I thought he said the kids didn’t see the edited version? lol wut??

YAY! Free speech rulz…everywhere except in Michigan!

Even if he did sing this in front of the children, the harshest rebuke he deserves is a harsh chewing out, maybe even a fist to his kisser. Jailtime? This is ridiculous.

That is absolutely, wildly insane. Comedians have been doing the “say horrible things in front of kids” routine for decades, there’s absolutely nothing shocking or wrong about this. Dave Chappelle did a whole crackhead routine involving taking a dump in class and talking about oral for god sakes. What a pathetic, idiotic bunch of parents.

Raygun said:
That is absolutely, wildly insane. Comedians have been doing the “say horrible things in front of kids” routine for decades, there’s absolutely nothing shocking or wrong about this. Dave Chappelle did a whole crackhead routine involving taking a dump in class and talking about oral for god sakes. What a pathetic, idiotic bunch of parents.

I agree to a point, but presumably Chapelle got parental permission to use the kids for his sketch seeing as how he’s not a total idiot. The same can’t be said for this kid, and that probably makes all the difference in the world, legally speaking.

BadGenome said:
I agree to a point, but presumably Chapelle got parental permission to use the kids for his sketch seeing as how he’s not a total idiot. The same can’t be said for this kid, and that probably makes all the difference in the world, legally speaking.

Fair point. Still absurd and crazy for parents to want to put him in jail over this or be as outraged as they are. Absolutely nobody was harmed.

I wonder if the sentence had anything to do with premediation and intent.

Did he offer to perform and tape an innocent song in front of children with the sole intent of later using that video to edit in inappropriate lyrics – in the name of comedy? The news report doesn’t say but if so that makes his actions more creepy.

Okay, I’m seriously missing something here. Maybe I didn’t hear it in the story, but what exact crime is he convicted of, Contributing to the Delinquency of a minor? What is it, exactly, that he did that was so wrong, except exhibit extremely poor taste?

Obviously I haven’t seen the original video so I don’t know how vulgar it is, but I don’t understand how the children were adversely affected if somebody entertained my kids for an afternoon, then sneaked back in to record something else, unless they saw the finished video, which he’d have minimal control over.

I’m certain it has to do with the kids apearing in a video with sexually explicit language without their parent’s consent. If that is the case it should not matter if the children actually watched the video, their appearance therein with the profane content linked to their appearance is the problem.

He lied to get into the school. He used the kids images not as indented in an inappropriate way without the schools or parents permission. He got off light.

@MartiniShark: The Hypervocal link has a click-through to an analysis of the school’s opt-out policy for video, images and etc. Basically they’re like a lot of schools, where every parent signs a waiver and because this instance doesn’t exactly fit in their box, the school will be revisiting the policy and the form.

@Wesley Smith: It seems that he was convicted of a “Michigan crime”. I put that in quotes because Michigan was the state that made it illegal to curse within earshot of women and children, but in this case, the comedian worked out a plea agreement to the lesser charge of “unlawful posting of an Internet message with aggravating circumstances” to keep from being tried for a felonious sex crime.

To be honest, the original charge of “manufacturing child abusive material” looks like it could’ve been a gamble and a plea may have been the more prudent course. I don’t know how Michigan has applied their “manufacturing” statute before and I haven’t read the text, but the title suggests that it may be nebulous enough to include the YouTube and if there are sentencing guidelines, not to mention that it’s a felony and a sex crime, a judge would be left with little choice.

An MLive article linked from elsewhere has several quotes from the parents, including some of those in Jon’s embed.

What’s interesting is that a few of them have hit on a perceived lack of remorse and a parent, plus the DA say something about how he’s continued to seek notoriety, but what they apparently don’t realize is that the “internet” is going to declare the charge a made-up crime, some will believe the Emory’s plea agreement may have been a mistake and because of the charge, a long forgotten video that few have seen will be giving the “perpetrator” a lot more fame.
—

Note: I personally feel the school shouldn’t have allowed the second taping, but there seems to be nothing to indicate they had knowledge and they certainly should revise their blanket waiver. School uses, promotional materials and media reports are one thing, but if it’s being loosely interpreted to the point that a random volunteer can record children for no legitimate, school-sanctioned reason, then the waiver needs to be revisited.

Clarification: I personally feel the school shouldn’t have allowed either taping, but if they’re letting volunteers or random people off the street record their kids under the protection of the waiver, then the second taping (by a non-student) should have needed a different permit.

Okay, now I’m going to back away from my “Note” and “Clarification” because if you get into permitting, then you’re also calling into question community organizations that may also use the space.

In this case, I think the waiver was too loosely interpreted because I can think of many nefarious ways that non-school sanctioned video of students can be used, but if that has been the school policy, then both tapings should be allowed.

@Magister
Those may be valid points, but how do you address his alteration of content after the fact? They may have had waiver rights, but once he edited the tape to alter the content should that not void the waiver?

It’s so strange to see the comments section be so… civil.

I like it.

Frankly I find this to be yet another example of how extreme, and even fundamentalist, a great deal of America is these days. Yes this video showed an appalling lack of taste and yes it was not funny however the reaction from this court shows how backward many part of America are these days. And for that Father to state that his child needed counselling…! Rubbish! His child would not have even understood what was being sung on this video and even if she had been there in real life she still would not have understood it. It is far more likely that this Father has scarred his daughter for life than the idiot that produced this you tube song! The sentence does not fit the crime and to say that he is a paedophile, again shows the extreme some parts of America displays these days…. where indeed are the fundamentalists these days… it is most certainly not just in the Middle East!

A sentence of 3 months prison time, 200 hours community service and 3 years probation during which time he has to keep 500 feet away from kids is just ridiculous…. where on this planet can he reasonably be where he is likely to be more than 500 feet away from Kids!! If I were him I would emigrate! This Judge, the prosecutor and this community should be ashamed of their over reaction. This really does not show America in a good light and is just as bad as some of the things that go on in the middle east.

This individual should never have submitted to a plea bargain and should have fought this to the Supreme Court as all this judgement has done is to further encourage the zealots of American society.

MartiniShark said:
@Magister
Those may be valid points, but how do you address his alteration of content after the fact? They may have had waiver rights, but once he edited the tape to alter the content should that not void the waiver?

I’m not a lawyer, but I’d say the alteration of the content would be a licensing issue, if the school had placed some kind of limitation on the kid’s images.

As it stands, it appears that the teacher and the administration is taking the position that the waiver covers all and any use of the student’s images (including commercial), which if you take it to an extreme, I guess it would also allow the producers of “Sweet Valley High” to use the student body for background shots and the proprietors of a fetish site to videotape cheerleaders at practice.

If you click through the Hypervocal link to a legal analysis of the original charge offered by ReelSEO, you’d see that the school’s waiver is phrased and summarized as follows;

Right before where parents are supposed to sign, is the following statement:

“I grant permission for the school, in whole or in part, to use photographs, written extractions, and voice recordings of my student(s) for the purpose of marketing and publications unless otherwise notified in writing.”

On a second page or back page of the same form, there is a section under “STUDENT PICTURES FOR PUBLICATION,” which reads as follows:

“During the course of the school year, occasions may arise when photographs of students will be taken for newspapers, school publications or other media. Usually the student is identified in these pictures. Parents are to provide written indication of any objections to their child’s picture being published in this fashion at the beginning of each school year.”

Now, I just happen to have the registration packet for my kids’ school in front of me because it’s due tomorrow and the similar portion which applies to my children starts with three checkboxes;

___ My child’s work can be published on the Internet, news media and photographs of my child can be published.

___ My child’s work can be published on the Internet and news media. Photographs of my child cannot be published.

___ I would prefer that my child’s work and picture not be published. I understand that this may limit my child’s participation in class projects and my child may be given an alternative assignment as a result.

In the case of my children’s school these checkboxes are followed by a couple of paragraphs which describe some of the instances in which their work would (and is) published to the internet and how the children would be identified. Using the checkboxes, I am asked to grant permission for their images to also be used by news media, but as you can see, the permission is implied to be narrowly defined to be in regards to their work and it doesn’t appear to include videos made by random classroom volunteers for an undefined use.

As I read it, the Michigan school’s opt-out waiver is much broader, but because the internet comedian wasn’t producing a promotional video for the school and he wasn’t recording it for a newspaper, school publication or for any legitimate and defined use, the school appears to have misinterpreted and misapplied this permission.

This means that the parents probably have grounds to sue the school and though it doesn’t seemingly have anything to do with the fellow who pled guilty to the “unlawful posting of an Internet message”, it may help explain why he was tossed under the bus. Either the school put him there in an effort to CYA or perhaps the parent’s attorneys advised them to get the video declared fruits of a crime, so the school system would be motivated to settle.

The judge is a moron. What else can be said?

Messed up – Yes.
Immature prank – Yes.
Shouldn’t have done it without parents signing a wavier – Yes.
Probation and Stay away from children – Yes.
Worthy of jail time – No. We have enough real criminals to worry about.

Yea, seems all that waiver language is nebulous enough include almost anything, thereby exonerating school responsibility for everything. I still will hold to the belief that the manipulation of the content after the fact would be where any legal traction would be found. The school may allow for a singer to come in, then allow said singer to publicise their performance “as is”, but once that person includes additional content that would not have been permissable in the school setting it should vacate the boundries of that waiver. I’m not basing this on a specific legal foundation, more of a common-sense interpretation.

Clearly the guy was a lout for doing this, I cannot say what a fair or just result would be in the case. I’ll defer to the judge and lawyers for deciding the sentencing parameters.

pakattak said:
It’s so strange to see the comments section be so… civil.

I like it.

Wow, I need to read the comments more because I miss great conversations like this. Normally commenters just TELL me my posts are terrible. This thread is so detailed it actually makes my post LOOK terrible. Great stuff, guys.

This is waaay too much. He’s going to jail for trying to be funny? Monty Python in The Meaning of Life edited kids into some sexual situations. Many comedy shows — at least in the past when there was still some sanity — edited kids into things and the kids were never traumatized! I know a kid who was in The Meaning of Life and he thinks it was very funny, has no bad feelings and only good memories. Let’s lighten up people!

IMHO- this is the craziest thing I have ever heard! How on Gods green earth does this equate to jail time? He may have been an idiot but “no children were harmed in the filming of this video”. Poor judgement, no argument from me on that point. Perhaps even failure to get permissions for children to appear on video- especially after he laid the dirty lyrics over the original, but nonetheless, the punishment seems to go way beyond the “crime”. I have a hard time believing this would happen in the US.

Nice to see we haven’t gone completely insane, More of this kind of sentence , and less ‘anything goes’ liberal nonsense.

JJ Vachon , the Monty Python example is not valid. Those were actors, and full permission was given by their guardians.

Its amazing that so many people commenting don’t understand the crime here. Thank god stupidity is not a defense of the law. Making a video of a guy singing to children about sexual acts is child pornography. This issue really doesn’t seem like its has a “grey area” except perhaps to the question of at what point between finding the video repulsive, to amusing, to hilarious, to sexually gratifying would one be considered a pervert. Until we have a reliable way to answer that question, its best we lock these people up and keep them away from children.

@Carl Spangler: I don’t know the laws in your place of residence, but the YouTube doesn’t fit the definition of “child pornography” in most jurisdictions, including the one used by the US government and Interpol, plus it wasn’t the original charge.

I fail to see how this breaks any laws,, The children in question never heard the actual words, movies and TV shows do this all the time trickery.

So say I made a video tape shooting someone in the head and made it look so real, would I be arrest for murder.?
Note no crime as been committed.

I think people just need to calm the heck down and actually go after the real criminals.
This guy should sue he did nothing.

Hell, TSA can molest a 6 year old and get away with it but this guy does a trickery video and gets jail time. Society is going to hell in a hand basket.

May I suggest you a link very usefull for design/redesign websites or other web service…just look at this site below and recomand forward..maybe is enyone interested for a website or grapfics.Look here: http://webdesignprofesional.com is for business.

TSA molest a child? You just lost any crdibility. The woman was doing her job, trying to protect the flying public, with the childs mother standing there.

What, exactly was he charged with? I think he was ill-served by his attorney.

This kid made a funny video and didn’t get permission to use the kids images. That’s about it. Why there were criminal charges laid, I can’t comprehend.

Oh my
goodness! an amazing article dude. Thank you However I am experiencing issue
with ur rss . Don’t know why Unable to subscribe to it. Is kia soul there anyone getting
identical rss problem? Anyone who knows kindly respond. Thnkx