|
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?
|
this kind of shit needs to happen more often. the internetization of real life should fail.
its fucked up, but it needs to happen.
|
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 06:46 HellRoxYa wrote:Show nested quote +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 06:46 HellRoxYa wrote:Show nested quote +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...
|
Prosecutors never go in for a reasonable amount, they always go in at the top and it slowly dwindles away from there.
This guy is going to get a hell of a fine at the very least, however. It was an extremely retarded move.
|
Real tough sentencing simply doesnt reduce crime in any meaningful way.
|
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.
|
Canada13431 Posts
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 08:54 HellRoxYa wrote:+ Show Spoiler +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.
|
well good thing tl.net is creating its own joke, with people actually arguing for sentencing this man
pretentious comes to mind
retarded also
the guy who made the video is neither
too sane maybe, for never considering that people who would try to send him to prison for this actually exist
tl'ers might (hopefully) be trolling i guess, the police in that town definitely arent tho ~_~
|
On February 21 2011 10:36 Gummy wrote:Show nested quote +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 10:36 Gummy wrote:Show nested quote +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 11:44 Krikkitone wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2011 10:36 Gummy wrote: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.
Just some interesting articles for anyone who is interested in the topic:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/22/nyregion/22judge.html?_r=1&src=me&pagewanted=all
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202458171291&slreturn=1&hbxlogin=1
|
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.
CHIBI?!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
