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

[carnege4]

Man, as much as I like what the law does to stop crime this was a fucking failure.

any updates on this would be nice because this shit cant really be happening.

Not much

It seems that theres a interview with him going on today.

http://www.mlive.com/news/muskegon/index.ssf/2011/02/evan_emory_the_chronicle_inter.html

EDIT:

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

End of the video, tomorrow morning we will have new info

 

[Uber Waddles]

I'm sure the perp is guilty of something.

Some time in the slammer will do him good.

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.

And you might want to do your homework and read some of the posts and examples above to show how wrong you are in your assumptions.

Huh?

Anyway, it's like people who make Pedobear gifs of the little bear attacking kids or that girl from Lazytown etc. We know the kids are safe and the cartoon bear is superimposed and not real, but the message is clear. "Paedophilia is funny,". Well, it isn't.

I'll look into this guy's case in more detail soon, but I think the courts are sending a clear message.

Like I said, a little jail time might give him a bit of time to think of some new, funnier sketches. It'll do him good.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Typically, I would discuss why I think your opinion is wrong in a civil manner, but your post was so narrow, my only response is your opinion is invalid. No arguement, logical debate: you are wrong.

And heres why: for any democratic society to function, Freedom of Speech has to exist. It's impossible to strip a person of Freedom of Speech and have a democracy. Unforunately, one of the downsides to freedom of speech is EVERYONE, no matter their stance, gets an opinion.

What he did violated no law. He didnt have sex with any of them. He didnt even SING that to them. He made a joke. Subject aside, a joke is protected under freedom of speech. It might be obscene, but just like the KKK can get away with burning a black man in effegy, nothing is stopping you from making a pedophile joke.

And if you think "oh, he probably did something wrong, he deserves it", someone needs to sit down with you and have a talk with you. Because how would YOU like it if, for the sake of example, you had a child of your own. You took baby photos of your baby getting its umbillical cord cut. In the photo, however, you can clearly see its genitalia. After uploading the photos to the internet, you get arrested by the FBI for Child Porn.

How would you like to spend 20 years in jail, and have all prospects of YOUR life ruined, for documenting your baby's life?

While thats two different cases, why should someone, who did no crime, be arrested, prosecuted, and have his life thrown away because of, basically, "LOL HE SAID PENIS INFRONT OF A 7 YEAR OLD!!!".

 

[MrFluffy-X]

Thats fucked up...

Is their a facebook page or something to support the guy?

 

[carnege4]

Thats fucked up...

Is their a facebook page or something to support the guy?

Here

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Free-Evan-Emory/192566290767711

 

[Wade-DeadPool]

This is just scary... Hello, whitest kid you know had made a TONE of jokes like this.
They sing to kids about making drugs, about ppl being killed, about "Tell your mother that your ned that did touch you in a bad place, and the police will take him away"..
In front of kids... and the kids dance, sing along... what the hell man... What the hell.
Here is one.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fqq051BU2MY

And here is a list of them, just look at the playlist.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gnPnEvy4e70

 

[KefkaCultist]

This is completely and utterly stupid. I haven't seen the video, but I highly doubt it was anything that should be considered child porn. With that said, this guy is an idiot because he should have grabbed consent from the parents or at least the school so that the parents could blame the school instead of locking him up for 20 years. I think that if he gets anything it should be at most a fine, 20 years is overkill.

Also on a side note, someone go warn Jon Lajoie about his Birthday Song just in case.

 

[MrFluffy-X]

Thats fucked up...

Is their a facebook page or something to support the guy?

Here

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Free-Evan-Emory/192566290767711

Cheers hope it gets more likes

 

[Zykon TheLich]

It's a youtube song. They can't sue for use of likeness because he isn't making any money off of it.

They could do a mental anguish sort of non-sense though.

Ah, I see. Thanks for replying.

As for my own opinion on this, I think he should get a minor punishment for lying to the
school etc, essentially some sort of fraud charge for making the recording on false pretenses, maybe a fine or some community service but this is not anything that deserves imprisonment and listing on the sex offenders list.
Admittedly he's only been charged and not yet convicted but it really should not have even gone that far and the stigma will stick with him even if he gets off.

Kinda reminds me of another terrible injustice I heard of where a 15 year old girl was charged (and maybe convicted, IDK how it turned out) with creating and distributing child pornography when she posted a couple of naked pictures of herself on the net. That is just flat out reprehensible, she's deemed too young to be able to consent to having sex but she can be held criminally responsible for posting a picture of herself online and be registered as a sex offender for life because of it. Assuming it's all true, that is the sort of thing that makes me want everyone involved in the decision to prosecute arrested and imprisoned for false imprisonment, harming a minor and pretty much anything else you could make stick.

 

[Carlston]

Your freedom of anything is null and void if you cross into the territory of "Those who protect the little chidlren." -said in South Park Mister Garrison voice-

They use that excuse of protecting, to cover up abuse of authority, flat out making up charges, evidence, and anyone fighting them must be protecting child abuse. And if someone speaks up against them, they start investigating them for anything they can find.

I speak from experience when child protective services attempted to break my family apart when I was a kid. Of all the facts they could have used against my dad they turned my nervousness from a cross country trip in to "Being beaten so bad, my hand were shaking all day" No I was driving cross country and I was 9.

Needless to say my dad became ten times more violent in years to come, and since they lied my family really had no one to turn it.

Don't love people who abused the power to protect?

 

[Fetzenfisch]

Impressive that even your judges are illiterate.
Doesnt anyone in the states know anymore what pornography means?

 

[xchurchx]

This type of stuff dosn't suprise me anymore
ever hear about the burgular who sued the person he was stealing from?
He was breaking and entering when the roof he was climbing on callapsed
he then sued the owner of the house for £50,000 in benafits.

 

[Sporky111]

God this makes me rage. People are on such a hair trigger when it comes to child porn that they forget about what the real problem is. "Something that looks like child exploitation" should not be illegal, as long as children aren't being harmed there's no legitimate reason to take legal action. This "obscene materials" bullshit is just political pandering as far as I'm concerned.

Instead of trying to protect children from exploitation, they're attacking anything that resembles it. Remember why we have these laws and maybe the justice system won't be such a useless piece of shit

 

[joshthor]

I'm guessing that makes Jon Lajoie some kind of peadophile as well then for the exact same thing on The League:

LOL i actually thought it was him who was facing charges when i was reading the title. im glad hes not though


OT: this is bull crap.

 

[SnipErlite]

Completely fucking ridiculous. Yes, this was not a good idea. He should probably apologise to the parents, then everyone goes on their merry way.


.....How this is even considered close to CP I have NO idea.... *sigh*

 

[DracheX]

Watching the video got me confused did the kids hear the dirty song or not?

 

[Macgyvercas]

...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.

Fail on my part. Shows how tired I was this morning. I'll correct the orignal message, since you are correct.

 

[carnege4]

Watching the video got me confused did the kids hear the dirty song or not?

No, the kids heard a clean song. He just edited to make it look like they were hearing the dirty song.

 

[SirDoom]

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?