|
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.
|
How does this impact the children?
|
Canada625 Posts
Sounds like a good prank i think i might try it out..!
But yeah if he actually gets jail time i'll be shocked.
|
On February 19 2011 05:33 Toxi78 wrote:
which one is the prank, the video or the judgement?
This.
Seems to me someone has a seriously sandy vagina.
|
"Listed sexual act" means sexual intercourse, erotic fondling, sadomasochistic abuse, masturbation, passive sexual involvement, sexual excitement, or erotic nudity.
Well, there you go. Let him go.
|
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.
|
Yeah, the American justice system fucking blows. The judges are morons.
|
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.
That's my take.
|
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 19:04 PanzerKing wrote:Show nested quote +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 20 2011 04:44 catamorphist wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2011 19:04 PanzerKing wrote: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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
