Well, the end charges I'm sure will not be so harsh BUT this has gotten completely out of hand. A young man records children to edit into a movie to make it look like he is singing a dirty song to them. The children do not hear any of the song, or are subjected to any kind of mistreatment other than being recorded without permission. The guy is now looking at charges of paedophilia and a jail sentence of 20 years(?, seriously?) for a bad joke. Granted, its a bad joke but come on........afew months would warrant sufficient punishment. Justice system gone crazy. Also just a bit extra info http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jorr2if5zE&feature=channel And one of his usual videos (Quite good) - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCXwx7xfIMY
I'm willing to bet a small body part that he'll be registering as a sex offender for the rest of his life.
Wow.. that's kind of creepy though... Just watched one of the videos.. really??? He gets 20 years?!?!! What the fuck..
Also, I was told on another note to grow up by my future mother in law because this video that he did wasn't "funny at all" He should be hanged is what she said.. I give up..
Your mother in law needs to chill. As for the matter at hand, yeah some jail time is warranted but 20 years is a bit much. Just goes to show how worked up people can get.
Yeah but he didn't do anything "abusive" at all. The children never saw/heard the explicit song at all. Its just people getting worked up into a tizzy over nothing.
Amazingly stupid on all accounts..him for a stupid stunt..them for trying to charge him for it. This is a slippery issue, as any precedent set here could have serious effects in the future. Some real pedo finding a way to make movies based on these rulings. I look for this to go to the supreme court in the end.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-20033354-504083.html manufacturing child sexual abusive materials. it's not at all about whether the kids heard the song or not. it's about the jollies he likely gave all the pervs out there on the internet, or the damage that could be inflicted on the kids when they are eventually exposed to the finished product. essentially, you can't deny, they were taken advantage of. and they are kids, so that makes it that much more a crime. I'm guessing he did not get full permission / release from the parents to use their faces in the video, which can be a crime in and of itself. of course, if he even did, it would have been under false pretenses, which then again makes it illegal. interesting and absolutely stupid, all wrapped up in a nice pair of shackles.
Yeah I understand the premise of it, its just one of those things where you look back and think "What the FUCK was I thinking?"
Yes, granted they didnt see the video and they may never but there is always a chance that they could. As to them being recorded without permission, that is a BIG invasion of privacy. They should combine both sentences.
This and the husband email hacker story are really the only two big things in Michigan right now out side of Chrysler re-opening 4 new factory's. IMO this is BS, yes give him shit for not having consent to edit his old videos to this one. But, a CSC(criminal sexual conduct) charge here in Michigan is one of the worse in the country. But, talking about sexual acts or whatever it may be like areli said, its the people it will attract. but 20 years... pedos here usually get less then 5 years. Or he is being made an example of like the Email "hacker"(in which his wife had written her password down in a book next to her computer so its not hacking, its invasion of privacy) there has to be more to this case then what is actually being allowed to the public. Although, with michigan current standing on CSC cases, it isnt a State punishment, its county. this is dumb, this shouldnt be a CSC case
he can be charged with the same crime for each individual kid that was in that video. 10 kids = 10 counts of manufacturing child sexual abusive materials ( wierd way to word that IMO. there's better wording in law for the State of Illinois.) finding of guilty on any of those individually may not necessarily = 20 years. It might be that he could serve each finding consecutively instead of concurrent. the media always fucks up legalese, so that doesn't help. they may have even reported the actual charge wrong.