|
On February 24 2011 00:37 Keniji wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2011 00:27 gods_basement wrote: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. 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 23 2011 11:08 Noli wrote:Show nested quote +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 24 2011 00:50 Manit0u wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2011 11:08 Noli wrote: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 24 2011 00:50 Manit0u wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2011 11:08 Noli wrote: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...
Common sense is just non-existent it seems.
|
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.
|
+ Show Spoiler +On February 24 2011 03:25 zalz wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
On February 24 2011 03:25 zalz wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
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.
|
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 25 2011 03:00 EvilNalu wrote:Show nested quote +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.
holy shit fuck that state man...
|
Why don't they just tell him he's not allowed to do that instead of ruining his life? Silly Americans
|
They plea bargained to 60 days? I think restorative justice would have been better.
|
On April 14 2011 11:33 gogogadgetflow wrote:Still a travesty IMO. Oh well I'm sure he's relieved. Show nested quote +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)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
