks" and post it on every telephone pole in the county where you live. The girl's mother calls you up, crying her eyes out, and her father is in a blinding rage. Would you be ok with giving me a fine and a slap on the wrist? Now imagine I did that to twenty other kids. So, twenty counts of the same offense, and you're still ok with a fine and a slap on the wrist?
Yeah, I think a fine and a slap on the wrist sounds appropriate. The actual crime sounds significantly less hurtful than your hypothetical (since the kids aren't singled out in the video -- the focus is on the dude) so I think a fine and a slap on the wrist is appropriate for that, too.
Hypothetical - I make a video that makes twenty mothers call your office crying for an evening and drives twenty fathers into a blinding rage. Would you be OK with charging me with a felony sex offense, which will brand me for the next seventy years of my life, making it nearly impossible for me to hold a productive job in America or live together normally with my community? If the answer is yes, then I would use much stronger words than "retarted" to describe what I think of your involvement in our legal system.
I'm fine with the DA's office's decision on a conceptual level, but I don't know enough about the relevant statute and case law to say whether I'd do the same thing or not.
The point is, this is just his arraignment. So yes, the charges will be much heavier than what he'll actually face. I looked at a rap sheet just the other day where the guy was arraigned on attempted murder 2 (max 25 years), charged with manslaughter, and pled to a felony assault w/ intent to cause serious physical injury w/ a deadly weapon. He did a couple years and got probation.
This guy probably won't even get a few years. He's probably looking at a few months, a couple dozen handwritten letters of apology, and a plea to an A misdemeanor. But you better believe that he'll be hit with a serious felony at arraignments to show how seriously the local DA's office takes his disgusting disregard for the feelings of these children and their families as opposed to his personal amusement.
And it's just ridiculous to think he'll be branded some kind of sex offender. There's just no way that's going to happen.
On February 20 2011 06:31 SaYyId wrote: Do the kids even know what YouTube is?
My grandmother and her aunt know what youtube is...
But it's actually irrelevant, none of the kids have seen the vid, but neither would it change anything. It's not about the kids, it's about how (rightfully) offended the parents are.
I mean he probably won't go to jail (or at least not for 20 years)... but this is a good example for anyone else who tries this sort of thing...
I don't think that the prank is worth so much jail time but I do see why parents are tripping out. They don't care if someone edits a video to make it seem like he's singing about sex (drugs, rock-n-roll?) to a group of children. They care in this case because it's their children he's supposedly singing to. If this was a real music video with a good budget and producers actually found parents who'd allow their kids to show up in a video like this - there wouldn't be a problem... I think he was lazy and wanted to make an "easy" prank instead of actually finding people with similar mindset, researching a bit, etc...
If someone made this sort of video with my kids and didn't ask my permission I'd probably press charges as well. If someone approached me and made a good proposition, perhaps I'd allow my kids to be filmed? Of course there would be a BIG FUCKING SIGN in the end saying "NONE OF THE CHILDREN PARTICIPATED DURING FILMING OF THIS SONG". In the end of the clip there would be a link to the real video where he sings about bunnies and candies. First song would make people laugh (or frown) and second link would clean authors hands.
EzPz.
It's not the prank he got in trouble for... it's his approach!
The only ones in this case that should be punished is the prosecution and the parents for launching an idiotic claim and wasint the courts time they could have spent on real criminals.
Followed by that guy taking all those parents to court for defamation.
Oh, I'd like to say something to those who keep saying "Only in America".
You're right... only in America he has a chance to go to court and fight for his freedom. In any other country he'd get gang raped by the fathers of those children and a video of it would also be uploaded to youtube as a response to his video. ^^
My first thought would be to kill him for making a video with my kids in it... then maybe I'd settle on just beating the fuck out of him... but then I'd face charges, which is not something I need in my life, therefore I'd do exactly what those parents did (again, if it happened in USA otherwise I'd go with the first impulse ^^).
Wasn't there a thread in TL few months ago talking about sueing a 4 year old kid just because she allegedly hurt an old woman by running over her with a bicycle?
This is why America has so many people in prison..
It is ridiculous to give him jail time, it was stupid and he shouldn't of done it but 20 YEARS of jail time for it is completely irrational. Just make him remove the video ( like he did ), and give him a slap on the wrist.
I cant understand why the parents are even angry or anything (other than privacy issues of showing kids without consent which deserves a slap on the wrist and removal of the vid, nothing more), he sung them a nice song and edited it so it looked like a dirty song, no one was harmed, wtf?
this is a perfect example of how our country is becoming a police state. the guy did nothing wrong. what happened to freedom of speech? the kids weren't exposed to anything inappropriate. Bernie Madoff gets a pardon, but this guy's a criminal? America's legal system is fucked
On February 20 2011 05:31 Powster wrote: lol.. I thought some guy spent 20 years preparing a prank on someone.. was thinking it would be crazy lol.. but youtube hasnt been around for 20 years so wasnt sure.. anyway.. was completely wrong..
On February 20 2011 07:15 Darkn3ss wrote: Oh, I'd like to say something to those who keep saying "Only in America".
You're right... only in America he has a chance to go to court and fight for his freedom. In any other country he'd get gang raped by the fathers of those children and a video of it would also be uploaded to youtube as a response to his video. ^^
Congratulations. All you did was to fuel the stereotypical image of Americans.
County has no case against him, where was the harm to the children? The abuse? It was editing, while in poor taste, there was no harm or injury. If crimes can be committed through editing/CGI there should be thousands of directors/producers/editors in prison. Sounds like the DA's office is just looking for attention with a futile case.
On February 20 2011 07:15 Darkn3ss wrote: Oh, I'd like to say something to those who keep saying "Only in America".
You're right... only in America he has a chance to go to court and fight for his freedom. In any other country he'd get gang raped by the fathers of those children and a video of it would also be uploaded to youtube as a response to his video. ^^
Congratulations. All you did was to fuel the stereotypical image of Americans.
I'm wondering if you understood what I said...
If it wasn't in USA he'd either be dead or severely crippled... If it's a bad thing, then idk...
On February 20 2011 07:15 Darkn3ss wrote: Oh, I'd like to say something to those who keep saying "Only in America".
You're right... only in America he has a chance to go to court and fight for his freedom. In any other country he'd get gang raped by the fathers of those children and a video of it would also be uploaded to youtube as a response to his video. ^^
Congratulations. All you did was to fuel the stereotypical image of Americans.
I'm wondering if you understood what I said...
If it wasn't in USA he'd either be dead or severely crippled... If it's a bad thing, then idk...
Yeah and he's saying that's an unbearably stupid thing to say.
On February 20 2011 07:15 Darkn3ss wrote: Oh, I'd like to say something to those who keep saying "Only in America".
You're right... only in America he has a chance to go to court and fight for his freedom. In any other country he'd get gang raped by the fathers of those children and a video of it would also be uploaded to youtube as a response to his video. ^^
Congratulations. All you did was to fuel the stereotypical image of Americans.
So what is our stereotype? I know that for Sweden it is allowing the rape of women, but I dont get where you are going with this.
On February 20 2011 07:15 Darkn3ss wrote: Oh, I'd like to say something to those who keep saying "Only in America".
You're right... only in America he has a chance to go to court and fight for his freedom. In any other country he'd get gang raped by the fathers of those children and a video of it would also be uploaded to youtube as a response to his video. ^^
Congratulations. All you did was to fuel the stereotypical image of Americans.
So what is our stereotype? I know that for Sweden it is allowing the rape of women, but I dont get where you are going with this.
Poor worldview and knowledge of other countries.
Now, dont claim this is my opinion, you asked me what an stereotypical american is like. I answered. You bait me into a name calling fight, but im not gonna bite.
On February 20 2011 07:15 Darkn3ss wrote: Oh, I'd like to say something to those who keep saying "Only in America".
You're right... only in America he has a chance to go to court and fight for his freedom. In any other country he'd get gang raped by the fathers of those children and a video of it would also be uploaded to youtube as a response to his video. ^^
Congratulations. All you did was to fuel the stereotypical image of Americans.
So what is our stereotype? I know that for Sweden it is allowing the rape of women, but I dont get where you are going with this.
Poor worldview and knowledge of other countries.
Please, enlighten me to this idea that there are other countries than America Canada and Mexico.
Also, and this is just me, I'd rather be known for being idiotic than being known for the highest rape rates in Europe.
I think that's just complete bullshit. He didn't actually do anything to any children. Taking down the video is enough, there shouldn't be any punishment at all.
he's an idiot but he doesn't deserve jail time for this.
this whole trial is a waste of money. it was video editing. the children were not exposed to anything explicit. the parents are upset, but getting upset is about all parents ever do.
i have no idea what that guy is talking about by the "impact" that this could have on the parents and children, either. this isn't going to have any affect on any of them. well, it might now that they're making a mess out of it. but had they just taken the video down and left it at that, the whole issue would have been forgotten in under a week.
On February 20 2011 07:15 Darkn3ss wrote: Oh, I'd like to say something to those who keep saying "Only in America".
You're right... only in America he has a chance to go to court and fight for his freedom. In any other country he'd get gang raped by the fathers of those children and a video of it would also be uploaded to youtube as a response to his video. ^^
Congratulations. All you did was to fuel the stereotypical image of Americans.
So what is our stereotype? I know that for Sweden it is allowing the rape of women, but I dont get where you are going with this.
Now, dont claim this is my opinion, you asked me what an stereotypical american is like. I answered. You bait me into a name calling fight, but im not gonna bite.
Sure when someone starts to lash out you take the "higher road" but this whole thread is fucking full of anti-americanism and you just hopped on the bandwagon. Good for you. You must feel good about yourself.
On February 20 2011 07:15 Darkn3ss wrote: Oh, I'd like to say something to those who keep saying "Only in America".
You're right... only in America he has a chance to go to court and fight for his freedom. In any other country he'd get gang raped by the fathers of those children and a video of it would also be uploaded to youtube as a response to his video. ^^
My first thought would be to kill him for making a video with my kids in it... then maybe I'd settle on just beating the fuck out of him... but then I'd face charges, which is not something I need in my life, therefore I'd do exactly what those parents did (again, if it happened in USA otherwise I'd go with the first impulse ^^).
in most civilized countries, that case wouldn't even have made it to court and just dismissed, "giving a chance to fight for his freedom" is bullshit.
reading through how aggressive your reply is you might belong in jail more than this guy. Wanting to kill someone just because he spliced in 2 videos as a joke is exactly what this case is about, clear over-reaction on a victimless "crime" if it can be called a crime at all since none of the children actually heard that song from him while they were recording.
On February 20 2011 07:15 Darkn3ss wrote: Oh, I'd like to say something to those who keep saying "Only in America".
You're right... only in America he has a chance to go to court and fight for his freedom. In any other country he'd get gang raped by the fathers of those children and a video of it would also be uploaded to youtube as a response to his video. ^^
Congratulations. All you did was to fuel the stereotypical image of Americans.
So what is our stereotype? I know that for Sweden it is allowing the rape of women, but I dont get where you are going with this.
Poor worldview and knowledge of other countries.
Please, enlighten me to this idea that there are other countries than America Canada and Mexico.
Also, and this is just me, I'd rather be known for being idiotic than being known for the highest rape rates in Europe.
I have not stated my opinion, yet you try your best to engage in an argument. You quote me in such a way that it appears as if I have an opinion. I find this pointless and stupid.
You can not argue with me. I have no opinion. Stop trying.
On February 19 2011 06:04 CarlyZerg wrote: hes not gonna get sent to jail, calm down everybody. OP only said he was charged with what theyd escribe as a "twenty-year felony", meaning probably that's the maximum possible sentence. This guy will lawyer up, his lawyer will tell the hick ass county to STFU and dare them to go to trial (as if they could find twelve jurors to convict this guy). And then finally the whole thing will be settled out of a court for a tiny fraction of the initial charge, probably community service like yall are saying.
I don't know what it is about this, but this seriously made me lol irl.
In all honesty this is most likely the truth. I can see it now, some shitty little hick town in the middle of nowhere Michigan makes a big deal out of this and throws obscene charges at him that would never actually stand up in court. The maximum sentence is more of an empty threat than anything, though to be honest it is quite scary to think that this is the "upward limit" of the sentence. To think that it might even be a possibility to send someone away for twenty years for something like this, if you managed to piss enough people off by what you've done, is appalling to say the least.
On February 20 2011 07:36 BoxedLunch wrote: this is a perfect example of how our country is becoming a police state. the guy did nothing wrong. what happened to freedom of speech? the kids weren't exposed to anything inappropriate. Bernie Madoff gets a pardon, but this guy's a criminal? America's legal system is fucked
Whoa, calm down there Rush. This is an example of shock jock news that most likely will result in the kid getting community service. If you think that "America is becoming a police state" then you've never read about or experienced an actual police state. Also Bernie Madoff didn't get a pardon, that article published by the Huffington Post was a piece of political satire.
Also, has anyone actually seen the video in question? I wonder what the nature of the sexually explicit material was, because the article and video only vaguely describe it as "children dancing to sexually explicit material" which is laughably called child pornography.
On February 20 2011 09:02 bibbaly wrote: You can't take that highroad if you keep dropping down to my level swede
How is it even possible for me to "take the highroad"?
I have no opinion. I have not disagreed. I have not agreed. you are just giving me a made up opinion based on assumptions and then try to argue with it.
Listen.
You asked me what an stereotypical American is like. I answered you. All countries have stereotypes. What puzzles me is why you are offended by them. Stereotypes are based on prejudice, people who believe stereotypes to be true do not call them "stereotypes", just like racist people do not call their beliefs "racist".
On February 20 2011 07:15 Darkn3ss wrote: Oh, I'd like to say something to those who keep saying "Only in America".
You're right... only in America he has a chance to go to court and fight for his freedom. In any other country he'd get gang raped by the fathers of those children and a video of it would also be uploaded to youtube as a response to his video. ^^
My first thought would be to kill him for making a video with my kids in it... then maybe I'd settle on just beating the fuck out of him... but then I'd face charges, which is not something I need in my life, therefore I'd do exactly what those parents did (again, if it happened in USA otherwise I'd go with the first impulse ^^).
in most civilized countries, that case wouldn't even have made it to court and just dismissed, "giving a chance to fight for his freedom" is bullshit.
reading through how aggressive your reply is you might belong in jail more than this guy. Wanting to kill someone just because he spliced in 2 videos as a joke is exactly what this case is about, clear over-reaction on a victimless "crime" if it can be called a crime at all since none of the children actually heard that song from him while they were recording.
Perhaps you didn't read my original reply. I'm also guessing that you wouldn't mind having your kids in random youtube videos. I think you should post an ad somewhere so other people that want to make pranks involving little children can use yours as a prop. =)
I also believe you didn't really understand my comment but w/e...
Here's my view on it. Guy makes a video (sorta innocent, since he didn't actually sing to kids still pretty offensive). -> Insults parents. -> Parents want him to take it down. -> The guys, who just spent his time making the video, probably says "No, thanks!" - OR - parents can't get a hold of him. -> Parents take him to court. Seems normal since this sort of problems should be resolved in court... (Unless of course you have the power of Jedi mind tricks and can just make a person do something you want or you prefer to use brute force...)
In Russia, for example, it would be easier to just beat the guy into pulp so I think that's what would happen. I can't speak for other countries, since I've only lived in RU and US but, judging by some of the replies, you guys wouldn't do anything about this sort of thing (I'm asking you to put yourself in parents' shoes.) If that's the case then this guys biggest crime is not living in your country =)
On February 20 2011 09:25 bibbaly wrote: From the start of this thread the anti-ameicanism was there if you read the thread you know what I'm talking about.
You came into this thread and singled out a post from an ameican DESPITE all the other posts and thoughts and mocked it.
And now you're telling me you have no opinion.
He mocked a guy who said that in any other country but America, not only would this guy not get a trial, he would be gang raped or killed.
If that doesn't deserve a good piss taking, I don't know what does.
Ok.... so to everyone that may agree that he deserves some jail time, you are pretty crazy, thats super harsh. And on the other hand.... to all the people that are going nuts about him "getting 20 yrs in prison".... calm down. It is a felony that CAN end up with a 20 yr sentence. That absolutely DOES NOT mean that he is getting/will get 20 yrs. Thats the MAX sentence people. If convicted, I highly doubt he would get anywhere near 20 yrs. Its pretty likely that either the charges will be dropped or some sort of deal will be made and he'll get a slap on the wrist. If not either of those, he'll get a few yrs or something. Besides all that tho, I agree with the general consensus here...... the fuck???
how is this even a crime!?!? seriously, america is just plain insane. only about half of americans believe in evolution. double digit percents of americans dont think barrack obama was born in usa. and now this kid makes a youtube prank and faces jail time?!?
On February 20 2011 09:39 JMuRda5 wrote: Ok.... so to everyone that may agree that he deserves some jail time, you are pretty crazy, thats super harsh. And on the other hand.... to all the people that are going nuts about him "getting 20 yrs in prison".... calm down. It is a felony that CAN end up with a 20 yr sentence. That absolutely DOES NOT mean that he is getting/will get 20 yrs. Thats the MAX sentence people. If convicted, I highly doubt he would get anywhere near 20 yrs. Its pretty likely that either the charges will be dropped or some sort of deal will be made and he'll get a slap on the wrist. If not either of those, he'll get a few yrs or something. Besides all that tho, I agree with the general consensus here...... the fuck???
Why not what the fuck. Imagine you have a 6 year old daughter, your most precious person in the world next to your wife/husband w.e And you found out some creepo came to her school and video taped them with the idea to take that video and cut it up into a raunchy sex themed video and then puts it up on the Internet for anyone to view. Your daughter in a sexual themed video up on the Internet that any pervert can watch. I personally be pissed, i wouldn't want to guy to go to jail but i def wanted him punished in some way, i'd also chew one into the school and who ever approved this guy to come to the class to do this, i'd know that they probably could have not avoided this but i'd expect an apology from them. But yeah i'd pitch in with other parents to try to find something illegal about what the guy did just so he at least have to officially think about what he did.
Anyone that doesn't see what this guy did was wrong on some level, lacks empathy. but people do need to get it though their head is the difference between incitement, charged, convicted, sentenced. In this case up to(not a minimum) 20 years could mean 0 years anyone who bitched about the American legal system being jacked up should maybe learn a thing or two about it becuase it is fucked up but not for the reasons posted in this thread.
On February 20 2011 09:39 JMuRda5 wrote: Ok.... so to everyone that may agree that he deserves some jail time, you are pretty crazy, thats super harsh. And on the other hand.... to all the people that are going nuts about him "getting 20 yrs in prison".... calm down. It is a felony that CAN end up with a 20 yr sentence. That absolutely DOES NOT mean that he is getting/will get 20 yrs. Thats the MAX sentence people. If convicted, I highly doubt he would get anywhere near 20 yrs. Its pretty likely that either the charges will be dropped or some sort of deal will be made and he'll get a slap on the wrist. If not either of those, he'll get a few yrs or something. Besides all that tho, I agree with the general consensus here...... the fuck???
Why not what the fuck. Imagine you have a 6 year old daughter, your most precious person in the world next to your wife/husband w.e And you found out some creepo came to her school and video taped them with the idea to take that video and cut it up into a raunchy sex themed video and then puts it up on the Internet for anyone to view. Your daughter in a sexual themed video up on the Internet that any pervert can watch. I personally be pissed, i wouldn't want to guy to go to jail but i def wanted him punished in some way, i'd also chew one into the school and who ever approved this guy to come to the class to do this, i'd know that they probably could have not avoided this but i'd expect an apology from them. But yeah i'd pitch in with other parents to try to find something illegal about what the guy did just so he at least have to officially think about what he did.
Anyone that doesn't see what this guy did was wrong on some level, lacks empathy. but people do need to get it though their head is the difference between incitement, charged, convicted, sentenced. In this case up to(not a minimum) 20 years could mean 0 years anyone who bitched about the American legal system being jacked up should maybe learn a thing or two about it becuase it is fucked up but not for the reasons posted in this thread.
Agreed with this post ^^
I want to make a thread about Britain jailing beggars...
Those prosecutors need to calm the fuck down and try to remember what it was like when they were dumb kids... I bet they played spin the bottle, and truth or dare -- which today probably gets you 10 years in prison and a permanent reservation on the sex offender list.
On February 20 2011 14:38 Zips wrote: Wow, that's pretty fucked up...
Those prosecutors need to calm the fuck down and try to remember what it was like when they were dumb kids... I bet they played spin the bottle, and truth or dare -- which today probably gets you 10 years in prison and a permanent reservation on the sex offender list.
If you play it with a bunch of pre-teens - sure! lol
Why not what the fuck. Imagine you have a 6 year old daughter, your most precious person in the world next to your wife/husband w.e And you found out some creepo came to her school and video taped them with the idea to take that video and cut it up into a raunchy sex themed video and then puts it up on the Internet for anyone to view.
Um, are you aware of a thing called "Photoshop?"
Spoiler, it allows anyone on the Internet to modify pictures in any way they want.
Eg.
OMG, these peoples lives are in ruinous tatters, because every day they will have to live in shame because of a splice somebody else made of them, using their image, right?
Wrong. It's called having a thick skin, and learning that you shouldn't worry about things that don't affect you, that you can't control, and that nobody who's not a senile old man is going to believe is authentic.
On February 20 2011 14:38 Zips wrote: Wow, that's pretty fucked up...
Those prosecutors need to calm the fuck down and try to remember what it was like when they were dumb kids... I bet they played spin the bottle, and truth or dare -- which today probably gets you 10 years in prison and a permanent reservation on the sex offender list.
If you play it with a bunch of pre-teens - sure! lol
I'm talking about kids playing it with other kids, just to be clear!
Why not what the fuck. Imagine you have a 6 year old daughter, your most precious person in the world next to your wife/husband w.e And you found out some creepo came to her school and video taped them with the idea to take that video and cut it up into a raunchy sex themed video and then puts it up on the Internet for anyone to view.
Um, are you aware of a thing called "Photoshop?"
Spoiler, it allows anyone on the Internet to modify pictures in any way they want.
Eg.
OMG, these peoples lives are in ruinous tatters, because every day they will have to live in shame because of a splice somebody else made of them, using their image, right?
Wrong. It's called having a thick skin, and learning that you shouldn't worry about things that don't affect you, that you can't control, and that nobody who's not a senile old man is going to believe is authentic.
You do realize the intent of the law to which he is being charged with is exactly there to deal with photoshoping sexual content dealing with young children. It's a law against pedophiles who claim that video or photos are faked and thus legal. It's not as clean in this case as the intent is not sexual in nature but rather a joke. Which is why he'll likely be getting little to nothing in the punishment department if he is ever convicted of anything, but if you cannot understand why parents wouldn't seek blood in this issue then well consider this. Thick skin is nice for the one being verbally abused or w.e sure it gets you though the day but it doesn't make the actions of malice any less harmful and degrading. I take it you don't understand why bullying is illegal why there are laws on harassment and crap. Come on just grow some thick skin, when to you does something stop being a joke and just start being wrong. How about i dress up in a kkk uniform and then march in the million man march as a joke. I'm sure everyone will agree that it's a joke and nothing will go wrong at all i mean it's so ludicrous there is no way anyone could mistake it for something else.
Yall ought to be aware that these kinds of seemingly absurd prosecutions happen more often than you realize. Regardless of your position on the supposed "issue," I would definitely suspect that this prosecutor has his eyes on public office in the near future.
Especially at the local level, prosecutors are notorious for being overly "tough on crime" when they see an opportunity to run for mayor, or are seeking a judicial position. Sometimes, they go too far and make a fool of themselves. More commonly, they appeal to the fears of parents and eventually land themselves a bigger office. It is irresponsible to be sure, but it is standard operating procedure in all developed countries. One great perpetual example is the New York State Attorney, no matter who s/he may be.
Regardless, this case will most definitely be seen by a Michigan state appeal's court, given it will have lasting repercussions on their interpretation of this law. Still, as much as people want it to be, this will almost assuredly not become a first amendment issue. Sorry!
Coming from the parents perspective, yes seeing their child in a video that has explicit lyrics can be jarring and make you want to exact revenge.. In this case I would not be suprised (as it were) to see him brought up on charges. I think that the main thing people are worried about is that this law is a catch-all so to speak and it is meant for pedophiles, NOT prank videos. Saying some dude is getting off on this video (which would be the main reason for an edited video like this) is silly and improbable to say the least. If there was a correct punishment for his crimes at the START of the trial it would be a neglible matter. In reality this should be in civil court.
Even if it was my kid I wouldn't care, it's just been edited why get your dick in a knot over something so insignificant. It's been removed so there is no longer an issue, sure it was wrong(ish) to show young kids faces without parental consent but really there is no need for any official action because it was just joke and no one suffered in any way. Some people just get off on complaining and trying to cause shit for other people I swear.
On February 20 2011 16:28 Phenny wrote: Even if it was my kid I wouldn't care, it's just been edited why get your dick in a knot over something so insignificant. It's been removed so there is no longer an issue, sure it was wrong(ish) to show young kids faces without parental consent but really there is no need for any official action because it was just joke and no one suffered in any way. Some people just get off on complaining and trying to cause shit for other people I swear.
well if you don't want to have people complaining about how bad your jokes our don't involve their children in them. =p
On February 20 2011 16:28 Phenny wrote: Even if it was my kid I wouldn't care, it's just been edited why get your dick in a knot over something so insignificant. It's been removed so there is no longer an issue, sure it was wrong(ish) to show young kids faces without parental consent but really there is no need for any official action because it was just joke and no one suffered in any way. Some people just get off on complaining and trying to cause shit for other people I swear.
well if you don't want to have people complaining about how bad your jokes our don't involve their children in them. =p
True, he should have covered himself by trying to get permission (highly unlikely) or blurred their faces (ruining the effect), well he really just shouldn't have bothered in the first place.
On February 20 2011 16:06 semantics wrote: How about i dress up in a kkk uniform and then march in the million man march as a joke. I'm sure everyone will agree that it's a joke and nothing will go wrong at all i mean it's so ludicrous there is no way anyone could mistake it for something else.
"How bout you photoshop a KKK member participating in the million man march," is a more accurate comparison.
And while that might also be in poor taste, there's nothing wrong with it, as the people who happen to see it would recognize it as a joke, and the people marching in the photograph wouldn't actually have cause to be incited -- as there was never actually a KKK member marching in their parade.
isn't poor taste illegal? As a society do we not censor each other based on shared beliefs in certain principles. Anyways it's not just the poor taste it's the filming of children without consent for the project that is so over the line, at least to me. Where are the lines? The lines to what is right and wrong when do words become harmful, when do actions become wrong where is this line. It's not an open and shut case it's why we have a judicial system to determine if there is anything wrong in this actions.
after thought In America with our protestant hard working roots which is strong anti drugs anti laziness and anti sexuality you bet it is. Sexualizing children is a very dangerous line to walk. Look at it this way, what if i video taped you and without you knowing edited it into something distasteful to you then posted it on line for everyone to see. Although not sure on criminal I'm sure there could be a civil suit filed and won on some level. Although i don't want a society that walks on glass shards around each other there still are taboos in our culture, sexulization of children although not as strict as it used to be but in a trusted place like a school and with very young children that's still a taboo on some level. And i think 1st graders count in this.
On February 20 2011 17:27 semantics wrote: isn't poor taste illegal? As a society do we not censor each other based on shared beliefs in certain principles. Anyways it's not just the poor taste it's the filming of children without consent for the project that is so over the line, at least to me. Where are the lines? The lines to what is right and wrong when do words become harmful, when do actions become wrong where is this line. It's not an open and shut case it's why we have a judicial system to determine if there is anything wrong in this actions.
after thought In America with our protestant hard working roots which is strong anti drugs anti laziness and anti sexuality you bet it is. Sexualizing children is a very dangerous line to walk. Look at it this way, what if i video taped you and without you knowing edited it into something distasteful to you then posted it on line for everyone to see. Although not sure on criminal I'm sure there could be a civil suit filed and won on some level. Although i don't want a society that walks on glass shards around each other there still are taboos in our culture, sexulization of children although not as strict as it used to be but in a trusted place like a school and with very young children that's still a taboo on some level. And i think 1st graders count in this.
Pretty sure poor taste is not illegal..
and there are a lot of children who become sexually active at very young ages, including myself.. I don't think it's a dangerous line to walk.. it's a natural response to raging hormones that your body naturally produces; though, no child should ever be forced into having sex, or introduced to sex against his/her will. That shit is wrong. Baring those conditions, though, it happens on its own at a fairly young age for some of us. I guess it takes longer for others.
Not sure if anything brought this up in the thread yet, but if he gets 20 years for a video like this then wouldn't South Park put the creators in court hands as well?
Also wouldn't something like South Park actually help with his case? Ya it was real kids, but he merely "represented" the sitatuation for humor in the same way South Park "represents" kids for their humor.
There is a point when excessive punishment leads to excessive crime. for example, if a cop could kill you the spot for speed (a traffic ticket at its most extreme), then theres no cost of the speeder to pull out a gun and try to shoot the cop. There has been heavy economic analysis on this type of shit and this punishment is way to far, if he had produced child porn he would serve no greater penalty. The result is . . . "crimes" like this get worse just by fewer people (but its the fucking internet. . .)
Intelligence of those people must be like a 5th of a normal person, he didn't sing it to the children so they did not come into harm in any way. What kind of fucked up country would call that an offense?
Doesn't SNL and The Daily Show do this all the time? I have definitely seen many comedy routines that involve splicing in shots of children in the audience while someone says something obscene. this happens all the time on American T.V. why is this guy in trouble?
Good justice is good. I would imagine most of the TLer's.net don't have children and to have someone even joke about such a matter I would cut that person up with a chainsaw.
.. I mean, yeah its rude as hell towards the children and their parents, and he should be forced to remove the vid, and give some sort of apology to those involved (Imagine being edited/photoshopped and published online, in regard to something that makes you uncomfortable, thats just rude, and also mixing children and sex is just disgusting, and very poor taste. He should have known how people would react)
...but to even CONSIDER prison is just absurd, and 20 years.. really? /facepalm, people demanding prison for a stupid prank, should really see a doctor, and get whatever is up their butt removed...
I saw that video. It was not offensive - maybe slightly for the parents, but still nothing to worry about. This court case is the stupidest most moronic thing I have ever heard of.
American justice system is just hillariously fucked up.
this only has to do with the parents anyway since the children didn't even hear the song. But the bottom line is, if you see the video there is no way of taking it serioulys. It is not more offensive than some month python videos, or the simpsons. And MUCH less offensive than South Park.
So this is where our tax dollars are going. Thank you!
Seriously though he said in his campaign one of his primary goals is to clean up spending that is not necessary. Being a resident of Michigan I'm kind of mad that spending like this eats up my tax dollars.
Edit: I just thought of something. The parents' purpose in filing suit against this 21 year old was to prevent others from viewing their kids in a negative way am I correct? Isn't filing suit the exact opposite of what that does? It sensationalizes the video! My 2cents
Omg. Do you guys not realize that it's more about children's parents than it is about the children themselves?
Just like someone above mentioned "million man march". Some people might find it funny. Some people might frown upon it. Some people (mostly non-white/homosexuals) WILL DEFINITELY get offended and take those guys to court OR get into a confrontation with them.
It's like saying a bunch of people dressing up in nazi uniforms and marching through a jewish/gay community would be taken as a joke. Yeah... right! People would get offended... would they have a reason? I'm pretty sure they would...
So just because you think what the guy did is totally fine doesn't make it fine at all. As I said in my last few posts - if you're fine with your children appearing in this sort of clips - you should probably post an ad on the internet so the next guy, who decides to edit a video in this manner, can use your children and avoid getting in trouble! =)
On the sidenote - I'd take a person to court even if they edited a video of ME in ANY manner without my consent... I think I have a right to decide whether I want to be all over youtube or not. If someone fails to recognize that right - I'll have to do something about it.
On February 21 2011 06:22 Darkn3ss wrote: It's like saying a bunch of people dressing up in nazi uniforms and marching through a jewish/gay community would be taken as a joke. Yeah... right! People would get offended... would they have a reason? I'm pretty sure they would...
You, and apparently many others in this thread, keep drawing these flawed analogies. It would be the same thing as a person walking in a nazi uniform in an empty street and then superimposing himself in to the jewish/gay community. The jews and gays would never actually see him, unless of course they saw the clip. The bottom line here is that your analogy is flawed, and badly so.
But I have a question here aswell. What makes you think you have the right to impose your morals on others?
On February 21 2011 06:22 Darkn3ss wrote: On the sidenote - I'd take a person to court even if they edited a video of ME in ANY manner without my consent... I think I have a right to decide whether I want to be all over youtube or not. If someone fails to recognize that right - I'll have to do something about it.
You do, and you don't. You don't get a copyright to pictures others take of you, even less so when they're taken in the public.
Edit: And to your first part about it being more about the parents... Then this makes even less sense. If the children aren't harmed the parents shouldn't care, now should they?
Yea, I'd be really annoyed and angry if I was a parent footage of my child was used for this kind of thing, but getting a sentence like that is just ridiculous.
It's in very very bad taste, yes, but it's not worth 20 years.. Come on. It doesn't warrant any jail time at all. Maybe, at most, compensation for the kids who were placed in that video without consent and a removal (naturally) of it from the internet.
I've seen a few similar types of joke videos like this. Admittedly, they didn't have sexually explicit lyrics, which does cross the line IMO, but not enough to warrant being sentenced like that.
On February 21 2011 06:22 Darkn3ss wrote: It's like saying a bunch of people dressing up in nazi uniforms and marching through a jewish/gay community would be taken as a joke. Yeah... right! People would get offended... would they have a reason? I'm pretty sure they would...
You, and apparently many others in this thread, keep drawing these flawed analogies. It would be the same thing as a person walking in a nazi uniform in an empty street and then superimposing himself in to the jewish/gay community. The jews and gays would never actually see him, unless of course they saw the clip. The bottom line here is that your analogy is flawed, and badly so.
But I have a question here aswell. What makes you think you have the right to impose your morals on others?
LOL Ok. I guess your imagination doesn't allow you to put all of the missing pieces of the puzzle together. Let me break it down.
A group of people walks thru a jewish neighborhood, singing happy jewish songs or whatnot. They have pretty costumes, etc. People come out of their homes and wave and smile and cheer, etc... Then that same group edits the video and portrays themselves walking naked or in nazi uniform or something else, that might be offensive to the residents of the jewish community and put it on youtube..........
People that appear in the video have no right to be upset?
I have no right to impose my morals on anyone but do I have a right to have morals of my own? That's what's being defended in court... the rights and morals of those children and their parents. The reason I said it was more about children's parents is cuz it's parents that saw the video and took the guy to court, not children themselves, obviously...
On February 21 2011 06:22 Darkn3ss wrote: On the sidenote - I'd take a person to court even if they edited a video of ME in ANY manner without my consent... I think I have a right to decide whether I want to be all over youtube or not. If someone fails to recognize that right - I'll have to do something about it.
You do, and you don't. You don't get a copyright to pictures others take of you, even less so when they're taken in the public.
Edit: And to your first part about it being more about the parents... Then this makes even less sense. If the children aren't harmed the parents shouldn't care, now should they?
If you take a picture of me in public I won't care about it. If you take a picture of me in public and then edit it in some offensive way and put it on the internet - I'll try to do something about it... when you talk about little children it goes to a whole new level.
I wonder what you would do if those were your children...
This is ludicrous. What sort of prosecution finds this sort of case solid? "He spliced a video to make it look like he sang to children about sex and now he's pedophile so he should go to jail for 20 years." Hrm.
american minimum sentencing laws - the greatest in the world :/
In all seriousness this is messed up and a terrible example of bad laws to be honest. He will now be on the sexual predator list which isn't valid for what he actually did.
On February 21 2011 07:22 Darkn3ss wrote: People that appear in the video have no right to be upset?
I have no right to impose my morals on anyone but do I have a right to have morals of my own? That's what's being defended in court... the rights and morals of those children and their parents. The reason I said it was more about children's parents is cuz it's parents that saw the video and took the guy to court, not children themselves, obviously...
When did I ever say you have no right to be upset? You can be upset about anything you want. About the color on your walls or the language everyone around you speaks. What you don't have a right to is to prosecute people for it. World of difference.
And no, what's happening in that court is that they're trying to impose an ludicrous law on something relatively innocent, in your own words for the parents and not the children they claim it's affecting.
On February 21 2011 07:22 Darkn3ss wrote: If you take a picture of me in public I won't care about it. If you take a picture of me in public and then edit it in some offensive way and put it on the internet - I'll try to do something about it... when you talk about little children it goes to a whole new level.
I wonder what you would do if those were your children...
Yeah, you'll try to do something. And sometimes it might even be against the law (meanin you'll succeed in doing something), rigthfully so. Most of the time, though, my freedoms are valued higher than your overly tightened morals.
And what if they were my children? I'd do absolutely nothing. Actually, I would probably have a good laugh. It's a completely innocent joke. He didn't even sing infront of the children nor have they heard the song, thus there is no actual problem. The parents and the prosecutor found it fit to create a problem, though, which is why this thread exists. It's not justice, it's injustice and a serious attack on his freedom of speech in my eyes. But anyway, back to me. If it was my child I would probably not mind it if he actually sang to my child. I believe I am fit to raise my child to not become fucked up by some random sexually explicit song sung for fun by some funny dude in their classroom. But that's just me. If he actually did sing for the children then I could see how someone could argue that it's wrong and I'm not going to contest that. I am contesting not singing infront of the children and being charged as if you were.
America's laws never fail to entertain me. Yes, what he has done is utterly stupid, but 20 years? I know it is just the maximum sentence and he probably won't get that, but still. This is almost the maximum sentence for murderers in my country, not youtube prankers.
On February 21 2011 07:22 Darkn3ss wrote: People that appear in the video have no right to be upset?
I have no right to impose my morals on anyone but do I have a right to have morals of my own? That's what's being defended in court... the rights and morals of those children and their parents. The reason I said it was more about children's parents is cuz it's parents that saw the video and took the guy to court, not children themselves, obviously...
When did I ever say you have no right to be upset? You can be upset about anything you want. About the color on your walls or the language everyone around you speaks. What you don't have a right to is to prosecute people for it. World of difference.
And no, what's happening in that court is that they're trying to impose an ludicrous law on something relatively innocent, in your own words for the parents and not the children they claim it's affecting.
On February 21 2011 07:22 Darkn3ss wrote: If you take a picture of me in public I won't care about it. If you take a picture of me in public and then edit it in some offensive way and put it on the internet - I'll try to do something about it... when you talk about little children it goes to a whole new level.
I wonder what you would do if those were your children...
Yeah, you'll try to do something. And sometimes it might even be against the law (meanin you'll succeed in doing something), rigthfully so. Most of the time, though, my freedoms are valued higher than your overly tightened morals.
And what if they were my children? I'd do absolutely nothing. Actually, I would probably have a good laugh. It's a completely innocent joke. He didn't even sing infront of the children nor have they heard the song, thus there is no actual problem. The parents and the prosecutor found it fit to create a problem, though, which is why this thread exists. It's not justice, it's injustice and a serious attack on his freedom of speech in my eyes. But anyway, back to me. If it was my child I would probably not mind it if he actually sang to my child. I believe I am fit to raise my child to not become fucked up by some random sexually explicit song sung for fun by some funny dude in their classroom. But that's just me. If he actually did sing for the children then I could see how someone could argue that it's wrong and I'm not going to contest that. I am contesting not singing infront of the children and being charged as if you were.
Well too bad those weren't your children, otherwise the guy wouldn't have had to go through all of this.
I'd like to clarify that I'm not suggesting that the guy should be locked away for life for doing what he'd done. I'm merely trying to state the reasoning behind the whole case. Yes, the DA, the judge, the prosecutor, the bailiff and court janitor may be all crazy and trying to use the case to get higher up the tech tree, (whatever). I don't really care about that part as I truly believe the guy will get off with a fine or minimal jail time in worst case. I do believe that parents had the right to complain tho. Some may have wanted a punishment but I'm sure most of them wanted to see the video disappear from the internet and set an example of "what-not-to-do" for others. What happened after they complained may or may not have been up to them...... but
...if you think that's personally fine - you should make another video just like that with children somewhere in Sweden. Then we can compare parents' reactions and see if this is one of those "Only in America" type of things =)
It is shocking that anyone would dare try to do this, he should be in jail for life seeing as those kids could be scarred for life if they were to ever see the REAL song he sung afterwards.
On February 21 2011 10:16 BabyGiraldo wrote: It is shocking that anyone would dare try to do this, he should be in jail for life seeing as those kids could be scarred for life if they were to ever see the REAL song he sung afterwards.
Just so you know, the American penal system would give the same penalty to him if he actually raped every single one of those kids. So what you're saying is that he deserves the same punishment as a mass child rapist. I disagree, obviously.
If I was the kid in the classroom, I would probably find the video entertaining.
Taking 20 years for a bad joke is, like most people said, ridiculous. I hope those articles are just a fake way of warning future cases and not actually true.
On February 21 2011 10:16 BabyGiraldo wrote: It is shocking that anyone would dare try to do this, he should be in jail for life seeing as those kids could be scarred for life if they were to ever see the REAL song he sung afterwards.
Just so you know, the American penal system would give the same penalty to him if he actually raped every single one of those kids. So what you're saying is that he deserves the same punishment as a mass child rapist. I disagree, obviously.
No it wouldn't
The crime he is being tried for is basically production of child pornography not rape..
Child rape would probably be a Minimum of 20 year... for each child His crime is having a maximum of 20 years, and chances are he won't actually face that.
On February 21 2011 10:16 BabyGiraldo wrote: It is shocking that anyone would dare try to do this, he should be in jail for life seeing as those kids could be scarred for life if they were to ever see the REAL song he sung afterwards.
Just so you know, the American penal system would give the same penalty to him if he actually raped every single one of those kids. So what you're saying is that he deserves the same punishment as a mass child rapist. I disagree, obviously.
He was probably planning on raping them eventually, he would be sick and twisted enough to want to if he was willing to write such a horrible song.
On February 21 2011 10:16 BabyGiraldo wrote: It is shocking that anyone would dare try to do this, he should be in jail for life seeing as those kids could be scarred for life if they were to ever see the REAL song he sung afterwards.
Just so you know, the American penal system would give the same penalty to him if he actually raped every single one of those kids. So what you're saying is that he deserves the same punishment as a mass child rapist. I disagree, obviously.
No it wouldn't
The crime he is being tried for is basically production of child pornography not rape..
Child rape would probably be a Minimum of 20 year... for each child His crime is having a maximum of 20 years, and chances are he won't actually face that.
Actually in the USA at least, people found guilty of charges involving child pornography tend to get harsher sentences than people who are found guilty of rape charges, even if they involve minors. Raping a child gets you nowhere near 20 years in most scenarios... it's often closer to 6 months to 3 years followed by 5 years of supervised release and a sex offender status.
Part of the reason for this is the way that the laws are actually written. There are much more options for actual rape or molestation charges in terms of pleas and sentence reduction than there are for charges involving child pornography. Many recent cases have shown us pretty clearly that our laws are lagging far behind our culture and technology in this regard. When kids playing jokes like this are regarded the same as a person actually abusing children, it's pretty clear that changes need to be made.
People only condemn it because sex is such a huge taboo in society. The only reason why this can be perceived as a bad thing is because really, it's stigmatized.
Thx church for fake morals that persist today. If you think you're doing the world a favor by going against this guy, you're immature. You really are.
On February 21 2011 13:38 Djzapz wrote: People only condemn it because sex is such a huge taboo in society. The only reason why this can be perceived as a bad thing is because really, it's stigmatized.
Thx church for fake morals that persist today. If you think you're doing the world a favor by going against this guy, you're immature. You really are.
ANY form of punishment by the judicial system is way too much for this. Is the state really willing to actually ruin someone's life over this? You try and get a good job being a convicted felon. I wouldn't be surprised if he was put on some sex offenders list too if he is convicted.
On February 21 2011 15:32 Flyingdutchman wrote: ANY form of punishment by the judicial system is way too much for this. Is the state really willing to actually ruin someone's life over this? You try and get a good job being a convicted felon. I wouldn't be surprised if he was put on some sex offenders list too if he is convicted.
Well could he have potentially ruined the lives of those kids? Careers of parents of those kids? If, for example, someone's boss saw the video and recognized someone's child... what would they think???
But, as I said before, they guy will NOT get a serious punishment for it BUT this will make him realize that some pranks are not as successful as others... =) It also sets a good example for other people out there...
On February 21 2011 10:12 Darkn3ss wrote: ...if you think that's personally fine - you should make another video just like that with children somewhere in Sweden. Then we can compare parents' reactions and see if this is one of those "Only in America" type of things =)
I could. I imagine noone would have a problem with it. However, if someone DID have a problem with it the law wouldn't be concerned with it. Rather, a debate would come out of it. Do I really have the right? And it turns out I do. In fact, the bad guys would end up being the teachers/principle of the children's school for allowing me to film if anyone at all.
On February 21 2011 15:32 Flyingdutchman wrote: ANY form of punishment by the judicial system is way too much for this. Is the state really willing to actually ruin someone's life over this? You try and get a good job being a convicted felon. I wouldn't be surprised if he was put on some sex offenders list too if he is convicted.
Well could he have potentially ruined the lives of those kids? Careers of parents of those kids? If, for example, someone's boss saw the video and recognized someone's child... what would they think???
But, as I said before, they guy will NOT get a serious punishment for it BUT this will make him realize that some pranks are not as successful as others... =) It also sets a good example for other people out there...
so swearing in front of children actually harms them? (not that he even did that) you really believe that? Is this more harmful than demanding school to not teach a kid something about evolution? This is just another example of self serving bias of parents too lazy to raise their child (or not able because they both have to work to provide enough income). But to answer your question, if someone's boss saw the vid, what would they think? I really wouldn't know, I cannot think for others. I only know what I would think, which is 'lol'. I'm not saying that parents don't have the right to demand the vid being taken down, as far as I know it has been. I cannot find it anywhere. But anything more than that is disproportionate to the action itself.
On February 21 2011 10:12 Darkn3ss wrote: ...if you think that's personally fine - you should make another video just like that with children somewhere in Sweden. Then we can compare parents' reactions and see if this is one of those "Only in America" type of things =)
I could. I imagine noone would have a problem with it. However, if someone DID have a problem with it the law wouldn't be concerned with it. Rather, a debate would come out of it. Do I really have the right? And it turns out I do. In fact, the bad guys would end up being the teachers/principle of the children's school for allowing me to film if anyone at all.
But that's just "socialist Sweden".
You would actually be pretty wrong with noone having a problem with it. And wrong with the law not being concerned with it, to start with you would need to have parental consent from every single parent whoose child you wish to film if you plan to publish the film (youtube counts, as does any form of art work). School consent is NOT enough. Second if you edited the movie in a way differing from what you informed the parents on they have grounds to sue you. The school might take som critisism aswell but you are still responsible for anything you publish.
My GF is working as a journalist, and the pains she has to go through whenever children are involved are massive.
Now in sweden it would probably end up with fines and not jail time, but hard to say before it actually happens and a case goes to court, just wanted to point out that you are wrong with having the right and it not breaking the law. Sweden has strong laws protecting children from appearing in any form of media without the parents consent.
Regardless what he did, i think justice is just "using" him as an example, pretty much they trying to show that internet is not so free of consequences and they're watching the content and contribution you do to the internet . Of course they're not watching that closely but they arrest one guy with insane and illogical punishment for the video and suddenly a lot of people who used to post similar stuff or worst will think twice before posting again.
I could be wrong but in my view he was just unlucky to be the chosen one on this matter. =(
On February 19 2011 07:18 luckybeni2 wrote: Funny story. There actually was a guy who broke into a house in the USA. The family was out on vacation and the idiot managed to trap himself in the garage. He spent 8 days there eating dogfood and Pepsi. When the family came back he sued them ... and, of course he won ... 500 thousand dollars... because of the "inhuman conditions he had to live in...
I think everyone should keep in mind that the charges are being brought by angry parents who are insisting he be charged with everything they can think of. None of them will stick.
I will be absolutely shocked if he gets any jail time at all. There were no victims, and he probably broke no laws. If anything, he'll get a slap on the wrist and a small fine.
Look, I agree that America is crazy in a lot of ways, but we're not crazy enough to let completely unfounded charges put away people for decades on a regular basis.
On February 19 2011 07:18 luckybeni2 wrote: Funny story. There actually was a guy who broke into a house in the USA. The family was out on vacation and the idiot managed to trap himself in the garage. He spent 8 days there eating dogfood and Pepsi. When the family came back he sued them ... and, of course he won ... 500 thousand dollars... because of the "inhuman conditions he had to live in...
Wow finally I found some evidence about that shit. I am sick and tired of people using that court case as an evidence. I find it really hard to believe the court system is that SCREWED up.
But yea the guy is not going to get 20 years in prison. That is the maximum sentence which the law will allow for such crime. The parents, however, are a bit ridiculous for trying to get the kid jailed for that long.
I have always wondered how someone can grow up and turn out into an "overprotective!!!!!!!!" parent that freaks about a teaspoon of sugar, comparing sugar to crack and reacting a showing of a cut or a drop of blood on t.v. as gore and violence...
There are dutch videos on youtube which are from a show where small children ( 6 to 8 or 10 years old ) talk with a host. But they are edited with different audio to make it look like they say really nasty sex related stuff, that never got any attention they might even still be on youtube and someone here is charged with 20 years.
On February 22 2011 02:41 Chocobo wrote: Look, I agree that America is crazy in a lot of ways, but we're not crazy enough to let completely unfounded charges put away people for decades on a regular basis.
It might be a small percentage of total convictions, but too many imo. I'm not saying this doesn't happen anywhere else though, please don't misunderstand me. We don't have the detah penalty in NL but there have been some high profile cases where innocent people were convicted and sent to jail for a long time
On February 19 2011 07:18 luckybeni2 wrote: Funny story. There actually was a guy who broke into a house in the USA. The family was out on vacation and the idiot managed to trap himself in the garage. He spent 8 days there eating dogfood and Pepsi. When the family came back he sued them ... and, of course he won ... 500 thousand dollars... because of the "inhuman conditions he had to live in...
Wow finally I found some evidence about that shit. I am sick and tired of people using that court case as an evidence. I find it really hard to believe the court system is that SCREWED up.
But yea the guy is not going to get 20 years in prison. That is the maximum sentence which the law will allow for such crime. The parents, however, are a bit ridiculous for trying to get the kid jailed for that long.
I have always wondered how someone can grow up and turn out into an "overprotective!!!!!!!!" parent that freaks about a teaspoon of sugar, comparing sugar to crack and reacting a showing of a cut or a drop of blood on t.v. as gore and violence...
Obviously we should get rid of maximums so a judge can send people to a life time in prison for everything muhahahaha. I dislike how the internet short attention span to crap makes everything esp legal just seem over blown, i mean the common one is the hot coffee from McDonalds case, most people don't get that a lot of people suffered 3rd degree burns that's though the muscle and to the bone that shit doesn't grow back you need skin graphs.
On February 22 2011 02:41 Chocobo wrote: Look, I agree that America is crazy in a lot of ways, but we're not crazy enough to let completely unfounded charges put away people for decades on a regular basis.
It might be a small percentage of total convictions, but too many imo. I'm not saying this doesn't happen anywhere else though, please don't misunderstand me. We don't have the detah penalty in NL but there have been some high profile cases where innocent people were convicted and sent to jail for a long time
This is where the judicial system is in trouble, over contumelious prosecutors on criminal cases who blur the moralities lines to get convictions becuase if they don't they could lose their jobs.
Oh Midwest, you're so cute when you pretend like youre the "real" America.
This country is literally a shit sandwich. A delicious slice of New England baguette on top, a crazy piece of west coast rye on the bottom, and a bunch of poop in the middle.
That's truly dumb, but certainly not domb as some Turkish court deciding that a 12 year old girl had "consent" after being "served" to 40+ man by her parents recently.
I don't think anyone here is going to argue that the maximum punishment doesn't fit the crime. I will go as far as saying some of the charges don't fit the crime. I think the important highlights here:
1) He used the images of children without parental or individual consent. That is illegal and is punishable. 2) He did so in very poor taste. That isn't illegal, but they are trying to manipulate the wording of current laws to charge him under different offenses that may pertain to the above.
That's pretty much how lawyers make their cases and their money... As soon as you write something concrete in words, it is open to various interpretations. I am hoping that he won't get much more than community service and a fine. The fact that this case involves children merely stirs the "emotional pot". I am hoping that any self respecting judge can be objective about this case and see it for what it really is in the legal sense: the misuse of images without consent.
Other considerations are the effects that the above had on the children, the parents, the school's image, the teacher consenting the filming in the first place, and finally the actual defendant in the case - who is already likely to suffer the most as a result of the public backlash ironically.
I find it rather ironic that this guy probably made such a video to get attention and a few laughs; he certainly has accomplished that hasn't he?
Whoever the fuck decided to prosecute this case needs to get publicly humiliated for their incompetence and stupidity.
The kid deserves at most a fine, and should certainly apologize to the parents and/or children...
I hope people realize how much of their tax dollars are now being wasted prosecuting this guy and let their local government know that its not ok to do this sort of crap.
If I were him I'd seek out a good lawyer and sue the state after this case gets rofltossed out by the judge.
Its a youtube video... what? How the fuck is that child abuse it wasn't even real. Thats ridiculous and unbelievable that they actually want to take the guy to court for that.
You can commit armed robbery in new york and get off with 15 years. That's pretty fucked up, they're throwing the book at him.
20 years is a long time so he's probably going to get sent to a hard ass prison. Imagine him telling other people what he's actually in there for, but it's a sexual offense, so he's going to get his ass kicked everyday.
This would get thrown out in the UK high court as a waste of taxpayers money. Fine him for doing something stupid and donate the money to a children's charity. The fact this has gone so far already will show that no one else will be this stupid to do this "prank"
anyone else here live in michigan? this kinda thing makes my blood boil so much, particularly because ive experienced the justice system first hand. the two people that populate 90% of jails are marijuana smokers and deadbeat child support fathers. This fact upset me, but it is understandable. this case draws the line and just blows my mind. i plan to show up to that court and protest. I live about an hour away and dont have a thing to do that day. anyone else want to meet up there,a few of my friends will be there as well. what this kid did was wrong(debatable), but a simple fine and community service would suffice. this is a victim less crime and 20 year felony is absolutely ridiculous.
does anyone know if the song he sang was about having sex with children or just sex in general?
On February 23 2011 12:53 LeSioN wrote: anyone else here live in michigan? this kinda thing makes my blood boil so much, particularly because ive experienced the justice system first hand. the two people that populate 90% of jails are marijuana smokers and deadbeat child support fathers. This fact upset me, but it is understandable. this case draws the line and just blows my mind. i plan to show up to that court and protest. I live about an hour away and dont have a thing to do that day. anyone else want to meet up there,a few of my friends will be there as well. what this kid did was wrong(debatable), but a simple fine and community service would suffice. this is a victim less crime and 20 year felony is absolutely ridiculous.
does anyone know if the song he sang was about having sex with children or just sex in general?
It was Adam sandler's Lunch lady I believe, so I don't think it was about having sex with children.
If he is convicted, it will be overturned, because of his freedom of speech. What he did is covered in the constitution, I'm confident that he's not going to be charged no matter how ignorant the parents of those kids are.
I mean, if I found out yesterday, that I was in a raunchy video that was amusing, but my parents put someone in jail for 20 years for it, I'd be scarred for life and never trust the judicial system again.
If he get charged for actual child abuse (and not only using the footage without permission), wouldn't that mean that every movie producer that has some sort of child abuse in its movies must be charged as well?
On February 23 2011 22:53 Keniji wrote: If he get charged for actual child abuse (and not only using the footage without permission), wouldn't that mean that every movie producer that has some sort of child abuse in its movies must be charged as well?
I believe it also means that the teacher/principle/administration of the school would be charged as co conspirators as well, as the teacher was present during which the alleged manufacturing of child porn was taking place.
They gave him permission to use the footage, just nothing in writing. By law, he did nothing wrong. He got permission of the students legal guardians at the time, their teacher.
The prosecuter has no case against Emory, and the parents do not as well. It will be a civil suit sueing the school.
Also, the teachers should be charged with reckless endangerment, since they gave Emory explicit permission to do something which will harm himself (i.e., the possibility of being sexually assaulted and killed in prison.)
Furthermore, if the charges are dropped, Emory should sue the Prosecuter for Libel.
On February 23 2011 22:53 Keniji wrote: If he get charged for actual child abuse (and not only using the footage without permission), wouldn't that mean that every movie producer that has some sort of child abuse in its movies must be charged as well?
I believe it also means that the teacher/principle/administration of the school would be charged as co conspirators as well, as the teacher was present during which the alleged manufacturing of child porn was taking place.
They gave him permission to use the footage, just nothing in writing. By law, he did nothing wrong. He got permission of the students legal guardians at the time, their teacher.
The prosecuter has no case against Emory, and the parents do not as well. It will be a civil suit sueing the school.
Also, the teachers should be charged with reckless endangerment, since they gave Emory explicit permission to do something which will harm himself (i.e., the possibility of being sexually assaulted and killed in prison.)
Furthermore, if the charges are dropped, Emory should sue the Prosecuter for Libel.
On February 23 2011 12:53 LeSioN wrote: anyone else here live in michigan? this kinda thing makes my blood boil so much, particularly because ive experienced the justice system first hand. the two people that populate 90% of jails are marijuana smokers and deadbeat child support fathers. This fact upset me, but it is understandable. this case draws the line and just blows my mind. i plan to show up to that court and protest. I live about an hour away and dont have a thing to do that day. anyone else want to meet up there,a few of my friends will be there as well. what this kid did was wrong(debatable), but a simple fine and community service would suffice. this is a victim less crime and 20 year felony is absolutely ridiculous.
does anyone know if the song he sang was about having sex with children or just sex in general?
It was Adam sandler's Lunch lady I believe, so I don't think it was about having sex with children.
If he is convicted, it will be overturned, because of his freedom of speech. What he did is covered in the constitution, I'm confident that he's not going to be charged no matter how ignorant the parents of those kids are.
I mean, if I found out yesterday, that I was in a raunchy video that was amusing, but my parents put someone in jail for 20 years for it, I'd be scarred for life and never trust the judicial system again.
Just to be clear, none of what you said is really how the legal system works (libel, freedom of speech, child endangerment), except for co-conspirators/accomplices, but theres a case to be made of when the "child abuse video" was "made" (was it editing? was it filming?).
The prosecutor does indeed have a little bit of a case, but not much. The law could be written to deter even fake child abuse video, because it could make child abuse more popular (kind of how the US supreme court ruled on lolicon hentai). In this event, the law could possibly apply. If the defendant is prosecuted, it will inevitably end up with an appeal, and they will rule that the law should be revised in some sense.
Edit: he is not being charged with filming child abuse, he is being charged with making a film with child abuse. Whether or not he actually abused children does not apply, as i understand it.
On February 23 2011 22:53 Keniji wrote: If he get charged for actual child abuse (and not only using the footage without permission), wouldn't that mean that every movie producer that has some sort of child abuse in its movies must be charged as well?
The children in those movies have parental consent. I believe Tosh on comedy central did a bit with the kids actually hearing that crap coming out of his mouth. The law will be overruled in this case he did break a law, but I don't think the law he broke was the "child abuse" law, but consent law for filming minors. Nothing will be made of this case just wasting more tax payers money.
On February 23 2011 11:16 Satire wrote: That's pretty much how lawyers make their cases and their money... As soon as you write something concrete in words, it is open to various interpretations.
The party that is trying to charge the young man with the guitar is the District Attorney's office, not an independent lawyer. Even if the DA gets a conviction(which he won't unless this judge wants to set a ridiculous precedent) he will not make any more or less money, as he works off of a fixed income. Thanks for spreading the lawyer hate.
On February 23 2011 22:53 Keniji wrote: If he get charged for actual child abuse (and not only using the footage without permission), wouldn't that mean that every movie producer that has some sort of child abuse in its movies must be charged as well?
I believe it also means that the teacher/principle/administration of the school would be charged as co conspirators as well, as the teacher was present during which the alleged manufacturing of child porn was taking place.
They gave him permission to use the footage, just nothing in writing. By law, he did nothing wrong. He got permission of the students legal guardians at the time, their teacher.
The prosecuter has no case against Emory, and the parents do not as well. It will be a civil suit sueing the school.
Also, the teachers should be charged with reckless endangerment, since they gave Emory explicit permission to do something which will harm himself (i.e., the possibility of being sexually assaulted and killed in prison.)
Furthermore, if the charges are dropped, Emory should sue the Prosecuter for Libel.
On February 23 2011 12:53 LeSioN wrote: anyone else here live in michigan? this kinda thing makes my blood boil so much, particularly because ive experienced the justice system first hand. the two people that populate 90% of jails are marijuana smokers and deadbeat child support fathers. This fact upset me, but it is understandable. this case draws the line and just blows my mind. i plan to show up to that court and protest. I live about an hour away and dont have a thing to do that day. anyone else want to meet up there,a few of my friends will be there as well. what this kid did was wrong(debatable), but a simple fine and community service would suffice. this is a victim less crime and 20 year felony is absolutely ridiculous.
does anyone know if the song he sang was about having sex with children or just sex in general?
It was Adam sandler's Lunch lady I believe, so I don't think it was about having sex with children.
If he is convicted, it will be overturned, because of his freedom of speech. What he did is covered in the constitution, I'm confident that he's not going to be charged no matter how ignorant the parents of those kids are.
I mean, if I found out yesterday, that I was in a raunchy video that was amusing, but my parents put someone in jail for 20 years for it, I'd be scarred for life and never trust the judicial system again.
Just to be clear, none of what you said is really how the legal system works (libel, freedom of speech, child endangerment), except for co-conspirators/accomplices, but theres a case to be made of when the "child abuse video" was "made" (was it editing? was it filming?).
The prosecutor does indeed have a little bit of a case, but not much. The law could be written to deter even fake child abuse video, because it could make child abuse more popular (kind of how the US supreme court ruled on lolicon hentai). In this event, the law could possibly apply. If the defendant is prosecuted, it will inevitably end up with an appeal, and they will rule that the law should be revised in some sense.
Edit: he is not being charged with filming child abuse, he is being charged with making a film with child abuse. Whether or not he actually abused children does not apply, as i understand it.
but my question still stands.
wouldn't that make every movie with child abuse (e.g. an american crime) illegal and the producers might get sued?
On February 23 2011 22:53 Keniji wrote: If he get charged for actual child abuse (and not only using the footage without permission), wouldn't that mean that every movie producer that has some sort of child abuse in its movies must be charged as well?
I believe it also means that the teacher/principle/administration of the school would be charged as co conspirators as well, as the teacher was present during which the alleged manufacturing of child porn was taking place.
They gave him permission to use the footage, just nothing in writing. By law, he did nothing wrong. He got permission of the students legal guardians at the time, their teacher.
The prosecuter has no case against Emory, and the parents do not as well. It will be a civil suit sueing the school.
Also, the teachers should be charged with reckless endangerment, since they gave Emory explicit permission to do something which will harm himself (i.e., the possibility of being sexually assaulted and killed in prison.)
Furthermore, if the charges are dropped, Emory should sue the Prosecuter for Libel.
On February 23 2011 12:53 LeSioN wrote: anyone else here live in michigan? this kinda thing makes my blood boil so much, particularly because ive experienced the justice system first hand. the two people that populate 90% of jails are marijuana smokers and deadbeat child support fathers. This fact upset me, but it is understandable. this case draws the line and just blows my mind. i plan to show up to that court and protest. I live about an hour away and dont have a thing to do that day. anyone else want to meet up there,a few of my friends will be there as well. what this kid did was wrong(debatable), but a simple fine and community service would suffice. this is a victim less crime and 20 year felony is absolutely ridiculous.
does anyone know if the song he sang was about having sex with children or just sex in general?
It was Adam sandler's Lunch lady I believe, so I don't think it was about having sex with children.
If he is convicted, it will be overturned, because of his freedom of speech. What he did is covered in the constitution, I'm confident that he's not going to be charged no matter how ignorant the parents of those kids are.
I mean, if I found out yesterday, that I was in a raunchy video that was amusing, but my parents put someone in jail for 20 years for it, I'd be scarred for life and never trust the judicial system again.
Just to be clear, none of what you said is really how the legal system works (libel, freedom of speech, child endangerment), except for co-conspirators/accomplices, but theres a case to be made of when the "child abuse video" was "made" (was it editing? was it filming?).
The prosecutor does indeed have a little bit of a case, but not much. The law could be written to deter even fake child abuse video, because it could make child abuse more popular (kind of how the US supreme court ruled on lolicon hentai). In this event, the law could possibly apply. If the defendant is prosecuted, it will inevitably end up with an appeal, and they will rule that the law should be revised in some sense.
Edit: he is not being charged with filming child abuse, he is being charged with making a film with child abuse. Whether or not he actually abused children does not apply, as i understand it.
but my question still stands.
wouldn't that make every movie with child abuse (e.g. an american crime) illegal and the producers might get sued?
first, let me say, i(godsbasement) can sue you(kenji) tomorrow for any reason(grand larceny) if i wanted to. that doesnt mean that my case has any merit, but I have the right to. (you can countersue for frivolous lawsuit if you want afterwards, so there are some ways to punish stupid shit like that).
Second, i would like to say that I do not know the laws very well. I do have a basic understanding of law, so you can take my word above most. (law concentration/ hope to continue to law school).
producers of movies will not get sued for having child abuse in their movies. I believe there is some fine print regarding artistic value or whatever, and its usually clear that in movies, there are actors, and they are acting.
In this case, the distinction is not so clear. There are many many things that have to be addressed for a conviction. Is what was portrayed i.e. singing [whatever song it was] to children actually "child abuse?" Theres a legal definition that i'm not familiar with. Does the law of filmed child abuse apply to this? who knows. Theres many gray areas, and the law requires many elements to be met in order to be enforced. I can say rather confidantly that this man will not recieve 20 years in prison.
Even if he is convicted, it is because the judge interpreted the law to apply in a certain way; not that he should be punished. if anything, it will be taken to the supreme court where the judges look at the constitutionality of the law more closely, and revise the policy to something more rational.
On February 19 2011 05:33 Toxi78 wrote: which one is the prank, the video or the judgement?
Judgement... At least I hope to god. I know humanity is beyond stupid but this puts the icing on the cake.
Why? Personally I hope he gets jail time, both because I'm a father and even implied child abuse is outrageous for me and because I'm tired of stupid internet pranks that aren't even funny 90% of the time. If this case would make people think before they post stupid pranks in the future then I'm all for it.
On February 19 2011 05:33 Toxi78 wrote: which one is the prank, the video or the judgement?
Judgement... At least I hope to god. I know humanity is beyond stupid but this puts the icing on the cake.
Why? Personally I hope he gets jail time, both because I'm a father and even implied child abuse is outrageous for me and because I'm tired of stupid internet pranks that aren't even funny 90% of the time. If this case would make people think before they post stupid pranks in the future then I'm all for it.
I think people make poor choices when they vote. If the conviction of this guy who voted for the communist party gets people to stop voting, I'm all for it!
if he has a good lawer then there is no way in hell this will go through. 20 years is just insane and if he really gets that much time for this then there is no hope for this country.
my guess is this is just to scare the dude. srsly there is just no way ppls views and judgement is that fucked up in this country.
On February 19 2011 05:33 Toxi78 wrote: which one is the prank, the video or the judgement?
Judgement... At least I hope to god. I know humanity is beyond stupid but this puts the icing on the cake.
Why? Personally I hope he gets jail time, both because I'm a father and even implied child abuse is outrageous for me and because I'm tired of stupid internet pranks that aren't even funny 90% of the time. If this case would make people think before they post stupid pranks in the future then I'm all for it.
he should be punished for it, but 20 years is insane no matter how you look at it. even 1 years time would be overkill for something as harmless as this. no kids were even in the room and not only that but the likely hood of the kids even seeing that video at all are next to 0 since it was taken down. so litterally no harm was done what so ever. all they had to do was take the video down and charge the guy with some fine that he had to pay or something.
not only that but there are fucking rappers that have REAL kids in there video singing about explict things even tho its coded and not direct.
Definitely looks like a blown out bubble and a big misunderstanding..There's no way he can get 20 years for this. However, even if he 'only' get a year, I've still lost faith in humanity completely...
Why? Personally I hope he gets jail time, both because I'm a father and even implied child abuse is outrageous for me and because I'm tired of stupid internet pranks that aren't even funny 90% of the time. If this case would make people think before they post stupid pranks in the future then I'm all for it.
As a human being i find outragous that persons entire life might get ruined over a joke in wich no children were harmed in any single way.
Maybe you should get off your high horse and realise that you are advocating having a persons life ruined because a video clip he made does not strike you as funny.
I don't think 2 and a half men is funny but i don't go around suggesting that the producers should be executed.
People honestly seem to forget that we are talking about a human being who would have his entire life ruined if he gets convicted. He would be sent to jail for god knows how many years, he would have a record and couldn't get a job for shit and he would be put on a sex offenders list. How sick and cruell do you have to be to believe that can in any way be a just punishment for an act that doesn't even need a punishment, let alone one that will ruin his life.
Wether you are a father or not doesn't matter in the least.
This person doesn't deserve to even spend a single day in jail. You must be utterly deprived of any moral upbringing if you would want to see a person have his life ruined over something as small as this.
Why? Personally I hope he gets jail time, both because I'm a father and even implied child abuse is outrageous for me and because I'm tired of stupid internet pranks that aren't even funny 90% of the time. If this case would make people think before they post stupid pranks in the future then I'm all for it.
As a human being i find outrageous that persons entire life might get ruined over a joke in wich no children were harmed in any single way.
Maybe you should get off your high horse and realize that you are advocating having a persons life ruined because a video clip he made does not strike you as funny.
I don't think 2 and a half men is funny but i don't go around suggesting that the producers should be executed.
People honestly seem to forget that we are talking about a human being who would have his entire life ruined if he gets convicted. He would be sent to jail for god knows how many years, he would have a record and couldn't get a job for shit and he would be put on a sex offenders list. How sick and cruel do you have to be to believe that can in any way be a just punishment for an act that doesn't even need a punishment, let alone one that will ruin his life.
Whether you are a father or not doesn't matter in the least.
This person doesn't deserve to even spend a single day in jail. You must be utterly deprived of any moral upbringing if you would want to see a person have his life ruined over something as small as this.
'
This and thank you for saving me the time of typing it.
Why? Personally I hope he gets jail time, both because I'm a father and even implied child abuse is outrageous for me and because I'm tired of stupid internet pranks that aren't even funny 90% of the time. If this case would make people think before they post stupid pranks in the future then I'm all for it.
As a human being i find outragous that persons entire life might get ruined over a joke in wich no children were harmed in any single way.
Maybe you should get off your high horse and realise that you are advocating having a persons life ruined because a video clip he made does not strike you as funny.
I don't think 2 and a half men is funny but i don't go around suggesting that the producers should be executed.
People honestly seem to forget that we are talking about a human being who would have his entire life ruined if he gets convicted. He would be sent to jail for god knows how many years, he would have a record and couldn't get a job for shit and he would be put on a sex offenders list. How sick and cruell do you have to be to believe that can in any way be a just punishment for an act that doesn't even need a punishment, let alone one that will ruin his life.
Wether you are a father or not doesn't matter in the least.
This person doesn't deserve to even spend a single day in jail. You must be utterly deprived of any moral upbringing if you would want to see a person have his life ruined over something as small as this.
intelligent poster right here
+9001
bottom line is the guy didnt do anything to harm the children. the children never heard the song and he neither did the teachers for that matter. it was a simple joke and he was a idiot for doing it, but sending ruining his life over such a trivial matter is just plain evil.
theres real criminals out there that dont even go to jail for that long. it seems in this country if you even walk past a child it can get you thrown in jail and i think its just fucking stupid the way they are handling these types of cases. there is such a thing called "overprotecting"
hell i wouldnt be surprised if half those kids heard some sexual language/explict language from there own family. yet this guy is getting punished for something he literally did not do because the children were not around.
I'm just amazed that it can be counted as abuse at all. If he had done it infront of a real group of child it would have been bad taste and stupid, but hardly abuse. When I was a kid we had childrens shows that had songs about swearing, some songs that were ridiculously suggestive now that I look back at them. What part of that is abuse? The kids learning a few new words? Most of them at that age don't even have the attention span to learn any of the words, we were happy enough to have a reason to go bananas.
It seems like this will be the real crux of the issue. Clearly the first requirement is met because the video depicts a simulated act of drawing the children's attention to an act of sexual intercourse. Lyrics. The second seems to be tough. Does listening to a song about sex acts constitute "viewing" the acts? That seems to be a stretch. Perhaps there is an argument that having children listen to a song about sex acts is putting them in proximity to the sex acts. Either way, it seems like this requirement will be tough for the prosecution to prove. The third requirement, whether it was for the purpose of real or simulated overt sexual gratification, also seems tough to show. It may depend on the exact content of the video and might turn on the answer to some silly question - such as whether he was pretending to get turned on or acting sexually gratified at any point in the video.
My final judgment is that even though the statute is written very broadly, it seems to be a bit of a stretch to say that the children depicted were engaged in the simulated act of passive sexual involvement based on the reports of the video. However, I have not seen the video.
you are right that it is very broadly written. In that sense you could sue luther vandross or the radio station when a child hears one of his songs. Merely arranging certain letters of the alphabet in a certain way can fit your description for that matter.
Hm I think I should sue everyone involved to German Schlager music for abusing me in my childhood, because nearly every song is about sex. Including my nanny who made me listen to this stuff.
This is just ridiculous. Everyone who welcomes the judgement should ask theirselves, if they wanted to get arrested for a silly prank they did in their youth. I don't think that there's anyone out there who didn't do anything utterly silly back when they were young...
On February 24 2011 16:15 Flyingdutchman wrote: + Show Spoiler +
On February 20 2011 02:07 EvilNalu wrote:
It seems like this will be the real crux of the issue. Clearly the first requirement is met because the video depicts a simulated act of drawing the children's attention to an act of sexual intercourse. Lyrics. The second seems to be tough. Does listening to a song about sex acts constitute "viewing" the acts? That seems to be a stretch. Perhaps there is an argument that having children listen to a song about sex acts is putting them in proximity to the sex acts. Either way, it seems like this requirement will be tough for the prosecution to prove. The third requirement, whether it was for the purpose of real or simulated overt sexual gratification, also seems tough to show. It may depend on the exact content of the video and might turn on the answer to some silly question - such as whether he was pretending to get turned on or acting sexually gratified at any point in the video.
My final judgment is that even though the statute is written very broadly, it seems to be a bit of a stretch to say that the children depicted were engaged in the simulated act of passive sexual involvement based on the reports of the video. However, I have not seen the video.
you are right that it is very broadly written. In that sense you could sue luther vandross or the radio station when a child hears one of his songs. Merely arranging certain letters of the alphabet in a certain way can fit your description for that matter.
Not quite. The conduct prohibited by MI Penal Code sec. 750.145c is making material which contains depictions that appear to include children involved in listed sexual acts. So, a video of a kid listening to Luther Vandross would possibly be prohibited - if the other requirements I detailed were met. Playing it on the radio, even if kids were listening, would not because there would be no depiction of children. Of course, there are other laws and regulations dealing with what can be played on the radio or perhaps what can be sung to children. The defendant here is not being charged with any of those, because of course he did not sing any questionable song to any children.
lmfao. So basically, you can compare it to being charged for murder against someone who is in witness protection, They will just stick you with the murder charges to keep their witness safe. Not nearly the same situation but your still screwed. TT
On February 24 2011 16:15 Flyingdutchman wrote: + Show Spoiler +
On February 20 2011 02:07 EvilNalu wrote:
It seems like this will be the real crux of the issue. Clearly the first requirement is met because the video depicts a simulated act of drawing the children's attention to an act of sexual intercourse. Lyrics. The second seems to be tough. Does listening to a song about sex acts constitute "viewing" the acts? That seems to be a stretch. Perhaps there is an argument that having children listen to a song about sex acts is putting them in proximity to the sex acts. Either way, it seems like this requirement will be tough for the prosecution to prove. The third requirement, whether it was for the purpose of real or simulated overt sexual gratification, also seems tough to show. It may depend on the exact content of the video and might turn on the answer to some silly question - such as whether he was pretending to get turned on or acting sexually gratified at any point in the video.
My final judgment is that even though the statute is written very broadly, it seems to be a bit of a stretch to say that the children depicted were engaged in the simulated act of passive sexual involvement based on the reports of the video. However, I have not seen the video.
you are right that it is very broadly written. In that sense you could sue luther vandross or the radio station when a child hears one of his songs. Merely arranging certain letters of the alphabet in a certain way can fit your description for that matter.
Not quite. The conduct prohibited by MI Penal Code sec. 750.145c is making material which contains depictions that appear to include children involved in listed sexual acts. So, a video of a kid listening to Luther Vandross would possibly be prohibited - if the other requirements I detailed were met. Playing it on the radio, even if kids were listening, would not because there would be no depiction of children. Of course, there are other laws and regulations dealing with what can be played on the radio or perhaps what can be sung to children. The defendant here is not being charged with any of those, because of course he did not sing any questionable song to any children.
Thanks for clarifying that for me, good thing I'm not in any law profession :D
Still a travesty IMO. Oh well I'm sure he's relieved.
60 days in jail, two years probation, 200 hours of community service, mandatory counseling and fines and costs. And when he emerges from jail, Emory can’t be within 500 feet of children under the age of 17.
60 days in jail, two years probation, 200 hours of community service, mandatory counseling and fines and costs. And when he emerges from jail, Emory can’t be within 500 feet of children under the age of 17.
holy shit fuck that state man...
A travesty indeed. How can you claim this guy did anything harmful when all he did was make an EDITED video (read: fake) of him singing a nasty song to little kids?
Those kids don't even know about this, so no actual abuse was done. All they got was a happy innocent song (this seems to be the hardest thing to understand for all those knee-jerk reacting parents)
Just because it says 20 years doesn't mean he got 20 years. A lot of crimes have a long sentence but usually the criminal never faces a full sentence unless its a crime like rape, armed robbery, murder, terrorism those sorts.
He probably won't get jail time at all. Probation, registered sex offender which will more or less ruin his life. I agree its dumb that 20 years is the max for a crime like this, infact its stupid that the police can even charge him but you also think that he does get his day in court.
Edit: And listening to mainstream news in America is bad anyways. They only discuss bad things and scare the community so ya best to not ever put much thought to that kind of stuff.
its so shit how you get these random prosecutors on a mission to "make a point" and some poor bastard has his life ruined for it, and another prosecutor would just throw it out.
yes it was a stupid prank, but come on, 20 years? you shouldn't take away someone's whole life over this
Thanks. I find it funny how someone can get a shorter murder sentence then someone can get a child molestation charge. Apparently killing people is better then molesting children according to the justice system.
Thanks. I find it funny how someone can get a shorter murder sentence then someone can get a child molestation charge. Apparently killing people is better then molesting children according to the justice system.
dont forget, marijuana also carries 25 to life sentances... go figure
Anyone who has done time knows that 20 years is retarded. Even most people who haven't done time know this...
Naive parents LOVE to throw around terms like that when it comes to their kids. 5 years. 10 years. 20 years. All WAY too much. You're talking about ruining this guys life. I would say a token sentence of 6 months or less, classes, and some probation would be fine.
I challenge anyone who thinks 20 years is legitimate sentence for this to even do 2 weeks in COUNTY jail. Let alone federal fucking prison.
Man these people are stupid. This is why America has the highest incarceration rate in the world. Naive people throw around 5-10 year sentences and think its lenient. That is what makes me the most angry about this story.
To state the obvious, yes he was wrong and should be made example of so others know its wrong- but lets not ruin a mans life.
This is stupid, but 60 days isn't unreasonable either. It really depends on what the content of the video was, I guess. If it could have been used as child porn, that's o e thing, but if it's just a bunch of kids that look like theyre into some weird sex shit, that's a little different. Still, if I was a parent or a teacher, or even one of those kids ten years down the road, I would be pissed that someone played me like that.
Thanks. I find it funny how someone can get a shorter murder sentence then someone can get a child molestation charge. Apparently killing people is better then molesting children according to the justice system.
dont forget, marijuana also carries 25 to life sentances... go figure
Wait really? I'm pretty sure in California at least, if you're caught with weed you don't even have it go on your record...
On April 14 2011 12:21 theBOOCH wrote: This is stupid, but 60 days isn't unreasonable either. It really depends on what the content of the video was, I guess. If it could have been used as child porn, that's o e thing, but if it's just a bunch of kids that look like theyre into some weird sex shit, that's a little different. Still, if I was a parent or a teacher, or even one of those kids ten years down the road, I would be pissed that someone played me like that.
60 days is a lot dude. Imagine if you had to go to jail for 2 months during school. You'd be so screwed...in all honestly I think they should just fine the kid, put him on probation, make him do community service, write ASSHOLE on his record and be done with it.
Have never understood the logic behind prosecuting people who have "committed" victimless crimes. Just silly. Resources wold be much better spent prosecuting people who actual commit crimes against children, lord knows there are plenty of them. If this actually goes to court, which I doubt it will, i'm sure there will be a huge outcry.
The problem is understandable though -- he technically created what could be called a pedophilia product with the use of footage that displayed children of uninformed parents.
Though, all that had to be said was a simple, "hey could please take that off youtube?" seeing as the guy is obviously not a pedo and was just trying to be funny without fully thinking things through.
I'm scared to become a parent myself, it seems all completely lose their sense of rationality at some point.
I was actually thinking about this case the other day. 2 months? What a fucking joke. He took off the video. End of story. No one is ever gonna see it. EVER. Its not like a celebrity sextape that always resurfaces somewhere. Its a goddamn youtube video that no one outside the community cared about until people went apeshit. Now I wanna see it to see how bad it actually was.
Also, if I watched it, does that make me guilty of watching child pornography? Get real....
That guy is a fucking moron, why the frak would you make a video pretending you sing sexual songs to small kids? I mean its frakin absolutely moronic.
Having said that I think the penalty is too harsh, he should be sentenced for 3-4 months for being a moron, but 20 years is as moronic as him pretending to sing sexual songs to children.
On April 14 2011 11:57 cursor wrote: Anyone who has done time knows that 20 years is retarded. Even most people who haven't done time know this...
Naive parents LOVE to throw around terms like that when it comes to their kids. 5 years. 10 years. 20 years. All WAY too much. You're talking about ruining this guys life. I would say a token sentence of 6 months or less, classes, and some probation would be fine.
I challenge anyone who thinks 20 years is legitimate sentence for this to even do 2 weeks in COUNTY jail. Let alone federal fucking prison.
Man these people are stupid. This is why America has the highest incarceration rate in the world. Naive people throw around 5-10 year sentences and think its lenient. That is what makes me the most angry about this story.
To state the obvious, yes he was wrong and should be made example of so others know its wrong- but lets not ruin a mans life.
I absolutely agree, except I don't think he should do any time in jail for this, also one of the worst things in our (I'm American) legal system is the sex offender system, two thirds of registered offenders are nonviolent meaning they got put there for something like an 18 year old having sex with a 16 year old (or something much less) and then they can be put on the list for life if not a very long time, and then their life is fucked. Seriously the number of restrictions people pile on to the sex offender system every time some bad thing happens because it makes legislators look "tough on crime" is ridiculous, they destroy the lives of the non-harmful people and make it so anyone involved with a sex crime won't have a shot at a second chance.
This is no different than photoshopping a picture of a toddler into a hardcore pr0n shot. Seriously, people flip shit over nothing, the media takes it and runs with it, and the lawyers swim in cash.
Thanks. I find it funny how someone can get a shorter murder sentence then someone can get a child molestation charge. Apparently killing people is better then molesting children according to the justice system.
I would put them about the same place on a moral scale. However, I wouldn't claim that what Emory did was molestation.
I recently got a DUI in the state of Virginia (i blew a .9 QQ) and my sentence was $1500, mandatory driving class costing $300, and 60 days in jail if I don't do both of the fore mentioned.
The US penal system isn't a hot political topic all of the time, but to be honest it's one of those things that makes me want to leave this county. (and I eventually am :D)
On April 14 2011 13:22 tronix wrote: A personal experience:
I recently got a DUI in the state of Virginia (i blew a .9 QQ) and my sentence was $1500, mandatory driving class costing $300, and 60 days in jail if I don't do both of the fore mentioned.
The US penal system isn't a hot political topic all of the time, but to be honest it's one of those things that makes me want to leave this county. (and I eventually am :D)
edit: don't judge meeeeee >.<
Yea. Just personally, your crime is much worse than the Youtube pranker's crime and people wanted to send him to jail for 20 years originally. Shows you how bullshit the people in this country can be.
On April 14 2011 13:22 tronix wrote: A personal experience:
I recently got a DUI in the state of Virginia (i blew a .9 QQ) and my sentence was $1500, mandatory driving class costing $300, and 60 days in jail if I don't do both of the fore mentioned.
The US penal system isn't a hot political topic all of the time, but to be honest it's one of those things that makes me want to leave this county. (and I eventually am :D)
edit: don't judge meeeeee >.<
You deserve that sentence, you put the lives of others in danger by being under the influence while behind the wheel of a vehicle.
The difference is this guy didn't put anyones life in danger, other than his own I guess, and he gets 2 months in jail. It was a stupid prank yes, but he should only have to do community work/fines and classes.
On April 14 2011 13:20 Pigsquirrel wrote: This is no different than photoshopping a picture of a toddler into a hardcore pr0n shot. Seriously, people flip shit over nothing, the media takes it and runs with it, and the lawyers swim in cash.
this is way different. what if it were your child being completely humiliated? this idiot got lucky that his sentence is merely a slap on the wrist.
You deserve that sentence, you put the lives of others in danger by being under the influence while behind the wheel of a vehicle.
The difference is this guy didn't put anyones life in danger, other than his own I guess, and he gets 2 months in jail. It was a stupid prank yes, but he should only have to do community work/fines and classes.
My opinion: there is no test to see how well someone can drive while slightly intoxicated. I completely believe that when I was driving in this one situation; I had better control and awareness of my vehicle than 50% people driving that moment.
For realz though, I do agree it was a very very poor decision at the time and deserved some sort of punishment.
Side note: I know there is definitely someone in this thread who has driven while above what the state law dictates about sobriety.
It's illegal to film people without their consent (right?), it should be illegal to film them under false pretenses. In my perfect world, this prankster is facing a lawsuit.
You deserve that sentence, you put the lives of others in danger by being under the influence while behind the wheel of a vehicle.
The difference is this guy didn't put anyones life in danger, other than his own I guess, and he gets 2 months in jail. It was a stupid prank yes, but he should only have to do community work/fines and classes.
My opinion: there is no test to see how well someone can drive while slightly intoxicated. I completely believe that when I was driving in this one situation; I had better control and awareness of my vehicle than 50% people driving that moment.
Hint: alcohol impairs judgment and recollection. You're probably the last person who should be making that decision.
Did you get pulled over for something other than inappropriate driving?
On April 14 2011 13:20 Pigsquirrel wrote: This is no different than photoshopping a picture of a toddler into a hardcore pr0n shot. Seriously, people flip shit over nothing, the media takes it and runs with it, and the lawyers swim in cash.
this is way different. what if it were your child being completely humiliated? this idiot got lucky that his sentence is merely a slap on the wrist.
Lets go on Xbox and put every trash talker over 18 in jail for 2 months. They completely humiliate 12 year olds while playing halo, the kids actually hear them talk shit, AND they show no remorse whatsoever. Hell, lets put them in for 20 for "distributing material of sexual nature to minors" and "soliciting sexual acts from minors" for every time they say "lick my balls" while tea bagging the dead bodies.
On April 14 2011 13:20 Pigsquirrel wrote: This is no different than photoshopping a picture of a toddler into a hardcore pr0n shot. Seriously, people flip shit over nothing, the media takes it and runs with it, and the lawyers swim in cash.
this is way different. what if it were your child being completely humiliated? this idiot got lucky that his sentence is merely a slap on the wrist.
Lets go on Xbox and put every trash talker over 18 in jail for 2 months. They completely humiliate 12 year olds while playing halo, the kids actually hear them talk shit, AND they show no remorse whatsoever. Hell, lets put them in for 20 for "distributing material of sexual nature to minors" and "soliciting sexual acts from minors" for every time they say "lick my balls" while tea bagging the dead bodies.
xbox live is completely anonymous. a youtube video of elementary aged kids is not. your analogy is bad.
How can they even consider 20 years for that. And I don't understand the abuse thing either. If anything he could be sued for having the kids in the video without permission.
On April 14 2011 13:22 tronix wrote: A personal experience:
I recently got a DUI in the state of Virginia (i blew a .9 QQ)
how the fuck are you still alive?
.25 is coma/death. literally.
Missed a zero?
I kinda forgot about this. Seeing he got 2 months more than he should have is very disappointing. Makes me feel a little depressed to see how society is nowadays.
On April 14 2011 14:51 MercurialTW wrote: This is ridiculous, and people wonder why Americans are perceived as morons by the rest of the world?
That's our law system though. It's not right for you to perceive us as morons, because our justice system is fucked up.
But back on topic, this is ridiculous. Slap a fine on the guy maybe, even then I think it'd be stupid. The guy hurt nobody, and sure the joke may have been in bad taste, but you jail him for 2 months, fine him, ban him from children, etc.? You'd thought he raped every kid in that classroom. Honestly, I think he's dumb for taking the plea deal, he probably could have fought it in court, lost his original trial, and maybe come out with just lawyer fees after doing an appeal. I can't imagine a higher court agreeing that he produced child pornography.
its stuff like this that make me want the yellowstone superr vulcano to erupt.. just so that people start to worry about things that are not utter bullshit....
there are so much worse stuff to take care of... :S