Child Porn Charges for comedian; edited video makes it appear children were listening to dirty song
- Thread starter Nurb
- Start date
Recommended Videos
PaulH said:
Lets be reasonable, if someone took a vid of you and then dubded you into a sex tape and showed your mother you would be pissed and rightfully so. I agree he ment it as a joke, but he did not just idly film the kids, he lied about his intent in filming them.
As a result it is Exploiting their trust the same way as someone using your trust in thime to swindle £1000 off of you is exploiting. It is the lie he used to get the footage that I am concerned with not what he choose to do with it. If he started by telling them it was for a joke (and left out choice details) that would have been better.
For me the worst thing is deceit as it only makes things harder for the next in line (imagine how hard it would be to do the same thing now this has happened?).
5 Years, maybe ott but I thought I would start high and I think that is around about the right time for the higher order deciet situations, as I am giving some recognition to the fact that it was kids that were decieved and also the anger of the poeple involed (remember movies still need to get your permission if your image appears in their movie).
So yea, what he did wasn't worng, but how he want about doing it is where I acknowledge he did wrong, as I would dislike it if someone took a picture of me (and said it was for a private album) and then I found my head next to a body covered in blood with a sword in my hand.
Just wondering why they can't sue? I would have thought that if anything not getting permission would be grounds to sue.ace_of_something said:
And yet WKYK goes free? (Before i stare people raging let me say that i love WKYK...they are hilarious)
and this is on TV.....they never got any backlash.
This furthers my point that the government thinks the internet is composed of evil Nazi rapists.
and this is on TV.....they never got any backlash.
This furthers my point that the government thinks the internet is composed of evil Nazi rapists.
It's a youtube song. They can't sue for use of likeness because he isn't making any money off of it.scumofsociety said:
They could do a mental anguish sort of non-sense though.
The difference here is that guy probably got the permission of the parents of those children or they are actors.ninonybox360 said:
edit: don't get me wrong though it's outrageous and stupid that this guy is facing any charges.
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.Aerodyamic said:
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.
We can say that, but look at it this way: in Canada, written material advocating or detailing sexual activity with minors is considered child pornography, because it could lead to enactment or the written material. Since I haven't seen the video, I don't know if the author is advocating sexual activity with minors, or advocating sexual to minors, but if it's the former, it falls into the same category as written material, under Canadian law: it poses a risk of enactment.henritje said:
It's kind of like the studies they've done in Europe concerning reporting of violent crimes and serial killers; it's been proven that if the media doesn't heavily report serial killers or spectacular violent crimes, the chances of copy-cat crimes is substantially lowered. If we allow people to create material that advocates sexual activity with minors, or to them, we create the possibility that people will copy-cat that material, regardless of the intended fictitious, comedic, or educational intent.
I will say, He did do something that can be sean as wrong, the are strict rules on using children for anything. If he had consent from parants then all would be fine. But what is all he did.
20 years for that is wrong and putting a none sex offender on the list is wrong. If anything minimum an apology to the parents max come community service or something.
20 years for that is wrong and putting a none sex offender on the list is wrong. If anything minimum an apology to the parents max come community service or something.
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)
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)
He porlly doesn't have any money worth sueing over. And sueing a broke man... is a waste of time and effort.scumofsociety said:
And i tend to agree with the the siniment that this guy is getting this kind of a punishment simply because the parents are out for blood, and, well, they are looking for a way to give them blood. What's he's accually guilty of, isn't really a HUGE deal. Lieing to school officalls and using video without concent. He'd get in trouble, not, prolly not to the extent the parents, or even public option in the area would be satisifed with. And DA's tend to want to keep there public happy, to get relected, so... they went fishing for bigger charges, and seem to have found them.
If he goes to court with a jury of his "peers" he'll prolly be convicted. But, i doubt it's last long once he appleals. And appeals court would prolly through out the case. (I'd think anyways) But, i doubt he'll want to go through all of that, so, he'll prolly cop to a lesser charge. *shrug*
I will also add techacally everyone is guilty of crimb, hell in the UK if you have less than £5 on you you can be done for ... arrr nuts cannot remember what it is called...being homeless or living on the streets.
There are laws that contradict each other and to abide by one you brake the other, its just they are so comman they aren not looked into
There are laws that contradict each other and to abide by one you brake the other, its just they are so comman they aren not looked into
Sure what he did was immature, but just make him take down the vid, and if the parents are still butthurt, pay a fine. Even though in reality he did nothing wrong. Why America, what have you become?
The principal did allow him to sing a childs song in front of the kids and record it, and if that was ALL the guy did, there'd be nothing wrong here. He left out an importent detail of his plan though, and had the princable known, he'd have not given the concent. 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)Treblaine said:
I think the worst he must have done was upload a video of another person without their permission.
Or possibly causing some kind of minor disturbance in a community/public event which would at MOST with the worst possible lawyer/person, give him a month in minimum security.
Or possibly causing some kind of minor disturbance in a community/public event which would at MOST with the worst possible lawyer/person, give him a month in minimum security.