It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Michigan resident charged with 20-year felony for singing sex song

page: 2
9
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 04:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Blarneystoner
 


I agree as I stated in a previous post. Facing 20 years in prison for this is just rediculous.
Community service or something like that would be sufficient.




posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 04:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
Hmmmm. Well, I have to admit, I think he is an idiot for mixing sex and children. You just dont do that in America

unless you're abc, nbc, mtv, cbs, disney, fox, or any other major network (government supporters/supported) of course
edit on 17-2-2011 by alaskan because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 04:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by IntastellaBurst
reply to post by Fractured.Facade
 



... obviously a pervert ??


Feeding child sex abuse ???


lol..... some people really have no clue, and obviously never developed a sense of humour.

Get over yourselves busybody parents, its a JOKE.

" oh but i dont find it funny" they'll tell me.....

yeah well.... i have a feeling you dont find a whole lot in life to be very funny.... but that doesnt mean you have to drag the rest of us into your personal hells.


I enjoy humor, and a good laugh when I can.

If this is your idea of a joke, and you find it funny, then obviously you have a very warped sense of humor.

What the hell is wrong with people who are seeking to minimize something like this?

Tragic is what this is, also rather revealing... I suppose I was expecting there to be only one side of this issue, as to be defending something like this is just wrong on so many levels that it requires no further comment.




posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 04:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Fractured.Facade
 


Noone was harmed. I haven't seen the video, since it was pulled from YouTube, so there is absolutely no way of know in what way it was "sexually vulgar". Since I strongly believe in innocent until proven guilty AND there are much worse things being put out my Hollywood and TV than what one finds on YouTube, I have a hard time believing that this would be anything other than yet another tacky video on YouTube.

Show me the video and I may change my mind.



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 04:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fractured.Facade

What the hell is wrong with people who are seeking to minimize something like this?



No... what the hell is wrong w/people who want to destroy a young man's life for a simple mistake. Granted, it was wrong to do but the damage was minimal. Please remember that none of the children were directly exposed to the song....

Hell... I know plenty of parents who have let their underaged children watch questionable material on the television and movies, should they be thrown in jail as well? Someone mentioned that certain TV shows do this sort of thing all the time!! Just recently I watched an episode of Tosh.O where he did almost the exact same type of thing!!

It's important to remember that the society we live in today, exploits children on a daily basis; Mylee Cyrus (sic?) comes to mind.

Seriously man... the guy is 20 yrs old... put him in jail for 20 yrs and he'll probably be a hardened criminal when he gets out...

What if your son made a mistake like that? How would your opinion change?

edit on 17-2-2011 by Blarneystoner because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 04:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Erasure.
 



Here is something I found on another forum that relays the letter of the law:

"j) "Passive sexual involvement" means an act, real or simulated, that exposes another person to or draws another person's attention to an act of sexual intercourse, erotic fondling, sadomasochistic abuse... sexual excitement, or erotic nudity because of viewing any of these acts or because of the proximity of the act to that person, for the purpose of real or simulated overt sexual gratification or stimulation of 1 or more of the persons involved.

(m) "Child sexually abusive material" means any depiction... which is of a child or appears to include a child engaging in a listed sexual act; a book, magazine, computer, computer storage device, or other visual or print or printable medium containing such video, electronic visual image...or computer-generated image, ..."

-Attributed to poster "hannabanana" on website www.wwmt.com... (not sure if it was necessary to cite this source)


So I retract my earlier assertation. There is, infact, a crime.



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 04:34 PM
link   
reply to post by sixswornsermon
 


Here is a link to the law in question, I think.
Michigan Penal Code Sec 145c.

Looks like they have him on "Passive Sexual Involvement"



(j) "Passive sexual involvement" means an act, real or simulated, that exposes another person to or draws another person's attention to an act of sexual intercourse, erotic fondling, sadomasochistic abuse, masturbation, sexual excitement, or erotic nudity because of viewing any of these acts or because of the proximity of the act to that person, for the purpose of real or simulated overt sexual gratification or stimulation of 1 or more of the persons involved.


Incidentally, It is also illegal to own anything that qualifies under this bill.. 4 year felony. So a movie where a child actor is placed in a "Passive Sexual Involvement" situation is illegal.


edit on 2-17-2011 by rogerstigers because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 04:51 PM
link   
reply to post by alaskan
 


Maybe I dont watch enough television to understand what you are talking about. Any specific shows I can look up?

I was also unaware that child actors were performing in any production, involving sex or otherwise, without their parents permission. How long has this been going on?



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 04:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander
 


Well, according to the law in question, parental consent is moot.



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 04:55 PM
link   
reply to post by rogerstigers
 


Starred.

Thanks for the complete link.



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 04:59 PM
link   
reply to post by rogerstigers
 


I bet he wouldnt be in this situation if he had used children of parents who consented. Much like the child actors in whatever shows the other poster is claiming mixes sex and children.

Mixing children of parents who didnt consent, with a location, a school, that did not consent, with a sex song, is dumb. You and your friend can try all you want to say the MSM does this all the time, but they dont.



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 05:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander
 


Yeah, I can agree with you on that. The only reason the AG got involved (probably) is because some parent complained. So if noone complains, it's not a crime, I guess? Actually, yeah.. things are only illegal if you get caught..


BTW, Glee would probably count as criminal to posess, based on my understanding of the show. As would Hackers (although one could provide defense that although Angelina Joline's character was depicted as under 18, she was over 18 at the time of filming). One would have a field day with hentai, because being that they are cartoons, one cannot age them, but a lot of them look young because that is how they are drawn.

In this case, the state has a cut and dry case. I am not arguing the fact that he did or did not break a law. It is clear from the wording of the law that he broke it. The problem comes from the fact that the law is so broad that it allows for irrational and irresponsible prosecution.


edit on 2-17-2011 by rogerstigers because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 05:18 PM
link   
reply to post by rogerstigers
 


Which was why I brought up consent.

Consent may not be an issue in the law itself, but it plays a huge role in whether or not someone is in the police station or prosecutors office demanding something be done.

I dont agree that if you dont get caught its not illegal, legality has nothing to do with being caught, but you usually dont get prosecuted for breaking the law unless someone complains and brings it to the attention of the authorities.

The guy was just dumb all the way around. Personally, I abhor the "anything for fame" type of person. So I know I am harsher on him than some. There are some lines, imho, you should not cross for fame, money and power.



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 05:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander
 


Agreed. And my "not illegal unless you get caught" was tounge in cheek.



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 05:23 PM
link   
Something not mentioned...there is an episode of "South Park" where Chef sings a song for the Children that is mainly all sexual innuendos...but then again that was TV, not real life, right? But I bet that some of those kids and their parents got a kick out of that episode of South Park.

This kid made a mistake that all youngins make at one time or another...it's called LACK OF JUDGMENT, as did the school for not having him WRITE out his plans for said actions.

He calls himself a comedian, he may well be. Without seeing the video, it is next to impossible to decide anything against the kid except poor judgment. How many parents saw the tape? He did include a disclaimer which he figured would cover his behind...not in that state...again poor judgment. As a parent, how many asked their kids what happened?
Were the words and actions "bad"? Or as usual did they go on the witch hunt most mid western bible thumpers tend to do?

The state will make an example of this kid, just because they can. This kid appears to have a sense of humor that is not acceptable to the town he lives in. Maybe he should just keep the over 18 crowd giggling...unless he wants to talk about bathroom humor...which btw goes over very well with the younger set. OOPps...would that get somebody thrown in jail too? Community service would be acceptable punishment for the kid if he's never been in trouble like this before.



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 05:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Holly N.R.A.
 


According to the law in Michigan, a video of that SouthPark episode might be illegal to own. As well as some episodes of Robot Chicken.. such as the one where the nerdy kid dreams up a unicorn.



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 07:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Holly N.R.A.
 


Cartoon kids don't have real families with real feelings do they? So who cares if Chef sings to fake kids. I don't think you can compare a South Park episode with this situation. I can tell you that as a father I would have a problem with what he did if my kid was in the video.



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 07:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Erasure.
 


In a case such as this it would not matter. Cartoon kids are just as illegal as real kids. So sayeth the great state of Michigan.



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 07:57 PM
link   
reply to post by TV_Nation
 


It was outrageous that he did this and should receive a harsher sentence than the 20 years in prison.

How about 8 hours locked in a room and being forced to listen to Justin Bieber?

All kidding aside, if this does not fall under cruel and unusual punnishment, nothing does



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 08:03 PM
link   
It says that the ''crime'' he has been charged with carries a maximum of 20 years in prison, does anyone know what the minimum sentence he could face would be ?

I tried searching the Michigan laws, but couldn't find the particular law on their site.

Even if he was convicted, he would probably serve a lot less than 20 years, not that that would be much better, but using the maximum term he could face seems like more sensationalism from the media.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join