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

Recommended Videos

Cormyre

New member
Jun 11, 2010
63
0
0
Don't worry guys, he won't serve 20 years, I mean he'll be in prison for child porn, he'll be shanked well before the 20 years...
 

Kingsnake661

New member
Dec 29, 2010
378
0
0
Treblaine said:
Kingsnake661 said:
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!
What he did wasn't simple editing, it was altering. There is a difference. If someone wanted to, for some unknown reason, use a photo of me for there website, and i was told it would be a website.. i don't know, about gaming, and I agree, they can't just go and slap my photo on a porn website. You can't get consent through trickery.

And the alteration he made compeletely changed the context of the video. Had the school known what his intent WAS, and let him do it, then, it's all well and good. But he lied. He defrauded. He was in the wrong.

But he isn't a child mosilster. 20 years is crap. And you seem to have a made on for whoever is proscusiting him. That guy is wrong to press these charges against this man, but that doesn't mean the guys still didn't do something wrong, and thus some punishment should be given.
 

ShadowsofHope

Outsider
Nov 1, 2009
2,623
0
0
ImprovizoR said:
What the hell is wrong with Americans? You're so obsessed with pedophilia and child porn you see it everywhere! Present company excluded of course. Geeks seem to be the only sane people in America left.
To be honest, I genuinely think mainstream culture is more obsessed with any inference to "potential" child porn than even the fucking pedophiles themselves are, in these cases..


Sad, I know.

OT: .. Just look above.
 

Arizona Kyle

New member
Aug 25, 2010
371
0
0
Nurb said:
Pain Is Inevitable said:
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
To be fair.... the government doesnt care if you steal from people just dont steal from them
 

Distorted Stu

New member
Sep 22, 2009
4,229
0
0
Yeah its illegal to film kids in that sort of way without premission. He did lie.

But he didnt TOUCH THE DAMN KIDS or anythign of that nature. Community service or whatever the yanks do is enough. Not 20 years
 

Caligulove

New member
Sep 25, 2008
3,029
0
0
Ah yes, ruining a man's life for something trivial just so you can set precedent and make an example of him for other future antics from a younger generation that you don't find funny since you have a stick up your ass.

Come on, seriously, is there some prick of a DA that's looking to run for public office so desperate to look tough on child porn that they will literally fabricate it out of mid air!? Jesus fucking christ, do you have any empathy? 21 year old YOUNG adult, still a kid in the scope of human life and experience, and you're going to ruin his entire life by slapping the overzealous stigma of "sex offender" on him?? Any jail time of this is absolutely ABSURD.

What. the. fuck. is. wrong. with. you?
 

Jamous

New member
Apr 14, 2009
1,941
0
0
knight steel said:
WARNING COURSE LANGUAGE

What the FUCK is wrong with these FUCKING pricks, this guy took a harmless video and added funny lyrics and now he's a FUCKING pedophile how the Fuck do they get to that conclusion.

You know it's stuff like that makes me consider crime i mean if there going to send people to jail for nothing whats the FUCKING point in obeying any GOD DAMN LAW.
Very VERY much agreed.
Seriously, what the arse is this about? Because of course, this video will have lasting social repurcussions on the children and their family. Or maybe, you know, it won't. Because that would be fucking stupid. Seriously, what the hell. I'm VERY angry.
 

That's Funny

New member
Jul 20, 2009
805
0
0
Overkill much? The laws on child pornography are incredibly confusing, what can be constituted as child porn? Apart from the obvious.
 

Aerodyamic

New member
Aug 14, 2009
1,205
0
0
Treblaine said:
Aerodyamic said:
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.
 

MrGFunk

New member
Oct 29, 2008
1,350
0
0
This is horrifying. I doubt the song is even funny. It's sounds like a rubbish skit. I bet he's kicking himself.
 

mrdude2010

New member
Aug 6, 2009
1,315
0
0
Imperator_DK said:
...What?

How impossibly foolish to criminalize something totally harmless like that. It wasn't even connected in the slightest to even a 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...
it's not even child porn since the children aren't a sexual focus of the piece, it's humorous because of the incongruity found with children "listening" to sexually explicit material, which they would ordinarily not be exposed to because they're young. there is no legal reason he should be incarcerated, at most he should have some sort of community service apologizing to the school and parents of the children, but even that seems like too much. this is just ridiculous.
 

mrdude2010

New member
Aug 6, 2009
1,315
0
0
Aerodyamic said:
Treblaine said:
Aerodyamic said:
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.
 

Ickorus

New member
Mar 9, 2009
2,887
0
0
Alienmen1 said:
Nurb said:
Pain Is Inevitable said:
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
The guy did absolutely nothing related to child pornography, that should make it a bit easier for you.

It comes down to them wasting time punishing an innocent man for a crime he clearly did not commit and letting real criminals and paedophiles run free to go and ruin a childs life.
 

Aerodyamic

New member
Aug 14, 2009
1,205
0
0
mrdude2010 said:
*snip*
how is the video sexually stimulating at all? kind of a dumb idea really, but definitely not porn.
I'm not implying that you or I, or anyone else here will find it sexually stimulating; I'm suggesting that if it could be interpreted as having that effect, child pornography statutes (at least in Canada) define it as child pornography.