YouTube singer faces 20 years for adding explicit lyrics to video

Reactionary fools. Look at the stuff which is actually aimed towards kids by music labels etc, and nobody seems to bat an eyelid at it. The world is becoming more fcuked up every day

seamus wrote: »

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.

The thing is, the parents gave consent to things like videos and photographs at the beginning of the year for promotional purposes, according to this article: http://www.reelseo.com/youtube-legal-evan-emory/. This video seems to fall outside of this expected policy, in my opinion. The school should be held responsible for that.

I don't agree with him being a sex offender. I doubt the harm will be much for the kids (possibly teasing from others). But I don't think freedom of speech should cover people making videos such as this in a school environment. Not just because it bad taste (I often make jokes in bad taste), but children in schools is not some place things like this should happen.

Emory should not be jailed, but a written apology, donation to charity and maybe some community service might be a good idea.

twinQuins wrote: »

Perhaps I worded my thoughts incorrectly. If you place restrictions on freedom of speech then it follows there has to be some form of punishment for breeching them.
A fine would seem the least harsh but since the poster does think that this is wrong and that this goes beyond the bounds of freedom of speech, does it not then follow that they agree that it should be punished? Otherwise why bother placing restrictions on it in the first place.

Yes, I shouldn't have said jailed; one can agree with the sentiment without agreeing with the actual punishment used and I apologise for that.

My point was that it's absurd to place restrictions on free speech just to cover things you find offensive; dangerous - yes, obviously - but never to protect sensibilities.

I don't really find this offensive. I just think taking a video on school grounds and then using it to imply sexual activity between the kids and the singer, even in a humourous manner, is pushing the bounds a little too much.

The kids, parents and school authorities did not know footage of the kids would be used in such a way. The kids are not fictional characters - if this was a cartoon or even the kids were actors and had parents explicit permission to be used in the videos, we would be talking about a different scenario.

Let's say someone inside a workplace done the same thing. Friend of the employer, recorded a group of employers, modified the video in the same way, and posted in on YouTube: should they be covered under freedom of speech? Even if the employees signed off in being used in promotional material?

Freedom of speech doesn't necessarily mean you can infringe the rights of others. I don't believe any country allows absolute freedom of speech, otherwise things like defamation/slander can spin out of control.

seamus wrote: »

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.

I have nothing against south park also to pick up on an earlier post of yours, in fact I enjoy watching it for the way it shines a light on so called normal society. But what "shock point" was he trying to make, he duplicitosly asked for a class full of young children to be filmed with him to what end other than to exploit (in the true sense of the word)them for his fame.

When you read about how he edited the images to match the lyrics, I don't view it as artistic; what audience was he appealing to. To throw in the 'no children were harmed in the making of this video' does not excuse what he has done. To have shock as your only motive is the lazy and easy way out.

I'm all for freedom of speech but this nonsense damages the advocation of free speech by muddying the waters of what is a legitimate expression of ideas. The argument being put forward by some as to this idea does not take in to account the content of his video but rather his right to make it, I believe that content is not something to be just glossed over.

I find what he did distasteful (having not seen it I am only commenting on the idea of what he did) in the extreme but just being distasteful in it self is not enough for me to censure him (society by means of his trial will decide that). With that in mind, being distasteful or to shock for shocks sake does not give him licence to expect that what ever he did should be allowed because he wants it seen as art.

Reg'stoy wrote: »

I have nothing against south park also to pick up on an earlier post of yours, in fact I enjoy watching it for the way it shines a light on so called normal society. But what "shock point" was he trying to make, he duplicitosly asked for a class full of young children to be filmed with him to what end other than to exploit (in the true sense of the word)them for his fame.

When you read about how he edited the images to match the lyrics, I don't view it as artistic; what audience was he appealing to. To throw in the 'no children were harmed in the making of this video' does not excuse what he has done. To have shock as your only motive is the lazy and easy way out.

I'm all for freedom of speech but this nonsense damages the advocation of free speech by muddying the waters of what is a legitimate expression of ideas. The argument being put forward by some as to this idea does not take in to account the content of his video but rather his right to make it, I believe that content is not something to be just glossed over.

I find what he did distasteful (having not seen it I am only commenting on the idea of what he did) in the extreme but just being distasteful in it self is not enough for me to censure him (society by means of his trial will decide that). With that in mind, being distasteful or to shock for shocks sake does not give him licence to expect that what ever he did should be allowed because he wants it seen as art.

I'd pretty much agree with everything you've said but accusing him of a heinous crime because the parents are mad isn't right either. He conned the parents and should be punished but the police are way out of line charging him for child pornography is just crazy and not what happened. What may well happen is that he'll get off scot free because they're charging him with the wrong crime simply out of angry spite.

The guy is a total idiot for putting it up, but he doesn't deserve jail time and he certainly doesn't deserve to be put on the sex offenders list. He didn't actually do/say anything to these children. He has not abused them. They most likely have not and will not ever see this video (unless shown by their parents).

Yeah, the guy shouldn't have put it up. Give him a fine, teach him a lesson, don't ruin his life.