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

[Aerodyamic]

While I completely agree that the potential legal ramifications are clearly excessive, the fact remains that we don't know if he got permission to film the children, and we can be fairly certain that he didn't disclose his actual purpose behind his filming, which does open him up to a host of civil legal actions.

The principal and teachers has much of the same powers as a parent when kids are in school, if the Principal allowed it then that is surely permission enough.

I mean think about it, if a principal had the get the INDIVIDUAL PERMISSION of each child that might be photographed then that effectively bans photography in school. That bans camera phones, that bans security cameras. I mean would the school need a note from their parents to get an end-of-year photograph for that album thingy they do?

Think about school plays for a second, parent wants to film their kid do they have to ask the parent of EVERY OTHER CHILD in the play permission to record?!?!?

Get real.

The principal allowed it, they cannot treat him the same as some creepy pervert who spies on a school with a telephoto lens.

When I was in primary school, we had several occasions where we were on field trips or part of presentations that the school KNEW would be filmed by local media outlets, and the school would not permit anyone whose parents hadn't signed the release to be present during the filmed portions. Keep in mind, this was 20 to 25 years ago. Concerning the year-end photos, is the parents send in the money for the photographer, permission is implied.

Besides which, someone else already mentioned that in some places, you do have to seek permission from the parents of every child involved in a school production, unless a blanket release was signed prior. Then we get to security cameras; any school that uses them would be legally required to tell the parents of enrolling students that security cameras are used on school grounds, and every school I've ever seen that uses them has massive signs that warn of the presence of those cameras.

Moving on to camera phones and digital cameras, I know that several schools in my province have banned their use, based on the potential for litigation resulting from their improper use. Would you, as a parent (or potential one), want to find out that your child had been bullied into revealing themselves for photos? I'm not saying that it's happened, but I'm saying that it could happen, and it's not really that implausible.

What it really boils down to is that this person misrepresented his intent, and created a video that implies sexual content in the presence of minors, and that's what he's going to tried for. I'm not claiming that it right, fair or a good use of the taxpayer's money or the court's time, but that what's happening.

 

[Casual Shinji]

It seems that child porn is being treated like the new Salem witch hunts. This shit is scaring me, pretty soon I'll be too afraid to even look at a child without the fear of being arrested.

All this guy is guilty of is bad taste.

 

[Nautical Honors Society]

This is absolutely ridiculous. He didn't actually do anything! And saying/doing inappropriate things in front of young children is a classic comedy bit!

I guess Tina Fey should be going to jail too for writing and performing in this skit...

 

[Dexiro]

The Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 says that a real minor DOES NOT need to be a part of the work for it to be considered child pornography. Real, computer generated, drawn, it's absolutely illegal.

That's not to say I agree with that law, because I don't, but hey.

I really don't see any logic behind making fictional material illegal, it does no harm to anyone.

Moral Panic. Thus why Caffeinated 4Loko drinks were banned (but I live in New York, it's par for the course)

You'd think they'd want to pedophiles a way to scratch that itch with out harming an actual child.

Yeah that's what I thought, surely making that kind of fictional material illegal would reduce child abuse crimes.

Just the other day I was talking on this forum about how paedophiles are too quickly demonized when most supposedly have no intention of ever harming real children and just stick to fictional stuff. I had no idea the fictional stuff was illegal too.

 

[JezebelinHell]

He is not a pedo although I do have to at least question his moral character due to choosing to make this video at all. Why you would even think of pretending to sing about fingering a girls anatomy to kids is beyond my comprehension and I don't believe it to be funny at all, if you think about kids that have been abused, it was in extremely poor taste. I really believe people need to think more before they do things like this. It isn't like he hurt "no one" as some are claiming. He duped the school to get the video. They are legally responsible for his actions in this case also. I imagine they are pretty pissed. How do you work at the school and even think you are going to get away with something like this without at least losing your job? He put real kids in the video, not actors, not kids whose parents were asked permission and signed waivers knowing what their kids were going to be edited into and he posted it publicly. I am sorry but he does deserve more than a slap on the wrist because that video is going to be out there somewhere forever and he was an idiot for thinking NOTHING was wrong with it. He should lose his job and be charged with image violations but that will not get him any time and I can completely understand the parents of the children being appalled at their kids being included in this mess. Child porn is just a bit too far in this case unless they know something they are not telling.

 

[Jodah]

I can see him getting charged for using their images without permission but Child Pornography? Give me an effing break...

 

[Dragonforce525]

OM MY GOD, i just watched kick-ass, a movie where a twelve year old says ****, fuck and cock!

I AM CHILD MOLESTER NOA!

 

[Nannernade]

Maybe the human race should just stop breeding, I think if we think this is a horrible act we need to be stopped. We had a good run for awhile though at least.

 

[Ninonybox_v1legacy]

And yet WKYK goes free? (Before i stare people raging let me say that i love WKYK...they are hilarious)

The difference here is that guy probably got the permission of the parents of those children or they are actors.

edit: don't get me wrong though it's outrageous and stupid that this guy is facing any charges.

fair enough

 

[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'

 

[Treblaine]

He defrouded and lied to get the video made. It was wrong, and illegel, though not 20 years in the slammer illegel. You can't diffened the dudes actions, IMO, he was in the wrong. The problem is, the overreaction to the wrong. This dude isn't a sex offender, so he shouldn't be punished as one. But, he did commit a crime of sorts, and should have something done to him. (IMO)

: |

You're not making the strongest case here.

When I was in primary school, we had several occasions where we were on field trips or part of presentations that the school KNEW would be filmed by local media outlets, and the school would not permit anyone whose parents hadn't signed the release to be present during the filmed portions. Keep in mind, this was 20 to 25 years ago. Concerning the year-end photos, is the parents send in the money for the photographer, permission is implied.

Besides which, someone else already mentioned that in some places, you do have to seek permission from the parents of every child involved in a school production, unless a blanket release was signed prior. Then we get to security cameras; any school that uses them would be legally required to tell the parents of enrolling students that security cameras are used on school grounds, and every school I've ever seen that uses them has massive signs that warn of the presence of those cameras.

Moving on to camera phones and digital cameras, I know that several schools in my province have banned their use, based on the potential for litigation resulting from their improper use. Would you, as a parent (or potential one), want to find out that your child had been bullied into revealing themselves for photos? I'm not saying that it's happened, but I'm saying that it could happen, and it's not really that implausible.

That is a crap load of Ifs Buts and Maybes when this misses the entire point that if any of those many conditions were in any way relevant:

[HEADING=1]WHY DID THE PRINCIPAL GIVE PERMISSION TO FILM![/HEADING]

If individual parental permission was needed then HE would have been the one who would have had to got it, and if he said it was OK then that is the end of it.

What it really boils down to is that this person misrepresented his intent, and created a video that implies sexual content in the presence of minors, and that's what he's going to tried for. I'm not claiming that it right, fair or a good use of the taxpayer's money or the court's time, but that what's happening.

Taxpayers money? That's your concern here when they are trying to put an innocent man in prison for hurting kids when he has not hurt any kids!?!?

Yeah, he tricked the principal, he was crude, possibly obscene, but not worth ANY amount of jail time and especially not trumping up as paedophile activity when it blatantly is not.

Tony Tague deserves to be Disbarred for this alone. This is his JOB to prevent people getting arrested for frivolous interpretations of the law. No, this is worse than frivolous, this is vindictive and petty.

Tell you what will save a lot of taxpayers money, firing this psychopath and voiding his pension!

 

[carnege4]

I was reading the group in the facebook.
Now, for real, watch this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UumlX8s9Fxw

THIS thing, Is on TV
Things like this should be banned. LOL

 

[Aerodyamic]

When I was in primary school, we had several occasions where we were on field trips or part of presentations that the school KNEW would be filmed by local media outlets, and the school would not permit anyone whose parents hadn't signed the release to be present during the filmed portions. Keep in mind, this was 20 to 25 years ago. Concerning the year-end photos, is the parents send in the money for the photographer, permission is implied.

Besides which, someone else already mentioned that in some places, you do have to seek permission from the parents of every child involved in a school production, unless a blanket release was signed prior. Then we get to security cameras; any school that uses them would be legally required to tell the parents of enrolling students that security cameras are used on school grounds, and every school I've ever seen that uses them has massive signs that warn of the presence of those cameras.

Moving on to camera phones and digital cameras, I know that several schools in my province have banned their use, based on the potential for litigation resulting from their improper use. Would you, as a parent (or potential one), want to find out that your child had been bullied into revealing themselves for photos? I'm not saying that it's happened, but I'm saying that it could happen, and it's not really that implausible.

That is a crap load of Ifs Buts and Maybes when this misses the entire point that if any of those many conditions were in any way relevant:

[HEADING=1]WHY DID THE PRINCIPAL GIVE PERMISSION TO FILM![/HEADING]

If individual parental permission was needed then HE would have been the one who would have had to got it, and if he said it was OK then that is the end of it.

What it really boils down to is that this person misrepresented his intent, and created a video that implies sexual content in the presence of minors, and that's what he's going to tried for. I'm not claiming that it right, fair or a good use of the taxpayer's money or the court's time, but that what's happening.

Taxpayers money? That's your concern here when they are trying to put an innocent man in prison for hurting kids when he has not hurt any kids!?!?

Yeah, he tricked the principal, he was crude, possibly obscene, but not worth ANY amount of jail time and especially not trumping up as paedophile activity when it blatantly is not.

Tony Tague deserves to be Disbarred for this alone. This is his JOB to prevent people getting arrested for frivolous interpretations of the law. No, this is worse than frivolous, this is vindictive and petty.

Tell you what will save a lot of taxpayers money, firing this psychopath and voiding his pension!

The reason that the principal gave permission is that the comedian

[HEADING=1]MISREPRESENTED HIS INTENTIONS[/HEADING].

 

[Bocaj2000]

I do believe this man should be punished. What he did was pretty awful. Deliberately editing footage of children involving a sexual song without their consent and lying to a school is douchebaggery. Plus, we haven't seen the video so none of us really know to what extent this guy went to.

If I had a child that were in the video, I'd be furious. I wouldn't want the guy in prison though, but I'd want him to be punished in some regard.

I'm sure we can all agree 20 years is total overkill. He isn't going to go to gaol for twenty years though. Most the time criminals get a hugely reduced sentence, and in this case I doubt he will do any serious time.

Thank you for bringing up two main points that the sheep of the thread don't realize.
1) I've never seen the video. I even tried looking it up on youtube. It got taken down.
2) It's not "about the children" that annoys the public. It is the fact that it was done without their permission.*

Yes, no children were harmed. Yes, other comedians have done worse. But they did it legally with the parents fully aware of what was going on.

*EDIT

 

[GaryH]

20 years in prison for a bad joke?!


I just... there are no words.

 

[Arehexes]

I'm thinking of a south park episode where the Jonas Brothers shot white foam at the girls on the today show. Seems like that should be banned if we are doing all these crazyness.

 

[Kingsnake661]

He defrouded and lied to get the video made. It was wrong, and illegel, though not 20 years in the slammer illegel. You can't diffened the dudes actions, IMO, he was in the wrong. The problem is, the overreaction to the wrong. This dude isn't a sex offender, so he shouldn't be punished as one. But, he did commit a crime of sorts, and should have something done to him. (IMO)

: |

You're not making the strongest case here.

When I was in primary school, we had several occasions where we were on field trips or part of presentations that the school KNEW would be filmed by local media outlets, and the school would not permit anyone whose parents hadn't signed the release to be present during the filmed portions. Keep in mind, this was 20 to 25 years ago. Concerning the year-end photos, is the parents send in the money for the photographer, permission is implied.

Besides which, someone else already mentioned that in some places, you do have to seek permission from the parents of every child involved in a school production, unless a blanket release was signed prior. Then we get to security cameras; any school that uses them would be legally required to tell the parents of enrolling students that security cameras are used on school grounds, and every school I've ever seen that uses them has massive signs that warn of the presence of those cameras.

Moving on to camera phones and digital cameras, I know that several schools in my province have banned their use, based on the potential for litigation resulting from their improper use. Would you, as a parent (or potential one), want to find out that your child had been bullied into revealing themselves for photos? I'm not saying that it's happened, but I'm saying that it could happen, and it's not really that implausible.

That is a crap load of Ifs Buts and Maybes when this misses the entire point that if any of those many conditions were in any way relevant:

[HEADING=1]WHY DID THE PRINCIPAL GIVE PERMISSION TO FILM![/HEADING]

If individual parental permission was needed then HE would have been the one who would have had to got it, and if he said it was OK then that is the end of it.

What it really boils down to is that this person misrepresented his intent, and created a video that implies sexual content in the presence of minors, and that's what he's going to tried for. I'm not claiming that it right, fair or a good use of the taxpayer's money or the court's time, but that what's happening.

Taxpayers money? That's your concern here when they are trying to put an innocent man in prison for hurting kids when he has not hurt any kids!?!?

Yeah, he tricked the principal, he was crude, possibly obscene, but not worth ANY amount of jail time and especially not trumping up as paedophile activity when it blatantly is not.

Tony Tague deserves to be Disbarred for this alone. This is his JOB to prevent people getting arrested for frivolous interpretations of the law. No, this is worse than frivolous, this is vindictive and petty.

Tell you what will save a lot of taxpayers money, firing this psychopath and voiding his pension!

My poor grammer and lack of spelling aside, how is my case weak? He more or less lied about this intentions to get the video he needed, then edited it and posted it on utube without consent. You can't take a video of someone, esspecially kids, and doctor it without consent and post it publicly. The second he altred the video he needed consent from the parents to upload it. He didn't have it. He is liable for that. He isn't a sex offender but he did do things he shouldn't have.

 

[Marmooset]

Spoiler

As for not finding something like pedobear funny, I'll quote George Carlin: "Fuck you, I think it's hilarious, how do you like that?"[footnote]George Carlin was put on probation (7 days) for this post. Fortunately for him, he's dead, and won't have to serve.[/footnote]

 

[Arehexes]

OM MY GOD, i just watched kick-ass, a movie where a twelve year old says ****, fuck and cock!

I AM CHILD MOLESTER NOA!

OMG WE NEED TO GET YOU OFF THE STREETS (that was a pretty cool movie though, what did you think about it?).

 

[Treblaine]

The reason that the principal gave permission is that the comedian

MISREPRESENTED HIS INTENTIONS

No no no, you said it was illegal to film without permission. Now you are brining up the separate issue of "intentions" with that permission. Permission is permission. If the permission is conditional then that has to be amended.

And really, how did he deceive, he did sing the clean song to the kids. Surely any sane person would see that is enough as the kids were not harmed at all.

What the principal did not give permission for was the singing of the dirty version in the same room, but no permission from anyone was needed as no kids were filmed then. This is SO SIMPLE! Did ALL the other examples of permission to photograph children include clauses "not to be included in any crude jokes"?

And if they did that would be a CIVIL SUIT, not a criminal prosecution suit. The parent/guardian permission is utterly tangential to the disgustingly deceptive accusation that this poor young man is a child abuser.