EPTBunch of ignorant rednecks that know nothing on society bringing down youtubers -.-
20 Years for a Youtube Prank? - Page 7
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Mindflow
Korea (South)320 Posts
Bunch of ignorant rednecks that know nothing on society bringing down youtubers -.- | ||
|
GinDo
3327 Posts
Though i find the accused a retard for doing that("Are you brain stupid boy?"), i feel 20 years is too much. A hefty fine and Community service would be fine.+ Show Spoiler + A flailing would be better  | ||
|
zJayy962
1363 Posts
| ||
|
Reborn8u
United States1761 Posts
check out 4:45 What a bunch of crap, these people are wasting time on money on a "crime" that has no victims. These prosecutors are communists and I hope he challenges the law. | ||
|
JeeJee
Canada5652 Posts
someone mentioned earlier in the thread that filming kids without consent is illegal? i didn't know that, but i'll go along with it (although i'd love a source just for general knowledge's sake cause tbh it sounds ridiculous). either way, i thought he filmed himself singing the song, with kids being in the shot occasionally? being in the shot occasionally clearly cannot constitute 'filming kids' since you'll have to admit everyone shooting anything in public probably has some kids in the shot somewhere -- illegal? the other part is faking it to make it look real -- also makes no sense. where do you draw the line between what acts that weren't committed deserve persecution (that even sounds funny to read) and which don't? hmm sucks for mr emory. | ||
|
StarStruck
25339 Posts
On February 19 2011 07:01 Reborn8u wrote: Caution sexually offensive material check out 4:45 What a bunch of crap, these people are wasting time on money on a "crime" that has no victims. These prosecutors are communists and I hope he challenges the law. Those are child actors though and they have consent. The other kids, didn't even though they weren't even privy of what the guy was doing when he shot the other piece. It's pretty ridiculous. Way to waste more tax payer dollars on something so trivial. On February 19 2011 07:04 JeeJee wrote: confusing someone mentioned earlier in the thread that filming kids without consent is illegal? i didn't know that, but i'll go along with it (although i'd love a source just for general knowledge's sake cause tbh it sounds ridiculous). either way, i thought he filmed himself singing the song, with kids being in the shot occasionally? being in the shot occasionally clearly cannot constitute 'filming kids' since you'll have to admit everyone shooting anything in public probably has some kids in the shot somewhere -- illegal? the other part is faking it to make it look real -- also makes no sense. where do you draw the line between what acts that weren't committed deserve persecution (that even sounds funny to read) and which don't? hmm sucks for mr emory. If you film anyone, you usually have to get their consent. :/ | ||
|
Shiladie
Canada1631 Posts
While it isn't TRUE, retarded stuff like this 'does' happen elsewhere, we just hear all about it happening in america. I, as most thinking people seem to agree with, find this to be ridiculous and hope it gets thrown out of court. | ||
|
aka_star
United Kingdom1546 Posts
On February 19 2011 05:26 ThaZenith wrote: He's looking at facing 20 years for "abusing" the children who weren't actually there. Seems to me to be one of those ridiculous "only in America" type things. It's obvious that posting a vid of those kids without their permission is wrong, but wrong in the sense that he should take down the vid, which he did. It almost blows my mind how they could even consider what he did was worth 20 years. Do you think the punishment fits the crime? What would a reasonable punishment for what he did? He isn't on trail for abusing children that weren't actually there. Instead he is charged with making child abusive material which is the intent of producing the material which he has done. I can see it being more serious as children are involved and not a politician or a banker which could be more forgiving in this current time. Unfortunately for the guy, he probably outraged a number of parents and school officials to get the book thrown at him, if the performance was out of the school, in the park or at a discrete venue he mightn't gotten away with it. Americans are just more vocal when they're outraged .... 20 years is a little excessive perhaps 2 weeks and some community service would be more a reasonable punishment imo. | ||
|
turdburgler
England6749 Posts
On February 19 2011 05:29 Templar. wrote: A reasonable punishment is possible a fine and some community service, 20 years in prison is absolutely a joke.. seems in Canada most don't even get 10 years for stabbing someone to death etc. Remove the video, pay a fine and do some community service at a school.. that's my opinion. in what way is this reasonable? he didnt do ANYTHING wrong. | ||
|
xbankx
703 Posts
Man I hate our justice system. Criminals go free because of douchy double jeopardy. Innocent man jailed for 14 years released but due to no "innocent" wording in his release he doesn't get any compensation. Now this, I am just amazed. | ||
|
LittLeD
Sweden7973 Posts
| ||
|
FarbrorAbavna
Sweden4856 Posts
| ||
|
Yotta
United States270 Posts
| ||
|
Piy
Scotland3152 Posts
| ||
|
luckybeni2
Germany1065 Posts
On February 19 2011 05:44 jinorazi wrote: this is mind boggling. Prosecutor Tony Tague, you're a fucking joke. learn to enjoy humor. might as well put all the directors and actors that had minors curse i movies put in jail. natalie portman from the professional? she wanted to have sex with the dude. this is like a robber breaking into a house and gets injured in the process then sues the home owner. this is making me sick. where the fuck is justice in this. Funny story. There actually was a guy who broke into a house in the USA. The family was out on vacation and the idiot managed to trap himself in the garage. He spent 8 days there eating dogfood and Pepsi. When the family came back he sued them ... and, of course he won ... 500 thousand dollars... because of the "inhuman conditions he had to live in... And now you tell me, can this justice system fuck over a guy who hasn't done anything wrong worth mentioning? Anyone ever was on youtube? Or any other video site? There's tons of that stuff there. | ||
|
Yoshi Kirishima
United States10383 Posts
That is stupid if he gets 20 years. Many other people do this kind of shit all the time. Who the heck signed a bill saying that making a video with kids dancing to sexual lyrics is illegal? It's a friggin edited video.  hope this goes well | ||
|
JeeJee
Canada5652 Posts
On February 19 2011 07:08 StarStruck wrote: If you film anyone, you usually have to get their consent. :/ i highly doubt that is true, as otherwise paparazzi's wouldn't exist. filming in public has to be available to anyone without consent, i'm 99% sure this is the case, but i will go and do more research on it now. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States46652 Posts
On February 19 2011 06:40 Macabre wrote: Might? Lol you're a joke of a human being. Gee thanks. How constructive. Would you care to have any sort of conversation involving the topic at hand? On February 19 2011 06:40 Triscuit wrote: 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? The debate that they're going to argue over in court will probably be whether or not the video was convincing enough to to trick the average person into thinking that he actually sung the sexual video to the little kids. From the looks of it (and please correct me if I'm wrong), it appears as if the video was spliced so well (and there were no other indicators of clarification) that people were immediately outraged when they saw the video. It wasn't obviously a fake movie and there were no disclaimers or anything like that. If this is truly the case, then it's not good enough (from a legal standpoint), to attempt to tell everyone: 1. It's a fake; the kid is just an immature idiot teehee; 2. The teacher who was responsible for that class isn't unprofessional and shouldn't be fired for letting a kid sing sexual songs to little kids (which would be standard protocol); 3. The school shouldn't be sued for hiring such a dimwit as a guest speaker (which would be standard protocol); 4. Parents, don't ever worry about anything like this ever again! Reputations will be permanently ruined, there will be consequences because of the viral video, and inevitable defamation will ensue directly because of the lie that is that spliced video. It really seems like the prosecution has a case for taking the kid to court. And again, I don't think he's going to jail for twenty years. But I think he's going to get sued at least. There are legal problems that need to be recognized, and I think the people who just post one-liners on this thread like "This is the dumbest case ever" haven't ever read court cases that go on in schools. | ||
|
Deleted User 61629
1664 Posts
| ||
|
TheAbysCries
Australia41 Posts
Obviously he should probably have thought about getting charges pressed against him, but really he probably expexted just a minor penalty, mostly a warning. yea travis basically sums it up, just wtf? | ||
| ||
