Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Musician Jailed Over Prank YouTube Video

Soulskill posted more than 3 years ago | from the under-arrest-by-the-humor-police dept.

Censorship 538

An anonymous reader writes "Evan Emory, a 21-year-old aspiring musician, edited together video of him singing a G-rated song to a bunch of giggling school kids with video of him singing a song with sexually explicit lyrics, and posted it on YouTube. For this stupid joke, done many times by professional comedians (all NSFW, obviously), and admittedly done without getting permission from the children shown 'hearing' him sing naughty words, he was arrested and could face 20 years in prison as a sex offender. On the pretext of looking for 'souvenirs' of child sexual abuse, his house has been searched by police, and the Muskegon County (Michigan) Prosecutor has insinuated (with no further evidence) that Emory actually wants to have sex with children and claims he 'victimized every single child in that classroom.' Emory insists he had no such intention."

cancel ×

538 comments

Every sperm is sacred (5, Insightful)

Aggrajag (716041) | more than 3 years ago | (#35255814)

Better jail Monty Python as well.

Re:Every sperm is sacred (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35256130)

And God!

The virgin Mary was only 14 when she was impregnated by God!

Then look at all those jews. They all become 'adults' at the age of 13.

Then look at all the oriental girls they all look 13 even though they are 83.

Don't even get me started on Greek / Roman civilization.

The only way we can get a hold of this rampant pedophilia in society is to ban, all Christians, Jews and orientals.

You might say that my comments make absolutely no sense. I would argue they make as much sense as any of the 'arguments' made by the government / media / law enforcement.

Re:Every sperm is sacred (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35256170)

someone link the video i want to see it !

Streisand Effect (3, Informative)

Trip6 (1184883) | more than 3 years ago | (#35255832)

That's the very next thing I want to watch!

Seriously, this sounds pretty ridiculous...

Re:Streisand Effect (1)

byuu (1455609) | more than 3 years ago | (#35256030)

That's the very next thing I want to watch!

I wouldn't if I were you. If they are charging him with creation of child pornography for *post-editing lyrics into a video*, then they can charge you with possession / distribution (under the interstate commerce clause) of child pornography for having this song. And since the punishment for possession is equal to the punishment for creation, you could be looking at up to twenty years in prison if you were caught.

Perhaps the FBI can set up some honeypot links to this video and nail you for simply *trying* to watch it.

*AND THAT'S THE POINT!* (1)

Bananatree3 (872975) | more than 3 years ago | (#35256118)

Give the FBI a run for their money.... are they *really* going to spend millions of dollars to bust down every Slashdot nerd's door just for clicking on that link? Maybe, considering how flagrant their definition of "turrrrist" is.

Re:*AND THAT'S THE POINT!* (1)

BitterOak (537666) | more than 3 years ago | (#35256180)

Give the FBI a run for their money.... are they *really* going to spend millions of dollars to bust down every Slashdot nerd's door just for clicking on that link?

They don't have to bust down everyone's door. Just a dozen or so, and make sure it's well publicized. Screw with them and go to jail.

doh (5, Insightful)

PyRoNeRd (179292) | more than 3 years ago | (#35255844)

Welcome to United States of Iran

Re:doh (5, Insightful)

netsharc (195805) | more than 3 years ago | (#35256284)

Too bad you got moderated troll...

Remember how the Iranians arrested 3 American hikers and accused them of being spies? Although there's no evidence of that? How they put up a kangaroo trial where the outcome would be clear: "guilty"?

You might know that, but do you know about the Afghanis and Iraqis who were arrested by coalition forces and were accused of being terrorists although the only evidence of that is the word of a pissed-off neighbor trying to get rid of them? How the Military put up a kangaroo trial ("Military commissions") where the outcome would be clear: "guilty"? Even with the intervention of the US justice system, some of them have still been locked in cages for 9+ years, and the Obama administration said, "even if they're not convicted, we can't release them."

Yeah, United States of Iran indeed. Well fucking done America...

Constitutional Rights (-1, Troll)

Nailer235 (1822054) | more than 3 years ago | (#35255846)

Violation of freedom of speech? Unlikely. You don't have the freedom to say sexual remarks to children. This has been long settled. Due process? Possibly. Twenty years / felon-status seems out of this world for such a trivial thing that's barely an offense to begin with.

Re:Constitutional Rights (4, Informative)

Barrinmw (1791848) | more than 3 years ago | (#35255856)

He wasn't saying sexual remarks to children, how about you RTFA.

Re:Constitutional Rights (0, Troll)

Nailer235 (1822054) | more than 3 years ago | (#35255870)

His video depicted him saying sexual remarks to children. Whether or not they were actually there doesn't really matter. In America you can't even post naked pictures online of people you claim are underage, even if they are in fact over 18.

Re:Constitutional Rights (5, Insightful)

canajin56 (660655) | more than 3 years ago | (#35255900)

CSI just showed somebody shooting an underage person a dozen times in the chest. Better arrest those actors for murder, then. Idiot.

Re:Constitutional Rights (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35255998)

It isn't illegal to depict children being murdered, we're totally fine with that here in America. The GP is correct though, and you're the ignorant asshole.

Re:Constitutional Rights (-1, Troll)

Nailer235 (1822054) | more than 3 years ago | (#35256050)

Thank you. It's like these people think I made the laws or something.

Re:Constitutional Rights (-1, Flamebait)

Nailer235 (1822054) | more than 3 years ago | (#35256014)

The federal statute for child pornography punishes those who make "a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting, that--" 1466A. Admittedly this statute does not directly apply. But it does illustrate depictions will suffice, when it comes to children.

Re:Constitutional Rights (1)

Barrinmw (1791848) | more than 3 years ago | (#35256046)

Next thing you know, it will be against the law to tell a kid that Santa Claus doesn't exist.

Re:Constitutional Rights (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35256090)

Next thing you know, it will be against the law to tell a kid that Santa Claus doesn't exist.

Child rapist! We got a child rapist here!

Re:Constitutional Rights (3, Interesting)

pipatron (966506) | more than 3 years ago | (#35256292)

As ridiculous as it may sound, replace "Santa Claus" with "God" and all of a sudden we're not that far from reality anymore.

Re:Constitutional Rights (4, Funny)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 3 years ago | (#35255932)

His video depicted him saying sexual remarks to children. Whether or not they were actually there doesn't really matter.

What?

Re:Constitutional Rights (5, Informative)

WiglyWorm (1139035) | more than 3 years ago | (#35256094)

Legally, he is correct. Rationally, it's stupid that he's correct... But he's still correct.

Re:Constitutional Rights (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35255934)

8==D ~~~

check it out, it's an underage dick! oh the humanity!!!!

Eat shit and die you freedom hating fascist fucker.

Re:Constitutional Rights (2, Insightful)

RoFLKOPTr (1294290) | more than 3 years ago | (#35256060)

His video depicted him saying sexual remarks to children. Whether or not they were actually there doesn't really matter.

So if I step on a 3" person I made out of clay I can be found guilty of murder? Are you fucking insane?

Re:Constitutional Rights (2)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | more than 3 years ago | (#35256082)

You're practicing murder. So, yes. Besides, stepping on clay offends me, and as everyone knows, the constitution was made to protect you from things that offend you...

Re:Constitutional Rights (1)

ProfanityHead (198878) | more than 3 years ago | (#35256196)

His video depicted him saying sexual remarks to children. Whether or not they were actually there doesn't really matter. In America you can't even post naked pictures online of people you claim are underage, even if they are in fact over 18.

Yes. This is known as "crimethink".

Re:Constitutional Rights (1)

NoobixCube (1133473) | more than 3 years ago | (#35255876)

Not even that, RTFS - Summary!

Well, the video has since been removed by Youtube. (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35255940)

And since it has been removed, I can't watch the video and make my own judgment about what was said. Because I think as usual, the prosecutor is doing the prosecutor thing and using the protect the children bullshit witch hunt to boost his political career.

Of course, the stupid ignorant easily swayed with two bit opinions dipshit public will crucify this poor guy and his life is forever fucked. Even if he's exonerated - he's fucked.

We are not a free country anymore, no thanks to our draconian sex, drug and terrorism laws.

Re:Well, the video has since been removed by Youtu (1)

davidwr (791652) | more than 3 years ago | (#35256058)

With the copyright violations it will probably never be back up.

Re:Constitutional Rights (1)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | more than 3 years ago | (#35256012)

You don't have the freedom to say sexual remarks to children.

If you're not paying attention to the constitution, that is. It clearly just says "freedom of speech." Speech doesn't hurt them in the least. How ridiculous.

Re:Constitutional Rights (2)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 3 years ago | (#35256128)

You don't have the freedom to say sexual remarks to children.

I guess you don't watch TV much, or listen to the radio.

Oh, and show us where the guy in question did as you suggest, as he didn't.. The children never heard a thing.

this (2)

present_arms (848116) | more than 3 years ago | (#35255858)

just sounds wrong on many levels. 20 years for what seems to be a joke done in bad taste.

Guilty of not being a comedian? (5, Insightful)

grimJester (890090) | more than 3 years ago | (#35256224)

What's even bad taste about it? TF summary links to six examples of the same thing. It's a common joke. Having a character do or say something inappropriate in front of children has been done forever.

This is just some retarded prosecutor thinking a clip of someone using dirty words in front of children is the same as a clip of someone actually fucking the children. This is just moronic. Saying "fuck" in front of little Billy is not the same as fucking little Billy.

USA (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35255878)

Land of the litigious.

wonder what the story is here (5, Insightful)

Sir_Lewk (967686) | more than 3 years ago | (#35255882)

By railroading this guy, what the Muskegon County Prosecutor is actually doing is weakening the severity of real child abuse in the public's mind by diluting it with dumb but ultimately harmless comedy.

Gee, I wonder why he would possibly want to do that....

Re:wonder what the story is here (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35255944)

He posted the children on YouTube without their parents knowing the content of the show. It didn't have to be sexual to be wrong. If it was one of my kids, I would have gone bonkers.

Re:wonder what the story is here (5, Insightful)

Sir_Lewk (967686) | more than 3 years ago | (#35255962)

The parents may sue him for failing to get signed model releases if they like. Accusing him of being a sexual predator is a perversion of the system.

Re:wonder what the story is here (2)

BitterOak (537666) | more than 3 years ago | (#35256294)

The parents may sue him for failing to get signed model releases if they like. Accusing him of being a sexual predator is a perversion of the system.

Correct, and you only need signed model releases if you are using their images for commercial purposes.

Re:wonder what the story is here (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35256244)

"If it was one of my kids, I would have gone bonkers"

The real tragedy here is that someone as obviously stupid as you are
is permitted to have children.

Re:wonder what the story is here (3, Interesting)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#35255966)

Unfortunately, in the US that's how it's done. Same goes for sexual abuse in general, the occurrence of a stranger doing it by force only represents a small minority of total cases. But because it's easier to get funding for abuse prevention programs decrying that as the norm, individuals who weren't subjected to such obviously wrong conduct end up doubting that they've got a legitimate right to help.

The Trauma Myth [wikipedia.org] It's a hard read but the author covers the topic far better than I could hope to here.

The Trauma Myth (5, Interesting)

davidwr (791652) | more than 3 years ago | (#35256200)

I didn't read the book but the WikiPedia summary [wikipedia.org] of the book makes it sound like child sexual abuse is no big deal when in fact it is a very big deal.

While the book's author is largely correct "that later in life, after the memories are processed, examined, and more fully understood, the experience becomes traumatic" this is precisely why child sexual abuse IS a big deal.

The fact that it is a delayed trauma does not make it non-traumatic, except perhaps to people who die fairly quickly after the abuse happened, before their sub-conscious or conscious mind reacts to it.

Another factor not addressed in the summary which I hope the book covers is the harm done by the ongoing subconscious processing of the experience before the conscious processing happens. This may come out as stress, physical ailments, physically aggressive or other socially inappropriate non-sexual behavior (socially inappropriate sexual behavior is easily explained by "daddy did it to me, it must be okay if I do it to someone else"), and the like well before the child consciously processes the fact that she was abused. I say "she" as most child-sex-abuse victims are female, but the same goes for male victims.

Also, the Wikipedia article says "[Susan] Clancy [the book's author] concludes that since sexual abuse of children is not violent per se." If Clancy does indeed say this then she is just plain wrong or she restricts himself to only certain definitions of violence. In my book, violence does not have to be physical or even overtly coercive. Any act which violates another person without being, on balance, good is in my book an act of violence. Parents and other caretakers frequently violate the personal autonomy of children, it is a necessary part of proper child-rearing. The "on balance good" test covers things like forcing a child to endure pain while he gets his vaccinations, forcing a child to go to bed at a certain time, and all the other things that parents and others can and must to in order to be responsible caretakers.

Re:The Trauma Myth (2)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#35256232)

That's really the problem, the assumption that it needs to be traumatic in order for it to be wrong. The only reason why there's trauma in many of the cases she talks about is because of the degree to which professionals make unsubstantiated assertions about what it's like. The reality is that if there weren't so many messages being sent to kids that if they liked it or weren't completely horrified and traumatized that it's there fault is where the trauma comes from.

You're not going to read an article any shorter than the book and expect to really understand it. She provides a whole bunch of supporting information in the book which you wouldn't have time to cover in the period since I posted.

Re:The Trauma Myth (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35256266)

The fact that it is a delayed trauma does not make it non-traumatic, except perhaps to people who die fairly quickly after the abuse happened, before their sub-conscious or conscious mind reacts to it.

No it makes it more so.

Stewing on it for years turns something minor into a big deal. And when you have all these people telling you that you should be traumatized, people will fall in line.

Everyone is a goddamn victim these days. And you can't live your life until you stop being a victim - I know first hand. And I healed when I stopped listening to the fucking PhDs. And no. I didn't turn to religion either - another fucking scam.

Re:The Trauma Myth (1)

uninformedLuddite (1334899) | more than 3 years ago | (#35256270)

I would really like to see the fact that most abuse victims are female backed up please

Re:wonder what the story is here (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35256202)

When i argue the position of the trauma myth i get called all sort of awful names, so i gave up. Instead of helping the one that suffer to move on, we engourage them to remain in pain because that is a normal thing to be when one is a victim. We keep branding more as victim so we feel better about our self. It is sickning. That women is very couragous to bring these ideas up and i hope she succeed at bringing this to the dumb public concensus.

Old Hat (1)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 3 years ago | (#35255886)

One of the very first vids I ever saw on YouTube was Barney the dino rapping along with kids to dubbed-in hard lyrics. He was shaking a giant toothbrush at the camera singing, "You want some of dis, niggah? Come git it!"

I never thought the author would be at risk of prosecution because I was too busy laughing my ass off. The sh8t you can get into trouble for is amazing. I thought the anal exams for possessing nail clippers at the airport was the pinnacle. But no.

Video Link (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35255888)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCXwx7xfIMY&feature=player_embedded

Re:Video Link (0)

aitikin (909209) | more than 3 years ago | (#35256172)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCXwx7xfIMY&feature=player_embedded

This is not the video in question in the summary.

The moral of the story (4, Insightful)

Scutter (18425) | more than 3 years ago | (#35255896)

The moral of the story is this: If you are a male (especially a single white male over 30) in the 21st century, do not go anywhere near children. Don't look at them, don't talk to them, don't get within 50 feet of them (especially if you own a camera, even if you leave the camera at home). For the love of God, don't be in a public toilet if one happens to come in, even if Dad is there with him and especially if Dad doesn't come in with him. Do not interact with them in any way, even virtually, such as re-dubbing a video, drawing a picture, mentioning children in an e-mail, nothing. More and more often, this includes your own children.

Remember, all men are automatically guilty even if they've done nothing wrong!

Re:The moral of the story (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35256004)

Sadly, this feels all too true. I have a 2 1/2 year old daughter. I am a 28 year old male. I'm in a happy, stable marriage with my wife. Nothing that I can see is unusual about me in anyway. That said, when I take my daughter alone to McDonalds, or the grocery store, or the park, or (heaven forbid it) the bathroom it often feels that every eye is on me. I see other moms with their kids staring at me and I like to make myself think they are thinking "why doesn't my husband take our kids anywhere", but in reality I know they are probably thinking "I better keep an eye on that guy, he is alone with a little girl. He may be her dad, but who knows and even if he is, all men are sexual predators because that is what the media tells me."

Re:The moral of the story (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35256022)

Funny you should mention the Dad.... he's under at least as much suspicion as a random guy. His only actual safe route to avoid being accused of molestation is to just have no contact with his kids between conception and oh... age 21. (Well... except for paying for them, of course... but that goes to 24.)

He'll be accused of being a bad dad etc... but at least he won't be a sex offender.

Maybe we should just put all the men 18 and over on an island to protect "society". Though they better send any money they make off the island because otherwise it would be discrimination against the people not on the island.

To be fair, the late 20th century (specifically the 80s) were the height of this particular style of idiocy (remember the daycare "abuse" cases ?) but it still continues as this incident shows.

Re:The moral of the story (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35256024)

Wow and people wonder why males aren't entering the education system as teachers.

Re:The moral of the story (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35256026)

You can say what you want about pedophiles, but at least they drive slowly around schools and playgrounds.

driving slowly around schools and playgrounds... (2)

davidwr (791652) | more than 3 years ago | (#35256076)

... is of little help if you are distracted.

Re:The moral of the story (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35256158)

That's good advice. Hopefully the present generation of children will be able to grow up with no male involvement, because it's on the verge of being outlawed (really, it already has been).

Re:The moral of the story (1)

arivanov (12034) | more than 3 years ago | (#35256210)

Spot on unfortunately. Just check British Airways policy on seating children travelling without an accompanying adult... It says everything that there is to be said here...

Re:The moral of the story (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35256216)

If you are a male (especially a single white male over 30) in the 21st century in the USA

FTFY.

What about privacy? (0, Troll)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | more than 3 years ago | (#35255902)

Gosh, amazing how soon change their mind. If someone dares to infringe upon your privacy you cry wolf but if a guy misuses children for the sake of views "However, when later asked if he regretted his decision he seemed a bit more cavalier: “I guess we’ll see how many views it gets on the Internet,” he said." then that is alright.

The kids nor their parents gave permission for this footage to be used as this. Don't they have rights? Hang him on this, confiscate all his past, current and future earning to pay for damages. That should frighten any musician I know far more then mere jail time.

Yes, the joke has been done before, but the other PAID and the people involved ALL knew what was going on. Big difference. If you disagree, then basically you think it is okay for a picture of you to be taken from the internet and placed besides an article you don't want to be linked to. Oh wait, that happened just a while ago and everyone was so outraged by it.

Guess that hypocrisy rides again.

Re:What about privacy? (1)

billcopc (196330) | more than 3 years ago | (#35255956)

I'm pretty sure you surrender all rights to your video the moment you upload it to one of these services. But who reads all that legalese, right ? They just click "Accept" and upload to their heart's content. Let's not let facts, established laws and (gasp) 9th grade english language get in the way of a good old-fashioned catholic guilt trip.

Re:What about privacy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35255992)

Gosh, amazing how soon change their mind. If someone dares to infringe upon your privacy you cry wolf but if a guy misuses children for the sake of views "However, when later asked if he regretted his decision he seemed a bit more cavalier: “I guess we’ll see how many views it gets on the Internet,” he said." then that is alright.

The kids nor their parents gave permission for this footage to be used as this. Don't they have rights? Hang him on this, confiscate all his past, current and future earning to pay for damages. That should frighten any musician I know far more then mere jail time.

Yes, the joke has been done before, but the other PAID and the people involved ALL knew what was going on. Big difference. If you disagree, then basically you think it is okay for a picture of you to be taken from the internet and placed besides an article you don't want to be linked to. Oh wait, that happened just a while ago and everyone was so outraged by it.

Guess that hypocrisy rides again.

Shut the fuck up asshole, just shut..the fuck....UP.

Re:What about privacy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35256020)

Guess that hypocrisy rides again.

I guess he deserves to be labeled as a child molester then. Look at him misusing children. He misused children. He is a KIDDY-DIDDLER! HE TOUCHES CHILDREN! HE MOLESTED CHILDREN! HE IS A CHILD RAPIST! CASTRATE THAT CHILD RAPIST! BURN HIM! BURN THE WITCH!!!!!

Re:What about privacy? (1)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | more than 3 years ago | (#35256144)

I don't recall claiming that I believe it's wrong to make a video/take a picture of people in a public place, even if the law says that it is.

Re:What about privacy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35256192)

yet you support the perversion of the justice system to 'stick it to him'? you're no better.. you can rot in hell with the prosecutor.

Fair is fair; + very real civil liability (0)

davidwr (791652) | more than 3 years ago | (#35255906)

Charge them all or let them all go.

Now, since he didn't get a model release or copyright release on the images of the children, the kids' parents may have a very strong civil suit on several grounds and the copyright owner of the video MAY have a copyright claim if it's not covered under fair-use.

All in all, unless this was a student project not intended for publication, he was stupid to do this without a model release. However, in a free country he shouldn't have anything to worry about on the criminal front. The question is, is Michigan free?

oops, "them all" = the comedians (1)

davidwr (791652) | more than 3 years ago | (#35255924)

Sorry, "Charge them all" means charge all the comedians and others who have done this before.

Re:Fair is fair; + very real civil liability (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35255972)

If one of the kids in this video was mine, I'd want to kick his ass from here to wherever it is people kick asses to. As jokes go, it's in seriously poor taste and he very much deserves to be on the receiving end of a shitstorm. Criminal charges, however? Making tasteless jokes about someone, even a child, does not constitute sexual abuse and to arrest him on that basis is an abuse of law.

Re:Fair is fair; + very real civil liability (1)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | more than 3 years ago | (#35256286)

it's in seriously poor taste

To you, maybe. Some may disagree.

Re:Fair is fair; + very real civil liability (3, Insightful)

Rifter13 (773076) | more than 3 years ago | (#35256096)

Generally, model releases are needed for pay. You can take a picture of anyone, as long as they do not have any reasonable expectation of privacy. A school is a public place, hence no real expectation for privacy. He just can't make money, directly, off of it. At least, that is how I have read the statutes to be.

They guy made a crude joke. WAY too many people have gone WAY overboard on this. Our society is being put into a straight jacket. Humor has ALWAYS had more wiggle room, than most other forms of speech. But, the way too important people are even stifling humor. It is really pathetic.

Streisand effect (1)

L473ncy (987793) | more than 3 years ago | (#35255914)

This video is probably going to go in wide circulation after the media reports on this story. If they try to suppress him, it'll just generate more publicity.

Legally stupid (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35255926)

The law needs to be extended to include morons. They feel they have to charge him with a sex crime since there's no laws on the books for charging him with rampant acts of stupidity. It's like charging him with attempted murder for running a motorcycle into a brick wall as a jackass stunt. They need to be able to charge him with being a jackass of the third degree. First degree would be extreme danger to himself or others but since he appears to cause minimal risk to himself or others the lesser third degree charge would apply. An appropriate sentence would be forcing him to wear a cone hat with the word "Dumbass" on it for 90 days and be required to do 100 hours of community service speaking to kids on how to avoid becoming a Dumbass like him.

Re:Legally stupid (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35256110)

The system is fine.
Americans need to understand that they do not live in a Democracy. As a tyranny, the USA is working very well, no problem with the system at all. If the goal of the government and authorities were to build a Democracy, then yes, the system would be broken. But this is not their goal, they're reaching their goal well.

It's also not the first case of a young man falsely accused of a sex crime against children in the USA. Google Matthew White.

Blame the system. (4, Insightful)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#35255948)

A system which allows a moron to become a prosecutor, fails.

whats the url (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35255968)

whats thttp://yro.slashdot.org/story/11/02/19/2134202/Musician-Jailed-Over-Prank-YouTube-Video#he url for the video??

email (5, Informative)

Sprouticus (1503545) | more than 3 years ago | (#35255996)

Here you go folks, let those at the Muskegon Prosecutors office know how you feel about their use of tax dollars....

prosecutor@co.muskegon.mi.us

Re:email (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35256150)

You trying to get us banged up as well? It doesn't take much apparently.

Michigan DAs (1)

oldhack (1037484) | more than 3 years ago | (#35256000)

Some wrong these guys...

Sicko (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35256002)

Pretty sick and twisted thing to do. The guy obviously has issues and needs to get professional help to control these urges. The singer guy too sounds pretty screwed up.

What if every MI singer did something similar? (2)

davidwr (791652) | more than 3 years ago | (#35256032)

What if every singer in Michigan dared to take some out-of-copyright or liberally-licensed video of children and dub them signing this or some similar song they cleared the rights to and posted it on YouTube?

Would prosecutors in Michigan dare to arrest them all?

--
For the sake of not hurting anyone, if you try this please use videos of kids who are now adults or of possible, well over 50.

So... (1)

JockTroll (996521) | more than 3 years ago | (#35256040)

The keywords here are "stupid joke", "done many times by professional comedians", "21-year-old aspiring musician". He thought he was playing in the same field as the Big Boys with Big Lawyers. Big mistake. There is royalty, there are their jesters and courtesans, there are royalty's guards and minions, and there are little people. Those who belong to the latter category ought to know better than to stick their heads where they're not allowed. When the little guy plays with the Big Boys, the Big Boys rip the little guy's head off, chew on his brains and spit them out, shit into his skull and wipe their asses with his face.

Re:So... (0)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#35256258)

That's the thing, most professional comedians spend a lot of time developing those jokes before they put them together into one show. And even with a set of jokes that are generally well accepted by audiences, you never know when you're going to bomb. Which is the point, it's poor judgment to go that far out on a limb on a video without testing the material. If he wouldn't do that in front of the kids, that's a pretty good indication that he shouldn't be doing the material.

The jokes most likely to get you in trouble are the ones that you wouldn't tell in front of the person or group that you're mocking.

Protect the children! (2)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | more than 3 years ago | (#35256066)

Protect them from naughty words, video games, television, movies, comic books, music, and pretty much all forms of entertainment in existence. And yet, even with all of this meaningless 'protection', I still don't feel as though I've locked them in a small enough bubble yet. What should we ban/censor next? After all, saying naughty words is bad because naughty words are bad (because I said so). Even though they're just words with meanings like every other word and they won't really hurt them unless they themselves be hurt by them (and as everyone knows, your constitutional rights are being violating if you get offended by something), they mustn't be allowed to hear them! What a great plan! Forget freedom of speech (speech that offends others is clearly prohibited, even though that is extremely subjective and the constitution mentions nothing about that)! This guy's just... a terrorist and a pedophile!

meenwhile, bad taste is not an offence (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35256074)

But, this person should be banned from participating
in education of children

Ridiculous (2)

RoFLKOPTr (1294290) | more than 3 years ago | (#35256084)

I, personally, think the idea was hilarious and I am in search of the video so I can watch it and laugh. But to the parents and school administration, perhaps this video is insulting and tasteless, at best. Criminal? Felonious? Child pornfuckingography? Are these people INSANE?

Re:Ridiculous (1)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | more than 3 years ago | (#35256114)

Are these people INSANE?

Let me check. Video games? They likely want them banned/censored. Naughty words, television, comic books, books, music, and pretty much every form of entertainment? They likely want those banned/censored for the children, too.

My opinion? They certainly are!

Re:Ridiculous (1)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | more than 3 years ago | (#35256162)

We're doomed. The vast majority of the country is unable to use common sense. The "authorities" in this case for wasting their time and everyone else for looking the other way and allowing the "authorities" to keep their job after doing this.

I'm sorry (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35256104)

This country is broken.
Please fix it.

Re:I'm sorry (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35256142)

Well, we went well away from a country ruled by reason maybe 30 years ago. These days people are too worried about their lawns to care about common sense.

Go ahead and mark this as troll (why I went AC on this) but this whole country has turned into IDIOTS.

Oh for fuck's sake (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35256106)

Are you fucking kidding me?

Re:Oh for fuck's sake (5, Funny)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 3 years ago | (#35256262)

Are you fucking kidding me?

Nice pun. See you in jail.

Over protective parents much? (1)

xerio (1001881) | more than 3 years ago | (#35256204)

To all the people talking about model release forms and all. Watch the videos in the article. The principal specifically says the parents opt-in to their children being recorded on video. Honestly. If my daughter was in a video like this. I'd laugh for 10 minutes straight and thank the guy for giving me a good laugh. As long as she wasn't exposed to the lyrics, there is no harm to her. I'm typically over protective(or so I'm told). My daughter has a slight fever and I want to take her to the doctor. I stare down every man around if we're out in public. Whether they're looking at her or their back is turned to us. I'm paranoid. But seriously. This is ridiculous to say he's harming children when no children were present during the explicit song.

Seems like every generation... (3, Insightful)

ikarous (1230832) | more than 3 years ago | (#35256218)

... has to have its witch hunt. What I find really odd about it is that some of the same people who now recoil in horror at the thought of what happened during the McCarthyism era will happily toss gasoline onto the pyre of anyone who is accused of pedophilia. Proof isn't an issue anymore; the accusation itself equals certain doom.

Logic and reason are in order (3, Insightful)

Killer Eye (3711) | more than 3 years ago | (#35256220)

It sure seems that modern "crime" investigations need to start with these words: "alright, first: everyone kindly calm the fuck down".

I'm tired of hearing about cases where there is OBVIOUSLY no real victim, yet the "trial" marches on. And it appears that we have a hard time presuming innocence when there's insufficient evidence to convict.

I hope that this isn't an upward trend...maybe this has always happened to some degree, and we only hear about it more now because of the Internet. Either way, it scares the hell out of me and makes me feel like we should be putting the prosecutors on trial instead of the "criminals".

The police don't have to win to do severe damage (1)

ksandom (718283) | more than 3 years ago | (#35256230)

I've seen someone go through this and despite having video evidence in his favour (that the police saw at the start), the police continued for 2 years and eventually lost. But not before racking up enough legal costs to take several years to pay off. The police don't have to win to do severe damage. If someone is on a blind crusade, they can do one hell of a lot of financial damage and damage to his reputation before they run out of options.

This case is less cut and dry. It will be harder to prove, and harder to defend since it's about intentions rather than an act. But I suspect for the police, that's not the point.

Re:The police don't have to win to do severe damag (1)

ksandom (718283) | more than 3 years ago | (#35256260)

what I implied, but forgot to say: They don't have to be right either.

What would you want them to do? (1)

Dcnjoe60 (682885) | more than 3 years ago | (#35256240)

Wouldn't you want law enforcement to investigate something like this? Whether he was prosecuted or not would be a different question, but if something looks sexually explicit towards children, then isn't that to be investigated?

If the article is correct, however, and the scenes and things were edited in and not performed live in front of the kids, well that is for the attorneys to work out (and most likely the charges will be dropped).

I'm pretty sure that faking a rape on you tube would also get the police involved. It's just not a smart thing to do.

The kids are not victims then? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35256250)

So what every commenter so far is saying is that this "Harmless" "Bad taste" joke in no way victimizes the kids. That's absurd. At what point does it become victimization then. If he had actually done the song in front of the kids and filmed it, would they be victims. If he had made a movie where he abused the kids, would that be wrong, even if it was not real. Get a sense of law and morality, there are few victimless crimes, this is not one of them. The kids are victims, because they did not consent to something that in reality would have been damaging, libelous, and subject to prosecution. Computers and technology do not give free reign to virtually create abusive depictions without consequences. Good grief, I cannot believe the support yielded to this shithead on /.

He asked for it. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35256296)

This is not free speech. You don't have any "right" to sing profanity to children.

He is a sicko and I hope this guy gets all 20 years with no parole.

Clerks link is inaccurate (2)

Crimsane (815761) | more than 3 years ago | (#35256298)

The 'professional comedians' link is for the clerks scene where Randall is trying to order porn from his supplier, but in the commentary it explains the reason they cut to just Randall is he wasn't comfortable saying all those things in front of a kid.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...