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

[Norris]

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.

Or teenagers could be, you know, not stupid enough to send naked pictures around. They should be smart enough to delete the pictures after a few...uses if they do get them. I'm 21, and dated a girl three years younger than me for 2.5 years, with the relationship ending all of six months ago or so. You bet your sweet bippy we knew the legal ramifications of every single thing we did (should we have gotten caught) and behaved accordingly. Deleted dirty texts. Fooled around in places where we were unlikely to be caught. Were waiting until she turned eighteen to do the "wild thing". It is not the law's business to be parsing out the difference between an 18 year old who has pictures of his underage girlfriend and the 20 something who collects pictures of under age girls and the 30 year old who held onto the mass "sext" that his nephew sent of his teeny bopper girlfriend. Again, the solution is simple - don't keep naked pictures of under aged girls around your house, and you won't get popped for under-age porn charges. The dude could (more than likely, based what I know of consent laws) legally have sex with her. Isn't that enough?

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.

Fair enough. I, personally, consider sexual offenses to be deserving of life sentences. Hell, I'd sentence your average rapist far harsher than I'd sentence you average murderer. As I understand it, murder usually is done with a goal in mind. Money, anger, revenge, honor, etc. There's a person specific reason. It deserves a long ass sentence, but the chance of recidivism strikes me as lower than average. On the other hand, rapists tend who have a psychological reason. A need to dominate, to prove their power, etc. That's not super specific. That strikes me as the kind of thing that will pop up again. Let the fuckers rot. But you are right - the law as written sets a poor precedent.

I admit though, I am far less than objective on these issues. In addition to my experiences with a tweenage-boy fondler, my eldest step-"niece" was raped. At a very young age, and with her birth mother's consent. She can never have kids because of it, and has a whole host of relationship issues as well. The guys who did it? Never prosecuted. Never caught. No evidence. Her mother? Has a warrant out for child abuse charges. Which was heartening four years ago. Now its a joke. So yes...I'm not super objective. If anything, I want harsher laws.

 

[SpecialKO]

It is not the law's business to be parsing out the difference between an 18 year old who has pictures of his underage girlfriend and the 20 something who collects pictures of under age girls and the 30 year old who held onto the mass "sext" that his nephew sent of his teeny bopper girlfriend.

Actually, that's always been the law's business. It's why we have different levels of charges for similar crimes.

I admit though, I am far less than objective on these issues. In addition to my experiences with a tweenage-boy fondler, my eldest step-"niece" was raped. At a very young age, and with her birth mother's consent. She can never have kids because of it, and has a whole host of relationship issues as well. The guys who did it? Never prosecuted. Never caught. No evidence. Her mother? Has a warrant out for child abuse charges. Which was heartening four years ago. Now its a joke. So yes...I'm not super objective. If anything, I want harsher laws.

Obviously too far after the fact to do much good, but you have my deepest condolences, to both you and your niece. A friend of mine experienced something far too similar.

 

[Norris]

Actually, that's always been the law's business. It's why we have different levels of charges for similar crimes.

But they aren't "similar" crimes. They are the same crime, with different perpetrators. Its not like you can really delineate between intent here...there's only one thing you do with sexy pictures of naked ladies.

Obviously too far after the fact to do much good, but you have my deepest condolences, to both you and your niece. A friend of mine experienced something far too similar.

Thank you. My experience was admittedly simply a close call...but at the time, it was pretty earth shaking. My "niece's" experience...I find it unfathomable.

 

[Frank]

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.

Yup, that's why we call them judges and not Strict Law Enactors.

 

[Espy]

Yup, that's why we call them judges and not Strict Law Enactors.

Plus thats just a mouthful and we are lazy people.

 

[sixpackshaker]

Yup, that's why we call them judges and not Strict Law Enactors.

The laws are written by people that are running for re-election. So it looks like you are hard-on crime if you ad strict mandatory sentences to vague laws.

 

[Jiarn]

As a parent, I will say that this man did nothing to warrant having to register as a Sex Offender. I wouldn't care if this guy lived in the same neighborhood as me or my children. What he did was wrong, he should have a fine, but anything past that is overzealousness.

On a side note, I do not in any way condone it, but explain to me what the criminal part of photoshopped/drawn child pornography is again? I know that real cp is because there is a victim and damage done, but in the other sense?

 

[Espy]

On a side note, I do not in any way condone it, but explain to me what the criminal part of photoshopped/drawn child pornography is again? I know that real cp is because there is a victim and damage done, but in the other sense?

I think there has been a pretty lively debate on this topic before, but in the end it's one thats going to split people.
For many even "not real" CP is still CP since it's simulating whats pretty much been decided as our society as the worst thing possible. So it's treated the same. Is it fair? I dunno but it doesn't really bug me.

 

[Jiarn]

Oh I agree it's morally wrong and against what I believe too, I've just never heard a convincing argument against it, legally speaking.

 

[Espy]

Oh I agree it's morally wrong and against what I believe too, I've just never heard a convincing argument against it, legally speaking.

And outside of "It's just a little to damn close to the real thing" I'm not sure there is one. It's one of those things that those in power who might have to vote on aren't going to be like, "Well it's not really CP... it's just pretend CP". I mean, thats kind of just asking for your political career to end.

 

[Tress]

I believe the argument for making "fake" CP illegal revolves around the idea that drawn or photoshopped CP will create a need or desire in the perverts watching it, so they'll look for the real thing. Basically it's drawn or photoshopped CP is similar to a "gateway drug".

 

[Jiarn]

That just seems like stretching to me. I've known plenty of people who stuck to marijuana and never went any further or never progressed passed cigarettes etc.

I can see their reasoning, but it's just not a strong enough argument.

 

[Espy]

I can see their reasoning, but it's just not a strong enough argument.

Again, it's just that "fake" cp just doesn't go over well with most civilized folks. Should it be treated the same as real cp in the legal system? Probably not, it's not actual child abuse, but it should be treated very, very seriously imo.

 

[Jiarn]

Completely agreed. Just an interesting point/counter-point conversation to have.

 

[Chibibar]

Texas laws are kinda strange, but it is very unforgiving.
I have an acquaintance that was dating someone 3 years his junior. Parents approve (both side) but later the father retract and file charges against the guy. He was put in sex offender's list. Later he is married to the girl (after she turn 18. she was 16 at the time and he was 19) and he will forever be ON in the list.

Now, in Texas, I was told that if I was walking in my own home naked with the blind close and curtain drawn and a kid manage to sneak a peak in my window (via a corner or something) I will be charged and place on sex offender's list.

 

[strawman]

The line of thinking is similar to the line of thinking that some feminists employ about rape culture and goes something like this:

"We think that child pornography, in any form, promotes values and sends the message that it is OK to sexually abuse children. It helps pedophiles to justify their ideas or behavior and it desensitizes society as a whole." (source: http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/fl20040427zg.html )

Does this so-called "parody" video promote children as sex objects, or sexuallize children? If so, even if real children were not harmed, it may fall foul of child pornography laws.

Further, this is the kind of material a pedophile could use to teach his victims that what he is doing with them is normal and ok. It doesn't matter what the intent of the video was when it was created, nor whether it has been used to harm others. But it does matter if it can be used to harm children in the future.

There are many who think that child pornography laws have become too strict, and that free expression has been significantly harmed. I can't say that I feel sad for artists who feel they are being oppressed because they can't make a video that makes it appear as though children are laughing about some song suggesting sexual molestation.

The video is out there now. It's available if you want it, and there may be a lot of sweaty guys in their basements who are deriving particular pleasure from watching it.

How would you like it knowing that you, as a child, exist on such a video and are being used in such a manner, nevermind the possibility that your image is being used to teach other children that this behavior is normal and acceptable as a prelude to being molested?

The parents can get court orders and play whack a mole keeping it difficult to find, but there's no way they can go back in time and erase it from happening. What kind of teasing can we expect them to endure if their acquaintances figure out they were in it later on in life? The libel and slander laws in the US aren't as strong as they are in many places in Europe, but they may still apply to this. The video makes it appear that specific individual children are reacting in specific ways at key parts of the song.

What he did wasn't simply stupid, wasn't just a prank, and wasn't merely parody. It was criminal, even if there were no child pornography laws to prosecute him with.

 

[Iaculus]

It doesn't promote children as sex objects - it simply shows a lewd song with (apparent) reaction shots from children. The children themselves are not sexualised.

Even were the video legit rather than edited, the only thing it would be promoting would be saying naughty words in front of little kids, and even were a viewer a paedophile, it would probably take a very specialised collection of fetishes indeed for them to be aroused by it.

 

[Norris]

Well, here are a selection of the lyrics that I found in an article:

“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”
(close up of girl laughing and rocking)​

I think an argument can be made that it casts the kids as sex objects, based on that.

 

[evilmike]

There has been a plea deal in the case: Evan Emory gets 60 days in jail, two years probation, 200 hours of community service, mandatory counseling and fines and costs. And when he emerges from jail, Emory can’t be within 500 feet of children under the age of 17.

Original article here.

 

[AshburnerX]

So... he essentially can't live ANYWHERE.

 

[sixpackshaker]

Hard to believe that he will never get a decent job because he doctored a video. There are too many idiots, the lawmakers, the judge, DA, Defense Lawyer, and the stupid wanna be comedian.

 

[SpecialKO]

And when he emerges from jail, Emory can’t be within 500 feet of children under the age of 17.

...why? Did something come up in the process about him actually harming children, or putting them in a position to be harmed? It's not like he can't make another video, seeing as how the first one was edited together in the first place.

Not sure about all the other stuff, though I do agree with at least the fines and community service.

 

[Espy]

What the hell? Thats horrible. He's an idiot but he doesn't deserve that.

 

[@Li3n]

Or teenagers could be, you know, not stupid enough to send naked pictures around. They should be smart enough to delete the pictures after a few...uses if they do get them. I'm 21, and dated a girl three years younger than me for 2.5 years, with the relationship ending all of six months ago or so. You bet your sweet bippy we knew the legal ramifications of every single thing we did (should we have gotten caught) and behaved accordingly. Deleted dirty texts. Fooled around in places where we were unlikely to be caught.

So the idea is to not get caught... interesting.

Were waiting until she turned eighteen to do the "wild thing".

Then you weren't actually doing anything but pretending there where possible legal ramifications...

I believe the argument for making "fake" CP illegal revolves around the idea that drawn or photoshopped CP will create a need or desire in the perverts watching it, so they'll look for the real thing. Basically it's drawn or photoshopped CP is similar to a "gateway drug".

So it's bullshit, good to know.

 

[Jiarn]

It's a wonder how Eminem hasn't been busted for the same thing.....

 

[Hylian]

This whole thing is just so stupid.

 

[@Li3n]

It's a wonder how Eminem hasn't been busted for the same thing.....

Being able to hire a high priced lawyer... it's like magic.