Michigan Man Could Receive 20 Year Sentence for Fake YouTube Video

46

Comments

+ Add a Comment
avatar

JohnDSO

This is an interesting discussion, but can we calm it down for a few posts here people? Everyone is getting up in arms one way or the other, when what we should be doing is examining the basic questions essential to any criminal prosecution.

First and foremost, remember that everyone in this country is presumed innocent and must be proven to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury. Second, what crime is he being charged with? Third, what are the elements of that crime? Fourth, does his conduct constitute all of those elements?

At this point Mr. Emory has only been accused of a crime in a written instrument, either an indictment or a felony complaint. He has not gone to trial or been found guilty. He is still presumed entirely innocent of any criminal conduct (except by the lunatic press, politicking school officials, and sheeple).

So what crime has he been accused of? Mr. Emory is charged with the crime of manufacturing "child sexually abusive material", Michigan Penal Code section 750.145c(2). See MCL 750.145c. (If the link doesn't work for you, you can view the exact text of this law and all its definitions by going to www.legislature.mi.gov and typing "750.145c" without quotes into the box to search the "Michigan Compiled Laws.")

What are the elements of this crime? A person is guilty of this crime if they "knowingly allow[] a child to engage in a child sexually abusive activity for the purpose of producing any child sexually abusive material" or attempt to produce or arrange for "child sexually abusive activity" or "child sexually abusive material." Going to the definitions of "child sexually abusive material" and "child sexually abusive activity" you find that they both depend on a child engaging in a "listed sexual act". A "listed sexual act" means "sexual intercourse, erotic fondling, sadomasochistic abuse, masturbation, passive sexual involvement, sexual excitement, or erotic nudity." These are pretty easily-understandable terms; the only non-standard word is "passive sexual involvement," which is defined essentially as exposing a child to a sexual act for someone's sexual gratification.

So...going to our last and most important question: Does his conduct constitute all the elements of this crime? The answer is a clear, unequivocal, resounding NO. This entire law depends on a child engaging in a sexual act or being exposed to one. This is not even a close question or a gray area. However offensive and foolish Mr. Emory's conduct may be, it is nowhere near what this law defines as a crime.

When this case gets dismissed, he should sue the hell out of the State of Michigan and the police for unlawful arrest, unlawful imprisonment and malicious prosecution. And anyone in his family who suffers or is harassed by the media for it should also sue the state. It is crystal clear from even a cursory reading of the statute that this charge should never have been brought. Also, it has been made clear for decades by courts on every level that offensive (perhaps intentionally so) speech (videos are considered speech) is protected by the First Amendment. Falsely charging a person who exercises their constitutionally-protected rights with a very serious felony and hyping up to the global press that the victim (Mr. Emory) is facing decades in prison, for any reason, is tyrannical and inexcusable and should result in automatic disbarment. No one this abusive (or stupid) should remain a prosecutor.

To the posters who disagree, I simply say--as many posters have pointed out--that if Mr. Emory were guilty you'd have to prosecute half of Hollywood, and it would only be a matter of time until anyone who challenged accepted social norms would become a criminal.

avatar

aarcane

In the context of this article, we can't even know if he intended to create this youtube parody when he shot the original, perhaps he has used it in preparing a video portfolio, and simply gotten drunk with friends one night, had a bad idea that seemed good at the time, and gotten a few laughs and a few..  otherwise.  Same as every video on youtube.  The school granted permission for this video to be filmed, and in so doing knew the responsibility and assumed the responsibility of acquiring all the relevant permissions and releases.  They're just butthurt because they can't sue, and are looking to tack some criminal charge to him.  they found an obscure mis-use of a well-intentioned law, and are now using it to ruin some poor kid's life so as to remedy their bruised egos.

avatar

nsk chaos

still think the public is overreacting too much.... if he really sang those lyrics, he would have been stopped if before he would finish b/c im guessing at least some teachers were there to see him do his show and he would not have been able to upload the video on to youtube. but it was immature of him to edit the acutall song to the ones the public saw and reacted to. so he still should be punished but 20 years is overkill imo 5 years sounds more "right."

avatar

Morichalion

As a parent, if this happened to my daughter's class, I'd be pissed. I'd demand compensation. My daughter needs new furniture! And take that damn video DOWN!

But...

They're treating his actions as equal to manufacturing child porn. Which means they're attempting to put his ass in jail. There's zero chance of me squeezing any dimes for my daughter's new bedroom set from a jailbird. In fact, if I lived in Muskegon, I'd have to pay for his lodging for 20 years!

If he had 'actually' sang the naughty song in front of the kids, maybe I could see it being a criminal issue. Even then, I can't see how the crime could be worth a 20 year sentence. 

This is, at the very worst, a civil issue. The parents should allowed to sue if they have a problem. I would sue.

avatar

Archtard

I'm with Atomike on this.

avatar

Archtard

I'm with Atomike on this.

avatar

Atomike

Almost everyone here has missed the point completely. When you agree to be filmed or taped on camera, you give permission based on what is stated as the intent of the video. That intent was fradulent in this case. Thus, no consent was given by the children, teachers, or anyone else.

20 years is a bit extreme. But to say no crime was committed? That's simply not true. There was certainly, at the very least, civil laws broken, if not criminal.

He probably shouldn't spend time in jail, but SHOULD get sued into oblivion. He's clearly made a very, very dumb mistake, and will pay for it.

avatar

FalseLogic

Sued for...?

The only issue I see here is that he interrupted a classroom. He didn't inhibit anyone's ability to earn their income, he didn't cause any emotional scarring, he didn't cause physical injury... The most I could see happening is an order to remove the video from youtube. Oh wait, it was already removed.

Besides, he probably cheered up those kids for a few minutes, and made their school day less useless.

I'm really not understanding why everyone is so sue-happy these days.

avatar

Atomike

All I can do is tell you to read up on the law. If you tape someone and use it in any non-private way, you MUST get their permission. At my work,  we have specific forms for this purpose that we have people sign.

Regarding this case, you really can't un-post a file. Once it's out there, it's out there. In a case like this, someone, somewhere downloaded this video and has it. And has likely re-posted it somewhere.

I assume you are not American, as this is all very common and well known in the U.S.

Also, I assume that you're under the age of 11, based on your comment about the school day being useless. Regardless, just take my word for it. You don't understand this issue.

avatar

FalseLogic

I'm a US citizen in college. Yes, you need permission, and yes, he lied about his intentions. However, he did not create a loss of profit, so it would be an interesting case as usually, people sue for compensation.

My comment about the useless school day is because I don't believe the education system at that age does much outside of language. The groundwork is not properly established for future education, and children hardly ever develop self-discipline when it comes to education.

avatar

schneider1492

studies have shown students involved in music programs have less difficulty learning, the whole event took what 20 minutes out of the day and he sang a song (link to lyrics for lunch lady land) than im sure the children found amusing. nothing that was said was bad, and nothing was done to traumatize the kids. if anything about this is going to traumatize the kids it would be a long drawn out legal battle followed by throwing who they see as the nice man who sang to them in jail till they graduate collage. if he had posted the original video up on you tube and someone else edited it and posted the video this wouldn't even be an issue. people edit or remix video all the time. so tell me exactly what was the crime. as far a recording without consent... "The federal court found classrooms were public places"

avatar

aarcane

parody what?  what are these rights things you're talking about, we gave those up about a decade ago when we launched the war on [CENSORED] people... 

Since when is it a crime to film your own content, and change the audio track?  since when is it illegal to commit no criminal act, yet make it look like you did?  better arrest and charge anyone who's ever played a thief or murderer in a holywood film, and to get closer to the head of the nail, It would be downright hypocritical NOT to prosecute every actor who's ever played a pedophile on SVU...

avatar

tittiger

As usual the government is the real criminal. Violating and running all over this mans 1st amendment and God given rights.

avatar

mysterymantis

It's for the children you people, the children!!!!

 

Oh the Children, that didn't actually get exposed to anything at all, the children!

 

Seriously, enough of this for the children bulldrek.  That superintendant is only worried about one thing, his career.  Period.  Anyone prosecuting this a hole is also only worried about one thing, the advancement of their career.  And people that would rally to the cuase of prosecuting this a hole are only worried about making themselves look as though they are "what is right about this country while fighting everything that is wrong," without actually having to be morally superior at all. 

 

This would be jsut one more example of how the american justice system has lost itself.  It wouldn't even be the final straw, as that happened long ago. 

avatar

Queenof1

While he used poor judgement, I see nothing criminal here. There are worse innuedos on Family Guy then what this dude did.

avatar

Danthrax66

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQp5l4-sfFA <--relevant NSFW language

avatar

Caboose

I really hope that this gets thrown out!

avatar

Danthrax66

Bail-bond, leave the country, FUCK THE AMERICAN JUSTICE SYSTEM!

avatar

Balgaroo

So, yesterday, I just happen to be watching Comodey Central and it had a guy pull up in a car to a house.  A kid was in the car and they guy behind the wheel asked the kid to get in and look for his lost puppy.  They guy then locked the doors and preceded to verbaly abuse the kid, letting him know how dumb he was to get into a car with a stranger, and that he would never see his mom again.  I beleave this was on Tosh.0.

So it's ok for people to verbaly abuse kids and say vulgaritys to them on national TV but editing a video to make it seem that way and putting it on YouTube is somehow criminal.  Now I don't know about you but I bet Tosh's show had a lot more views than this kids post.  

I'm sure its just a bunch of duchbag parents upset that their little angels could have been spoken too this way.  Hell I bet over half the people that are upset about this think that it really happen.  The ignorance of people sometimes overwhelms me.  Hope this kid gets noticed by someone and becomes famouse. 

avatar

Keith E. Whisman

Isn't that what the news media does all the time? If he goes to prison every talk radio show host will be sent to prison and most of the politicians during election year would also have to goto prison. 

avatar

maleficarus™

You could literally kill someone in the second degree and get 15 years and be out in 8...

avatar

Danthrax66

THAT'S IT! He can just kill all of the children and get away with it! (making sure not to molest the dead bodies or anything)

avatar

NewAmericaNow

I guess we will have to prosecute all movie makers especially in holywood for making movies where harm comes to young children even if it is fictional.

avatar

Brock Kane

This country seems to making sex crimes more serious than murder! Now, the next step seems to be, "Pretend sex crimes"

Look out people, dont say "sex" or "children" in the same sentence!

OOps, I just did, I might get 20 years for that! What a f-ing joke!

avatar

aarcane

They're BOTH horrible attrocities that can never be undone and can never be taken back..  the correct answer seems obvious.  Death Penalty for Everyone!

avatar

nightkiller

Victims of Sex crimes are more likely to take their own lives to remove the pain of guilt. Obviously, victims of murder don't have that option.

Even if suicide doesn't happen, they are forced to carry the memories for the rest of their lives. For these facts alone, a convicted sexual predator should serve more time. Compensation for the direct violation of the person.

avatar

jaygregz

I can't believe you just said a sex offender should get more time than a murderer. You are special needs.

avatar

nightkiller

THEY are special needs.

Why is it that even murderers target sexual predators in the big house? Even they recognize the gravity of the crime.

avatar

jaygregz

I understand what your trying to say here but I believe your logic is off because of the shape of our legal system and the biology of the criminals who are part of the correctional system. You are saying that people who commit sex crimes should serve more time because their victims have to live with the consequences. Unfortunately, the victims of murder aren't given the opportunity to live with the consequences. That's why what you are argueing is a moot point.

You asked why murderers target sex offenders. That's an illogical question. I don't really have an answer to that question because there isn't one. Adolf Hitler who was arguable one of the most evil men to ever live targetted the jews. That doesn't mean that jewish people were deserving.

None the less, what this guy has done has nothing to do with either of the above. He stepped on a few toes by making a funny. Was it tacky and tasteless? Yes. Was it a crime? No.

avatar

nightkiller

What I am saying is that even those who commit the horrible of acts of murder have a sense of the integrity of the person, the sense of violation running that deep. It is not a moot point. We as a society judge those people as undesirable. THEY judge sex offenders as committing crimes worse than their own. That being the case, should we then look on sex offenders as committing lesser crimes?

I have answered the question of the gravity of the act of the person elsewhere on this forum. This person is a fool and a fraudster but he is not a sex offender.

avatar

Trooper_One

20 Years imprisonment for No ACTUAL sexual crime was committed?!?

This is insane!

This may warrant a civil charge for deception in making a contract but not criminal sexual offence. 

Ridiculous and I surely believe that this puts the administration of justice into disrepute!

avatar

triclops41

how dare this man verbally rape imaginary children like that!

 

20 years?!  More like the death penalty for this person!  23.2 times worse than Hitler!

avatar

violian

This is totally absurd. He probably would've only gotten 15 years for murder. And how about all the clips of political speeches that Jay Leno or Dave Letterman show during their show with altered voiceovers that totally changes the subject of what the original clip was actually about?? What? Are they going to throw Letterman or Leno in jail too??

avatar

bling581

20 years? Outrageous.

avatar

Ghok

Reminds me of that scene in Clerks where Randal rattles off a bunch of porn movie titles in front of a child, which was filmed separately.

The problem here is he mislead those involved in a potentially very offensive way, and they're not public figures. That's not classy, especially when dealing with kids. I don't mind a law against that, but still, that rates a "stern talking from a police officer" punishment. Not a 20 year felony charge! I don't think you'd find many people who'd disagree.

avatar

Danthrax66

No it shouldn't be anything he literally said nothing to the children.

avatar

mp6800

But... he didn't actually /do/ that.  No crime was committed.  Hello?  Is this thing on?

avatar

bigm0ney13

Bullshit... hope no children are reading this post.

avatar

Mindok

This is such crap.

Ever see that old MTV program Wonder Showzen?

Or Chappelle's bit on teaching children about STDs with muppets?

The difference here is that he got the footage of the children under a false pretense - or maybe he really did intend to use it for an admission portfolio and had this fertile idea about editing the footage after the fact.

Either way, the kiddie porn charge is ridiculous. If this guy's sentence includes any prison time AT ALL, I think it's a depressing commentary on our legal system and general state of paranoia.

avatar

nightkiller

...all the shows you mentioned are targeted at pre-adults (as opposed to pre-teens) and adults. He wasn't making an entertainment video for a private daycare. Further, the article clearly states that the "artist" was using it to better his chances to "go to a Big Ten" university. At least that's fraud.

There is also the legal WOW factor, underlining what the law can do and what it actually does. Sort of like porn.

avatar

shaggy981

This is getting absolutely rediculous. When did we lose our freedom of speach? Did the guy decieve his way into the classroom? Yes. But nothing of what he did affected those children in any way at all. This crap just keeps getting worse and worse and it needs to stop.

avatar

nightkiller

He just forgot that Freedom of Speech is a right given to a responsible citizenry, not to every yahoo whose actions are ten times faster than his thoughts. You can't have Freedom if everyone else has to be responsible for you. They will get tired and then they will get rid of the problem.

avatar

hammeredtoast

So, uh, why is he under the gun now? This makes no sense to me. He didn't run into a classroom scream profanity at people? He later edited the footage? Oh, gawd. What a criminal.

 

Goddamn soccer moms.

avatar

DigitalNogi

Wow. So we're here already?

avatar

Obsidian

How is this different than what Fox news does every night? Are we also going to arrest John Stewart for every one of his interviews or fake clips? Ever seen the Will Ferrell bit with the child as his landlord? He'd better get ready to spend some time in prison for having a sense of humor.

I can understand an issue regarding concent forms and release forms. However, if this is just a matter of language used then George Carlin already won that battle decades ago.

This doesn't warrant 20-yaers. When did we loose our freedom of expression?

He didn't expose the children to anything vulgar.

avatar

Jox

No harm, no foul.

-Jox

Log in to MaximumPC directly or log in using Facebook

Forgot your username or password?
Click here for help.

Login with Facebook
Log in using Facebook to share comments and articles easily with your Facebook feed.