Child Porn Charges for comedian; edited video makes it appear children were listening to dirty song

[Ceil-Sama]

While the court is at it, they should arrest the people from College Humour or Whitest Kids U know for publishing things that may harm the psyche of children or influencing them. Maybe they should also arrest anyone who shows any form of Sexually explicit content on tv.

Oh wait, the responsible parents shelter the kids and don't jump the freaking gun.

The only thing they really CAN protest is the fact that their children were put up on the internet without the parent's permission, and even then, I'm not so sure about. If there is evidence that he DIDN'T show the kids the improper music, then the parents should shut their traps.

 

[MordinSolus]

If he goes to jail, may as well put Daniel Tosh in, too. In Web Redemption, made a black preacher preach to some kids. Said many profanities. Editing? Maybe, but it's what this guy did.

 

[Pyro Paul]

Wait... there is no porn here. Hell, the kids never even heard the explicit song.

This is no more of a crime than taking some kids to watch the latest family-friendly movie, taking a video of both the movie and the audience from the back row, then editing the movie screen to show a R rated movie later. The kids were never exposed to mature content, and even if they were, it would still be legal with parent's consent.

The "child porn" charges are completely invalid. Hell, even if he was charged with "exposing children to obscene material," I'd argue that he is innocent. (...and even if by some loophole he is guilty of that, that's hardly a felony)

there is no charge of 'child porn'

he is charged for producing "child sexually abusive material"

Child Sexually Abusive Material:
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.

most likely they are charging under a clause about "Sexual Excitement" which is the act of intentinally attempting to arouse an individual either explicitly or overtly, which covers 'talking dirty' to kids.


the DA would not press charges if they didn't believe they could win the case.
you really think that the prosicuters and lawyers here take the 'Moral High ground' here?


to every one else that keeps saying things like 'jack-ass' or 'the man show' which has children using explicit sexual language... it is not the same. in almost every other medium the child is not the target of arrousal or sexual explotation and thus is not entirely subjected to any specific 'sexual act' under the 'Child Sexually Abusive Material' laws of states.

that is the biggest and most important diffrence.
this guy made a video where he was engaging children with 'dirty language'

But he never actually engaged them with dirty language... (and there is no one definition of "dirty language" anyway).

Besides, if that's the case, then a lot of live performances that have been done hundreds of times over could be found illegal.

Example- Let's say a 17 year old goes to a Rodney Carrington concert, and he plays the song "Show them to me". It could then be argued that he is trying to urge the audience to perform a sexual act, and since a 17 year old girl happens to be in the audience at the time, an otherwise comedic song is turned into a felony charge.

That particular case would never stand up in court. Why should this one?

the thing is, i really don't see it either.
as much as i'm trying to connect the dots, i highly doubt anything concrete will come out of this case for the DA and at best they'll probably scare him into a plea long before this gets too drawn out.

but, from my understanding as to what has happened and what they've filed against him, what i said is what they are saying. He produced Child Abusive Sexual Content... Most likely under the Clause of 'Sexual Excitment' which says something about 'overtly arrousing' the individual... of which, both of these are some what true.

now the key argument against it is that Nothing explicitly ties the Abusive Sexual Content with the Child... he could very well edit in trees and be talking about tree fucking overtly...

ultimatly, this is all probably a show and Dance the DA is trying to pull (again they rarely take the moral high ground) where the go to court with something Grevious in order to get something minor to stick. after all the best way to get a person to do what you want is to provide them with an alternative which is very much so worse. i would not be surprised if this guy pleas out of the shear stress the state is putting on him.

but if he sticks with it, hunkers down, and takes this the distance... he could get millions out of the state and become an internet legend.

 

[DevilWolf47]

You know my faith in humanity is already dead. There's no need to urinate on the corpse with stories like this. I know people are stupid bastards, especially when it comes to their bizarre child worship.

 

[Steve Butts]

I don't think it's worth 20 years or having to register as a sex offender, but people who say this is "no big deal" are going way too far to the other extreme.

Evans not only showed bad judgement, but also exploited the trust of a school and, by extension, the community. It worries me that so many people think he should be rewarded for doing this.

 

[Reed Spacer]

This is probably the best reply I can come up with:

 

[Aerodyamic]

snip

he recut videos of kids listening to a song so it looked like they where listening to a dirty song, they werent exposed too any sexual material

I'm not disputing that, I'm just pointing out that he's being charged under a statute that has a broad scope, which allows law enforcement and the D.A. to pursue this case. The actual definitions contained within the relevant statute obviously classify what he's done as an offense he be charged for.

Basically, the editing created the illusion that he exposed children to sexual material, and that's what the D.A. is using as justification for the criminal proceedings.

 

[Jabberwock xeno]

Please let this not be the whole story, PLEASE let this not be the whole story...

It's god damned stupid enough one can be charged with child porn even if it's a drawing of a fictional charecter, but I've seen worse stuff than that video aired on TV.

Come one, people! someone make a petition or send the DA a letter telling them to arrest SNL for doing a simaler thing.

JUST DO SOMETHING DAMN IT.

EDIT:

How about everyone does exatly what he did, and emails it to the court, along with all like videos on youtube?

 

[LadyMint]

Hmm. That makes me wonder what the legal definition of child pornography is. Or what the children are doing in the video -- As in when he edits the shots between himself singing and the children reacting, how does it all look together?

 

[BioHazardMan]

As a Libertarian I CALL BULLSHIIIIIT

 

[Beardly]

As a Libertarian I CALL BULLSHIIIIIT

As someone who doesn't have brain damage I call bullshit.

I don't see how anyone could believe this guy belongs in jail for this.

 

[silver wolf009]

"...Anyone who thinks its a prank has not thought about the impact on the children..."

Well thank god that the children didn't actually see it other wise you might have some grounds there.

OT: Stupidity of the legal system is a real thing, and is coming into play here now.

 

[SFR]

You can get only 5 years for rape here. 20 years for something that actually didn't even happen?! What the fuck is wrong with people.

 

[Krion_Vark]

P.S. Superimposing, altering, photoshopping, editing videos and images can still constitute as an obscenity.

Maybe he should have done his homework before wasting his time on his little project.

Only if they are doing obscene acts. Singing in front of them does not constitute as pornography because if it did A LOT of people on the radio would be hit with jail time and sex offender rankings.
Before you try and say that it was against the law figure out exactly what the law states. His singing to kids may be obscene but its not meaning the need of a sex offender status. He can be fined at most by the law for what he did but jail time and a sex offender status if it made it as far as federal would not hold up for long.

COMPLETELY OFF TOPIC:
Whatever happend to Schwarzeneger VS EMA

 

[Dastardly]

snip

We can agree that this does not constitute a sexual offense in any way whatsoever. The children were not exposed to the material, nor were they harmed in any way during its production.

However, we also have to recognize that this is not a freedom of speech issue. He obtained the footage under admittedly false pretenses, and he used the images of other people's children without their consent--or, if they signed releases, that certainly didn't indicate it was for this particular content. He deliberately deceived parents and used the images of their children for personal gain.

That is exploitation, in a legal sense. But it is not sexual exploitation. He deserves a pretty stiff penalty, even if only to discourage imitators, but my suspicion is that the plan was to scare him with this charge into pleading to a lesser charge. It's a gamble on both sides, whichever way they go...

 

[The SettingSun]

20 years in prison!

Dayum....

 

[natster43]

That is retarded. I hope the guy does not get jailed.

Also my captcha says ericas box. Huh.

 

[InnerRebellion]

That is just bullshit. Complete, utter bullshit.

 

[Fiz_The_Toaster]

Good God the generalizations in this thread are ming boggling.

NO, just because this case it's a "funny video" doesn't mean that EVERY TIME it's okay. Arguing for this comedian doesn't somehow validate child pornography.

Jesus, no wonder the courts are like this. Any time we complain about how the courts and politicians generalize video games, I'm going to bring up threads like this. Because we're clearly no better. We make Fox look balanced by comparison. People actually saying he deserves some prison time... just because? What the FUCK is wrong with you stupid, stupid people? That's utterly ridiculous, there are no words for that.

Tell you what: if you're a fucking idiot, you get beaten in public. That'll teach you a lesson. Oh, too harsh? We've already established that if one is okay, it's ALL okay, so either stick with your argument, or accept that you know nothing about anything and quietly go back to being an ignorant dumbass.

By the way, anyone who questions my post, I'm going to sue you for libel. Some jail time will do you some good.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Personally, I don't think what he did deserves 20 years or registering as a sex offender, but he should still be punished. That guy should've thought about what could happen before he posted that video, now he knows. Learning is power!