well, think of the positive, if this song were charged with child pornography for no particular reason and only because people felt like it. it would be out today! THE SYSTEM WORKS!! **incredible sarcasm oozing all over**The Plunk said:
Child Porn Charges for comedian; edited video makes it appear children were listening to dirty song
- Thread starter Nurb
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I know some 6-7 years old that used to study with my little brother.Steve5513 said:
Their vocabulary is waaaaaaaaaaaay beyond "fuck"
Hell, with 8 i already knew about sex
Parents over protect their children, but, let's be honest, that is impossible in our days.
He WOULD have been legally allow, (maybe..i honestly don't know the law well enough) if he hadn't lied about his intentions to the school and used the kids images without consent. I can't see this as an infringment of his civil liberties, his "art" was produced illegally in the first place and thus, i would assume, has no protection from the first admendment. (again, i don't know for sure, but i think that's how it works.)zelda2fanboy said:
If he'd HAD concent, then, i doubt there'd have really been much of an issue here. But then, it's obviouse he'd have never GOTTEN concent, which is why he lied...
wait what?
where the kids nude? NO
where the kids having sex NO
THEN ITS NOT PORN
this is stupid
where the kids nude? NO
where the kids having sex NO
THEN ITS NOT PORN
this is stupid
GTFO, you have got to be kidding me. This town is just plain nuts. The first thing that comes to mind is SNL, then Tosh .0. The stuff this guy did is not some new idea and its certainly not criminal or even pornographic.
All I can think is that this guy just lives in the wrong damn town because there are plenty of places this would have just been seen as a prank and left alone.
Any sentence should be appealed and on up because it is a free speech issue and given the fact that no children were actually present just makes this ridiculous.
All I can think is that this guy just lives in the wrong damn town because there are plenty of places this would have just been seen as a prank and left alone.
Any sentence should be appealed and on up because it is a free speech issue and given the fact that no children were actually present just makes this ridiculous.
Someone already brought up Chapelle, but here's one from Tosh.0 [http://tosh.comedycentral.com/video-clips/dancing-naked-in-the-rain]. This would certainly qualify as worse than singing a raunchy song in front of kids, even though both were just edits to appear that way.shemoanscazrex3 said:
The only things this man is guilty of are posting videos of people on the internet without their consent and being an idiot. This is the most trumped up accusation I've ever seen in my life, including all the things we got accused of in High School.
This disgusts me, it truly does.
What he did was illegal, and wrong. I agree. He used images of children without permission from anyone. However, what he did wasn't child pornography in any way, except maybe some obscure interpretation of a stupidly worded law, and he does not fucking deserve 20 years. As people have said, you can get less time for robbery, or even murder.
He deserves a fine. That's it.
If he gets convicted, I only hope there'll be damn weekly protests or something...
What he did was illegal, and wrong. I agree. He used images of children without permission from anyone. However, what he did wasn't child pornography in any way, except maybe some obscure interpretation of a stupidly worded law, and he does not fucking deserve 20 years. As people have said, you can get less time for robbery, or even murder.
He deserves a fine. That's it.
If he gets convicted, I only hope there'll be damn weekly protests or something...
I think your quoteing me in that bottom part, and, well yeah, that's pretty much what i said should happen, nothing more. I've never once implied he should go to jail for this.poiumty said:
It's a ticklish issue. People are pointing out similar things that have been done like on MADTV or whatever, but understand that every change in laws and enforcement has to start somewhere. I'd guess this is being pushed because he's an independant guy with no real resources, who is not going to be able to defend himself as well as a TV show that doubtlessly keeps killer lawyers on staff just for complaints (especially something like MAD TV). This is how things usually work, and it's why we have protections against laws being retroactively applied, so that due to a current case someone can't say go back and arrest all the people involved in similar skits on TV and such from when it wasn't illegal.
I'll also say that while they are attacking this from a kiddie porn angle, even without that, what this guy did could be considered a big deal. Understand that in most similar comedy sketches on things like MADTV the kids involved are child actors, they are their parents are knowingly complicit in setting this up for comedic effect. This guy did this splicing without the consent or knowlege of the parents/legal guardians. He could be held accountable for every kid in that video if all the parents went after him, and that means that if there are say 20 kids having their footage used at a year apiece or whatever, it
adds up quick.
Also one has to look at this from another context, imagine for example that your entertaining at a party for kids and you throw candy and popcorn into the crowd of kids and they start jumping up to grab it and get all excited. Then imagine you edit the video to replace you throwing candy with you wahcking off on the stage, and change it so you have all the kiddies apparently jumping up to grab your flying spunk. That's a bit more offensive than what we're seeing here, but it falls under the same guidelines.
I'll be honest in saying that I seriously disagree with laws aimed at pure fiction. I don't think things like "Buffy The Vampire Slayer" (even if it involved teens), "South Park", "Porky's", "American Pie", or exploitive anime featuring cartoon characters should be banned or regulated if it has redeeming merits to it. While it didn't involve American law I tend to think of New Zealand's ban on "Puni Puni Poemy" as examples of regulation on fiction getting out of control. http://www.hikari.org.nz/stuff/otaku/ppp/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_cartoon_pornography_depicting_minors
The point here is that when it comes to works of pure fiction, especially when it's just artwork, any kind of legal action against the product itself is ridiculous. The exception to this is when your dealing with live children, being used unwillingly, for suggestive or pornographic acts. Of course even using willing children/willing parents for actual porn is and should remain illegal, but I do think there is a huge differance between child actors in a "MAD TV" skit or whatever, and someone editing video of children whose parents were unaware of it or what it would be used for.
So basically... yeah, I think this guy needs to have the book thrown at him. I'd be POed if he did this to my kid. I simply disagree on what they are throwing the book at him for. The adult material in of itself is irrelevent, because if the parents had consented to their children being used this way, it would be fine, assuming it didn't violate any child endangerment laws. I mean crap, if they are going to make this intristically illegal I'd imagine half the funny videos people put up of their kids would be banned outright.
It's a ticklish subject, largely because of involving kids in anything sexual to begin with (actual sex, or parental involvement being irrelevent). I admit to not being all that comfortable with looking at the issue as a whole, but for this kind of thing where there is no actual sex with children involved, I think everything on the subject that needed to be said was said in connection to movies like "Pretty Baby" with Brooke Shields http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretty_Baby_(film) The whole arguement might make me want to take a shower when taken to certain extremes, but in the scope of freedom of speech and expression I simply cannot support such a ban, with the ban being the greater of two evils even with real kids involved.
IMO the USA at least needs to come up with a mechanism by which desicians can be made with finality and never brought up again. Simply put, battles like this tend to recur and waste a lot of time, effort, and energy. All the effort being used to chase anime around (even when it's distasteful) or fight a case like this on pornographic grounds when that shouldn't be an issue (though there are legal issues here), could be better invested elsewhere. You let it keep going and there is always going to be someone angling from one end or another to force their point of view through and change the laws or body of precedent. At the very least we need to put a 100 year timer on it or something (once a generation) to still allow for a living leagal system but not waste the effort. I mean cripes, "Pretty Baby" was only 30 some odd years ago. That's not all that long a time in the scope of a nation.
I'll also say that while they are attacking this from a kiddie porn angle, even without that, what this guy did could be considered a big deal. Understand that in most similar comedy sketches on things like MADTV the kids involved are child actors, they are their parents are knowingly complicit in setting this up for comedic effect. This guy did this splicing without the consent or knowlege of the parents/legal guardians. He could be held accountable for every kid in that video if all the parents went after him, and that means that if there are say 20 kids having their footage used at a year apiece or whatever, it
adds up quick.
Also one has to look at this from another context, imagine for example that your entertaining at a party for kids and you throw candy and popcorn into the crowd of kids and they start jumping up to grab it and get all excited. Then imagine you edit the video to replace you throwing candy with you wahcking off on the stage, and change it so you have all the kiddies apparently jumping up to grab your flying spunk. That's a bit more offensive than what we're seeing here, but it falls under the same guidelines.
I'll be honest in saying that I seriously disagree with laws aimed at pure fiction. I don't think things like "Buffy The Vampire Slayer" (even if it involved teens), "South Park", "Porky's", "American Pie", or exploitive anime featuring cartoon characters should be banned or regulated if it has redeeming merits to it. While it didn't involve American law I tend to think of New Zealand's ban on "Puni Puni Poemy" as examples of regulation on fiction getting out of control. http://www.hikari.org.nz/stuff/otaku/ppp/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_cartoon_pornography_depicting_minors
The point here is that when it comes to works of pure fiction, especially when it's just artwork, any kind of legal action against the product itself is ridiculous. The exception to this is when your dealing with live children, being used unwillingly, for suggestive or pornographic acts. Of course even using willing children/willing parents for actual porn is and should remain illegal, but I do think there is a huge differance between child actors in a "MAD TV" skit or whatever, and someone editing video of children whose parents were unaware of it or what it would be used for.
So basically... yeah, I think this guy needs to have the book thrown at him. I'd be POed if he did this to my kid. I simply disagree on what they are throwing the book at him for. The adult material in of itself is irrelevent, because if the parents had consented to their children being used this way, it would be fine, assuming it didn't violate any child endangerment laws. I mean crap, if they are going to make this intristically illegal I'd imagine half the funny videos people put up of their kids would be banned outright.
It's a ticklish subject, largely because of involving kids in anything sexual to begin with (actual sex, or parental involvement being irrelevent). I admit to not being all that comfortable with looking at the issue as a whole, but for this kind of thing where there is no actual sex with children involved, I think everything on the subject that needed to be said was said in connection to movies like "Pretty Baby" with Brooke Shields http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretty_Baby_(film) The whole arguement might make me want to take a shower when taken to certain extremes, but in the scope of freedom of speech and expression I simply cannot support such a ban, with the ban being the greater of two evils even with real kids involved.
IMO the USA at least needs to come up with a mechanism by which desicians can be made with finality and never brought up again. Simply put, battles like this tend to recur and waste a lot of time, effort, and energy. All the effort being used to chase anime around (even when it's distasteful) or fight a case like this on pornographic grounds when that shouldn't be an issue (though there are legal issues here), could be better invested elsewhere. You let it keep going and there is always going to be someone angling from one end or another to force their point of view through and change the laws or body of precedent. At the very least we need to put a 100 year timer on it or something (once a generation) to still allow for a living leagal system but not waste the effort. I mean cripes, "Pretty Baby" was only 30 some odd years ago. That's not all that long a time in the scope of a nation.
The problem is that laws regarding harm to minors are necessarily written to be broadly interpreted, which means that his final edit, which gave the illusion of discussing or advocating sexual activity to (or possibly with) minors, is something he can be nailed to the wall over. I've been unable to actually find the video, so I don't know what the specific content is, but I did find an incredibly creepy guy expressing the following opinion:henritje said:
I swear, he has no eyes
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.
"Anybody with half a brain..." Good job you don't even have that. It's not exploitive. Maybe he should get a slap on the wrist or something for deceit; he said he was doing a child friendly song and didn't mention anything to do with a sexually explicit overlay. But a slap on the wrist is all that's worth, a "don't do it again you scallywag" kind of thing.
Fucking hell, must have been a slow day at the police station.
Fucking hell, must have been a slow day at the police station.
This is an outrage. The only reason this is getting any sort of charge is because the parents couldn't sue him for damages (he used the kids without their permission)
This is definitely a 'pressure from the wrong people' case and is garbage. If I worked in that town I would protest
This is definitely a 'pressure from the wrong people' case and is garbage. If I worked in that town I would protest
I could equally say the same about you, how would you feel being imprisoned for 2 decades because "meh, he probably did SOMETHING wrong"Droppa Deuce said:
Also there is a huge difference between obscenity and child abuse. The former is obscene and has no right to be publicly displayed, the latter is a product of children being abused. No children have been abused here.
Also what the hell are you talking about "do your homework" who in the hell could have possibly thought they'd get TWENTY YEARS IN PRISON for what the major comedy networks get away with EVERY NIGHT! And that is editing video to make children appear in sexual innuendo context, particularly the good old "Unnecessary censorship" bit.
If he is found guilty and goes to jail for 20 years then someone have been puttting drugs in the watercooler
This is a sensible way of looking at it, which makes me wonder why the parents and the prosecution didn't just do this, instead of tacking on child pornography charges. What this boils down to is a case of incredibly minor fraud (misrepresenting the intent of filming the kids), which is now taking on unfortunate implications because of self-described 'moralists.'Therumancer said:
In another thread, someone says "You know kid porn when you see kid porn"
Not kid porn. How the hell could anyone jerk it to that?
You'd think they'd want to pedophiles a way to scratch that itch with out harming an actual child.
Not kid porn. How the hell could anyone jerk it to that?
Moral Panic. Thus why Caffeinated 4Loko drinks were banned (but I live in New York, it's par for the course)Dexiro said:
You'd think they'd want to pedophiles a way to scratch that itch with out harming an actual child.