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

[AvsJoe]

Child pornography is no laughing matter

Says the person with a masturbatory avatar on site frequented by youngsters.

Damnit, beat me to it.

 

[ranyilliams]

SERIOUS LANGUAGE WARNING:

WHAT THE FUCK!?!?!?!?!?? IS THIS SOME KIND OF JOKE? HOW IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM DOES THIS EVEN COME CLOSE TO CHILD PORN!!!!! WHAT THE FUCKING FUCK?????

 

[standokan]

He deserves jail for ripping of the Whitest Kids U Know

 

[NezumiiroKitsune]

I would implore everyone to make similar videos using his original video as source material to protest against how utterly absurd this mockery of justice is. Employing the system in place to protect children, to prosecute a comedian who has posed no threat to children in any sense, and has shown no interest in and has produced no "child porn" or any paedophilic material at all is a disgusting misuse of power for the sake of placating paranoia.

This is zealous over reacting and the only charge I could feasibly take from this is not requesting permission from the guardians of the children for them to be used in his comedy video, maybe a fine and an apology, but this charge should automatically occlude all future offenses he could be prosecuted for based on this video and he should be found innocent and apologized too.

 

[Iwana Humpalot]

What is this?! IT IS A JOKE!!!! HES NOT PEDOPHILE FOR EDITING THE VIDEO LOOK LIKE HES SINGING DIRTY SONG TO KIDS "impact on children" THEY DIDN'T EVEN HEAR THE SONG! HOW CAN ANYBODY BE THIS STUPID!!

 

[Kingsnake661]

It's like the statutes for mischief and stunting; both laws are written to avoid specific acts, so that they cover a broad range of actions that constitutes a distraction or damage to an individual.

The only person who is POSSIBLY going to be hurt here is that young man spending 20 years in prison.

Every other law you have to have ACTUALLY DONE SOMETHING not left the illusion you have done something and that thing itself nothing but innuendo.

Otherwise Hollywood is guilty of mass murder for all the action movies they have filmed.

As defined by www.duhaime.org:

"Pornography is the portrayal of erotic behavior designed to cause sexual excitement. It is words, acts, or representations that are calculated to stimulate sex feelings independent of the presence of another loved and chosen human being. It is divorced from reality in its sole purpose to stimulate erotic response. It is preoccupied with and concentrates on sex organs for the purpose of sexual stimulation. It emphasizes them and focuses on them in varying ways calculated to incite sexual desire.

"Art and pornography are distinguished as follows: True art conveys a thought, a speculation, or a perception about the human condition. Pornography is the pictures of sex organs and their usage devoid of all other meaning-the personality having no place. They bear in upon one a sense of increasing ugliness and degradation of the human being."

City of Youngstown v. DeLoreto (USA, 1969)

In Canada, the Supreme Court described pornography in R. v Butler as follows:

"Pornography can be usefully divided into three categories: (1) explicit sex with violence, (2) explicit sex without violence but which subjects people to treatment that is degrading or dehumanizing, and (3) explicit sex without violence that is neither degrading nor dehumanizing. Violence in this context includes both actual physical violence and threats of physical violence.... Sex coupled with crime, horror or cruelty will sometimes involve violence. Cruelty, for instance, will usually do so. But, even in the absence of violence, sex coupled with crime, horror or cruelty may fall within the second category.

Can you, without having seen the video in question, that the material in it could not be used for the purpose of sexual excitement? If there's any possibility of the material could be used for the purpose of sexual excitement, it's covered under most child pornography statutes. You also have to remember that we're operating on a 'reasonable man's interpretation', which may or not be relevant to the case.

how is the video sexually stimulating at all? kind of a dumb idea really, but definitely not porn.

This is kind of where things get mucky. What is sexually stimulating to you, may not be to others. Other's views on the matter may be vastly different then yours. The question reguarding what is art, and what is porn, is a debate that's raged for years, and will contuine to rage, because, it's different from person to person.

That's why i don't much bring up the video's content itself when i talk about this topic. This TYPE of thing has been done by hollywood for years, as people have pointed out. This isn't a new concept. (using childern for comedy, in refrence to sexual matteral.) The difference is, when Hollywood does it, it's working with child actors who's parents know what and how the child is going to be used and protrayed. And they are paid for there work.

In this case, the school was duped, the parents didn't know a thing, and noone got paid or truly consented to the act. Thats *my* hang up here. The guy was wrong in how he did this. But he isn't a child molister. The fact he's being treated like one is, a miscarrage of justice IMO. I'm a beliver in the concept of the punishment fitting the crime. He did commit a crime. So he should be punished. A fine. Maybe being sued. That's about the extent of it IMO. 20 years and a name on the sex offender list is WAY out of line.

 

[Treblaine]

As defined by www.duhaime.org:

"Pornography is the portrayal of erotic behavior designed to cause sexual excitement. It is words, acts, or representations that are calculated to stimulate sex feelings independent of the presence of another loved and chosen human being. It is divorced from reality in its sole purpose to stimulate erotic response. It is preoccupied with and concentrates on sex organs for the purpose of sexual stimulation. It emphasizes them and focuses on them in varying ways calculated to incite sexual desire."


....


Can you, without having seen the video in question, that the material in it could not be used for the purpose of sexual excitement? If there's any possibility of the material could be used for the purpose of sexual excitement, it's covered under most child pornography statutes. You also have to remember that we're operating on a 'reasonable man's interpretation', which may or not be relevant to the case.

Do I even need to bother responding? You have NO POINT.

Your definition talks of
-"Designed to"
-"calculated to"
-"sole purpose to simulate erotic response"
-"sex organs"

yet you talk about:
-"could it be used"
-"possibility"
-"reasonable"

Fix your brain! There is NO POSSIBLE CASE this has ANYTHING to do with child pornography nor any type of pornography!

If you are being vague enough as "could a really desperate and deranged pervert get turned on by this" well they could get turned on by a freaking Disney cartoon! Some people find slippers sexually arousing, this is why we have this legal definition of pornography that you so helpfully supply then IGNORE! Are you for real?

I have seen enough of the video, the video without the sound and the shots of the children blurred so you can see only blotchy outlines. This is not pornography. The news have reported it was a "racy" song and that is it. Considering how hyperbolic they were about every other part, why the hell would they say so little about the actual content of the video unless there really is very little to it.

 

[Madman123456]

one moment here: The Children could be seen here and its actually forbidden to do that. You have a right to your own picture. I can not film some People and then edit something as i please.
I could film a "crowd" of People in the streets; if anyone could be recognized, i'd have to cover the Face or ask that person for permission and then do exactly with the Footage what i asked permission for.

So this is a Felony, since he didn't ask the legal Guardians of the Children for permission to do this. He exploited the image of those Children.

In Germany, a court would have you pay quite a lot of money. And additionally, it will be determined for every single child if the Family or the Child may or may not suffer future harrasment because of this.
Imagine if one of these Children will want to go for a political Career. If you're running for office and then a Video like this pops up, showing you as a child seemingly listening to sexual content, you're fucked.
Career options in any field that has any contact with Publicity will be somewhat hampered for the Parents as well.

So, in a german court, this will cost you. Not nearly as much as some americans sue you for, but your wallet will be hurting for a year or so.
You wouldn't get shackled like this over here. People will be restrained like this if the court thinks there may be a need for that.


This is a case where one could argue that not all "Child abusers" deserve prison time.
This guy made this video without permission and used the children in a way the Parents wouldn't have allowed.
So there are Children and they where "abused". Which makes this guy a "Child abuser".

Next time when Fox news shows a child abuser and rants about the very little jailtime he got, think about this.

 

[Jamboxdotcom]

...What?

How impossibly foolish to criminalize something totally harmless like that. It wasn't even connected in the slightest to an even fictional sexual attraction to children, much less had anything to do with anything that happened in actual reality!

When laws deviate from the harm principle, justice comes to harm...

This happened, my friend, because my country (I think this took place in America) has started to follow the letter, rather than the spirit of the law (which I must admit is what True Neutral governments are supposed to be. But while the governmment itself may be True Neutral, the people in it sure as hell aren't).

actually, that'd be Lawful Neutral.

OT: this is bullcrap, unless there's a lot more to the story than what was presented.
also, personally i feel that to a limited degree, the Harm Principle doesn't apply to child porn. hence, hentai and western animation that portray sex with children should still be punishable. why? because if they are designed to titillate with depictions of sex with children, it means that people with those inclinations are having fuel thrown on their fires. they should be seeking help, not digging themselves further into their depravity. that said, i feel that animated or written child porn should have a much lesser penalty.

also, to clarify, from what i understand, what this guy did shouldn't classify as porn at all, so my above thoughts on child porn would not apply to him.

 

[BrownGaijin]

Crunching my thoughts down...

I'm guessing that he didn't get consent to diliberatley perform a song with "explicit lyrics" in an <a href=http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=2&sqi=2&ved=0CBsQoAIwAQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fmaps.google.com%2Fmaps%2Fplace%3Fhl%3Den%26sugexp%3Dldymls%26xhr%3Dt%26cp%3D37%26qe%3DQmVlY2huYXUgRWxlbWVudGFyeSBpbiBSYXZlbm5hLCBNaWNoLg%26qesig%3D0ewItAJjP5cCVy7Z5ZQmpQ%26pkc%3DAFgZ2tklQxzexzRzclyhHAJq5cOyr5OAvqCbUp9cVu6-GxzQRZliPQqCijCwS12JAG1dYslc1w_GQQpCDl5SDgG6PQr7zE_7YQ%26bav%3Don.1%2Cor.%26um%3D1%26ie%3DUTF-8%26q%3DBeechnau%2BElementary%2Bin%2BRavenna%2C%2BMich.%26fb%3D1%26gl%3Dus%26hq%3DBeechnau%2BElementary%26hnear%3DRavenna%2C%2BMI%26cid%3D5485867008836792071&ei=hrFeTYnKMZH4sAPCu_DVCA&usg=AFQjCNGYg3fNlnzOVGBN6uikhfjGYU5Ecg&sig2=1Ov3jD-Vyq5m8yNzFc_hlQ>public elementary school - the second time he visited.

Could a pedophile use the image to get aroused? Umm... Couldn't tell ya.

Were the children sexually molested - i.e. were they touched? was there any penetration? NO.

"Sir, could I use your child in a video where it only looks like I'm playing them a dirty song?" (SMACK!)

Stephen Lynch and certain images of this video...

Run Stephen! Run!

My personal verdict: He's a dumbass but not a child molester. If anything he deserves a smack in the back of the head, and possibly heavy fines for exploiting the children and the school. I believe that he was trying to be funny, and he knew that a little deception was required to get away with prank, but I doubt he was trying to make kiddie porn.

Edit: Sorry, I had to throw in a few more thoughts in there.

 

[alandavidson]

Was it the best idea? No.
Was it actually child porn? No.
Was it lewd and obscene? Yes.
Should the maker of the video get slapped with felony charges and be labeled a pedophile? No.

 

[shogunblade]

This is just rediculous. Not getting the rights to use children's faces is ONE THING. Playing a filthy song in front of them is another thing entirely.

If the guy didn't perform in front of children, no harm, no foul. At most, he should have the video pulled, reedited with concent form signed children and parents and let it be.

If he did perform in front of children, no doubt in my mind, he should get some major charges thrown on him, but he didn't.

Do we need to go into the history of comedians saying the "Darndest Things" to children?

Dave Chappelle had his Tyrone character talk about Crack usage (Funny, but no one bats an eyelash)
Didn't a comedian like Adam Sandler do an entire movie (or several)around children? Does anyone remember Cole and Dylan Sprouse at about 5-6, maybe seven years old talking about "Old Man Balls" and knowing how to wipe his own butt ("Ass" in the movie) in Big Daddy?

I'm sure if he (This comedian) was some celebrated Comedy Central icon, no doubt, he could have said anything and it would have been fine if it was on Television. I think because it was on the internet that people are in an uproar, and there is no reason for it at all. It's adults acting childish.

 

[Sneeze]

I haven't seen the video so I can't vouch for how offensive it was but what in the name of hell where they doing? 20 fucking years? Labeled as a child pornographer? On the sex register? What the fuck?

Assuming he even survives jail his life will be in ruins after it, no-one is going to employ a labeled peadophile. It will have completely ruined his life and the poor guy is only 21. Completely despicable, they should catch some real fucking criminals.

If it was offensive, get him to pay a fine, do some community service, I don't know, something that doesn't require locking him up alongside rapists and murderers.

 

[vxicepickxv]

I agree he deserves some prison time, but not for the charges bought against him. He exploited the trust of the people who were involved and should get like 5 years for that but he is no threat to anyone and this does not require the full extent of a law that is being stretched to meet the situation (and a win could see it further stretched as well).
Lets hope they loose completely (though as said before he does deserve something, just not this charge)

Wrongful use of a person in television, photography, and so on isn't a criminal offense. It's a civil offense. It's also the only thing he's done wrong.

Improper use of filmed representation of a person's likeness with (parental) consent.

 

[Sneeze]

I haven't seen the video so I can't vouch for how offensive it was but what in the name of hell where they doing? 20 fucking years? Labeled as a child pornographer? On the sex register? What the fuck?

Assuming he even survives jail his life will be in ruins after it, no-one is going to employ a labeled peadophile. It will have completely ruined his life and the poor guy is only 21. Completely despicable, they should catch some real fucking criminals.

If it was offensive, get him to pay a fine, do some community service, I don't know, something that doesn't require locking him up alongside rapists and murderers.

And once news like this gets out it fucking stays there he will never escape it and unless his potential boss is smarter then the average American parent, judge, citizen he won't be getting it.

Indeed, especially in the days of the Internet skipping the country isn't even an option because its been seen across the borders. Even if a boss was to see how mindbogglingly stupid this is it would still harm his chances, the boss might know hes harmless but you can't say the same for other people in the job, as soon as they find out they are working along side a convicted peadophile shit kicks off.

The only real option is to get his ID changed and have some extensive plastic surgery.

 

[thebighead01]

-.- let me guess. this is in america? figures.

 

[Aerodyamic]

*snip*

You seem to have gotten a couple things mixed up. I'm not defending the charges, I'm outlining how the material in question can be interpreted, and how the law allows those interpretations. The legal definitions I posted are broad, and they're written that way to afford law enforcement and the courts a generous scope to prosecute people that are trying to find loopholes in or ways around the child pornography laws. Unfortunately, this poor guy has created material that is being interpreted (right or wrong) as child pornography, under that same generous scope.

-Was child porn created? I haven't seen the video, but I'm going to guess that the video didn't advocate sexual contact with minors, or advocate sexual behaviour by minors, so it's not child pornography.
-Is the charge fair? No, but life is rarely fair.
-Is is right to charge this guy? In my eyes, no.
-Is this case a sensible use of taxpayer money? I don't believe so.
-Is this case worth the courts time? Not when I think there's actual criminals being missed.
-Did the comedian do something dumb? I think we've all agreed he should have thought this through further.


The fact is, our interpretation of the cited statutes is more or less irrelevant, because we're not going to be in that courtroom, trying that case. What is relevant is that we all see, from the outside, that the broad language used to rightfully protect children is being misused to make a point, and unfortunately, that point is that free speech is only free if you have the money to pay for it.

Why you've decided to get so wound up is beyond me, but you need to take a second and look at what people are saying before you assume they're trying to argue with you. I think this guy is getting the book thrown at him for being stupid, rather than for actually doing anything wrong, but since neither of us have actually seen the his song, neither of us can really comment on its' content. The fact remains, he's being prosecuted by the letter of the law, rather than in the spirit of the law.