Evan Emory Posts Parody Video, Faces Twenty Years for Child Pornography

[Iaculus]

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/114128/20110218/evan-emory-video-youtube-song-classroom.htm

It's a case involving a singer and YouTube video which has parents livid, prosecutors pushing for 20 years of jail time, and some Facebook users calling for a much lighter punishment, or nothing at all.

School officials and prosecutors in Eastern Michigan recently found out about the video, which was posted online last week.

On Thursday, Evan Emory, 21, was charged with one felony count of making child sexually abusive material at a courthouse in Moskegon, Michigan on Thursday.

Emory was given permission last month by officials at Beechnau Elementary school in the city of Ravenna, to record a video as a personal project. He sang the "Lunch Lady Song" for first graders in a classroom. Later, when the room was empty, he went in to sing a different version of the song containing sexually explicit lyrics and gestures.

He edited the video so that it would appear that he was singing the second version of the song to the children and posted the final video to YouTube.com. Children's faces were identifiable on the video, according to reports. The video has been taken down since then.

Emory's defense attorney has said his client did not think through his actions and feels badly about the incident, according to reports.

Emory said he just wanted to make people laugh in a televised interview.

There were more than a dozen angry parents in the courtroom, and protesters outside during the hearing, according to reports. Meanwhile, Facebook users have started a "Free Evan Emory" page, where some posters have linked to YouTube videos showing network television and cable programs that they say are no different and could even be considered worse.

The singer was released on a $5,000 family surety bond and is set to appear in court again next month. He has been ordered not to come into contact with minors. He has also agreed not to attend any open mic nights in the duration of the case. He reportedly played the video at one such event.

I... just... what.

 

[sixpackshaker]

Elvis would be embarrassed...

 

[AshburnerX]

I... don't see what the problem is? Did the he/the school not get releases from the parents to allow he children in the video? If he didn't, then it's his own fault for being an idiot.

 

[sixpackshaker]

You can't make lewd videos with kids in them. They are just not buying his editing story. In the end, he is screwed. Prisoners love child pornographers...

 

[Iaculus]

Except, presumably, that there was a teacher in the room when he was singing the clean version.

Seriously, the school should know that he wasn't actually giving the explicit version to the kids.

 

[Espy]

You can't make lewd videos with kids in them. They are just not buying his editing story. In the end, he is screwed. Prisoners love child pornographers...

But... he didn't did he? He cut footage of the kids into his song. Assuming thats all true it's not different from a million other things that do the same thing to make it look like kids are being exposed to horrible stuff. Right now I'm watching Reno911 Season 6 and they have an entire running gag on the series where this is done.

 

[sixpackshaker]

Gee, sorry, you broke the law.

Is Reno 911 shot in Michigan?

 

[Tress]

While I think it may be in poor taste, I don't think the guy is guilty of a crime.

 

[Iaculus]

Besides, twenty goddamned years? For a Youtube video edit?

 

[sixpackshaker]

Found part of his song...

Excerpts from Evan Emory video, including lyrics and description of children:
“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 anus”
(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”

 

[AshburnerX]

Once again, while it may be in bad taste, the song and splicing of video are not in and of themselves illegal. My only guess is that he didn't secure permission from the parents or obfuscated his intentions by omission.

 

[Espy]

Gee, sorry, you broke the law.

Is Reno 911 shot in Michigan?

I'm sorry, what law did he break?

Let me see if I got it:

2 Videos. Shot seperately.
Edited together to create a parody/spoof/comedy video that never actually took place just like tons of movies/tv shows do everyday.
????
CHILD ABUSE.

Is that the law and/or logic in Michigan? Maybe it is, I don't know.
Assuming he's legit and it was all shot separately at best he could be sued for misleading the school and families but child abuse? You really think thats legit?

 

[Ravenpoe]

Put me in the camp of bad joke, but not a crime.

If he's convicted, not only could he face up to 20 years in prison, but assuming he ever gets out, he would forever be labeled a sex crime offender.

Also, hasn't Daniel Tosh done very similar things on his show, which airs on basic cable? Though, maybe it's ok because his were actually funny.

 

[Norris]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-ap-mi-mancharged-youtub,0,7348326.story

He's charged with manufacturing child abusive material. The law, as written, includes a provision for people who create content that makes it appear as though a child was abused. Presumably under the logic of photoshopped kiddy porn or otherwise faked kiddy porn is just as wrong the real thing. He broke the law. Plain and simple. The prosecutors even admit there's almost no chance he will be sentenced to a full 20 years, but they do want jail time.

More about him: http://www.mlive.com/news/muskegon/index.ssf/2011/02/evan_emory_speaks_i_feel_like.html

Frankly, while I don't think he deserves jail time, he does need some kind of punishment. He lied to school officials to get into the school, got no releases from parents, and attached the faces of children to a sexually explicit song. Dude is a fucking moron. He broke the law. This goes beyond minor stupid mistake.

 

[Tress]

Well, okay then. Hearing those details has me convinced he did break the law. Like you said, I think 20 years is too much, but if all of that is true then he is an idiot and should be punished.

 

[SpecialKO]

It must be admitted, he's just not that mature for his age.

 

[Espy]

Frankly, while I don't think he deserves jail time, he does need some kind of punishment. He lied to school officials to get into the school, got no releases from parents, and attached the faces of children to a sexually explicit song. Dude is a fucking moron. He broke the law. This goes beyond minor stupid mistake.

I can agree with this.

 

[North_Ranger]

Well, okay then. Hearing those details has me convinced he did break the law. Like you said, I think 20 years is too much, but if all of that is true then he is an idiot and should be punished.

Soooo... people should be thrown in jail for being stupid? Wouldn't it be easier to, I dunno, build a wall around the country and hire some Mexicans as guards?

 

[sixpackshaker]

Stupid is the #1 reason people are in jail.

I just wonder how large of a lawsuit the school will face for granting this idiot access to their kids and classroom.

 

[Espy]

I would say throwing him in jail for this would be wrong and an abuse of taxpayer money, he's no danger to anyone. He needs parole and a fine in my opinion.

 

[sixpackshaker]

It depends if there is mandatory sentencing for that offense.

Now throw on top of those charges.... that he will likely have to register as a sex offender for the rest of his days.

 

[SpecialKO]

Now throw on top of those charges.... that he will likely have to register as a sex offender for the rest of his days.

Sometimes, I think its only a matter of time before there's more people on the sex offender registry than there are actual children in America.

 

[Norris]

Soooo... people should be thrown in jail for being stupid? Wouldn't it be easier to, I dunno, build a wall around the country and hire some Mexicans as guards?

Again, he broke. The. Law. Therefore, punishment. Lots of crime, particularly from the 20-something age group, is the result of doing something stupid. The fact that it is a stupid youthful indiscretion or that he meant it to be funny doesn't actually make it less illegal.

 

[Dave]

A friend of my wife's was in his house dancing naked to some techno music really loud. Some neighborhood kids looked in his windows and saw him naked. They ran & got their parents who also went to look in the window. The next day he was arrested at work for 4 counts of public indecency. The "victims" went out of their way to peep in at him and then had him arrested. If convicted he'll have to register as a sex offender and will be unable to practice as a pediatric physician ever again.

Our laws "protecting the children" are out of whack and totally unfair.

 

[SpecialKO]

They snuck onto his property, and looked in his windows, and he gets arrested for "public" indecency?!

 

[Iaculus]

Again, he broke. The. Law. Therefore, punishment. Lots of crime, particularly from the 20-something age group, is the result of doing something stupid. The fact that it is a stupid youthful indiscretion or that he meant it to be funny doesn't actually make it less illegal.

There is a difference, though, between getting a fine, some community service, or whatever for a stupid prank and getting sentenced for up to twenty years on child pornography charges.

Seriously, this is like using antimatter to crack a walnut.

 

[AshburnerX]

They snuck onto his property, and looked in his windows, and he gets arrested for "public" indecency?!

Technically, anything that can be seen from outside the house is considered to be a public display. The law is like that because a lot of exhibitionists out there would purposefully do stuff like this in front of their windows to get off.

 

[SpecialKO]

Technically, anything that can be seen from outside the house is considered to be a public display. The law is like that because a lot of exhibitionists out there would purposefully do stuff like this in front of their windows to get off.

Does that include if someone has to step onto your property to do so, or just if they can see it from the street?

 

[AshburnerX]

Not sure, though I'd imagine that a group of parents wouldn't be sneaking to the side or into the backyard of someone's home.

 

[figmentPez]

Technically, anything that can be seen from outside the house is considered to be a public display. The law is like that because a lot of exhibitionists out there would purposefully do stuff like this in front of their windows to get off.

Do laws on this vary by state? I was under the impression that they do.

 

[Norris]

A friend of my wife's was in his house dancing naked to some techno music really loud. Some neighborhood kids looked in his windows and saw him naked. They ran & got their parents who also went to look in the window. The next day he was arrested at work for 4 counts of public indecency. The "victims" went out of their way to peep in at him and then had him arrested. If convicted he'll have to register as a sex offender and will be unable to practice as a pediatric physician ever again.

While I would say that's unfair, why the living hell was this guy dancing naked in front of a window that wasn't in way blocked? Blinds, curtains, window shade, something? That's just asking for an indecent exposure charge man. You can't be naked where your neighbors can see you, even in your own home. Letting it all hang out in front of the living room picture window is every bit as illegal as doing so on the front lawn (at least in most places). That's not rocket science. Hide your shame or find a nudist camp.

Our laws "protecting the children" are out of whack and totally unfair.

Yes, yes, protecting kids from perverts is "unfair". Occasionally, yeah, mostly innocent folks get grabbed in the dragnet, but shit happens. Speaking as someone who narrowly avoided being a victim when he was a kid (talked to a 21 year old counselor from scout camp via AIM for nigh a year, he dropped off the face of the planet for a month before I found out he'd been arrested for fondling boys in his scout troop...me and a buddy had been planning to hang out with him at camp later that summer), having these strict ass penalties is better than not.

 

[Espy]

I think Dave's point is that this guy is clearly, not a pervert or child abuser and to lump him in with them is the wrong thing to do. I don't think anyone is saying he can't and shouldn't get in trouble for being an idiot and not obtaining permission from the parents but just because a law has "strict ass penalties" doesn't mean a judge has to give them out. Part of the final judgement in a case like this should be a judge going, okay, whats really going on here and deciding based on their view of the case not just whatever law the prosecutors slap on them.

 

[SpecialKO]

Occasionally, yeah, mostly innocent folks get grabbed in the dragnet, but shit happens.

Considering the "strict ass penalties" given out by our justice system regarding sex offenses, that's more than just a case of "shit happens". Part of the spirit of our justice system is to specifically prevent innocent people from being unjustly convicted.

When the system can send teens to jail for sexting and decide that sex offenders can be held in prison indefinitely after the end of their court-determined sentences, there are severe problems that need to be addressed with more than just a shrug.

 

[Norris]

Considering the "strict ass penalties" given out by our justice system regarding sex offenses, that's more than just a case of "shit happens". Part of the spirit of our justice system is to specifically prevent innocent people from being unjustly convicted.

When the system can send teens to jail for sexting and decide that sex offenders can be held in prison indefinitely after the end of their court-determined sentences, there are severe problems that need to be addressed with more than just a shrug.

My statement was imprecise: occaisonally, innocent intentioned people get caught in the dragnet and should be judged accordingly. However, if one doesn't wish to be considered a sex offender, the solution isn't exactly super hard: don't be naked in public, don't talk dirty to (or make it appear you've talked dirty to) kids, and don't e-mail around pictures of under aged girls. Because that is exactly what happened in that first story you cited. A legal adult, in a fit of anger, texted naked pictures of a sixteen year old (and therefore under age) girl to just about everyone in his phone. That is a failure on his part, not the justice system. And I shall cry for the serial rapists and child molesters being locked away from potential victims right about the time I start crying over Hosni Mubarak getting overthrown or Uday Hussein being killed.

 

[SpecialKO]

A legal adult, in a fit of anger, texted naked pictures of a sixteen year old (and therefore under age) girl to just about everyone in his phone.

You mean, he sent pictures of his girlfriend that he'd been dating for years from before he was a legal adult. That just makes him a bad boyfriend and an asshole, not a sex offender. If the law is incapable of coping with the realities of teens dating, then the law is in horribly bad shape.

And I shall cry for the serial rapists and child molesters being locked away from potential victims right about the time I start crying over Hosni Mubarak getting overthrown or Uday Hussein being killed.

I'm not sure if you're being willfully obtuse, but allowing Congress to decide that a particular class of criminal hasn't been in jail long enough after the fact is a terrible precedent.

You want longer sentences for sex offenders? Fine. Then change the laws so future sex offenders get longer sentences. But holding people indefinitely after they've served their court-appointed sentences just because they're the class of criminal the public currently sends the most fearful letters about makes a mockery of our justice system.