YouTube singer faces 20 years for adding explicit lyrics to video

pragmatic1 · 16-03-2011 03:41AM

MrStuffins wrote: »

Oh no, I was saying it was illegal. I remember hearing a story where a Porn Actress had to fly into some toen and appear in court to show she was in fact over 18!

But what if someone like Speilberg made a movie about Clerical Abuse. Would he be arrested for portraying adults having sex with children?

Its not illegal.

yammycat · 16-03-2011 03:54AM

“See how long it takes to make your panties mine”
(wide shot of the children)
“I’ll add some foreplay in just to make it fun”
(close up of girl laughing)
“I want you to suck on my testes until I spurt in your face”
(close up of girl covering her mouth)
“I’ll lick on your chewie”
(close up of two girls covering their mouths)
“I want to stick my index finger in your anis”
(close up of boy making a shocked face)
“I’ll be the bus riding your ass up and down my town”
(close up of boy with grossed-out look on his face)
“I’m gonna use my sausage to make fettucine, then for dessert have a Harry Houdini”
(close up of girl laughing and rocking)

etc etc

im invisible · 16-03-2011 04:04AM

we'llallhavetea wrote: »

i wanna know what he said in the song. unless he said something promoting paedophilia then i can't see what the fuss is about

Hilary Duff is not quite old enough so
I ain't never seen a butt like that
Maybe next year I'll say ass and she'll make my pee pee go
D-Doi'ng, doi'ng, doi'ng

*damn, just too late.

Console · 16-03-2011 04:19AM

OutlawPete wrote: »

This is unbelievable.

This YouTube singer guy edited a video he had where he was singing to school kids, to look as if the lyrics were explicit. Parent complained and so the guy got charged with producing Child Pornography and now faces a possible 20 years.

.......

Christ the is a gap between technology and the law that needs to be addressed.

Does he really deserve jailtime for this?

This world is too fu*king pc :mad:
Cant make a joke no more without someone being offended. Oh did you hear about the jewish guy walking into a bar? ... oh wait i cant say that. :rolleyes:

Jesus Wept · 16-03-2011 04:21AM

it's political correctness gone mAd Stu.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGAOCVwLrXo

Seloth · 16-03-2011 05:10AM

This trial reminds me of Sharia law in extreme muslim countries,or that of laws in facist states.

Even so more it is not the law itself but the reaction of the people.

Hoping to prosecute a 21 year old giving him 20 years jail for a little prank!A fine is the most that should happen!He shouldnt even have to serve a day,let alone 20 years!

Raze_them_all · 16-03-2011 06:30AM

Jaysus ya gotta love the yanks

Millicent · 16-03-2011 07:11AM

What the fuck? I've known people who were actually molested for years getting less legal justice than this and this case is a fucking insult to all those who have ever really been a victim of paedophilia.

I watched that news link and it says "the kids will be affected by this". How?! They're kids. They don't what the hell is going on. They'd have to watch the video to be in any way affected and have it explained to them so if that happens, it's their dumbassed parents' fault.

I admit it was stupid to use the kids' images through deception like that but to ruin a young guy's life over that? I'm in no doubt that he's not the sick one in this case. :mad:

Naikon · 16-03-2011 07:14AM

It's stuff like this that reaffirms my general disgust towards humanity.

Feeona · 16-03-2011 08:42AM

yammycat wrote: »

“See how long it takes to make your panties mine”
(wide shot of the children)
“I’ll add some foreplay in just to make it fun”
(close up of girl laughing)
“I want you to suck on my testes until I spurt in your face”
(close up of girl covering her mouth)
“I’ll lick on your chewie”
(close up of two girls covering their mouths)
“I want to stick my index finger in your anis”
(close up of boy making a shocked face)
“I’ll be the bus riding your ass up and down my town”
(close up of boy with grossed-out look on his face)
“I’m gonna use my sausage to make fettucine, then for dessert have a Harry Houdini”
(close up of girl laughing and rocking)

etc etc

He's a tool for posting that in the first place. Twenty years is harsh, but what the hell was he thinking?

16-03-2011 09:14AM

That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.. And in Ireland, I'm pretty that if you get a pencil and paper and draw something, you can go to jail for possessing child pornography.

dougal-maguire · 16-03-2011 09:47AM

Deleted User wrote: »

That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.. And in Ireland, I'm pretty that if you get a pencil and paper and draw something, you can go to jail for possessing child pornography.

we're totally backward,you can go to jail for having sex with an adult that's dressed as a school girl AFAIK.

wild_cat · 16-03-2011 10:13AM

dougal-maguire wrote: »

we're totally backward,you can go to jail for having sex with an adult that's dressed as a school girl AFAIK.

Seriously?

Actually nothing would shock me any more in relation to our laws.

Pacing Mule · 16-03-2011 10:14AM

Millicent wrote: »

What the fuck? I've known people who were actually molested for years getting less legal justice than this and this case is a fucking insult to all those who have ever really been a victim of paedophilia.

I watched that news link and it says "the kids will be affected by this". How?! They're kids. They don't what the hell is going on. They'd have to watch the video to be in any way affected and have it explained to them so if that happens, it's their dumbassed parents' fault.

I admit it was stupid to use the kids' images through deception like that but to ruin a young guy's life over that? I'm in no doubt that he's not the sick one in this case. :mad:

+1

I was / am a victim of child sexual abuse - carried out by a man who has abused at least 15 children that I am aware of. Despite 4 of us making a seperate complaint and full statements to the Gardai the DPP decided there was not enough evidence to prosecute.

That's Ireland for you.

It's laughable to read the OP in this case. Personally especially with my background I don't see the humour in the song at all but that said it is exactly that - a song with an edited video. No children were harmed. Jail is ridiculous.

16-03-2011 10:14AM

Yep... And online aswell, if they're over 18 but portrayed as being younger, it's child pornography.

dougal-maguire · 16-03-2011 10:15AM

wild_cat wrote: »

Seriously?

I think i read it somewhere on hear,maybe someone who knows can clear this up?

^^^^ looks like i wasnt just making it up :cool:

wild_cat · 16-03-2011 10:21AM

dougal-maguire wrote: »

I think i read it somewhere on hear,maybe someone who knows can clear this up?

^^^^ looks like i wasnt just making it up :cool:

Meh, it doesn't affect me anyway. I think if my other half was to dress up as a school boy i'd mammy him not get off on it.

wild_cat · 16-03-2011 10:25AM

Deleted User wrote: »

Yep... And online aswell, if they're over 18 but portrayed as being younger, it's child pornography.

I can see how that one would work alright.

seamus · 16-03-2011 11:26AM

Feeona wrote: »

He's a tool for posting that in the first place. Twenty years is harsh, but what the hell was he thinking?

There's a fine line between all-out shock humour and serious content. The problem is that courts do not have a sense of humour.

In this country too (presumably it's similar in the US) child porn offences aren't limited to images or video. Written or spoken content (no doubt including songs) which depicts sexual acts involving children are similarly illegal and can land you in big trouble.

The whole thing is quite poorly thought-out because it allows no room for legitimate use of the same, e.g. farcical, humourous or critical circumstances.

There was a thread on the legal forum a good while back relating to an abuse victim who wrote a book about his abuse where he went into fairly explicit detail of the abuse. It was pointed out that the law is so ridiculous that the author could be convicted as a sex offender if someone was so anal or otherwise inclined to apply the letter of Irish law.

Reg'stoy · 16-03-2011 11:28AM

It's always funny when we don't know the people involved. But the guy was a tool who and I stand to be corrected, posted a video which if the earlier transcript is correct is pretty sick.

If he had posted this video and it was of my nieces, nephews or any of my friends children I'd track him down and kick the living sh*t out of him. The parents of the kids concerned are rightly looking to get some payback, granted 20 years is America over the top.

I personally would get all the fathers, uncles and grandfathers and this tool into a room and have him explain to them how this is funny. Just because someone produces something under the banner of humour or 'freedom of speech' doesn't make it a legitimate form of expression.

old_aussie · 16-03-2011 11:35AM

MrStuffins wrote: »

So, if someone makes a porno, te girl is Over18 and it is explicitly advertised as such, but the girl in the video PLAYS a character under 18, that's illegal right?

What if it's a Hollywood movie? If Steven Speilberg made a movie about Clerical Abuse, would he be facing 20 years?

What's abusing a clerk got to do with it?

seamus · 16-03-2011 12:03PM

Reg'stoy wrote: »

Just because someone produces something under the banner of humour or 'freedom of speech' doesn't make it a legitimate form of expression.

O Rly?

NSFW (no nudity or gore, just seriously fncked up language and content): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CyKGHVA6rb0

There's something containing ridiculously sick images including child abuse, child rape and incest. Should the creators of South Park be locked up?

Whether you consider it funny or sick is irrelevant. It's the intent that's important. If something is written to shock, then that's all it's for. Shock, challenging people's tastes and taboos is a valid form of expression IMO, even if all you manage to do is get people to write you off as a sick freak.

To limit "expression" to things which are tasteful and palateable to the majority is to completely undermine the entire point of freedom of speech.

Procasinator · 16-03-2011 12:33PM

seamus wrote: »

O Rly?

NSFW (no nudity or gore, just seriously fncked up language and content): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CyKGHVA6rb0

There's something containing ridiculously sick images including child abuse, child rape and incest. Should the creators of South Park be locked up?

Whether you consider it funny or sick is irrelevant. It's the intent that's important. If something is written to shock, then that's all it's for. Shock, challenging people's tastes and taboos is a valid form of expression IMO, even if all you manage to do is get people to write you off as a sick freak.

To limit "expression" to things which are tasteful and palateable to the majority is to completely undermine the entire point of freedom of speech.

Are you comparing a cartoon discussion of the classic aristocrat joke to a video containing real children (without the parents permission)?

Free speech is one thing, but do you think I should be able to edit children into videos and imply they engage in various sexual acts? Even under the guise of humour, that is pushing it.

We have laws such as defamation which come in conflict with freedom of speech. Are you against these? Do you think absolute freedom of speech is a good thing?

I don't think this guy should get 20 years in jail, but he did do a stupid thing. These kids should not be associated with his lyrics (especially so when no permission was even sought) and that trumps this guys right to freedom of speech.

Fighting Irish · 16-03-2011 12:36PM

Political Correctness at it's best!

It's all over boards as well

Fighting Irish · 16-03-2011 12:39PM

major bill wrote: »

Its america what do you expect?!!!

It's getting pretty much the same here

twinQuins · 16-03-2011 12:43PM

Procasinator wrote: »

These kids should not be associated with his lyrics (especially so when no permission was even sought) and that trumps this guys right to freedom of speech.

I get that you don't like it but why do you feel so? And if it trumps his right to freedom of speech then it follows that he has to be punished in some way, in which case you do - in a roundabout way - agree that he should be jailed.

The way I look at it is, none of these children were actually harmed. This is a debate I've seen in various guises in various sites. My opinion has always been that punishing people for harming fictional characters is the height of madness.
Similarly, no children were harmed in these videos so what, exactly, did he do wrong?

By saying it trumps his freedom of speech you're essentially saying that we should ban things you find to be in bad taste.

Dozen Wicked Words · 16-03-2011 12:48PM

Actually I think I would feel uncomfortable if my kids were shown in the video in the way its been portrayed, maybe no need for 20 years but a smack in his mouth or nice headbutt would make me feel better.

Regardless of getting 20 years, there will be a few lawsuits coming his way for the use of peoples kids image in his vid. If people think they can earn some money, their outrage will be even louder and visible.

Logical Fallacy · 16-03-2011 12:50PM

Embarrassment is not a good enough reason to go to jail i think.

****ing parents...no one wants to **** your ugly kids.

seamus · 16-03-2011 12:53PM

Procasinator wrote: »

Are you comparing a cartoon discussion of the classic aristocrat joke to a video containing real children (without the parents permission)?

No, I didn't

Stupid idea on his part? Absolutely. Some kind of violation of the children in the video? No, of course not. The parents have a right to be outraged of course, but I don't think it's a criminal matter. The children haven't been abused or injured. Their images have been used for something which wasn't stated when the parents initially gave consent, but there will be no damage to the children arising out of this.

It's not like they're going to traumatised, shunned or mocked by their peers, right?

It's in bad taste, absolutely, morally dubious and ethically wrong to have used these children's images to make a shock point, but there's nothing new in what he has done and certainly nothing even remotely approaching child abuse or child pornography.

Leiva · 16-03-2011 12:53PM

yammycat wrote: »

“See how long it takes to make your panties mine”
(wide shot of the children)
“I’ll add some foreplay in just to make it fun”
(close up of girl laughing)
“I want you to suck on my testes until I spurt in your face”
(close up of girl covering her mouth)
“I’ll lick on your chewie”
(close up of two girls covering their mouths)
“I want to stick my index finger in your anis”
(close up of boy making a shocked face)
“I’ll be the bus riding your ass up and down my town”
(close up of boy with grossed-out look on his face)
“I’m gonna use my sausage to make fettucine, then for dessert have a Harry Houdini”
(close up of girl laughing and rocking)

etc etc

IMO Its not really the Lyrics that will have him in hot water but the video editing .

Everything in bold above is totally unacceptable video editing , and as cheap a joke that could ever be made .
I am no way a member of the PC Brigade and this sort of thing would usually annoy me for its over reaction , but if I seen a video of my kids in school with the video editing attached to the lyrics above with my kids face (eg I’ll be the bus riding your ass up and down my town”
(close up of boy with grossed-out look on his face ) I would be seriously pissed .

Child pornography < 20 Years . NEVER !
Annoying parents <...swift kick in the boll0x . YES !

YouTube singer faces 20 years for adding explicit lyrics to video

Comments