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

[Signa]

This news is so bad I'm contemplating suicide just so I don't have to live in a world this stupid.

No faith in humanity at all any more.

 

[Arafiro]

snip

This post greatly surprises me, to the point that I can barely comprehend someone even writing it.
Did you misread the story or something? You mention multiple times "exploiting children on video" but this incident did not involve that.

Assuming that you didn't misread the story and that you are, in fact, actually serious - then you seem to fully support a police state where crimes such as littering are punished by (for example) death - the logic being that nobody would then litter thus justifying the punishment.
It is scary to me that someone could believe in any logic that justifies ruining the life of somebody who did absolutely nothing wrong when compared to actual crimes like arson, murder, rape, or whatever else.

The justice system needs to be fair and just.
20 years (and probably getting killed in prison) for doing nothing wrong is neither of these things.

 

[Ih8pkmn]

Let me get this straight:
This comedian was arrested for CP charges because he edited a video to make it seem like 6-year-olds were listening to a song of his. About sex.

What.

Thought experiment time, children!

If the video was unedited, and showed an actual child's reaction to a song about sex, would it still count as CP?

 

[Evil Alpaca]

There are several ways a person must go about proving that libel has taken place. First, the person must prove that the statement was false. Second, that person must prove that the statement caused harm. And, third, they must prove that the statement was made without adequate research into the truthfulness of the statement. These steps are for an ordinary citizen. In the case of a celebrity or public official trying to prove libel, they must prove the first three steps, and must (in the United States) prove the statement was made with the intent to do harm, or with reckless disregard for the truth.

You need to prove that what he said about them was false. He... said nothing about them personally.

You need to prove that he made these statements without adequate research into whether they're truthful or not. What statements? I guess you could say he edited the video, they didn't really do them...

And generally the third one does apply for most people. Prove he did so to HARM THEM.

1. The editing of the video made it appear that he was singing the lewd song to the children and they were smiling along with it. The juxtaposition of these two images to give the impression of a single event would count as a false statement. This is especially true since he did not receive permission from the parents to create this film with their children. The reason that shows like the Daily Show can show clips of politicians speaking is because those politicians are broadcast on public channels so their speech is in the public domain. The reactions of the children were not filmed in a public space nor did the parents give permission for him to use it.

2. Since the children are minors, their parents can claim emotional distress at witnessing the video and then claim due compensation. Again, since the parents weren't notified and the video was broadcast via youtube, the parents could easily claim emotional distress on behalf of their children.



OT: Even if the guy beats these civil cases, he is looking at a mountain of legal fees. Unless a group of lawyers agree to work for free, the lawyer fees alone are going to bankrupt him.

 

[game-lover]

WHAT?!

Just... I can't believe this! It wasn't even real. It was fake!

How can they charge if for that??

I hope to god the jury acquits him because this isn't fair.

 

[Nurb]

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..

Umm....Saddam had a chat with the hangman. So err...yes? (Not really of course, he was hung but it wasn't for that reason.)

Anyway...while I can proclaim the silliness of all this. Posting that video without the parents permission is the only real wrong this guy has wrought. It is ridiculous, the thought that he could get twenty years for this, but then, that is unlikely to happen, as I am reminded of the case of Christopher Handley: http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/editorial/2010-02-24/3

Handley was indeed tried and charged for possession of 'obscene' manga, after entering into a plea bargain in which he did plead guilty having exhausted all other options which as far as I can tell got him a reduced sentence. It's still to turn a phrase, a mockery of justice.

Just to point out though; the judge threw out the charges that had to do with drawn material being seen as child pornography because he viewed them as violating free speech. The only thing he was charged with was posessing obscene material and shipping it through the US mail service between states. Had it gone to court, the prosecutor would have to prove a drawing can be obscene with the miller test, which would be impossible because drawings by default contain artistic value no matter how obscene.

Though the DA bullied and scared him into taking the plea bargan before it went to court where they would be humilated trying to make cartoons seem as serious as real life acts, but he was afraid, which I can't fault him for in that situation.

The DA is trying to do the same thing with his guy, but it's a much more clear cut case of over-reaction which can be easily dismissed in court

 

[2fish]

He messed up but the punishment does not fit the crime. I hope that this is not the whole story, I also hope his jurry have brains. It seems they don't know how to charge him so they chose a very strong charge because the parents were angry.

I would watch the video but I fear I will be arrested for watching it. Go back to bed the government has it under control.

 

[Formica Archonis]

The law isn't relative, you don't give severe punishments because some people are angry or offended and this is a clear assault on freedom of speech.

You do when it allows you to tell voters that you were "Tough on child molesters." Then, any opponent who takes a more moderate viewpoint can be accused of "Going easy on child molesters."

One DA brought a teenager up on child porn charges for taking sexy pictures of... herself. Yeah, she sent a naked picture to a boy and word got out and the DA decided to send her up on charges of making and distributing child porn. And wanted her tried as an adult so her sentence for 'molesting' herself was harsher. Follow THAT logic.

Or: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28679588/ns/technology_and_science-tech_and_gadgets/

Every law WILL be applied to a crime other than the one for which it was written.

 

[Nurb]

The prosecutor leading this, and the guy calling him a pervert and a danger to children can be contacted at his office or through mail to voice your disappointment in the misuse of the justice system

Tony Tague
Phone: 231 724 6435.
Office:
Muskegon County Prosecutor's Office
990 Terrace St., 5th Floor
Muskegon, MI 49442

 

[DSD12]

he prosecutor leading this, and the guy calling him a pervert and a danger to children can be contacted at his office or through mail to voice your disappointment in the misuse of the justice system

Tony Tague
Phone: 231 724 6435.
Office:
Muskegon County Prosecutor's Office
990 Terrace St., 5th Floor
Muskegon, MI 49442

How on Earth is he a pervert he did nothing to the kids and that is the kicker to me
HE DID NOTHING TO THE CHILDREN

 

[AstylahAthrys]

Wow, this guy lives super close to me. Weird to see something like this happen in Northern Michigan... it's super boring up here.

And if the kids didn't hear it, I don't think that it is that bad. I guess maybe a little punishment for exploiting the children on Youtube without the parent's permission, but I think that was the worst of what he did.

 

[Slangeveld]

This is really stupid. Give him a warning or a fine or whatever, but twenty years for .... Oh my, I refuse to believe this will go on. This is just outrageous.

 

[NezumiiroKitsune]

snip

So you're saying without this extreme deterrent people might try to do it again? Since I saw nothing wrong with this initially, I hereby actively support the creation of material alike this for entertainment purposes to be distributed however they may please. I encourage and condone it, and think the world would be a poorer place without it. When someone edits innocent film to create something genuinely disturbing and not just offensive, then some sentence should be employed that is this fittingly severe.

Your example applied outside of context could make for some insane punishments, like putting people on trial for murder when they only animated a murder or maybe committed aggravated assault. Convicting people of stalking for following people on twitter AND facebook. His crime shouldn't be tried on the potential for someone to do something worse.

 

[dagens24]

If I were the dude being charged I'd totally go home and download a bunch of kiddie porn, I mean he's going to jail for it anyway so... When in Rome! >_>

 

[Liquid Ocelot]

Are you for fucking real? Calling him a pedophile because he made it seem like children were listening?! Jesus fucking Christ! How could those charges have any hope of sticking? No children heard the damn song! That's absolutely fucked.

 

[zelda2fanboy]

It's... not nearly as simple as your making it out to be, (your kind of right when it comes to audioless video, but things get more complacated with audio is involved.) and frankly, he wasn't in a public place. Don't be fooled by the name, a public school is NOT a publicly open place. You can't just wonder onto one and take video. You need consent to even get your foot in the door. And he lied to get the concent. He isn't an innocent victim here, he's a guilty one. He did do something wrong, just not what they are charging him with.

Schools aren't a public place, yet schools can use video surveillance on their own students against their will. Why are public employees allowed to take video of kids, but not this guy, if it's not a public place? Even if it does not legally qualify as a public location, the school itself gave him consent to perform and bring a camera. If I go to a Christmas pageant and take photos of my child, but some other people's kids get into the shot, then I'm breaking the law?

This case is incredibly shaky on many, many levels. I hope these charges get dropped so fast, they make these prosecutors looks like the perverted clowns they are. The best thing anyone could sensibly get would be a tort against this guy, and even then, it would be hard to monetize the damages in any conceivable manner. Judge Judy would probably give both the defendant and plaintiff a stern talking to.