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.

 

Youtube artist arrested for child porn for "funny video" (involving no nudity)

page: 2
6
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 11:19 AM
link   
I just looked at the "lyrics" and altough this is a bit exaggeratet ...we´ll this guy is obvioulsy a attention whore and got what he asked for


Blame me but I don´t feel sorry for him




posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 11:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by JibbyJedi
Get use to this.


It's that kind of mentality that helped Rome to fall.

I refuse to partake in a obscene and hedonistic future.
I also tend to value the right of individuals to be informed of how they will be "used" in artistic endeavors.

If you want to walk that path of "so it goes, get used to it"- go right ahead.
You have that right, you have that freedom of opinion.

Just don't think you have the right to push that mentality on the rest of us without consent.
Those of us who find his actions deplorable and disgusting also have our freedom to challenge that societal direction.

And ultimately, that's what this whole case is about - the face that the parents were not given a chance for informed consent.

Even actors and musicians have stipulations in their contracts as to how their images can/cannot be used, are the general public somehow exempt from such protection?

However, if a tabloid society is your thing, be prepared to buckle up and "get used to it".

Just don't be surprised if one day you yourself become front page news.
After all, that's the way we're headed if we don't stand up and say "enough is enough".

It's easy to have a casual opinion on issues such as this until they end up standing on your front door and squatting in your living room or hauling you off into a courtroom to testify to your actions.






.



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 11:36 AM
link   
Wait a minute. Didn't some african american comedian do the exactly same thing? I have a vague memory of someone singing dirty songs or telling dirty jokes and then edited in with the kids who were filmed earlier. So if I remember correctly only famous people are allowed to do this?



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 03:45 PM
link   
Bloody hell, this video is really tough to find... I'll keep on looking and of course share any results

How are we supposed to have a clear-cut opinion about anything with this kind of censorship?



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 03:51 PM
link   
reply to post by PsykoOps
 


Not so much special treatment as it is differing state laws. Kind of like the Democratic Peoples Republic of Illinois and their use of the state wiretap law to prosecute people for recording cops.

Regardless of State, the charge is BS and should be dropped.



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 03:59 PM
link   
This whole issue pisses me off.

I mean, what happened to comedy?!

This "musician/comedian" didn't expose the children to anything inappropriate and the kids had a good time when he came in to sing to them.


How many shows have recorded inappropriate things being said to children? Tons.
Anyone watch Reno 911? Think about all the kids they say inappropriate things to for the sake of comedy. And of course, similar to this incident, I highly doubt that the kids were even there when the inappropriate content was filmed. They were just in the background.


So how is this guy being charged with child porn?! There was nothing inappropriate being done in front of the children, and there was nothing inappropriate being said to the children.
All the inappropriate material was edited in later.

I can understand that maybe the parents are pissed off that their child's face can be seen in this comedian's video. But that can easily be fixed... blur it!


And as a last point... I bet these parents wouldn't be so angry if this comedian's video was popular enough to make money. If anything, they'd be asking for a cut of the loot.



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 04:02 PM
link   
reply to post by xFloggingMaryx
 


Comedy is alive and well, and we can see this in this case where they are prosecuting the guy. Good thing we arent signatories to the International Criminal Court. I hear the West wing of the hague gets warm during summer months.

Politically Corectness is taking its toll.



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 04:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


Would it fall under federal jurisdiction if it was shown on tv. I think it may have been SNL skit or something like that. Not sure who the comedian was.



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 04:24 PM
link   
reply to post by PsykoOps
 


Yup.. It would violate the terms and conditions set forth by the FCC. However, they have all sorts of rules for programming, time of day or night etc. Radio stations are allowed to play songs that use the F word, provided its not in the sense of intercourse..

and yeah... The things we choose to care about lol.



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 04:30 PM
link   
reply to post by againuntodust
 


Anyone ever seen the album cover for Nirvana's "Nevermind"

ZOMG BABY PENOR BURN THE WITCH!!!

How about the cover to The Scorpions' "Virgin Killer"

Please. These charges are spurious and totally idiotic.



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 04:30 PM
link   
Still looking, found this on the way:

www.youtube.com...

Any concerned parents wish to fracking flag it as a pedophile video?



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 04:52 PM
link   
Man, it is much easier to find actual child porn that this god forsaken video.

(disclaimer: joke)



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 04:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hawking


I remember reading about this a few weeks ago when it was still being considered a serious felony. I think what he did was remarkably stupid and depending on the decency laws in the region he could be prosecuted on some kind of misdemeanor (maybe) but to call it "child pornography" or "posting harmful information on the internet" I think completely misses the point.
edit on 13-3-2011 by Hawking because: (no reason given)


What happened to the freedom of speech our soldiers have fought so hard for? Hell yes, it's offensive and distasteful, but I will fight to the death for his right to produce it!



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 05:19 PM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 06:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by GENERAL EYES

Originally posted by JibbyJedi
Get use to this.


It's that kind of mentality that helped Rome to fall.

I refuse to partake in a obscene and hedonistic future.
I also tend to value the right of individuals to be informed of how they will be "used" in artistic endeavors.

If you want to walk that path of "so it goes, get used to it"- go right ahead.
You have that right, you have that freedom of opinion.

Just don't think you have the right to push that mentality on the rest of us without consent.
Those of us who find his actions deplorable and disgusting also have our freedom to challenge that societal direction.

And ultimately, that's what this whole case is about - the face that the parents were not given a chance for informed consent.

Even actors and musicians have stipulations in their contracts as to how their images can/cannot be used, are the general public somehow exempt from such protection?

However, if a tabloid society is your thing, be prepared to buckle up and "get used to it".

Just don't be surprised if one day you yourself become front page news.
After all, that's the way we're headed if we don't stand up and say "enough is enough".

It's easy to have a casual opinion on issues such as this until they end up standing on your front door and squatting in your living room or hauling you off into a courtroom to testify to your actions.






.



So then, it is a civil matter is what you are saying, correct? Good, I was about to faint over here.



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 06:53 PM
link   
reply to post by totalmetal
 


He can produce the crap all he wants as long as he doesn't use children in it without their parent's consent. I'm not saying he should go to prison, but there do need to be consequences for what he did. Those soldiers didn't die so he could use children to exercise his right to free speech.



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 10:23 PM
link   
reply to post by SmokeandShadow
 


Definitely a civil matter.


I can't recall the correct quote, (nor can I find it), but to paraphrase Plato a bit:

"It's up to the artist to censor himself".

Plato's Republic has quite a bit to say on the importance of maintaining a certain standard of the arts, to safeguard against social decline. Some of it is pretty heavy handed, but considering it's really meant for the community forum (not the private one) I find much of what he has to say valid ( although there are others who disagree and insist on full run with their personal ideologies without respect for others sensitivities).

I find it a shame so many these days seem to revel in obscenities to the point that they overlook simple respect for the greater communities and other people....a private value system is not an end all be all and the misnomer that other people aren't entitled to their own standards of acceptability is foolishly egotistical and shortsighted.

Really, I think the "child pornography" charges come of a bit harsh, but I'm almost certain the courts are coming from a much older usage of the word "pornography" than modern dictionaries and most thesauri attest to these days....it's original connotation was "lewd" or "indecent" - aka "detrimental to a healthy perspective".

Most people hear the term these days and think nekkid ladies, sexual acts, etc...but if we're going with the modern definition of "lewd" in this context:



Lewd [lood] –adjective -

1. inclined to, characterized by, or inciting to lust or lechery; lascivious.
2. obscene or indecent, as language or songs; salacious.
3. Obsolete .
a. low, ignorant, or vulgar.
b. base, vile, or wicked, especially of a person.
c. bad, worthless, or poor, especially of a thing.

.
I'm not a lawyer, mind you - but I'm betting beans to buttermilk the courts are going with a connotation of this nature and not the conventional laymen usage of the term "pornography".

I'm not a parent, mind you - and I'm also not a prude - but if I was told my kids would be in a "funny video" and this sort of tripe showed up, you bet I'd be up in arms and pretty ticked off as well.

Seeing as how it's a small community and those involved are pretty ticked, he'll probably get the book thrown at him pretty hard and I'm sure he'll re-think his "artistic" contributions a little more carefully in the future.

I mean, sheesh - it's not like they're going to give the guy the death penalty.

edit on 3/13/11 by GENERAL EYES because: Grammar, context.



posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 12:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by GENERAL EYES
Even actors and musicians have stipulations in their contracts as to how their images can/cannot be used, are the general public somehow exempt from such protection?


Funny comming from the poster with the stolen image of Charlie Sheen. Or did you ask permission to use his photo?
edit on 14-3-2011 by Nutter because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 01:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by ReluctantBlossom
He can produce the crap all he wants as long as he doesn't use children in it without their parent's consent. I'm not saying he should go to prison, but there do need to be consequences for what he did. Those soldiers didn't die so he could use children to exercise his right to free speech.


I'm assuming Jimmy Kimmel is now a pedophile in your eyes also? See the video posted above for more info.



posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 04:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Nutter
 


Let's just say it's been sanctioned by the Royal Order of Vatican Assassins.


Cheers.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join