|
On February 19 2011 06:32 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2011 05:49 Meta wrote: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 06:32 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2011 05:49 Meta wrote: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?
|
I'm sorry, but american law is pretty dumb when it comes to stuff like this.
20 years and the kids weren't even present when he sung the explicit song ...
|
20 years is harsh and there is no way that verdict could possibly be reached. jail time will do that kid some good but certainly not 20 years.
|
I'd say a small fine or some community service and to take the video down. 20 years? That doesn't even make sense if the kids were in the classroom.
|
DX The American Court System is getting pretty bored.
|
On February 19 2011 06:40 Triscuit wrote:Show nested quote +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 06:40 Triscuit wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2011 06:32 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 19 2011 05:49 Meta wrote: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 06:32 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2011 05:49 Meta wrote: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.
|
The guys an idiot, not a murderer, 20 years is way too much.
Here, lets all punish trever moore too, for teaching kids how to make meth. Send him to prison!
+ Show Spoiler +
|
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.
|
this kid is just another victim of society's stupidity....
"pedophile??? kill it with 20 years herp derp..."
|
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.
|
more importantly - video link anyone?
|
|
|
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.
|
I wonder if progamers will get jail time for BM'ing in casted games. Think about the impact it could have on the viewers!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
