Musician Jailed Over Prank YouTube Video

An anonymous reader writes "Evan Emory, a 21-year-old aspiring musician, edited together video of him singing a G-rated song to a bunch of giggling school kids with video of him singing a song with sexually explicit lyrics, and posted it on YouTube. For this stupid joke, done many times by professional comedians (all NSFW, obviously), and admittedly done without getting permission from the children shown 'hearing' him sing naughty words, he was arrested and could face 20 years in prison as a sex offender. On the pretext of looking for 'souvenirs' of child sexual abuse, his house has been searched by police, and the Muskegon County (Michigan) Prosecutor has insinuated (with no further evidence) that Emory actually wants to have sex with children and claims he 'victimized every single child in that classroom.' Emory insists he had no such intention."

Comments

Every sperm is sacred

[Aggrajag]

Better jail Monty Python as well.

Re:Every sperm is sacred

[Anonymous Coward]

And God!

The virgin Mary was only 14 when she was impregnated by God!

Then look at all those jews. They all become 'adults' at the age of 13.

Then look at all the oriental girls they all look 13 even though they are 83.

Don't even get me started on Greek / Roman civilization.

The only way we can get a hold of this rampant pedophilia in society is to ban, all Christians, Jews and orientals.

You might say that my comments make absolutely no sense. I would argue they make as much sense as any of the 'arguments' made by the government / media / law enforcement.

Re:Every sperm is sacred

[gandhi_2]

And the producers of Kickass, which paid a child to say "giant cock" and several other lude statements.

Re:Every sperm is sacred

[MoonBuggy]

Yup, and get Chris Morris while they're at it. Which would be particularly appropriate since he was satirising the very insanity of moral panics like this in the first place.

Re:Every sperm is sacred

[kkwst2]

A lude is a tranquilizer. We're looking for lewd.

Re:Every sperm is sacred

[adamofgreyskull]

The best thing to come out of that was the media reaction to it. The Daily Star couldn't make its mind up whether it was for or against paedophilia as shown here. The Daily Fail as ever was keen to contradict itself by publishing a shock reaction to the satire, while in the same issue publishing pictures of Princesses Beatrice & Eugenie (13 & 11) in their bikinis.

Source: The Observer.

Re:Every sperm is sacred

[retchdog]

you mean Roman Polanski? he's on the lam, and of course interpol has better things to do than bother with mere cross-border rape cases.

Re:Every sperm is sacred

[Aeternitas827]

And while we're at it, every parent whose child has walked in on them while having sex. I dare say that exposing them to the act is MUCH more damaging to a child than what the video appeared to be, post-edit. Then, let's up the ante; any child who has witnessed one of their parents being abused by the other; after all, being exposed to something is just as bad as being an actual victim of the act.

Back to reality now. This is absolutely ridiculous. Let's assume, for a moment, that he did actually perform this song in front of the children. First off, where were the supervising adults (parents, teachers, SOMEONE of authority) to put a stop to this? I wouldn't just send my children to a musical performance unless they had me, my wife, or other competent adult present; and, realistically, at LEAST one of them would likely have stepped up and put a stop to it. If none of them did, they're accessories, convene the Grand Jury. Second, and I'm not familiar with Michigan law (so, someone with some expertise there might be poised to correct me), what sort of sexual act does singing comprise, anyway? None, that I'm aware of; and you have to consider that, unless we're looking at children who have otherwise already been exposed to descriptions of the act and know what's being talked/sung about, these kids would have no idea what conduct is being described. And, with not having the video in question at hand, I'll assume the absence of such mention of such in the summary at least indicates he didn't have video of it edited in the background as well, to indicate he was showing them what he was singing about. In essence, no crime, no complaining victim, no charge. Last point, assuming the second point were somehow understood by the prosecutor and/or police (obviously, this is not the case), they have essentially arrested a guy, who they think is interested in molesting children, but with no evidence that it has actually ever occurred.

So, let's add it up...we've got problems under the, what, First, Fourth, and possibly Fifth amendments here, right?

Re:Every sperm is sacred

[hitmark]

And if one manage, one may well start to wonder about ones own sexuality.

Streisand Effect

[Trip6]

That's the very next thing I want to watch!

Seriously, this sounds pretty ridiculous...

doh

[PyRoNeRd]

Welcome to United States of Iran

Re:doh

[netsharc]

Too bad you got moderated troll...

Remember how the Iranians arrested 3 American hikers and accused them of being spies? Although there's no evidence of that? How they put up a kangaroo trial where the outcome would be clear: "guilty"?

You might know that, but do you know about the Afghanis and Iraqis who were arrested by coalition forces and were accused of being terrorists although the only evidence of that is the word of a pissed-off neighbor trying to get rid of them? How the Military put up a kangaroo trial ("Military commissions") where the outcome would be clear: "guilty"? Even with the intervention of the US justice system, some of them have still been locked in cages for 9+ years, and the Obama administration said, "even if they're not convicted, we can't release them."

Yeah, United States of Iran indeed. Well fucking done America...

Re:doh

[Dogun]

I vote 'suspicious'. In the interest of good relations, though, you normally let these folks go.

Re:doh

[commodore6502]

Too bad I'm not a judge.

The prosecutor, the arresting officer, the officers that entered the home, and the lawyers in the courtroom (excepting the lawyer defending the victim) would automatically be sentenced to 1 month in prison for violating Amendments 1, 4, 9, and 14 of the Supreme Law of the land, as well as violating the Michigan Constitution, and their oaths.

PLUS the State would be required to give this victim $10,000 as recompense for his inconvenience of time spent in jail, his house ransacked, plus any lost wages incurred as a result of not being able to report to work. And of course pay for his court fees.

Failure to pay the monies to the victim would be considered contempt-of-court, and the responsible persons sent to 1 year additional jailtime.

Re:doh

[gpmanrpi]

While not the exact thing you're saying is possible, something along those lines could be possible. This seems like a malicious prosecution. Since IAAL, I would unofficially say without having read up on my Michigan case law, I think at least a strong admonishment is in order, and I would double check the statute on malicious prosecution in Michigan... oh wait here it is:

"600.2907 Malicious prosecution or action; civil liability, penalty. Sec. 2907. Every person who shall, for vexation and trouble or maliciously, cause or procure any other to be arrested, attached, or in any way proceeded against, by any process or civil or criminal action, or in any other manner prescribed by law, to answer to the suit or prosecution of any person, without the consent of such person, or where there is no such person known, shall be liable to the person so arrested, attached or proceeded against, in treble the amount of the damages and expenses which, by any verdict, shall be found to have been sustained and incurred by him; and shall be liable to the person in whose name such arrest or proceeding was had in the sum of $200.00 damages, and shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable on conviction by imprisonment in the county jail for a term not exceeding 6 months."

So, looks like a misdemeanor. There could be professional responsibility sanctions separately brought through the Michigan Bar.

My other cent. No reasonable attorney under the circumstances would interpret the law as this prosecutor has interpreted it. If I were representing him, I would move to dismiss w/ prejudice ASAP, as it is clearly not a valid charge, or move to have the charging document clarified as to how the action is a violation of the law. This is called several things in several states. But if your information or indictment fails to clearly state a claim, it needs to be clarified or dismissed. If those don't work, move to dismiss based on the fact that the statute is unconstitutionally vague, overly broad, etc. That usually isn't a winner because you can use the reasonable person standard, but it really sounds like it is completely vague in this case.

This is one of the few times if I were a judge I would dismiss the case at arraignment or first appearance(bond hearing). That almost never happens, ever. The fact that this man hat to pay any bond is also a mystery to me. Is he honestly a flight risk?

Re:doh

[SuricouRaven]

That's probably why the search of the home. A fishing trip. The prosecutor knew the case was weak, and just wanted to see if there was something, anything, he could use to either strengthen it or force a plea.

Re:Constitutional Rights

[Barrinmw]

He wasn't saying sexual remarks to children, how about you RTFA.

this

[present_arms]

just sounds wrong on many levels. 20 years for what seems to be a joke done in bad taste.

Re:this

[betterunixthanunix]

What gets me the most is the justification they used: they claimed that he was victimizing the children in the video. It is beyond just irrational, it is scientology-level nonsense.

USA

[Anonymous Coward]

Land of the litigious.

Re:USA

[insolent_bloke]

Land of the litigious.

It's a criminal trial, not a civil suit. Land of the prosecutorial, maybe.

wonder what the story is here

[Sir_Lewk]

By railroading this guy, what the Muskegon County Prosecutor is actually doing is weakening the severity of real child abuse in the public's mind by diluting it with dumb but ultimately harmless comedy.

Gee, I wonder why he would possibly want to do that....

Re:wonder what the story is here

[Sir_Lewk]

The parents may sue him for failing to get signed model releases if they like. Accusing him of being a sexual predator is a perversion of the system.

Re:wonder what the story is here

[hedwards]

Unfortunately, in the US that's how it's done. Same goes for sexual abuse in general, the occurrence of a stranger doing it by force only represents a small minority of total cases. But because it's easier to get funding for abuse prevention programs decrying that as the norm, individuals who weren't subjected to such obviously wrong conduct end up doubting that they've got a legitimate right to help.

The Trauma Myth It's a hard read but the author covers the topic far better than I could hope to here.

Re:wonder what the story is here

[BitterOak]

The parents may sue him for failing to get signed model releases if they like. Accusing him of being a sexual predator is a perversion of the system.

Correct, and you only need signed model releases if you are using their images for commercial purposes.

Re:wonder what the story is here

[davidwr]

See my comment above.

Our choices when dealing with people who have suffered what is almost always delayed trauma are:

1) offer and encourage healing, even if this means forcing them to see that most people in their situation have experienced trauma
2) do nothing and hope they die before it comes to the surface

Since most victims of child sexual abuse who are not offered healing have low-level negative effects well before the event reaches the conscious level of processing, doing nothing usually means sentencing them to continued low-level negative effects until they decide they need help AND realize help is available. The great risk is that their past may surface in a big, out-of-control way before they realize they can even get help. This can lead to self-harm, harming others, or major guilt and shame.

If you know someone has been abused, it's far better to make sure they know help is available and make sure they know that there is no shame or guilt on their part. Beyond that, if the person is still a child or young teen or perhaps even an older still-minor teen and if there is an obvious need for immediate counseling (e.g. the victim has obvious emotional problems), then as a parent you can and should find a non-threatening way to have the victim talk to a counselor qualified to deal with your child's needs. If the person is an adult or nearly and adult and is not an imminent danger to themselves or others about all you can do is to make sure they know they have a friend in you and that help will always be available if they want it.

If the victim is still young and there is no obvious outward sign of stress, then careful, ongoing discussion that neither blows the abuse out of proportion nor minimizes it is in order. Keeping communication lines open and making sure the victim has all the facts she asks for plus any additional facts needed to avoid a "half the facts are worse than none" situation is probably the best approach. This may mean ever few months asking the victim if she wants to talk about the abuse, but, unless it's obvious she's in need of counseling at the time, respecting her right to not talk about it right now. It may also mean deliberately exposing her to others who have been through similar situations in a controlled environment. This can be done in person, through letters and diaries, or even realistic fictional scenarios, and it need not involve replaying the abuse over and over again. A 10 year old girl who was abused from age 6-8 reading a book about a fictional 10 year old girl who was abused by her father in first grade but who is leading a pretty normal life except her daddy happens to be in prison and whose mom asks her once a year if she wants to talk about daddy is a very non-threatening way of telling the real 10 year old girl it's okay to talk about the past.

Re:wonder what the story is here

[MacGyver2210]

This guy must have had a completely shit lawyer, if anything above a provided public defender.

Any first-year law student would know enough to sit through the initial arrest meeting and say "This is ridiculous, where's your proof of sexual misconduct?"

As they have NONE at all, and this is America, where you are INNOCENT until PROVEN GUILTY, they would have nothing to convict with and this would be an open-and-shut short-term harassment of some interweb video guy by a douchenuts radical that is probably more of a danger to children than this youtuber.

Re:wonder what the story is here

[DurendalMac]

And you obviously don't have children. I have a son. I wouldn't have gone bonkers (and I'd be calling for the kiddie porn charges to be dropped), but I'd have some choice words for this guy for filming my kid for commercial gain under false pretenses.

Re:wonder what the story is here

[McNally]

By railroading this guy, what the Muskegon County Prosecutor is actually doing is weakening the severity of real child abuse in the public's mind by diluting it with dumb but ultimately harmless comedy.

Gee, I wonder why he would possibly want to do that....

Without knowing the particulars of this particular case, I still feel free to speculate that it's because the Muskegon County Prosecutor, a man named Tony Tague, is a self-promoting sleaze who loves nothing better than to get his name in the papers.

I grew up in Muskegon County. Tague became prosecutor about the time I left to go to college, 20 years ago or so, and during that time he has repeatedly shown a penchant for pushing the envelope and excersising his considerable prosecutorial discretion to criminalize behavior in any case where he can whip up public outrage -- the first one I can remember was when he elected to prosecute a pregnant drug addict for delivery of cocaine to a minor -- her unborn child.

His "family values" and "tough on crime" posturing resonate with a certain portion of the local electorate but I wouldn't describe the area as particularly prudish or inordinately socially conservative. It's less that the community is really up in arms about such things and more that Tague loves the publicity such cases bring and has been successful throughout his career in exploiting such cases to mobilize a certain segment of the electorate. Besides the sleaziness of such tactics, it's also pretty hard on the individuals who are singled out to advance his political career.

Re:wonder what the story is here

[SunFireSpaz]

County prosecutors are elected. See the 2008 election results (ctrl-f/search in document for "prosecutor"). And there is of course the the prosecutor's web site.

Re:wonder what the story is here

[Seumas]

Don't forget another trend in America: Child abuse of all types is okay, as long as it's against your own child. If you smack someone's kid around or touch them inappropriately, you rightfully find yourself in court and maybe prison. Do it to your own child and you are sentence to counseling sessions with a therapist.

Re:wonder what the story is here

[deniable]

There's enough blame to go around. It's a fair question though, why isn't the prosecutor charging the school for facilitating the production of child porn? They most definitely shouldn't be left in charge of children.

Video Link

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCXwx7xfIMY&feature=player_embedded

The moral of the story

[Scutter]

The moral of the story is this: If you are a male (especially a single white male over 30) in the 21st century, do not go anywhere near children. Don't look at them, don't talk to them, don't get within 50 feet of them (especially if you own a camera, even if you leave the camera at home). For the love of God, don't be in a public toilet if one happens to come in, even if Dad is there with him and especially if Dad doesn't come in with him. Do not interact with them in any way, even virtually, such as re-dubbing a video, drawing a picture, mentioning children in an e-mail, nothing. More and more often, this includes your own children.

Remember, all men are automatically guilty even if they've done nothing wrong!

Re:The moral of the story

[Anonymous Coward]

Sadly, this feels all too true. I have a 2 1/2 year old daughter. I am a 28 year old male. I'm in a happy, stable marriage with my wife. Nothing that I can see is unusual about me in anyway. That said, when I take my daughter alone to McDonalds, or the grocery store, or the park, or (heaven forbid it) the bathroom it often feels that every eye is on me. I see other moms with their kids staring at me and I like to make myself think they are thinking "why doesn't my husband take our kids anywhere", but in reality I know they are probably thinking "I better keep an eye on that guy, he is alone with a little girl. He may be her dad, but who knows and even if he is, all men are sexual predators because that is what the media tells me."

Re:The moral of the story

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow and people wonder why males aren't entering the education system as teachers.

Re:The moral of the story

[Anonymous Coward]

You can say what you want about pedophiles, but at least they drive slowly around schools and playgrounds.

Re:The moral of the story

[uninformedLuddite]

I am a 44 year old male. I was at the park a while ago and I always take my labrador and my chicken(she's very free range). Two young girls(probably about 12 or 13 years old) came up to me and started to talk to me. They sat down and were patting the chicken who is very tame and interesting. The whole time they were there I was nice and polite but couldn't help wanting them to just fuck off(mostly because they were inane little twits). A lady walked up and complimented me on the dog and talked about the chicken and said it was nice to see a father out with his kids. I said they weren't my children and they had just come up to pat the chicken. She gave me a filthy look and walked away. Fifteen minutes later a police car pulled up at the park wanting to know everything about me and why I was at the park.They weren't shy about trying to claim I was a molester who used my chicken to attract children.
Also, my wife writes children's book and has 26 published. I was pulled over by the side of the road one day talking on my cellphone and a police car pulled up wanting to know what I was doing. One of the cops saw some kid's books in the car and asked me how old my kids where. I responded that I didn't have kids and he asked me if I used the books as bait. So rest assured USA this pedo-hysteria happens in Australia too.

Re:The moral of the story

[digitig]

I used to do voluntary work as a youth leader, but wouldn't consider doing so now because the climate of suspicion has got so bad. It would be hard to say how many lost youth programs it would take to balance the cost of one abused child, but I doubt all the suspicion has saved any children from abuse so the equation isn't relevant.

Re:The moral of the story

[Isaac Remuant]

Thank God it was not a rooster. The wording might've killed you.

Re:The moral of the story

[CookieForYou]

Holy shit.......

That's all I can say.

Re:The moral of the story

[dgatwood]

The moral of the story is this: If you are a male (especially a single white male over 30) in the 21st century, do not go anywhere near children. Don't look at them, don't talk to them, don't get within 50 feet of them (especially if you own a camera, even if you leave the camera at home).

So true. I was driving through my neighborhood a few weeks ago, and I slowed down leading up to a stop sign as a precaution because of a bunch of kids playing in the street. One of the little bastards shouted "child molester" at me. Such absurd behavior encourages drivers to roll right through the stop sign at 25 MPH and point the noses of their cars directly at the little brats.

Our culture has raised our kids to be so utterly terrified of what amounts to fictional boogeymen that we've forgotten how to actually live our lives. Kids are terrified of strangers because every stranger is just a rapist waiting to pull you into a car, drive off with you, rape you, murder you, and dump the body in a ditch somewhere. This despite the fact that the little bastard's parents are statistically several orders of magnitude more likely to molest him than any single person who drives by. Thankfully, my parents had the good sense to teach me better than that (in spite of the attempt at indoctrination by our local schools). Unfortunately, most parents don't have that much sense because they were indoctrinated themselves as kids. If the trend continues, we're going to be a nation of absolute scaredy-cats who are afraid of our own shadows in just a couple more generations.

The scariest thing about it is realizing that in just a few years, that idiot kid will be able to vote.

Re:The moral of the story

[BJ_Covert_Action]

And that's how we raise a whole new generation of estranged children who grow up feeling like there is something wrong with them that makes people ignore them. And here I was hoping emo music would die out once and for all...

Re:The moral of the story

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm a single dad with an 11 year old daughter. She and her friends play after school all the time at each other's houses, but never at our house. Not because I don't welcome them, but because I'm a single dad. Many of my daughter's friends have outright said that they are not allowed over at our house. My daughter had a birthday party 2 weeks ago and had invited 12 of her friends to come over for a pizza and movies, but only 2 rsvped that they would be allowed to attend. When we changed to location to a local pizza joint (same night, same time), all of a sudden all 12 girls could come to the party. My daughter is punished because my wife passed away... amazing how paranoid and hurtful people can be.

Re:The moral of the story

[VortexCortex]

So true. One day my cable Internet went down (I work at home). My city has WIFI coverage, so I took my laptop to the park directly across the street from my house to get better reception. On the other side of the park (over 150 meters away) is an elementary school.

While I downloaded my email a couple walked past on the way to pick up their child from school. We made small talk about the speed & cost of the city WIFI.

Five minutes later a police officer walked up and began questioning me. He said that a few parents reported a suspicious man in the park near the school with a computer. I told the cop exactly what I was doing -- Using the WIFI I've paid for in a public place. He asked if I was waiting on the children to be let out of school, and if I would mind if he took a look at the computer.

I told him that my fiancée's son goes to a different school, and I had no children of my own. I also refused any searches unless he had a warrant to do so. The officer became visibly aggravated at this point. He called his partner over while he checked my ID and asked asked why I preferred to be working on my computer closer to the school than in the comfort of my own home (across the street). I pointed out the WIFI antenna above my head, explained in detail how signal to noise ratio relates to WIFI speed, and asked his partner if he didn't prefer being couped up in the stuffy police car instead of this park on such a pretty day.

After a questioning me for another half an hour (trying to get me to slip up and say something suspicious?) the officers eventually left me alone. I thanked them for "doing a fine job", and finally realised why I never see anyone in the park. Apparently, being a 30-something male in a public place is suspicious -- especially if the place is a park near a school (regardless of the proximity of your home).

Re:The moral of the story

[jackbird]

You live in New York City, and you think people doing strange things in public is legitimate cause for suspicion? Have you ever left your apartment?

Re:The moral of the story

[Seumas]

I say bull to this. I'm in exactly the same boat - happily married with a toddler girl.

THAT IS DISGUSTING.

Re:The moral of the story

[nzap]

Freedom means you're allowed to do something "more than a bit strange". If he didn't commit any crimes, than what's the problem?

Re:The moral of the story

[Chaonici]

"It was a boneheaded stunt and while I don't think it should qualify as sexual abuse, I have no problem with him being prosecuted at least for taking advantage of the children (I'm sure there are lots of protective statutes he violated) and investigated. Considering he thinks that mixing kids with sexual material is funny and has shown a propensity to create videos of children, I have no problem with authorities checking him out to make sure he hasn't done anything else like this or worse. I would think they would be negligent if they didn't check him out."

Whatever happened to "innocent until proven guilty"? Whatever happened to "freedom of speech"? Why are you caught up in anti-pedo hysteria that you have forgotten those two extremely important concepts?

By posting the video, he harmed no one. He did NOTHING whatsoever that merits ANY sort of official attention or scrutiny from the police or anyone else. The arrest and charges are pure, simple bullshit. The mere allegation that he is a sexual predator is so chock full of bullshit I can't believe this article isn't a prank. Now his life is ruined because the county prosecutor is a total jackass.

Re:The moral of the story

[Jafafa Hots]

The place where I worked opened a day care center right in the front of the building for children of employees.
They built a playground in part of where the parking lot used to be, in front of the entrance.
They also had picnic tables for employees who didn;t want to be ramped in the depressing cafeterias during lunch on nice days.

I like kids. I have 6 nieces and a nephew, had a large part in raising my eldest niece, and what it more pleasant and stress reducing than watching a playground full of happy kids? I should add here that I worked for - A TOY COMPANY.

We made toys, we needed to understand kids, we made products for them, needed to see how they interacted with them. And it would be pretty good if you're working at making kids' toys that you - ya'know, kinda LIKE kids, care about them, understand them, be able to see through their eyes, etc. All of that. Would be hard to work for a toy company and not have an understanding of kids.

So I sat out there one day at a picnic table eating my lunch, looking around, sometimes watching the kids play. I was maybe 26 and was also hoping to be a dad someday, I think I would have made a good dad.

The looks I got from people - that was enough, I never went outside for lunch by myself ever again.

For fuck's sake, I was an employee of a toy company on lunch break, and people gave me strange looks for watching the other employee's kids play in the company playground.

There's something wrong when a male of child-rearing age cannot even say "I like kids" without that coming across as creepy to a lot of people.

Re:The moral of the story

[msuarezalvarez]

You would have prosecuted Navokov, I guess?

Re:The moral of the story

[parlancex]

My friend and I once decided to go to a fast food restaurant (at the time we were ages 20 and 21). It was raining and my friend didn't have a coat, as a joke we cut up a garbage bag and he put it on, and even though I had a coat I thought it would be goofy if I wore my girlfriend's lab coat. We took a camera to record people's reactions (note what GP said about cameras) which I put in my vest pocket, where it was quite obvious / visible. We stood in line and placed our order, a few people working in the store thought we looked ridiculous and it was funny.

There was a lady in front of us there with her daughter who looked like she was about 15 that suddenly turned around and accused of taping her daughter for sexual purposes. Her daughter was dressed as a whore but obviously that was not our aim; If we were there to make videos of girls we would probably not wear weird costumes to attract attention to ourselves, and we might actually try to hide the camera. I offered to delete all the video we had shot because I understand some people might be uncomfortable being taped without their consent, but she insisted that we had hidden the pornographic material on the camera and that we wouldn't really delete anything. Her husband called the cops and at that point my friend and I figured we should just stay and explain ourselves to them because if we leave it's going to look like we fled, so we sat around and waited for the cops to show up. They eventually showed up and escorted my friend and I to the squad car where we explained our side of the story. After another half hour of waiting while they talked to the insane lady in the restaurant the cop came back and asked to see the camera which I happily handed over and showed him how to retrieve what was on it. Eventually he let us go, and the restaurant banned us for "causing" a disturbance.

Long story short the moral of the story is that it is a crime to 1) Be male and be near girls under 18 2) Do / wear anything weird 3) Be in possession of a camera. Even though we weren't actually arrested or charged with anything we still had to waste a few hours of our day to deal with the incident and suffer the embarrassment of the situation in public just because we were accused.

Re:The moral of the story

[SuricouRaven]

Now there's an idea.... anyone here work for television studios, and want a stunt? Here's one. Set up a few hidden cameras in a street. Get a child actor to hang around and look miserable, cry a bit, and obviously be in distress. Film the manner in which every man carefully avoids approaching or looking at the child, and see how long it takes before someone is finally brave or reckless enough to intervene. Use for a news story about how the culture of fear is endangering children.

Ironically, all staff involved in the production would need to undergo enhanced-disclosure criminal records checks in this country to work with a child.

Re:Constitutional Rights

[canajin56]

CSI just showed somebody shooting an underage person a dozen times in the chest. Better arrest those actors for murder, then. Idiot.

Re:Constitutional Rights

[ScrewMaster]

His video depicted him saying sexual remarks to children. Whether or not they were actually there doesn't really matter.

What?

Well, the video has since been removed by Youtube.

[Anonymous Coward]

And since it has been removed, I can't watch the video and make my own judgment about what was said. Because I think as usual, the prosecutor is doing the prosecutor thing and using the protect the children bullshit witch hunt to boost his political career.

Of course, the stupid ignorant easily swayed with two bit opinions dipshit public will crucify this poor guy and his life is forever fucked. Even if he's exonerated - he's fucked.

We are not a free country anymore, no thanks to our draconian sex, drug and terrorism laws.

Blame the system.

[unity100]

A system which allows a moron to become a prosecutor, fails.

email

[Sprouticus]

Here you go folks, let those at the Muskegon Prosecutors office know how you feel about their use of tax dollars....

prosecutor@co.muskegon.mi.us

What if every MI singer did something similar?

[davidwr]

What if every singer in Michigan dared to take some out-of-copyright or liberally-licensed video of children and dub them signing this or some similar song they cleared the rights to and posted it on YouTube?

Would prosecutors in Michigan dare to arrest them all?

--
For the sake of not hurting anyone, if you try this please use videos of kids who are now adults or of possible, well over 50.

Re:Constitutional Rights

[RoFLKOPTr]

His video depicted him saying sexual remarks to children. Whether or not they were actually there doesn't really matter.

So if I step on a 3" person I made out of clay I can be found guilty of murder? Are you fucking insane?

Protect the children!

[cheekyjohnson]

Protect them from naughty words, video games, television, movies, comic books, music, and pretty much all forms of entertainment in existence. And yet, even with all of this meaningless 'protection', I still don't feel as though I've locked them in a small enough bubble yet. What should we ban/censor next? After all, saying naughty words is bad because naughty words are bad (because I said so). Even though they're just words with meanings like every other word and they won't really hurt them unless they themselves be hurt by them (and as everyone knows, your constitutional rights are being violating if you get offended by something), they mustn't be allowed to hear them! What a great plan! Forget freedom of speech (speech that offends others is clearly prohibited, even though that is extremely subjective and the constitution mentions nothing about that)! This guy's just... a terrorist and a pedophile!

driving slowly around schools and playgrounds...

[davidwr]

... is of little help if you are distracted.

Re:Constitutional Rights

[cheekyjohnson]

You're practicing murder. So, yes. Besides, stepping on clay offends me, and as everyone knows, the constitution was made to protect you from things that offend you...

Ridiculous

[RoFLKOPTr]

I, personally, think the idea was hilarious and I am in search of the video so I can watch it and laugh. But to the parents and school administration, perhaps this video is insulting and tasteless, at best. Criminal? Felonious? Child pornfuckingography? Are these people INSANE?

Re:Constitutional Rights

[WiglyWorm]

Legally, he is correct. Rationally, it's stupid that he's correct... But he's still correct.

Re:Fair is fair; + very real civil liability

[Rifter13]

Generally, model releases are needed for pay. You can take a picture of anyone, as long as they do not have any reasonable expectation of privacy. A school is a public place, hence no real expectation for privacy. He just can't make money, directly, off of it. At least, that is how I have read the statutes to be.

They guy made a crude joke. WAY too many people have gone WAY overboard on this. Our society is being put into a straight jacket. Humor has ALWAYS had more wiggle room, than most other forms of speech. But, the way too important people are even stifling humor. It is really pathetic.

Re:Constitutional Rights

[nurb432]

You don't have the freedom to say sexual remarks to children.

I guess you don't watch TV much, or listen to the radio.

Oh, and show us where the guy in question did as you suggest, as he didn't.. The children never heard a thing.

The Trauma Myth

[davidwr]

I didn't read the book but the WikiPedia summary of the book makes it sound like child sexual abuse is no big deal when in fact it is a very big deal.

While the book's author is largely correct "that later in life, after the memories are processed, examined, and more fully understood, the experience becomes traumatic" this is precisely why child sexual abuse IS a big deal.

The fact that it is a delayed trauma does not make it non-traumatic, except perhaps to people who die fairly quickly after the abuse happened, before their sub-conscious or conscious mind reacts to it.

Another factor not addressed in the summary which I hope the book covers is the harm done by the ongoing subconscious processing of the experience before the conscious processing happens. This may come out as stress, physical ailments, physically aggressive or other socially inappropriate non-sexual behavior (socially inappropriate sexual behavior is easily explained by "daddy did it to me, it must be okay if I do it to someone else"), and the like well before the child consciously processes the fact that she was abused. I say "she" as most child-sex-abuse victims are female, but the same goes for male victims.

Also, the Wikipedia article says "[Susan] Clancy [the book's author] concludes that since sexual abuse of children is not violent per se." If Clancy does indeed say this then she is just plain wrong or she restricts himself to only certain definitions of violence. In my book, violence does not have to be physical or even overtly coercive. Any act which violates another person without being, on balance, good is in my book an act of violence. Parents and other caretakers frequently violate the personal autonomy of children, it is a necessary part of proper child-rearing. The "on balance good" test covers things like forcing a child to endure pain while he gets his vaccinations, forcing a child to go to bed at a certain time, and all the other things that parents and others can and must to in order to be responsible caretakers.

Re:The Trauma Myth

[hedwards]

That's really the problem, the assumption that it needs to be traumatic in order for it to be wrong. The only reason why there's trauma in many of the cases she talks about is because of the degree to which professionals make unsubstantiated assertions about what it's like. The reality is that if there weren't so many messages being sent to kids that if they liked it or weren't completely horrified and traumatized that it's there fault is where the trauma comes from.

You're not going to read an article any shorter than the book and expect to really understand it. She provides a whole bunch of supporting information in the book which you wouldn't have time to cover in the period since I posted.

Re:The Trauma Myth

[c6gunner]

The fact that it is a delayed trauma does not make it non-traumatic, except perhaps to people who die fairly quickly after the abuse happened, before their sub-conscious or conscious mind reacts to it.

Maybe so, but the fact that the trauma is being experienced by an adult would tend to suggest that the action that caused it can't be considered "child abuse". If this kind of abuse has no effect on the child, then we seriously need to reconsider whether it's a crime deserving of a 20 year sentence and a lifetime of stigmatization.

Notice that I said "if". I'm not actually convinced that child sexual exploitation isn't harmful - I'd have to see a lot more data before I accepted that premise - but IF that premise is correct, THEN the current laws don't make sense.

Re:The Trauma Myth

[davidwr]

there isn't a big problem with child sexual abuse by strangers

It's a long-established statistical fact that the classic stranger-danger child kidnapping/abuse is a myth. I think the "official" rate is about 500 per year for the United States for stranger kidnappings whether or not sexual abuse occurs.

For missing kids, the common causes are runaways, kidnappings by people known to the child including non-custodial parents, children who wander off and are later found, and other causes.

For child sexual abuse, about 40-45% happens in the home, either by a family member or someone living in the home. Another 40-45% is from people known to the victim or victim's family. Only about 5-10% is from strangers or people who are only known remotely by the victim and his or her family.

I don't have it in front of me but I recently saw a statistic that said about 1/3 of child sexual abuse is perpetrated by children and teenagers. I don't remember if 18- and 19-year old perpetrators were included in the "1/3" number or not, and I didn't stop to check the credibility of the source behind the statistic. However, I have no doubt that a significant amount of abuse is perpetrated by teenagers on younger teens or children and by children on younger children.

but to indicate that those who claim to be wanting to help are actually doing real damage of their own.

On that we agree. I think we disagree on the solution. From where I stand, the current system is the best we've had in my lifetime and the lifetime of my parents, but it's still far from ideal and for some victims it is worse than systems we've had in the past. From where I stand, the solution is to refine the existing system, not to go back in time.

Especially when the image of child abuse sold is that of the unknown stranger abducting children and abusing them

Among law enforcement and "big name" child-protection organizations at least, this image has been passe for well over a decade and in more enlightened agencies, for several decades.

Re:The Trauma Myth

[Anonymous Coward]

You know, when you treat it as an isolated thing, what you're saying is reasonable.

But there are a lot of unintended consequences to what seems like an absurd moral panic.

Read this thread, just down a little further, and then balance what is in it with what is written above. A whole new generation will grow up with no male role models at all. None, at least none that are sane. People who don't particularly like kids but might volunteer just to be a good guy... there is NO WAY in hell those guys are going to volunteer to work with kids now.

http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2003860&cid=35255896

What is the result? Kids raised in sterile environments, by all-female troops of social workers? Males who are still willing to volunteer are MUCH more likely to have ulterior motives, people get even more suspicious of males... ad infinitum, until the insanity is backed down a few notches.

While in isolation, this reaction seems reasonable, I would like to point out that the hyper-paranoia that comes along with this moral dillemma might have something to do with the relative decline of youth productivity and behavior during the last 20 years. English speaking countries have unusually high levels of childhood obesity, childhood suicide and relatively low performance metrics in a variety of things such as education.

Perhaps they're ALL completely unrelated, but the culture of fear surely can't help.

When I think about having kids and raising them, I think that I would prefer I was in the 1940s or 1950s. I know that the kids are MUCH safer today. The rates of violence are SO much lower now than they were in the 1950s, but I feel like that comes at the expense of the "human" factor. It does "take a village" to raise a child, and that is NOT a village full of background-checked female-only therapists and social workers under constant supervision.

My grandfather talks fondly of the old man down the road, who was a mechanic, who used to keep a bowl of candy in his shop so the local kids would come by. You could have some candy, but you had to sit and talk with him for a bit. My grandfather ended up becoming friends with him and ended up later crediting him with the inspiration to start his business, which made him wealthy.

This would not be possible today. In fact, this guy would have the police kicking in his door.

That's no the right reaction.

It's not the THERAPY that is hurting kids. By all means, give the kids some means to talk about abuse, yes yes yes yes.

But FUCK, do we have to dismantle society in the process, because we're so afraid of it?

To me, this is a much greater issue than any one individual (or group of individuals) getting therapy...

It's the ability to move past it and say "yeah, that sucked and therapy is good, but I'm really doing alright today."

Re:The Trauma Myth

[cas2000]

I haven't read or even heard of the book before, but just reading the wikipedia article about the author confirms my initial thought that a *very* short summary of her thesis might be that the actual crime of child abuse may be compounded many times over by the constant barrage of people telling the victim that they ought to be severely traumatised actually makes them far more traumatised than they would otherwise be, in a manner reminiscent of the way that deluded, obsessive, or even outright malicious "therapists" *create* False Memory Syndrome in susceptible people.

i.e. that the crime of abuse may have happened, but that the trauma may be partly or even wholly created after the fact.

it's not even a particularly surprising or unusual thesis...the Satanic Ritual Abuse moral panic of the 1980s clearly shows that it's possible to create such trauma even in children who *haven't* been sexually abused.

Re:The Trauma Myth

[davidwr]

On the use of the word she: Another post in this thread reminded me that female victims significantly outnumber male victims - about 2- or 3- to one according to one 15-year-old study, so I switched from the gender-neutral pronoun "he" to the gender-specific pronoun "she." No gender bias was intended.

I take issue with your unjustified assumption that people process events subconsciously over many years

I've known enough people for which this is true and I've read enough that I don't consider this assumption unjustified, at least not in my mind.

. I contend that people's perception of the past is always colored by their current worldview and socialization, which of course changes over time.

Actually, I believe this as well. The two are not mutually exclusive.

As for the "cultural baggage" some of what you call baggage others would call desirable traits in a society.

I will use an example which at its core is based on love but I'm sure most would agree is heavily laden with baggage: The ideal that when two virgins get married, they are able to give a gift to each other that cannot be given if they are not both virgins. For the sake of discussion assume virgins means no sexual contact at all, no petting, no heavy kissing, etc.

Now, even if you strip away all the moral and religious reasons why virginity is a virtue, it is still true that when two virgins get married, they have two things that non-virgins do not have:
* They can share their first sexual experience with someone they will love and who they plan to be with until they die.
* They will not ever be comparing sex with their current love with sex or sexual activities with anyone else.
* No sex before marriage, generally no STD infection at the time of your marriage.
* Even among non-virgins, the fewer times a person has sexual encounters before marriage, the fewer encounters there are to compare with the current lover.

Now, suppose we declare virginity a "nice thing to have, but not something worth sweating over."

Enter an adult who knows this and who at an adult level understands that when the kid he is with grows up, the kid will not be able to share the gift of virginity with his (I'll switch to the gender-neutral "his" since it seems to make you feel more comfortable) future spouse. Assuming the kid is too young to understand the nuances of the value of virginity (IMHO very few kids under 14-15 understand these nuances), the adult would be doing the kid at least a minor dis-service by enticing him to lose his virginity today and he would also be doing the kid at least a minor dis-service by agreeing to it if the kid initiated the activity.

Now, I've just shown a good reason why an adult having sexual relations with a virgin who is not clearly old enough to understand what he's being asked to give up - or what he is offering to give up if he's initiating the encounter - causes the kid at least a small harm.

This is but one example that can show at least some harm even without baggage. There are no doubt others but I'm not going to spend time creating a list today.

Take and the other examples I'm in too big a hurry to describe and add in the baggage that is either common to almost all human cultures in history and/or which cannot be easily removed from society without making it unrecognizable, but strip away the baggage that can be stripped away in less than 5-6 generations, and you'll still find it nearly impossible to make an argument that sex between adults and children is okay enough of the time that we as a society shouldn't proscribe it in law and custom.

As for sexual relations between people close in age but far enough apart that there is an obvious power- and knowledge difference - those are not without harm either but labeling a 12 year old a sexual predator because he played doctor naked with his 6 year old neighbor is not the solution. Telling him "that's not nice," grounding him, telling him he ca

Re:The Trauma Myth

[davidwr]

False memory syndrome is real.

Unfortunately, so are true suppressed memories. It's really hard on everyone when the evidence to support or refute the allegedly true memories is lost to time.

Re:The Trauma Myth

[realityimpaired]

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Dissociative_disorder
and more specifically: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Dissociative_amnesia

One possible reason it can take until your adulthood for the effects to be seen is because your childhood mind represses something it simply can't deal with at a psychological level. The child either "forgets" what happened while the subconscious absorbs and understands what's happened, manifesting the trauma later in life, or they fracture. Sexual abuse in childhood is currently thought to be one of the leading triggers for Dissociative Identity Disorder (multiple personalities), and the current research suggests that it's possible to live well into your adult life before you even become aware of an "other" sharing your body (and you may never be aware of it, though those around you may see it)

The human psyche is something we're only barely beginning to understand. There's so much more work to be done in the field before it's as well understood as something like electricity... That said, there is a lot of evidence out there to support the idea that just because it can take years or decades for an event to actually affect your behaviour does not mean that the change in behaviour/psyche was not caused by that event. There could be a trigger later in life that brings a suppressed memory back into your conscious mind (it's well known that smell can sometimes trigger long-forgotten memories, for example), or it could simply work its way back into the foreground on its own.

Re:The Trauma Myth

[AK Marc]

How can a "stranger" abuse a child without abducting them? The only conceivable scenario for that is if you are home asleep and they break into your home, abuse them in the house, then leave before anyone notices. I'd assert that the incidence of that is zero. Otherwise, they must abduct them or they weren't "strangers."

The stats use "stranger" to indicate people who were invited into the house or for whom permission was given for the child to be alone with. Even if not well known, I think that makes them non-strangers. The people who define the crimes define "someone who the parents have met and are willing to leave their child alone with voluntarily" as a stranger in order to increase the number of "stranger" crimes to increase fear.

Re:The Trauma Myth

[Vegemeister]

I will use an example which at its core is based on love but I'm sure most would agree is heavily laden with baggage: The ideal that when two virgins get married, they are able to give a gift to each other that cannot be given if they are not both virgins. For the sake of discussion assume virgins means no sexual contact at all, no petting, no heavy kissing, etc.

Now, even if you strip away all the moral and religious reasons why virginity is a virtue, it is still true that when two virgins get married, they have two things that non-virgins do not have:
* They can share their first sexual experience with someone they will love and who they plan to be with until they die.
* They will not ever be comparing sex with their current love with sex or sexual activities with anyone else.
* No sex before marriage, generally no STD infection at the time of your marriage.
* Even among non-virgins, the fewer times a person has sexual encounters before marriage, the fewer encounters there are to compare with the current lover.

These are exactly the sort of hangups I'm talking about Marriage, believe it or not, hasn't been about love for a majority of the history of western civilization. Love, where it exists, is a deeper feeling than a desire to ravish your lover and a mutual appreciation for 1950s musical theatre. Love implies a mutual admiration of the other's personality and intellect. It is not the sort of thing that you throw away because you didn't get to deflower your bride, or because your highschool boyfriend was better at cunnilingus Most people will never be in this kind of relationship, and that's ok. Humans, for the most part, are predisposed to serial monogamy, and forcing them into lifelong pair bonding based on sex is doomed from the outset.

Virginity is not special. Sex is only one point in an infinite continuum of things in life that can only be experienced for the first time once. Someday I would like to be with a virgin, but certainly not while I am still a virgin myself. I desire that experience for the same reason I taught my kid sister Gauss-Jordan elimination: a person having a new experience or coming to understand something new is a beautiful thing to watch. It is, however, difficult to observe while one is distracted by one's own experience. Would you like to learn linear algebra from an twelve year old who didn't understand it and had no experience with rigorous proofs? Similarly, I would not want to lose my virginity to a virgin.

STD's are only a problem if one-night-stands are widespread and/or society considers it offensive to ask for blood tests before beginning a sexual relationship. Abstinence-till-marriage throws the baby out with the bath water. It is also an unrealistic expectation of actual people. Condoms are surprisingly effective if your sexual education program includes their proper use.

This is but one example that can show at least some harm even without baggage. There are no doubt others but I'm not going to spend time creating a list today.

Which is why I said, "...and create a social and legal structure that prevents harmful sexual contact with children and mitigates adverse affects when such contact cannot be prevented."

Re:The Trauma Myth

[khallow]

Virginity isn't a gift, it has no value

I doubt it matters to your point, but value is always, always subjective. It doesn't have value to you, but it does have value to other people.

Re:The Trauma Myth

[parlancex]

And what do you think is the reason it is perceived as traumatic only later in life? Could it have anything to do with the insane extremist trauma culture that equates consensual non-violent sexual activity at a young age to the equivalent of watching your mother being decapitated in front of you? It's a self fulfilling prophecy.

For the record I'm not stating that it isn't wrong, but just that the ridiculous and drastic overreactions of modern society to it have gone on long enough.

Seems like every generation...

[ikarous]

... has to have its witch hunt. What I find really odd about it is that some of the same people who now recoil in horror at the thought of what happened during the McCarthyism era will happily toss gasoline onto the pyre of anyone who is accused of pedophilia. Proof isn't an issue anymore; the accusation itself equals certain doom.

Logic and reason are in order

[Killer Eye]

It sure seems that modern "crime" investigations need to start with these words: "alright, first: everyone kindly calm the fuck down".

I'm tired of hearing about cases where there is OBVIOUSLY no real victim, yet the "trial" marches on. And it appears that we have a hard time presuming innocence when there's insufficient evidence to convict.

I hope that this isn't an upward trend...maybe this has always happened to some degree, and we only hear about it more now because of the Internet. Either way, it scares the hell out of me and makes me feel like we should be putting the prosecutors on trial instead of the "criminals".

Guilty of not being a comedian?

[grimJester]

What's even bad taste about it? TF summary links to six examples of the same thing. It's a common joke. Having a character do or say something inappropriate in front of children has been done forever.

This is just some retarded prosecutor thinking a clip of someone using dirty words in front of children is the same as a clip of someone actually fucking the children. This is just moronic. Saying "fuck" in front of little Billy is not the same as fucking little Billy.

Re:Oh for fuck's sake

[Tablizer]

Are you fucking kidding me?

Nice pun. See you in jail.

Re:Constitutional Rights

[pipatron]

As ridiculous as it may sound, replace "Santa Claus" with "God" and all of a sudden we're not that far from reality anymore.

Clerks link is inaccurate

[Crimsane]

The 'professional comedians' link is for the clerks scene where Randall is trying to order porn from his supplier, but in the commentary it explains the reason they cut to just Randall is he wasn't comfortable saying all those things in front of a kid.

Re:Clerks link is inaccurate

[Bobakitoo]

(a) "Appears to include a child" means that the depiction appears to include, or conveys the impression that it includes, a person who is less than 18 years of age, and the depiction meets either of the following conditions:

Everyone had the "impression" that the child was still in the scene while Randall was ordering the pornography. Not that i agree, but that all these retarded legislators need. Normaly the "and the depiction meets either of the following conditions:" should be fine.

(B) The reasonable person would find the depiction, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

Because i am a reasonable person and "i find it to be fucking hilarious" is suffisent artistic value to me.

Re:The kids are not victims then?

[Scutter]

So what every commenter so far is saying is that this "Harmless" "Bad taste" joke in no way victimizes the kids. That's absurd. At what point does it become victimization then. If he had actually done the song in front of the kids and filmed it, would they be victims. If he had made a movie where he abused the kids, would that be wrong, even if it was not real. Get a sense of law and morality, there are few victimless crimes, this is not one of them. The kids are victims, because they did not consent to something that in reality would have been damaging, libelous, and subject to prosecution. Computers and technology do not give free reign to virtually create abusive depictions without consequences. Good grief, I cannot believe the support yielded to this shithead on /.

If it was damaging and libelous, then why is he being charged criminally under pedophelia laws? Shouldn't he be subject to civil prosecution for libel instead? These kids aren't "victims" just because you say they are, any more than an adult would be a "victim". A 20 year sentence is WAY WAY out of line for this supposed crime.

Re:What would you want them to do?

[kbolino]

When did "sexually explicit" go from participating in sexual acts to just saying sexually themed things? Next thing you know, thinking dirty thoughts near children will be a crime.

The fact of the matter is, whether the guy actually did it in front of the children, or merely post-edited to make it look like he did, he should not be considered a sex offender. He didn't actually have sex with the children, or even have sex (with an adult) in view of the children. He is facing 20 years in prison for making a bad joke. People who actually had sex with children have gotten shorter prison sentences.

This hysteria has gone too far. It's one thing to investigate this video, determine that not only was no sexual act involving children committed but in fact the video was edited after the fact, and then drop the investigation. It's entirely another thing to decide to charge the creator of the video with sexual abuse of a minor. If successful, this will literally destroy this person as a human being. Assuming he survives the prison time (which most likely will involve frequent, genuine sexual abuse), he will be placed on the sex offender registry, which is essentially a life sentence. He will not be able to live or approach anywhere near any place that has anything to do with children (i.e., most of the country), his name will be publicly and legally slandered in perpetuity, and he will be unable to secure any meaningful employment. Even if the prosecution fails, his name will have been dragged the mud so badly that he may be disowned by his family and forced to move.

All for what? Because some child somewhere may have possibly been exposed to some slightly disturbing words? Even if the video genuinely showed some guy talking trash to children, chances are they didn't understand it or found him silly and ridiculous. Children are remarkably resilient to such things.

Re:So...

[LearnToSpell]

While I agree that it should be illegal to tell bad jokes, and a 20-year prison term sounds like a pretty sufficient penalty, I... wait, what? Are you retarded? We can't have comedic material unless it's suitable for a child audience?

Go hide under your bed. This world will scare you.

Re:Constitutional Rights

[sumdumass]

So is hate speech laws.. and we are ok with them aren't we?

Re:and watch the video go round and round the net.

[Anonymous Coward]

Pot heads roll joints, junkies use needles. Lets not lump them into the same category shall we?

Re:Constitutional Rights

[westlake]

He wasn't saying sexual remarks to children, how about you RTFA.

He lied to the school to gain access to their kids.

That is criminal trespass under almost any jurisdiction you could name.

Without permission, he used an empty classroom as a stage for his sexually explicit performance. That again is criminal trespass.

Without anyone's informed consent he edited videos of six and seven year old kids into his adolescent and obsene music video.

There are well-timed cuts to particular faces.

The video makes these kids part of the performance ---

and that is all that Michigan law requires for prosecution on the felony charge.

The video was posted to YouTube and played to a local comedy club. That looks less like a prank and more like commercial exploitation.

Re:He asked for it.

[aitikin]

First off, he didn't sing to them as davidwr pointed out.

Second off, legally speaking, it is not illegal to "sing profanity to children" so long as it is, "indecent, but not obscene." Obviously, had he actually been singing to these kids the obscenities used in the song (or, at least, stated that were used in the song as no one seems to be able to find a copy of it) than that could be grounds for an obscenity charge.

As it stands, this is likely to settle, get thrown out, land the guy in jail for much of his natural life for a prank that I'm pretty sure I've almost done, or (possibly the worst outcome of them all) make a law that has (as far as I know) effectively taken many pedophiles off of the streets and away from kids that they can hurt unconstitutional... Kinda sad, but that's what happens when the world is run by paranoid politics...

Re:Constitutional Rights

[Sir_Lewk]

No.

Re:Constitutional Rights

[HungryHobo]

WTF?
he was explaining the legal situation. not approving of it.
as you thick?

Re:This guy should sue the pants off the city.

[adolf]

I'm unmodding by posting this.

Please remember that this is Michigan, which is the same state that took one hundred and five years to eliminate a law that prohibited using foul language in the presence of women and children -- a law that stood on the books until 2002. A law under which a man was successfully convicted after the canoe he was traveling in hit a rock and dumped him (and presumably, his stuff) into the drink, producing the sort of surprise and inconvenience that I think would cause most people to get awfully profane for a few minutes as they swim around trying to gather their shit up (or more likely, get their "fucking shit" out of the "goddamned water," after having the "fucking boat" hit a "motherfucking piece-of-shit dick-taking rock," perhaps with repeated nonsensical utterances about the "fucking asshole thing").

At least in the case of the cussing canoeist, sanity eventually prevailed. Unfortunately, it took about four years for this to happen, between citation and dismissal.

My dad doesn't cuss. Ever. He certainly knows how, as his vocabulary is very prolific. But I've heard him do it twice: Once, when a large limb he was cutting out of a tree nearly fell (variously) on the neighbor's pool, the overhead power lines, or my house -- just before it tried to kill him (it failed). The other time was after we had unexpectedly exited a canoe on the Mohican. :)

Re:What about privacy?

[Brannoncyll]

The kids nor their parents gave permission for this footage to be used as this. Don't they have rights? Hang him on this, confiscate all his past, current and future earning to pay for damages. That should frighten any musician I know far more then mere jail time.

So take him to court for not obtaining permission from the parents or whatever. Hanging him or making him permanently bankrupt as some sort of example is absolutely sick and I think that you should perhaps seek psychiatric help.

Re:Constitutional Rights

[DurendalMac]

Then charge him with criminal trespass. Charging him with creating child pornography is ludicrously overboard and beyond idiotic as I seriously, seriously doubt he had any kind of sexual motivation whatsoever. It was a joke and he never actually sang the explicit lyrics to the children. The guy's a dick, and perhaps prosecution is in order, but let the charges actually fit the crime.

Re:and watch the video go round and round the net.

[reeno49]

Thanks, AC. Us "pot heads" appreciate your swift and accurate defense.

Re:Constitutional Rights

[UnknowingFool]

His video depicted him saying sexual remarks to children. Whether or not they were actually there doesn't really matter.

Are you serious or is your interpretation of the law just warped? First of all I'd like to see you actually cite any real laws that are remotely on your side. If someone is depicting something that isn't real, then my interpretation is that you can't charge them for the act. See in Hollywood there are things called "special effects" in which things don't really happen. Like in any teen slasher movie, that 16 year old (played by a 22 year old) that got decapitated by the villain didn't really happen. Otherwise, the actor who played the villain could be arrested for murder.

In America you can't even post naked pictures online of people you claim are underage, even if they are in fact over 18. In America you can't even post naked pictures online of people you claim are underage, even if they are in fact over 18.

Really cite any real case. In the case of Melissa Ashley, she's had to testify in a few cases that despite her appearance she was over the age of 18 and any photos or scenes of her are not child pornography. I think one judge admonished the prosecution for not doing any research.

Re:Constitutional Rights

[UnknowingFool]

You selectively excluded an important part (1466).

and B)lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value;

Details matter.

Don't you believe it.

[westlake]

A school is a public place, hence no real expectation for privacy.

Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong!

The school is one of those places where trespass laws have teeth that can bite and bite hard.

You are welcome on the premises only when you have a legitimate reason for being there - and only when you play by the rules.

Re:Don't you believe it.

[russotto]

That is the jailhouse lawyer I hear talking.

Jailhouse lawyer: A man who had the law on his side and could prove it... though it did him no good, as he was convicted regardless, by people who would taunt you because you're a known extrovert whose sister is a thespian.

He lied his way in - and that makes it a criminal trespass.

Then you'll have no problem citing the Michigan law which he violated. Because I sure can't find it under "trespass" in the Michigan penal code.

We can have both

[davidwr]

We can have both an effective system to give abused kids the therapy they need and we can have a society that allows caring adults to be caring adults.

As for the state of therapy - I've said elsewhere in this thread that today's system needs improvement but it beats anything we've had since before the Leave It To Beaver era.

If we are to have a society where caring adults can be caring adults, we need several things we don't have today:

* Training the next generation how to be friendly to kids they don't know well and whose parents they don't know well but not behind closed doors, especially not 1-1.
* Train kids from a young age what is and isn't okay for an adult to do. Unfortunately we have a chicken-and-egg problem since the best training is to live in a world where the vast majority of adults DO engage kids spontaneously yet responsibly, which because of fear we do not have today.
* Train parents that it's perfectly acceptable and expected that adults will interact with their kids IN PUBLIC PLACES and that the adults will sometimes initiate the conversation. Give parents the tools they need to train the kids how to react if they become uncomfortable and give the parents the tools they need to keep the lines of communication with their kids open.
* Accept that there will likely be a small increase in the number of non-family child abuse victims as a result.

The last one will be a hard sell - convincing people that a generation of kids that live in a relatively sterile, to use your words, society is actually more harmful than a small uptick in the number of kids who will suffer an immense harm is no easy task.

Re:We can have both

[Damouze]

Very wise words.

Our very western society is going down the drain because our law-givers want make rules for everything and every conceivable situation. That is not freedom. Nor does it promote acting responsibly towards one's fellow man, let alone towards children.

The most important factor in dealing with people is using one's common sense. Unfortunately, when emotionally hot topics are concerned - like child abuse, terrorism presently, and the famous non-existing WMDs in Iraq, the Red Scare or the fear of nuclear holocaust in the past - our common sense is the first thing to go. This is because our society is programmed to lash out against anything or anyone that even remotely insinuates those things.

Why? Because of the age old saying: "The great Masses of the People..."

Not every Muslim is a terrorist. Heck, not every terrorist is Muslim. There are terrorists in every flavour and every vocation or religious belief system. Not every man or woman who works with children and enjoys it is a child molestor. In fact, the enjoyment part is often exactly what keeps these people going for twenty years or more. Being an educator or (surrogate) parent is a hard job and usually only pays off on the long term. I know of teachers and foster parents who were burnt out long before that!

And here I am, quoting someone who was arguably one of the most evil people in our history. Not because I agree with his ideas, or with his motives - let alone his actions. No, because unfortunately for us, with regard to this, he was absolutely right.

Michigan statute

[drew30319]

The relevant Michigan statute Section 750.145c includes the following:

Sec. 145c.
(1) As used in this section:
(a) "Appears to include a child" means that the depiction appears to include, or conveys the impression that it includes, a person who is less than 18 years of age, and the depiction meets either of the following conditions:
(i) It was created using a depiction of any part of an actual person under the age of 18.
(ii) It was not created using a depiction of any part of an actual person under the age of 18, but all of the following apply to that depiction:
(A) The average individual, applying contemporary community standards, would find the depiction, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest.
(B) The reasonable person would find the depiction, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
(C) The depiction depicts or describes a listed sexual act in a patently offensive way.

[. . .]
(k) "Prurient interest" means a shameful or morbid interest in nudity, sex, or excretion.

-----

It's likely that under the "appears to include a child" standard, the issue will be:

Based on "community standards" would an "average individual" find the video to appeal to "a shameful or morbid interest in sex"?

That seems like a stretch - but the bigger issue (IMO) is the use of the prosecutorial resources for a situation that would be more appropriately handled through civil litigation than criminal prosecution.

Justice?

[Anonymous Coward]

Potentially jailing someone for 20 years after making a parody is a slap in the face to victims of real child rape.

Re:Justice?

[amiga3D]

It's not uncommon for sexual predators to get much less time than this for truly heinous crimes. For some reason when crimes are perpetrated over the net the justice system goes bat shit crazy.

Re:Justice?

[cheekyboy]

after all the facebook revolutions of the middle east, next up is europe against the globalist banks, then next and last the great revolution of usa.

Its time all leaders are retired. Old shit is old shit. Time to flush.

Re:Constitutional Rights

[c6gunner]

What a terrible world that would be! Imagine, a place where people posses the unrestricted right to free expression. The horror!

I know.. I know..

[Weezul]

Yes, you'd think Muskegon MI Prosecutor Tony Tague has got a full plate, what with a serial killer on the loose in his county, eh?

I'd imagine that good ol' Tony wasn't too happy about his ongoing failures appearing on television every night, but the Evan Emory case buys him a nice little reprieve, never mind if it distracts law enforcement resources from finding a serial killer. If your feeling frisky, I'd suggest calling his office to tell him that his little stunt isn't fooling anyone.

I'd expect the internet vigilantes will eventually start harassing the parents who complained. As the police are involved already, I foresee the /b/ tards proceeding by giving anonymous tips that various involved parents are the Muskegon county serial killer, or running a meth lab, or simply reporting a domestic dispute.

Imho, the /b/ tards will actually do less damage to Evan Emory's case by pranking the police about the parents rather than prank calling the parents directly because the police won't involve the news media when they get pranked. I hope his lawyer asks for a change of venue irregardless of the internet shit storm of course.

Just so you know...

[Damase]

I live here in Muskegon, Mi. These are the same people who tore down an 80 yr old retired WW2 veteran's home (basically) because they could not afford to take it by eminent domain @125% of value. It was an historic home. The home was built by the first mayor of the city and was on the city's precious historic trail. The man was a hoarder - a known mental illness- so the house was filthy on the inside. After the first hit by the wrecker the city declared the house structurally unfit and finished demolishing the home.

These people have a nickname -- Gestapo. They are extremists in their puritanical beliefs, and this musician knows this. Therefore he wasn't just being a moron, his actions went to the level of recklessly - moronic - imbecile. He should have moved to Detroit first then did this using a willing classroom out there. Does he deserve 20yrs in prison and the reputation afterwards? Does a guy who puts his hand in a running lawnmower blade deserve to keep his hand? I guess fate plays it's part in these kinds of cases. He lost.

Re:Misleading summary?

[InvisiBill]

The article is using old information. Emory was arrested initially and released on a $5,000 bond. On Wednesday 2/16, he was arraigned on a felony charge of manufacturing child sexual abusive material. http://www.woodtv.com/dpp/news/local/muskegon_county/YouTube-singer-charged-with-felony

Re:Constitutional Rights

[Cyberllama]

He lied to the school to gain access to their kids.

Debatable. He probably didn't lie per se, but rather simply failed to volunteer some key details. "I'd like to come sing for the children" vs " I'd like to come sing for the children, and then edit the video to appear as though I sang a much less appropriate song for comedic purposes". IANAL, but both are true in the technical sense.

That is criminal trespass under almost any jurisdiction you could name.

Even if we were to conclude he lied, and what you say here is true -- two big if's -- it still wouldn't matter. Criminal Trespass is not what he's being charged with and it's not a crime which carries a 20 year prison sentence and listing on a sex offender registry.

Without permission, he used an empty classroom as a stage for his sexually explicit performance. That again is criminal trespass.

He had permission -- not necessarily from the school itself, but from an employee of the school who was his friend.

Without anyone's informed consent he edited videos of six and seven year old kids into his adolescent and obsene music video.

Poor judgment perhaps, but at *worst* this is a civil matter -- not a criminal one.

The video makes these kids part of the performance ---

and that is all that Michigan law requires for prosecution on the felony charge.

A court will decide that, but expect that if it agrees with you that another court will be asked to decide if the law itself can possibly be constitutional.

The video was posted to YouTube and played to a local comedy club. That looks less like a prank and more like commercial exploitation.

Irrelevant to anything. Again, if he's using people's likeness for a commercial gain, that might be a civil matter -- but never a criminal one.

Ingelligent people, get out of America!

[Snaller]

Sorry, but its too late for you there. Think of the country as the Golgafrincham B ark - just leave them there. Tell them you are going out for a walk and then slip across the border!

Re:Constitutional Rights

[russotto]

He lied to the school to gain access to their kids. That is criminal trespass under almost any jurisdiction you could name.

I name "Michigan", and I do not believe that lying to obtain permission to access a school is criminal trespass. I also dispute the idea that the kids belong to the school.

Without permission, he used an empty classroom as a stage for his sexually explicit performance. That again is criminal trespass.

That again is not. Furthermore, he had permission: "The teacher had bowling practice, and he told us we could use the room."

The video makes these kids part of the performance

No, it does not. It makes the kids appear as if they were part of the performance. The performance took place in an empty room.

and that is all that Michigan law requires for prosecution on the felony charge

Really? He was arraigned on a charge of "manufacturing child sexually abusive material". Even ignoring any constitutional questions, the definition of child sexually abusive material from MCLA 750.145c is

(m) "Child sexually abusive material" means any depiction, whether made or produced by electronic, mechanical, or other means, including a developed or undeveloped photograph, picture, film, slide, video, electronic visual image, computer diskette, computer or computer-generated image, or picture, or sound recording which is of a child or appears to include a child engaging in a listed sexual act; a book, magazine, computer, computer storage device, or other visual or print or printable medium containing such a photograph, picture, film, slide, video, electronic visual image, computer, or computer-generated image, or picture, or sound recording; or any reproduction, copy, or print of such a photograph, picture, film, slide, video, electronic visual image, book, magazine, computer, or computer-generated image, or picture, other visual or print or printable medium, or sound recording.

The key thing to notice is that it must include a child, or appear to include a child, engaging in a listed sexual act. Listening to a song (raunchy or otherwise), is not included in the list, which is "sexual intercourse, erotic fondling, sadomasochistic abuse, masturbation, passive sexual involvement, sexual excitement, or erotic nudity."

The video was posted to YouTube and played to a local comedy club. That looks less like a prank and more like commercial exploitation.

Pranks and commercial exploitation aren't mutually exclusive. Typical, of course. You're like most people, with such a pro-authority bias that no matter how ludicrous a charge is, you'll tie yourself in knots to justify it.

More 'zero tolerance' police state crap

[sjdude]

This sounds like more zero tolerance police state crap. Have a look at this: http://www.lewrockwell.com/whitehead/whitehead26.1.html

'Pedo' is the new 'Communist'

[heretic108]

Throughout US history, there have been several episodes of fear, hysteria and scapegoating. The first example is the infamous witch hunts. Post WWII, it was Sen. McCarthy-led anti-communist crusades. The famous playright Arthur Miller made the comparison very clear in his master work The Crucible. Now, it seems pedophiles are the new communists. What better a 'fear fix' than to imagine Pedobear hiding under every bed, lurking in the school staffrooms and coaching your kids' ball teams.

Re:Constitutional Rights

[c6gunner]

While the existence of God is the subject of debate, no right-thinking adult on earth actually believes Santa Claus exists.

AFAIC, no right-thinking adult on earth actually believes gods exist.

Why has NO ONE said this?

[cfalcon]

This guy sang in front of kids, then modified that video to appear as if he was saying vulgar things instead. Somehow, this ludicrously construes child abuse or some nonsense. Ok, whatever.

Here's the missing puzzle piece... what if someone ELSE had taken his video, redubbed it, and posted it like that?

Lesson: if you want to do what this guy did, make sure that the redub is posted by a different user that isn't traceable. Apparently this 'crime' only happens if you are both the person who sings to high school kids with permission of the school AND the person who makes the humorous redub later- just don't be BOTH of those people (traceably) and you should be fine.

In the meantime, of course, this is an absurd travesty of the legal system.

Re:Constitutional Rights

[wierd_w]

I have no doubt that there are people who would approve of any arbitrary law as long as they profited from it. However, if that same law unduly imposes against another, that support is the result of a lack of integrity on the part of the supporter.

highly exagerated example:

Person X owns slaves, because law Z permits him to own them, and damnit, being able to force people to clean up after you is damn convenient. Person X claims that because it is not illegal to own slaves, that there is no problem whatsoever with such ownership, that arguments about how the slaves should have rights are just rhetoric from people that need to sit back and chill, because the law does not give rights to slaves, and the whole thing is just plain silly to argue over.

Nevermind the subtle truth behind the phrase "there but by the grace of god go I." (You can strip out any religiousity and still have a truism.) Person X is only in favor of slavery while he is the slave OWNER. His tune would change instantly if he was suddenly made into a slave himself. For this reason, his position lacks integrity.

The same kind of rationality can be applied to both the positions people hold on "child pornography", and on "Racial hate speech". The people that are for "Blanket" prosecution of these things (Really? cartoons?) would radically change their tune if they were the ones on the receiving end of the penal cudgel. (Just think how much stereotypical soccer mom would squirm on the bench after being charged with child porn for taking that cute picture of their 3 year old on the training potty--something that HAS happened.) For this reason, their support of such laws lacks integrity.

Society benefits from concise, practical, and reasonable legislation. Laws against child exploitation, for instance. (as in, child prostitution, etc.) It does not benefit (in the long run) by legislation that makes a privately held thought or impulse so taboo that ANYTHING remotely related to it is prosecutable. The latter only opens the door to witch-hunts, like this story is about, or to such insane outcomes as registering children as sex offenders for photographing themselves while naked. (Which has, and does continue to happen.)

Laws should be crafted for specific criminal acts, with a specific criminal intent. They should not be crafted to cater to moral panic, or to penalize nebulous and ambiguous activities.

Duct-taping a 10 year old girl to a bed, ramming a big black dildo in her and taking pictures is, and should be illegal, because you are harming a child, physically, emotionally, and mentally. Making a cartoon of such a sordid activity should be socially unacceptable, but not illegal, because no children are actively harmed by the enterprise. Arguments to the effect of "It promotes the real activity" lack credibility or integrity unless the person saying that argument is also against television dramas depicting physical violence, or destruction of property (pretty much all primetime TV in the US) and also believe that all actors that have been employed to create such television content should be charged with the simulated crimes they helped depict--OR they have highly documented evidence that creating or viewing such a sordid thing (simulated cartoon child exploitation) directly promotes non-criminals to become criminals.

So, as I see it, you are either against such stupid legislation, are a hypocritical bastard that lacks integrity, or are a fringe radical with insane opinions. Mod me troll if you wish, but that wont' change this simple fact, and my karma can take it.

He was an idiot

[osgeek]

I think that using video of minors taken for non-obvious purposes and then publishing something edited to be sexually explicit is crossing a line.

Draw cartoons of children being sexual and sing about it all you want; but take video of my elementary daughter and talk about her sucking anything of yours and you're going to have a law suit on your hands.

It's one thing to express yourself. He has every right to do so.

It's quite another to pull innocent children into it and make them a part of your expression as though they were complicit.