Even though this is kind of a bad article about the State being overbearing on law or perhaps a musicians poor choice in video editing, this article is from my home area. WoodTV8 was a TV station in Grand Rapids, we played Ravenna HS in football, I've heard of Tony Tague the prosecutor before etc. The only reason why I am sharing this is because I've been on deployment 5 and a half months, I'm currently well over 10,000 miles from Grand Rapids, and I haven't been back to my home town in well over a year. Its refreshing to recognize names and cities on readandfindout.com. Such a small world.
Evan Emory, a musician who posts his material on YouTube, recently uploaded a video that might earn him 20 years in prison. Yes, you read that correctly. One totally harmless video. Twenty years in prison.
Attorneys, however, told WoodTV8 that the felony charge may be unconstitutional. Curt Benson, professor at the Thomas M. Cooley Law School, said the trial could pose “a constitutional question” because it violates Emory’s First Amendment right to freedom of speech.
So let’s back up. What’s this all about? The 21-year-old Emory posted a video of himself on YouTube singing a sexually explicit song to elementary school students. Before you take the side of law enforcement, it’s not as raunchy and inappropriate as it sounds. The video was only edited to make it appear as if young children were in the classroom, even though they weren’t. Emory posted two disclaimers on the video that elementary school students were not exposed to the explicit lyrics.
If Emory is charged with the count of manufacturing child sexual abusive material he is facing, he could spend 20 years in prison for what he says was just a joke. Muskegon County Prosecutor Tony Tague said Michigan law ‘provides penalty’ for those who actually manufacture child sexual abusive material ‘but also has a provision for those who make it appear that the children were actually abused.’
The footage of the children was recorded a month ago when Emory performed a clean song for the class, said Ravenna schools’ Superintendent John B. VanLoon (is that seriously his name? Amazing!). It was only later that Emory returned to the empty classroom to record a vulgar song, which he cleverly edited with clips of the children and posted to YouTube on Monday.
there's a little more in the full article including an incredibly insipid interview from CNN. the part that sticks out in my mind is the fact that the state wants to charge him as a sexual predator and register him as sex offender for what basically amounts to a satirically edited video.
Attorneys, however, told WoodTV8 that the felony charge may be unconstitutional. Curt Benson, professor at the Thomas M. Cooley Law School, said the trial could pose “a constitutional question” because it violates Emory’s First Amendment right to freedom of speech.
So let’s back up. What’s this all about? The 21-year-old Emory posted a video of himself on YouTube singing a sexually explicit song to elementary school students. Before you take the side of law enforcement, it’s not as raunchy and inappropriate as it sounds. The video was only edited to make it appear as if young children were in the classroom, even though they weren’t. Emory posted two disclaimers on the video that elementary school students were not exposed to the explicit lyrics.
If Emory is charged with the count of manufacturing child sexual abusive material he is facing, he could spend 20 years in prison for what he says was just a joke. Muskegon County Prosecutor Tony Tague said Michigan law ‘provides penalty’ for those who actually manufacture child sexual abusive material ‘but also has a provision for those who make it appear that the children were actually abused.’
The footage of the children was recorded a month ago when Emory performed a clean song for the class, said Ravenna schools’ Superintendent John B. VanLoon (is that seriously his name? Amazing!). It was only later that Emory returned to the empty classroom to record a vulgar song, which he cleverly edited with clips of the children and posted to YouTube on Monday.
there's a little more in the full article including an incredibly insipid interview from CNN. the part that sticks out in my mind is the fact that the state wants to charge him as a sexual predator and register him as sex offender for what basically amounts to a satirically edited video.
musician jailed over youtube prank -- faces 20+years plus child porn charges
20/02/2011 07:55:33 AM
- 1026 Views
Yay for home!
20/02/2011 12:20:14 PM
- 602 Views
Mmmm, there is more to it . At first I was thinking it was much ado about nothing.
20/02/2011 03:31:51 PM
- 803 Views
This explains what happened better and lets me feel a little mercy for the guy.
20/02/2011 03:59:41 PM
- 841 Views
as stated, the children were never exposed to the "adult only" performance
20/02/2011 04:35:32 PM
- 603 Views
So I guess the moral of this story is think before you put things on the internet. *NM*
20/02/2011 06:10:32 PM
- 228 Views
His only mistake was not getting them to sign something, allowing to be posted on youtube
21/02/2011 01:51:30 AM
- 579 Views
kids don't have that right. The parents would have needed to sign. *NM*
21/02/2011 07:24:04 PM
- 249 Views
The lyrics were hilarious? The sample I read and posted had nothing funny in them...maybe you can
22/02/2011 12:35:05 AM
- 481 Views
Well ... from this parents perspective
21/02/2011 12:33:25 PM
- 569 Views
For using the childrens' faces without permission he could be sued for monetary damages.
21/02/2011 01:50:19 PM
- 606 Views
Re: For using the childrens' faces without permission he could be sued for monetary damages.
21/02/2011 03:46:48 PM
- 596 Views
Tashmere's first reply above has a sample of the lyrics and how they were cut with the video. *NM*
21/02/2011 03:58:35 PM
- 216 Views
Agreed, that's really the only thing I can see that he can be sued for here. *NM*
25/02/2011 10:36:53 PM
- 202 Views
"Oh, I didn't actually abuse any of those kids."
21/02/2011 02:37:00 PM
- 520 Views
Agreed. But being an asshat is not a crime. *NM*
21/02/2011 05:02:59 PM
- 210 Views
no but using children to create sexually explicit material is
21/02/2011 07:36:32 PM
- 604 Views
Yes, this was disgusting, but since when does dirty lyrics = porn?
22/02/2011 04:18:05 PM
- 579 Views
The written word can be considered porn so why not song lyrics?
22/02/2011 05:04:37 PM
- 518 Views
It can?
23/02/2011 04:34:40 AM
- 610 Views
Yep
23/02/2011 05:04:49 AM
- 568 Views
Actually, obscenity is one of the most poorly defined concepts in US law.
26/02/2011 09:57:21 PM
- 655 Views
Am I the only one thinking of The Exorcist here?
25/02/2011 10:40:58 PM
- 663 Views
yes you are the only one thinking that *NM*
25/02/2011 11:33:53 PM
- 202 Views
You gotta admit it doesn't get much worse than that in terms of exposing children to obscenity.
26/02/2011 12:13:46 AM
- 509 Views
Not sure if anyone else has asked this...
25/02/2011 01:19:08 PM
- 768 Views
kids are video taped all the time at schools
25/02/2011 02:05:38 PM
- 464 Views
School staff is one thing, outside sources are another.
25/02/2011 02:56:20 PM
- 541 Views
most states run background checks and this guy may have had one run on him
25/02/2011 03:19:58 PM
- 552 Views
he got permission from the teacher and the kids' parents before the original filming session
25/02/2011 03:20:30 PM
- 568 Views
they probably didn't think he would it to make a "funny" video
26/02/2011 07:43:59 PM
- 653 Views
show one example the song was about sex with children and I might agree *NM*
26/02/2011 09:23:44 PM
- 235 Views
If you try hard enough you can believe whatever you want
26/02/2011 10:09:45 PM
- 563 Views
and if you're determined to railroad someone none of the facts matter
26/02/2011 11:36:42 PM
- 702 Views
If I put out a video that had you giggling as I sung about cumming on your face you would be fine?
27/02/2011 09:09:25 PM
- 488 Views
of course not, but the 1st amendment says you have the right
27/02/2011 11:02:42 PM
- 453 Views
the courts ruled a long time ago that the 1st amendment does not cover all speech
28/02/2011 10:58:38 PM
- 677 Views