Slashdot Mirror
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."
Better jail Monty Python as well.
Welcome to United States of Iran
He wasn't saying sexual remarks to children, how about you RTFA.
Land of the litigious.
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....
"linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
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!
"Tell me doctor, with all of your defenses, are there any provisions for an attack by killer bees?"
CSI just showed somebody shooting an underage person a dozen times in the chest. Better arrest those actors for murder, then. Idiot.
ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
His video depicted him saying sexual remarks to children. Whether or not they were actually there doesn't really matter.
What?
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
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.
A system which allows a moron to become a prosecutor, fails.
Read radical news here
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
Legally, he is correct. Rationally, it's stupid that he's correct... But he's still correct.
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.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
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.
Nice pun. See you in jail.
Table-ized A.I.
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.
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.
Haida Manga
Pot heads roll joints, junkies use needles. Lets not lump them into the same category shall we?
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.
Potentially jailing someone for 20 years after making a parody is a slap in the face to victims of real child rape.
What a terrible world that would be! Imagine, a place where people posses the unrestricted right to free expression. The horror!
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.