Child Porn Charges for comedian; edited video makes it appear children were listening to dirty song
- Thread starter Nurb
- Start date
Robbing the bank and shooting the owner might have gotten him less time, if he claimed it was an accident.Nurb said:
On top of that, people with those charges are not treated well in prison, and then he' got to deal with all the time on the sex offender list...
Fine, the parents don't want the video up. That's cool. I find it completely acceptable to have it taken down.
A fine? Sure, I guess.
Community Service? Kinda pushing it, but if the parents are really hell-bent on making sure this never happens again.... You're pushing it, but maybe.
A twenty year prison sentence, sex offender charges, while completely ruining an innocent mans life? Not too mention that he would get completely destroyed in prison?
A fine? Sure, I guess.
Community Service? Kinda pushing it, but if the parents are really hell-bent on making sure this never happens again.... You're pushing it, but maybe.
A twenty year prison sentence, sex offender charges, while completely ruining an innocent mans life? Not too mention that he would get completely destroyed in prison?
Everyone is getting their panties in a twist.
Let's just sit back and enjoy the show. He'll probably get a bit of community service, but the justice system has sent out a clear message which is obvioulsy sending tEh interNetz into a tizzy : "don't f**k with us".
Freedom of Speech? Well, he was "free to speek" and what he said did not bode well with the state. So now the perp is all over the news. He won't go on the sex offender's register, but he is learning a valuable lesson and being made an example of.
Plus, filming people's kids and putting them on the net isn't cool; especially if he's editied the stuff to be innapproporite.
Sorry, but just becuase I don't agree with most of the keyboard warriors here, doesn't mean I'm a troll. This guy crossed a line, and Lady Justice is letting us all know about it.
Let's just sit back and enjoy the show. He'll probably get a bit of community service, but the justice system has sent out a clear message which is obvioulsy sending tEh interNetz into a tizzy : "don't f**k with us".
Freedom of Speech? Well, he was "free to speek" and what he said did not bode well with the state. So now the perp is all over the news. He won't go on the sex offender's register, but he is learning a valuable lesson and being made an example of.
Plus, filming people's kids and putting them on the net isn't cool; especially if he's editied the stuff to be innapproporite.
Sorry, but just becuase I don't agree with most of the keyboard warriors here, doesn't mean I'm a troll. This guy crossed a line, and Lady Justice is letting us all know about it.
I can kinda agree with the crossing the line, but I don't think it warrants twenty years in prison and all the grief that comes with it.Droppa Deuce said:
I'm sure others do too.
I'd say most people were concerned about the prison sentence being suggested, not him getting community service or what have you.
You know what, you may well be right for all we know. If he took the footage without first asking permision, that is an offence, if I remember rightly.Droppa Deuce said:
but this isn't pedofilia. I don't quite think you've got that part. And the other part you seem to have missed is that Not every 21 year old has commited a federal offence. And yet another part you've missed is that Going to jail isn't always going to help. And yet another part you seem to have missed is that No-one in the fucking nation should be force to expect to Be called a pedofile because of An edited video made for comidic purposes.
Man, I struggle daily to think that our government actually is basically "good" It's stories like this that have me waiting until the revolution comes.
Pedophilia is pretty funny. As are the following.Droppa Deuce said:
Dead baby jokes.
Gallows Humour.
Holocaust Jokes.
Comedy Horror
Domestic Violence.
Nuclear Holocausts.
Cyanide and Happiness.
Mental Disability.
All other forms of Black, Dark, or "Edgy" comedy; at least to someone, somewhere.
I'm not concerned over the sentence. I'm more concerned over the porn aspects of it being used to make the arguement. I wrote a more detailed opinion earlier on the thread.Contun said:
To put it bluntly, the guy deserves prison time. Let me put it to you this way, in cases where you see little kids doing lewd things for the sake of humor on TV or whatever, the kids in question are actors, and this is being done with the consent of the parents in a controlled enviroment. The problem here is that this guy was using the images of the kids, in a rather crude and demeaning capacity, both without their knowlege and consent, and without that of the parents. If someone did something like this with your kid, you'd be POed too. We don't know how many kids are involved, but understand that every one of them and every family was victimized here. If you say that each one is a minimum felony conviction of a year and there were 20 kids in the crowd then yeah... 20 years in prison sounds right. Is this overkill? Well to be honest I haven't seen the video, but the part that kind of irks me about it was that he was apparently performing the video publically, and while they made it sound like amateur antics I'm not personally convinced he didn't make money off of it either, which would make things even worse.
The *kiddie porn* charges are what I disagree with, since that strikes me as going a bit too far, unless this video is a heck of a lot worse than it sounds. The nature of child porn is a debatable subject, and I have mixed opinions, however we've been down this road before, and truthfully I don't think it should be an issue unless a real kid is actually being sexually assaulted. It opens up too much room for abuse or witch hunts otherwise. I think you can find something disturbing and distasteful without actually making it illegal, and in most cases where real kids are involved in ambigious matters, there are other laws like child endangerment that can be brought up.
On the case itself, the more I think about it, in addition to the point I made above, he could be convicted of a lot of other things as well depending on the state and town. I know a lot of schools don't allow recording or picture taking without express permission (for a lot of reasons, such as kidnapping, blackmail, or whatever else). I have a hard time believing he received permission to enter the school and sing that song on a seperate visit while recording it (so he could splice footage). The recording itself could violate a local or even state policy in the second case, and criminal tresspass could also be an issue.
The bottom line is you don't do crap like this with people's kids, he deserves to have the book thrown at him. If I think my kids are safe in school I'm going to be royally POed myself to see something like that on youtube.
lolwut?
Take a look at the following clip, taken from the 2005 comedy documentary 'The Aristocrats'. For those of you who truly cannot be arsed, its Doug Stanhope, a comedian, telling a really dirty joke to his baby.
[Warning: Video contains Aristocrats (Extreme obscenities)]
I mean, in this case, he's not edited it to make it look that way, he's actually telling the joke right in front of the kid! And he gets away with this, which was featured in a fairly successful documentary about the joke, while the fella in question now is being prosecuted for making it appear like he's singing the song to those kids? That's either hypocrisy, or a severe case of double standards.
Take a look at the following clip, taken from the 2005 comedy documentary 'The Aristocrats'. For those of you who truly cannot be arsed, its Doug Stanhope, a comedian, telling a really dirty joke to his baby.
[Warning: Video contains Aristocrats (Extreme obscenities)]
I mean, in this case, he's not edited it to make it look that way, he's actually telling the joke right in front of the kid! And he gets away with this, which was featured in a fairly successful documentary about the joke, while the fella in question now is being prosecuted for making it appear like he's singing the song to those kids? That's either hypocrisy, or a severe case of double standards.
So is Saddam Hussian going to jail for pretending to have nuclear weapons even though he didn't..?
Does this mean the cast of meet the fockers will be jailed because the baby in it said 'Ass hole'..?
Seriously, I don't know how the US justice system works but I would hope to god that this was just a stupid judge using a literal rule of law..
Does this mean the cast of meet the fockers will be jailed because the baby in it said 'Ass hole'..?
Seriously, I don't know how the US justice system works but I would hope to god that this was just a stupid judge using a literal rule of law..
The very formalistic approach, and the public acceptance of it, in the American legal system always struck me as odd, as does the seemingly general focus on wordings over substance on a more general societal level.Macgyvercas said:
Faulty search warrant gets even the clearly guilty off the hook, religion and state is vigorously separated on paper while a single religion dominates completely in practise, certain words regarding race are taboo while the vast social inequalities which for historical reasons run parallel to lines of ethnicity are upheld etc. What population would be content with these true-to-form-but-nothing-else rights and verbal smoke and mirrors?
That this moral panic has lead to a law which indiscriminately target things I very much doubt even the agitated people who jumped onto it - or the politicians which passed it - had in mind in the first place just underlines the problems of legislating based on single tabloid cases and short-sighted popularism; laws created much too fast, without reflection of opposing concerns, any principal considerations, or proper limitations.
I didn't mean to state that (clearly) fictional depictions which convey sexual attraction to children should be outlawed (at least so long as discernible harm from them has not been assessed), merely that since this doesn't even rise to that, I can't even see why those who think such depictions due to their indisputable unpleasantness would support this. Just who ever wanted this?Nurb said:
Even if he did sing the edited song to the children nothing should have come of it.
OVREREACTION FROM IDIOT PARENTS
OVREREACTION FROM IDIOT PARENTS