Active Users:990 Time:02/11/2025 04:07:15 AM
Back to Messageboard Post New Thread Search Help Stats Rules
"sexually explicit material" is different than "obscene" moondog Send a noteboard - 22/02/2011 02:43:49 AM
there is absolutely ZERO evidence of sexually explicit material being created with these kids' images, at least not from the way the story is being reported. yes, he made an "obscene" video, but "sexually explicit" has to actually feature some version of sex and you'd have a very difficult time proving that's what he's done with his video.
"The RIAA has shown a certain disregard for the creative people of the industry in their eagerness to protect the revenues of the record companies." -- Frank Zappa

"That's the trouble with political jokes in this country... they get elected!" -- Dave Lippman
Reply to message
musician jailed over youtube prank -- faces 20+years plus child porn charges moondog - 20/02/2011 07:55:33 AM 1170 Views
Yay for home! MrFarstrider - 20/02/2011 12:20:14 PM 722 Views
Re: Yay for home! everynametaken - 22/02/2011 05:05:49 AM 710 Views
Mmmm, there is more to it . At first I was thinking it was much ado about nothing. Tashmere - 20/02/2011 03:31:51 PM 949 Views
This explains what happened better and lets me feel a little mercy for the guy. Tashmere - 20/02/2011 03:59:41 PM 1022 Views
as stated, the children were never exposed to the "adult only" performance moondog - 20/02/2011 04:35:32 PM 722 Views
So I guess the moral of this story is think before you put things on the internet. *NM* Darth_Katie - 20/02/2011 06:10:32 PM 276 Views
He should get the pants sued off him. Ghavrel - 20/02/2011 07:08:56 PM 621 Views
His only mistake was not getting them to sign something, allowing to be posted on youtube A Deathwatch Guard - 21/02/2011 01:51:30 AM 703 Views
kids don't have that right. The parents would have needed to sign. *NM* random thoughts - 21/02/2011 07:24:04 PM 298 Views
The lyrics were hilarious? The sample I read and posted had nothing funny in them...maybe you can Tashmere - 22/02/2011 12:35:05 AM 603 Views
Well ... from this parents perspective dart_board - 21/02/2011 12:33:25 PM 699 Views
Lol and people say human beings aren't civilized *NM* Dark Knight - 21/02/2011 05:32:32 PM 281 Views
Re: Lol and people say human beings aren't civilized dart_board - 22/02/2011 02:19:48 PM 634 Views
Stupid and in bad taste, but certainly not worth jail time *NM* ironclad - 21/02/2011 12:41:28 PM 291 Views
For using the childrens' faces without permission he could be sued for monetary damages. Tom - 21/02/2011 01:50:19 PM 735 Views
Re: For using the childrens' faces without permission he could be sued for monetary damages. moondog - 21/02/2011 03:46:48 PM 714 Views
Tashmere's first reply above has a sample of the lyrics and how they were cut with the video. *NM* Sareitha Sedai - 21/02/2011 03:58:35 PM 266 Views
Agreed, that's really the only thing I can see that he can be sued for here. *NM* Legolas - 25/02/2011 10:36:53 PM 252 Views
"Oh, I didn't actually abuse any of those kids." Sareitha Sedai - 21/02/2011 02:37:00 PM 642 Views
Agreed. But being an asshat is not a crime. *NM* Ghavrel - 21/02/2011 05:02:59 PM 258 Views
No, it's not. Sareitha Sedai - 21/02/2011 05:22:05 PM 722 Views
no but using children to create sexually explicit material is random thoughts - 21/02/2011 07:36:32 PM 729 Views
"sexually explicit material" is different than "obscene" moondog - 22/02/2011 02:43:49 AM 660 Views
That is debatable. Tashmere - 22/02/2011 05:25:46 AM 635 Views
you don't believe both can describe language? random thoughts - 22/02/2011 02:30:16 PM 597 Views
Yes, this was disgusting, but since when does dirty lyrics = porn? Aeryn - 22/02/2011 04:18:05 PM 701 Views
The written word can be considered porn so why not song lyrics? random thoughts - 22/02/2011 05:04:37 PM 644 Views
It can? Aeryn - 23/02/2011 04:34:40 AM 713 Views
Yep Isaac - 23/02/2011 05:04:49 AM 694 Views
Actually, obscenity is one of the most poorly defined concepts in US law. Ghavrel - 26/02/2011 09:57:21 PM 784 Views
Yes, I've posted on the Miller Test Isaac - 26/02/2011 10:54:11 PM 836 Views
Penthouse letters is porn random thoughts - 24/02/2011 12:52:31 AM 632 Views
Am I the only one thinking of The Exorcist here? Legolas - 25/02/2011 10:40:58 PM 772 Views
yes you are the only one thinking that *NM* random thoughts - 25/02/2011 11:33:53 PM 245 Views
You gotta admit it doesn't get much worse than that in terms of exposing children to obscenity. Legolas - 26/02/2011 12:13:46 AM 638 Views
I need say I don't think he should go to prison for twenty years random thoughts - 26/02/2011 07:30:17 PM 674 Views
Yes that is a name Bramhodoulos - 21/02/2011 09:04:19 PM 793 Views
Inappropriate of course but child porn? Give me a break! *NM* everynametaken - 22/02/2011 05:06:20 AM 317 Views
defamation maybe Aeryn - 22/02/2011 04:21:03 PM 586 Views
Not sure if anyone else has asked this... Antigone - 25/02/2011 01:19:08 PM 958 Views
kids are video taped all the time at schools random thoughts - 25/02/2011 02:05:38 PM 590 Views
School staff is one thing, outside sources are another. Avendesora - 25/02/2011 02:56:20 PM 670 Views
most states run background checks and this guy may have had one run on him random thoughts - 25/02/2011 03:19:58 PM 673 Views
he got permission from the teacher and the kids' parents before the original filming session moondog - 25/02/2011 03:20:30 PM 676 Views
they probably didn't think he would it to make a "funny" video random thoughts - 26/02/2011 07:43:59 PM 783 Views
show one example the song was about sex with children and I might agree *NM* moondog - 26/02/2011 09:23:44 PM 294 Views
If you try hard enough you can believe whatever you want random thoughts - 26/02/2011 10:09:45 PM 690 Views
and if you're determined to railroad someone none of the facts matter moondog - 26/02/2011 11:36:42 PM 834 Views
If I put out a video that had you giggling as I sung about cumming on your face you would be fine? random thoughts - 27/02/2011 09:09:25 PM 616 Views
of course not, but the 1st amendment says you have the right moondog - 27/02/2011 11:02:42 PM 584 Views
the courts ruled a long time ago that the 1st amendment does not cover all speech random thoughts - 28/02/2011 10:58:38 PM 806 Views
Back to Messageboard Post New Thread Search Help Stats Rules

Reply to Message

Block Quote Paragraph Quote
Formatting
Smiley Codes