Child Sexual Abusive Material?

[crushing]

This is happening in a community not far from where I live and work.

Emory, 21, who authorities say “victimized” an entire Ravenna first-grade classroom on Jan. 12, was arrested late Tuesday, charged with manufacturing child sexual abusive material, a 20-year felony.

The YouTube posting, removed from the Internet late Tuesday, shows Emory sitting on a chair in front of a group of young children, playing a guitar and singing a song about having sex and doing sexual things.

Ravenna Public Schools Superintendent John VanLoon, confirmed to The Chronicle that Emory did not actually sing the lyrics to the class; It appears that way only through editing of the video posted to YouTube, which already has been removed from the site.

http://www.mlive.com/news/muskegon/...d_and_charge.html#cmpid=v2mode_be_smoref_face

So he had a video of himself singing kids songs at a school in front of children. He edited the video to make it appear that he was singing lyrics of a sexual nature to those children. Now he faces up to 20 years in jail and registering as a sex offender.

If my child had been in that class, I would probably be extremely upset with the man and his video. However, I'm not sure that editing a video like this should be considered a crime punishable by up to 20 years in prison and being added to the sex offender registry, or any criminal punishment for that matter.

What are your thoughts? Were Mr. Emory's actions criminal?

 

[bushidomartialarts]

I'd need to see the whole, uncut video before having an opinion. If the sexually graphic stuff was in the song in context, it's probably a fair cop.

On the other hand, I have a copy of a remix where people took dubs of George W from different locations and made him sing "Sunday Bloody Sunday." So it's possible he never said anything inappropriate in front of the kids.

Since the only reasonable justification for making movies with kids and sex illegal is that they require victimizing a child to make, if it's the latter case the guy should get off.

That may not have been the best choice of words.

 

[LuckyKBoxer]

wasn't there a case recently where someone was charged with child pornography or something similar for having pornographic tapes of the simpsons kids.... I seem to remember hearing that..

regardless yes If my kid was part of that class, this guy would be fortunate to be spending time in jail... away from me.
I understand he didnt sing in front of the kids, but to use their images and warp them into his own twisted fantasy is not cool, adn not going to cut it in my world

 

[Bill Mattocks]

wasn't there a case recently where someone was charged with child pornography or something similar for having pornographic tapes of the simpsons kids.... I seem to remember hearing that..

regardless yes If my kid was part of that class, this guy would be fortunate to be spending time in jail... away from me.
I understand he didnt sing in front of the kids, but to use their images and warp them into his own twisted fantasy is not cool, adn not going to cut it in my world

I agree that the guy is 'not cool' and definitely would appear to be some kind of freak. On the other hand, I can't imagine for the life of me in what way the children he sang the (non-explicit) lyrics to were harmed.

Should he be allowed to sing near kids again? No way. Is he a stone-cold freak? Yep, sure seems like it. But was what he did a crime? I'm having trouble getting that.

I am not certain of the current legal status of the anti-child-pornography laws passed in the USA, but I know they have gone back and forth somewhat. At one time, it was illegal to make, possess, or sell not only photos of real children engaging in real sex or simulated sex, but it was illegal to draw pictures of children doing so, or to create computer simulations of same, or even to write about it. The Supreme Court has gotten involved several times; it comes down to freedom of speech versus obscenity laws, basically.

I'm basically against status crimes for the most part; if there truly is no victim, then I would have to at least understand what the threat to society is versus the repression of what would otherwise be freedom of speech or expression. In the case of a drawing or a story, (or a song), I'm not sure what the compelling reason would be to stop a person from doing so - presuming that no children were actually exposed to such.

 

[granfire]

A masochist who can't get a good beating in the free world, maybe?

I mean, he deserves time for editing his video to make it look like he is a pervert....

Interested to hear the back story on that one...

 

[David43515]

I haven`t seen the video in question, but let me make sure I have the jist of this. He sang songs to kids at school and videotaped it. Then he edited the video to change the song`s lyrics to something sexually explicit. Is that right?

It`s in very poor taste and I wouldn`t let this guy be around kids, but I don`t see how anyone was "victimized". This guy gets to goto trial and face a possible 20 years in jail for what he probably thought was a joke. And meanwhile we all goto the movies or watch TV and laugh at guys like Will Ferral and Jimmy Kimmel when they have kids in skits actually saying the most foul things imaginable. Seems to me that we have quite a double standard going.

I`m all for anything that protects kids from any genuine danger, and for letting them be kids for as long as possible without exposining them to all the ugliness and nastiness of adulthood. But unless I`m missing something, calling what he did manufacturing sexually abusive material or child porn would be stretching the letter of the law to the very limit.

 

[Carol]

I'd need to see the whole, uncut video before having an opinion. If the sexually graphic stuff was in the song in context, it's probably a fair cop.

On the other hand, I have a copy of a remix where people took dubs of George W from different locations and made him sing "Sunday Bloody Sunday." So it's possible he never said anything inappropriate in front of the kids.

Since the only reasonable justification for making movies with kids and sex illegal is that they require victimizing a child to make, if it's the latter case the guy should get off.

That may not have been the best choice of words.

Its neither. The man allegedly wanted to sing to the kids in hopes of getting in to a top school for education, and sent ou Adam Sandler tune to the kids (Lunch Lady Land...which is pretty innnocent stuff) then overdubbed it to include some very explicit stuff:

“I like the way you make your body move. C’mon, girl...See how long it takes to make your panties mine...I’ll add some foreplay in just to make it fun. I want to stick my index finger in your anus.”
The camera in the posted video scanned the audience of smiling children and every child’s face was recognizable.

Is it a crime? In my eyes, yes, this is threatening stuff. I've relayed a couple of times before about an experience I had with a former roommate. Lived with the fellow for over a year, no issues...until he went off the deep end. He received a promotion at work (normally a good thing) that seemed to put him in a very bad place mentally. I could see the change in him, and didn't like what I saw...but didn't expect him to really act out. I got home one evening after working late, and just felt like something was horribly wrong...it was like every nerve in my body was telling me to run...and I'm not one for panic attacks. I heeded the warning. I left a pile of food for the cat, tossed some essentials in a garbage bag and literally ran out of the apartment, taking a zig-zag route out of the complex of buildings that would have made it very difficult for someone to see me or follow me.


My bf was out of the country at the time, but I had keys and was minding his house so I went there for the night. I went to work the next day, came home, and found candles burning on the dining room table (by the looks of them, they had and a check to cover rent and pregnancy expenses. Y'all can read between the lines, right? Had I been there, I would have been raped. My roommate was nowhere to be found. I later found out that he was arrested for threatening a different woman that he knew.


Is there a victim when a death threat is made, even if no one actually dies? Absolutely. Threats are crimes, stalking behaviour is a crime, and sex with children is a crime under all circumstances. This isn't a guy in a basement studio singing a raunchy song about Traci Lords or something like that, at least to me it looks like he is using identifiable children as the target of his desires.

 

[crushing]

An interesting website with more details, including an interview with the defense attorney.

http://www.reelseo.com/you-accused/

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Is there a victim when a death threat is made, even if no one actually dies? Absolutely. Threats are crimes, stalking behaviour is a crime, and sex with children is a crime under all circumstances. This isn't a guy in a basement studio singing a raunchy song about Traci Lords or something like that, at least to me it looks like he is using identifiable children as the target of his desires.

Typically, we prosecute people for what they do, not what they might do. A threat is doing something, so is stalking. However, I don't see what action this person took that was threatening or stalking. Not to make like of your experience; but nothing your former roommate did was (as far as I can tell) illegal. You may be quite right about what his intentions had been, and based on what he did later, I'd agree with that. I'm sure you were right to run. But I'm not sure he broke any laws by his actions.

And I'm not sure this guy with the guitar broke any laws either. However, I could certainly understand if the parents of the students sued him in civil court, and if the school system sued him for misrepresentation for the way he failed to inform them of his true motives when he filmed the actual songs in the classrooms.

It doesn't even appear that the guy is the freak I first took him for; from the link crushing provided, it seems more like he's an idiot.

 

[Twin Fist]

bill is right on the money on this one.

 

[Nomad]

Yep... a really bad idea, and completely tasteless. Likely open to civil suits for using the kids images in a suggestive form without parental knowledge or consent. But child pornography? No.

 

[MA-Caver]

Sounds to me that this guy's warped sense of humor by making it appear that he was singing a dirty song to kids when in actuality he didn't... just shows how stupid he really was.
If he didn't actually sing in person to the kids in the classroom what he edited himself singing in the video then there cannot be a crime. If nothing in his live song to the children was explicit, suggestive, innuendo, leading... whatever! Then there cannot be a crime of that charge because the kids remain unaffected.
Now he takes the video of his performance and changes it around and shows it to adults for laughs... is that a crime? If kids are watching the video then yeah there's a crime but if they're watching it through no influence of the artist (i.e. he tells the kids to watch for the video on You Tube) performing then the blame lays elsewhere.