Export thread

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.

Click to expand...

I... just... what.

Elvis would be embarrassed...

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.

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...

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.

sixpackshaker said:

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...

Click to expand...

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.

Gee, sorry, you broke the law.

Is Reno 911 shot in Michigan?

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

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

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”

Click to expand...

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.

sixpackshaker said:

Gee, sorry, you broke the law.

Is Reno 911 shot in Michigan?

Click to expand...

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

Norris said:

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.

Click to expand...

I can agree with this.

Tress said:

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.

Click to expand...

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?

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.

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.

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.

sixpackshaker said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

North_Ranger said:

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?

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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

Norris said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

SpecialKO said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

AshburnerX said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

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.

AshburnerX said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

Dave said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Dave said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Norris said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

SpecialKO said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Norris said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

SpecialKO said:

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.

Click to expand...

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?

SpecialKO said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Norris said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

SpecialKO said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

SpecialKO said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Espy said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

Frankie Williamson said:

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

Click to expand...

Plus thats just a mouthful and we are lazy people.

Frankie Williamson said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

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?

Jiarn said:

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?

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Jiarn said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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".

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.

Jiarn said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

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

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.

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 )

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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)​

Click to expand...

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

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.

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

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.

evilmike said:

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

Click to expand...

...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.

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

Norris said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

Norris said:

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

Click to expand...

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

Tress said:

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".

Click to expand...

So it's bullshit, good to know.

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

This whole thing is just so stupid.

Jiarn said:

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

Click to expand...

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