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

[Mad1Cow]

I personally think the WHOLE of the escapist should do something similar, just to show there's nothing wrong with it...COME ON, there's probably like a good few million users, if we ALL uploaded a video and posted it as a response on his youtube video in protest, they'd have to try and arrest ALL of us, or just realise THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH WHAT HE DID!!! We can even do a video showing how we made it, so if the poop does hit the fan then we can just wave that video proving our innocence...

Or at least we should show our support somehow...anyone got any other ideas?

 

[tmnnerd]

one question no one seems to be asking here is did he get the permission of the parents to use the footage from the first video (which he would have needed their permission to record) in the second video? i dont really know how the law works on that issue in the us, but as far as i know, here in britain, you need permission from parents to record their children for any purpose, even when filming your own child such as at a school play (stupid but true) and you would certainly need permission to re-edit the footage. everyone is bringing up tv shows in the defence of this guy but they certainly have the permission of the children's parents and the kids are more than likely actors who are being paid anyway.

the problem these days is you have to be very careful with what you say and do. i perform part time as a stand up comic and the other night i was doing a show where i made a joke about american attitudes to mexicans when someone called me racist. i countered it by saying "to be honest i was going for cutting cultural satire" which got a laugh but it became a bit of a struggle to get some people back on side and i only had them all 15 mins later at the end of the set.

the lesson really is that you have to analyse everything from all angles to see what you might be accused of because no matter what someone will take offense. i dont think this guy deserves 20 years in jail or the stigma of a child porn charge and/or conviction but he does need to think in future about the legal implications of what he's doing.

I once had someone come up to me after a show and ask "Do you have no shame?" Honestly if I offend morons it makes me happy , they missed the point of the bit entirely. If I offend thoughtful people (which is yet to happen) then I'll reconsider the bit.

hahaha! that's pretty ridiculous. the best one i've ever had was when i was doing a character that satirised british builders and a girl asked me what right i had to comment on the stereotype of builders. she wasn't a builder, she just didn't think they were smart enough to defend themselves. the real irony is that i've performed the same act to builders and they've told me its hilarious because its so close to people they've worked with or know. its the same mindless defence of whichever social group you feel is the most stupid and helpless that helps to cause situations like this one.

 

[Alienmen1]

Freedom of speech is dead. Long live freedom of speech.

It's a good thing he didn't rob a bank for $100 while he was at it, or he would probably be facing life in prison now.

Robbing a gas station and beating the owner would actually get him less time than this

I think that High Sentence for Child pornography is a hell of a good thing, but on this one, i cant choose who i can be for... If it does break or make the receirement for breaking or making the law/child porno, then I am for the law

Child pornography is no laughing matter

 

[Marmooset]

In other news, legal representation on behalf of the Bed Intruder has pressed charges against Antoine Dodson for menacing and harassment.

 

[Diligent]

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 content of the video that annoyed the parents. It is the fact that they were lied to about the content of the video.

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,

What you say is correct, but that isn't what he's being charged with. If the case was about him being deceptive, or lack of parental permission, that would be fine and dandy, but it's not.

Quote from Tony Tague, the prosecutor in the case:
"If you engage children in this type of activity it is a crime...if the children are engaged in this activity or they appear to be engaged it is one in the same under the law."

That is the prosecutor talking about how it is a criminal offense to edit a video to make it look like they were listening to sexually explicit lyrics. You're ok with that, really?

Correct way to handle this: Charge the guy for being dishonest about what he was doing, and have the "damaging" video removed.
Wrong way to handle this: Trumped up child porn charges and the potential for 20 years in prison because you don't think the content of a stupid internet video is appropriate, and have the "damaging" video removed.
This whole case can potentially set a very scary precedent.

 

[Ithera]

Come on.....exposing children to an explicit song, and not exposing them to an explicit song, are not the same things. There are no victims here? No childhoods ruined by a musical monstrosity? To put him in jail would be absurd beyond imagination.

Hrumph, I think some of those knee jerk parents should be put away, I'm sure we can find some trumped up charge. Criticize his humor or give him a reprimand If you must, but don't go overboard. Perhaps one could give him some slight punishment for being deceptive? No matter, I don't think his "crime" is that big a deal.

 

[Marmooset]

Child pornography is no laughing matter

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

You'll be hearing from the Muskegon Prosecutor's office, sir.

 

[Alienmen1]

Child pornography is no laughing matter

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

You'll be hearing from the Muskegon Prosecutor's office, sir.

Edited*Hehe good point*Edited
And since when this website is frequented by youngster?

 

[WrongSprite]

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

That's not what he's being charged with though.

He's being charged with producing child porn. Even with a reduced sentence, 25 years on a sex offenders register under 'producing child porn' is not what this man deserves. It's going to ruin his entire life.

 

[Alienmen1]

He's being charged with producing child porn. Even with a reduced sentence, 25 years on a sex offenders register under 'producing child porn' is not what this man deserves. It's going to ruin his entire life.

Dont forget he will get raped or killed in jail
Pedophile are the most hated prisoners

 

[Aerodyamic]

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.

He told the school he was intending to play a song, which we have to assume that he played for the school board and/or principal. His intent was, as far as the school could tell, to record THAT song, and distribute that recording of THAT song. He then edited in a different song, the contents of which neither of us have been made privy to, which has been alleged to be 'inappropriate' or 'harmful' to the children, or in some way created the illusion of sexual activity relating to minors.

His intent, as the school understood it, was benign, whereas the finished result doesn't jive with what he told the school he was doing. If I tell you I'm going to drop off an educational book at your mom's house for you, and then deliver an explicitly illustrated hardcore BDSM manual, I've misrepresented my intent.

I'm not disputing that he's left himself open to civil litigation, but I'm also pointing out that the statutes that cover child pornography and harm to children are necessarily written to cover a broad range of actions. 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 misrepresentation to the school, and the parents argument that their children were included in a video that the parents are deeming as harmful will likely be discussed in a civil trial; the edited video is the root of the criminal charges.

 

[Binerexis]

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.

My cousin is currently in primary school and whenever there is a school play, the parents are told that any and all photography is not permitted on the off-chance that someone is taking the picture for illicit reasons. Of course, a lot of the parents ignore this and just respond with "Fuck you, sue me" if people try to stop them but they shouldn't have to do that in the first place.

In secondary school, my parents had to sign an agreement to say that they'll allow me to be photographed and filmed because the school installed CCTV. I still have no idea why they had to ask for that when it's a reasonable thing to install security on your property but, if it wasn't signed, I would have been kicked out.


Slightly more on topic, I would say that the comedian did not misrepresent his intentions. For starters, no one ever gives a full in-depth description of what they're filming or why. A film crew ended up filming something near my house and when I asked them what it was for all they said was it was for an advert. Why should the principal be so concerned about what he's filming in the school after she/he has given permission for him to film? Surely if he/she was concerned he/she would sit in on the filming? The comedian's true intentions could be summed up in saying "I'd like to use a classroom with a few children as an audience to film a music video to put on Youtube". All of that is true and doesn't misrepresent what he was going to do with the footage.

 

[Ryuu Akamatsu]

Ok. Everybody say it with me now:

THIS IS COMPLETE BULLSHIT.

They're charging a man 20 years in jail, being put on the sex offenders list and will ruin his life because of something on YOUTUBE THAT HAS BEEN DONE LITERALLY THOUSANDS OF TIMES BEFORE. Not to mention similar shit has been done in movies, on tv, hell IN REAL LIFE.

Sexual words are NOT enough, EVER, to put someone in jail. If that were the case, any fucking comedian who ever put on a show could be charged for sexual harassment. If they're purposely harassing people repeatedly with them, then yes, you should take SOME sort of action but 20 fucking years in prison? COMPLETE BULLSHIT.

God damn these are some stupid motherfuckers. These children were not harmed in any way whatsoever. At all. They weren't part of it. They probably weren't even aware of it before it was blown out of proportion. The media has failed us once again.

 

[Treblaine]

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.

Well it's in the forum rules to put effort into your posts, including spelling and grammar. Otherwise why should anyone think you are taking this seriously?

Also, permission to film is permission to film. Permission to edit? I don't think that exists because it totally oversteps all lines of jurisdiction. I mean it's one thing to say "no sir, you can't take photos here" to then have the principal follow those photos everywhere making judgements and supening permissions for every change? That doesn't make sense. What news crew after say filming at a school, getting permission then has to send the final cut BACK to the school, distribute amongst the parents to approve edits. Nope. Does not happen.

Uploading he is in line for a civil suit, that is it and even then what damages have been caused? Not to over-sensitive and paranoid parents but to the kids?

That's exactly what is happening here, paranoid parents and politically motivated prosecutors going on a witch hunt. They know damn fucking well he's done nothing wrong but some crude jokes have got sparked the primitive protective part of their brain that is so powerful it must be sated with crushing reaction. Their reaction is to lash out and punish beyond any logic, reason or compassion because it's what they FEEL is right.

He's being used as a scape goat, everyone is going to delude themselves they are vanquishing a monster because that is their instinct as a parent, even when there is no monster to be had they'll take the closest substitute: a vulnerable young man who is in out of his depth.

I've seen Tony Tague's website, he is not proud to "serve justice" he is proud of "highest conviction rate". That is the mindset here, Highest Conviction Rate. It's as if people being found innocent in court is a some aberration rather than vindication of innocence the ENTIRE POINT that courts exist!

 

[The_Yeti]

So... Someone as famous as Chapelle does a swapped video with a venereal disease and hand cranking song, edited to appear as if it was with children listening and singing along, and it was golden, and a poor nobody comedian does it and gets arrested? lolwhat.

 

[The Human Torch]

If they wanted to teach him a lesson, fine. Give him a fine and two months probation. Not 25 freaking years.
I am from the Netherlands and here people don't even get 25 years for killing someone.

 

[Treblaine]

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.

 

[HyperionToASatyr]

Everyone really needs to calm down. There is no way they'll get the charges to stick, especially with the option to appeal on the table. I give it a week before we see an Emory legal defense fund pop up, if nothing else.

 

[tofulove]

my 2 cents, child porn is bad, if you make it you deserve to die, if you watch it you need to see a shrink asap, although this isn't child porn, this is funny and sad at the same time, what he was doing was wrong; i would agree, and maybe a large fine or a few weekends in jail will do it, but 20+ years in prison, no, just no.