EPT20 Years for a Youtube Prank? - Page 26
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
pigtheman
United States333 Posts
| ||
|
Akuemon
Canada151 Posts
| ||
|
Noli
United Kingdom179 Posts
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. | ||
|
Satire
Canada295 Posts
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? | ||
|
Phonics
114 Posts
peace | ||
|
Reason.SC2
Canada1047 Posts
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. | ||
|
funnybananaman
United States830 Posts
| ||
|
gnatinator
Canada169 Posts
| ||
|
dave333
United States915 Posts
| ||
|
Playguuu
United States926 Posts
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. | ||
|
ThumperSD
United States333 Posts
| ||
|
Tsenister
United Kingdom112 Posts
| ||
|
LeSioN
United States325 Posts
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? | ||
|
TLOBrian
United States453 Posts
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. | ||
|
Keniji
Netherlands2569 Posts
| ||
|
TLOBrian
United States453 Posts
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. | ||
|
gods_basement
United States305 Posts
On February 24 2011 00:18 TLOBrian wrote:+ Show Spoiler + 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 22:38 TLOBrian wrote:+ Show Spoiler + 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. | ||
|
NoobSkills
United States1603 Posts
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. | ||
|
TheGreatWhiteHope_
United States335 Posts
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. | ||
|
Keniji
Netherlands2569 Posts
On February 24 2011 00:27 gods_basement wrote: 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? | ||
| ||
