21 year old faces 20 years for putting children in a sexually explicit music video.(They were added with video editing) http://www.woodtv.com/dpp/news/local/muskegon_county/School-wants-charges-over-YouTube-video I don't think the guy deserves to have his life ruined for being a colossal moron, but he ought to do a ton of community service and a few years of probation.
Umm, it sounds like the lyrics to the song were sexually explicit but the children didn't actually hear the lyrics, no one was actually sexually abused. This editing technique has been done for other things. Look at the movie Superbad. One of the characters while growing up becomes obsessed with drawing dicks. One day one of the drawings gets knocked on the floor in the classroom & his female classmate picks the drawing up and looks at it, then screams. The girl didn't actually see a drawing of a dick, but it was implied that is what happened. So let's put Judd Apatow and the entire cast/crew in jail for child sex abuse. He should be sued by the school for lying about his intentions, but given that they probably had no contract with him & he was on school grounds with permission they probably can't do jack. Perhaps the parents can sue him for having their kids in a video w/o their permission.
So you're trying to understand what crime he deserves to be charge with, based on my opinion that he doesn't deserve a harsh prison sentence? Defamation of Character. How do you feel about it?
I think it was a joke, and I think that he misrepresented the use of someone's image. I don't know why he'd have to do "ton of community service and a few years of probation" for that. Who has been harmed here? Ed O.
#1: Your second statement is false. Jokes can involve sexually explicit content... and they do on a daily basis. #2: Who has been harmed? I'm asking honestly. If it were a cartoon, would there be a crime here? The images of the children are being/have been misappropriated, and that's not good, but if it had been done for, say, an informercial about a juicer, there would be no talk of anyone going to prison or doing community service. I'm not sure why this is different. Ed O.
Common, I meant sexually explicit content involving a child. The video was pulled down so it's hard to say exactly how bad it was when I didn't see it. The prosecuting attorney seems to think it was, though. Why do you think he's being charged with a crime? But we're not talking about an infomercial or a cartoon. He took a group of children and put them in a video, that he created, involving sexually explicit material.
Do you watch movies? That's what half of Hollywood's products are. The kids never saw anything explicit, unless they saw the video. I haven't seen the video, either, but assuming it was just crowd shots of the kids interspersed with a raunchy song he sang, I don't see how this is a criminal matter. Civil? Perhaps. But criminal? Not in my mind. Ed O.
Is that an excuse? Anyhow, in order to be charged with a crime, there must be a reason for arrest. In cases involving children and sex, I tend to not offer many opinions without knowing the full details of the case, other than to say it was a stupid idea, and possibly criminal.
Not an excuse. If there's nothing to excuse it's not an excuse. That's like saying that "he didn't touch her" is an excuse for a rape charge. What is the crime being committed? And who was harmed? I appreciate that you don't want to comment too much, and it's entirely true that neither of us know all the facts, but in this case I simply don't see any victims. Ed O.
The arrest warrant lays out the charge (I'm not sure if a crime was committed, though, or if the charges are an accurate reflection of any actual crime), and the "harm" is the use of children's imagery in a sexually explicit video. Those kids are forever associated with that video, and I think that's an easy sell to a jury. Selling the harm would be easy; put a few parents on the stand, and even one of the kids talking about being traumatized by this incident, and this guy doesn't stand a chance. I'll let this one play out, but the smartest thing this guy can do is try to plea out of this mess. I would never let a case like this go to a jury. The guy admitted he entered the school under false pretenses, he shot video of kids without parental permission, and he used images of them in a video containing sexually explicit content. Dumb, dumb, and dumb, and quite possibly a felony, depending on the jury.
None of that is harm of a criminal nature. You're overstating by calling it "sexually explicit". There are sexually explicit lyrics. Pretty big difference. And I don't know that the kids have even seen the video. How would they have? If he can get some sort of trespassing plea, then it MIGHT make sense. It's possible that he'll fight it and appeal, because it's a pretty clear 1st Amendment situation. The jury doesn't decide the elements of a crime. Only the facts. I don't think that, even if the facts are as alleged, the elements of a crime exist. As to whether it's dumb... I dunno. He is getting coverage and if he aspires to be a comedian or an entertainer, this gets him on the map pretty quickly. If the song is funny, I can see him making some money off of the "song that got me arrested". Ed O.
That's not up to you or me to decide. I just feel that I could prove "harm" in front of a jury if I was the D.A., which is all that really matters in this instance. None of this matters, though, so long as the charges stick. Think back to your criminal law courses. Harm isn't really necessary anyhow. All that really needs to be proven is mens rea, and the idiot already admitted deception in an interview on TV. Not knowing about a crime (if it really is a crime) is not an excuse for committing that crime. It's more complicated than that, though. Clearly the D.A. feels that way, so I'm not sure what you are arguing about. Come on now. This isn't a classroom, Ed. Jurors aren't completely objective and unaware. I don't know if there was a crime. The D.A. seems to think so, and that's usually not a good thing. He's an admitted liar who entered a school under false pretenses, and he is facing a felony and up to 20 years in prison. Seems pretty dumb to me. He'll be the next Chocolate Rain guy, at best. He'll be a registered sex offender for life after serving years in prison, at worst. Seems fairly lopsided toward the negative end of the spectrum, IMO.
Who are the victims in a prostitution sting? How about Chris Hansen's stings on NBC Dateline? Proving harm has nothing to do with finding someone guilty of a crime.
This says more about sex & obscenity laws than it does about the guy who made the video. The article pretty clearly states no one was sexually abused and that he recorded the lyrics in a room alone, with no one else around. Thus, this is a civil matter because he used the images of the kids w/o collecting a proper waiver(or maybe he did collect permission & now the school has egg on it's face). It should be up to the parents to sue him & they could very well win damages or suppress the video forever. The idea that he needs to be charged with a criminal child sex abuse felony is pretty insane & just reeks of an overreaching D.A.
Here is the actual definition of "Child Sexually Abusing Material" for Michigan: None of the accounts of the video I've read state children were engaged in sexual activity or appearing to engage in sexual activity...
The victims are the communities that don't want hookers selling their bodies. The victims are children who are exposed and abused by pedophiles. I never said that it did. Ed O.
