Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
Censorship Music Youtube Your Rights Online

Musician Jailed Over Prank YouTube Video 538

An anonymous reader writes "Evan Emory, a 21-year-old aspiring musician, edited together video of him singing a G-rated song to a bunch of giggling school kids with video of him singing a song with sexually explicit lyrics, and posted it on YouTube. For this stupid joke, done many times by professional comedians (all NSFW, obviously), and admittedly done without getting permission from the children shown 'hearing' him sing naughty words, he was arrested and could face 20 years in prison as a sex offender. On the pretext of looking for 'souvenirs' of child sexual abuse, his house has been searched by police, and the Muskegon County (Michigan) Prosecutor has insinuated (with no further evidence) that Emory actually wants to have sex with children and claims he 'victimized every single child in that classroom.' Emory insists he had no such intention."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Musician Jailed Over Prank YouTube Video

Comments Filter:
  • by hedwards ( 940851 ) on Saturday February 19, 2011 @06:18PM (#35255966)

    Unfortunately, in the US that's how it's done. Same goes for sexual abuse in general, the occurrence of a stranger doing it by force only represents a small minority of total cases. But because it's easier to get funding for abuse prevention programs decrying that as the norm, individuals who weren't subjected to such obviously wrong conduct end up doubting that they've got a legitimate right to help.

    The Trauma Myth [] It's a hard read but the author covers the topic far better than I could hope to here.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 19, 2011 @06:37PM (#35256130)

    And God!

    The virgin Mary was only 14 when she was impregnated by God!

    Then look at all those jews. They all become 'adults' at the age of 13.

    Then look at all the oriental girls they all look 13 even though they are 83.

    Don't even get me started on Greek / Roman civilization.

    The only way we can get a hold of this rampant pedophilia in society is to ban, all Christians, Jews and orientals.

    You might say that my comments make absolutely no sense. I would argue they make as much sense as any of the 'arguments' made by the government / media / law enforcement.

  • The Trauma Myth (Score:5, Interesting)

    by davidwr ( 791652 ) on Saturday February 19, 2011 @06:49PM (#35256200) Homepage Journal

    I didn't read the book but the WikiPedia summary [] of the book makes it sound like child sexual abuse is no big deal when in fact it is a very big deal.

    While the book's author is largely correct "that later in life, after the memories are processed, examined, and more fully understood, the experience becomes traumatic" this is precisely why child sexual abuse IS a big deal.

    The fact that it is a delayed trauma does not make it non-traumatic, except perhaps to people who die fairly quickly after the abuse happened, before their sub-conscious or conscious mind reacts to it.

    Another factor not addressed in the summary which I hope the book covers is the harm done by the ongoing subconscious processing of the experience before the conscious processing happens. This may come out as stress, physical ailments, physically aggressive or other socially inappropriate non-sexual behavior (socially inappropriate sexual behavior is easily explained by "daddy did it to me, it must be okay if I do it to someone else"), and the like well before the child consciously processes the fact that she was abused. I say "she" as most child-sex-abuse victims are female, but the same goes for male victims.

    Also, the Wikipedia article says "[Susan] Clancy [the book's author] concludes that since sexual abuse of children is not violent per se." If Clancy does indeed say this then she is just plain wrong or she restricts himself to only certain definitions of violence. In my book, violence does not have to be physical or even overtly coercive. Any act which violates another person without being, on balance, good is in my book an act of violence. Parents and other caretakers frequently violate the personal autonomy of children, it is a necessary part of proper child-rearing. The "on balance good" test covers things like forcing a child to endure pain while he gets his vaccinations, forcing a child to go to bed at a certain time, and all the other things that parents and others can and must to in order to be responsible caretakers.

  • by pipatron ( 966506 ) <> on Saturday February 19, 2011 @07:02PM (#35256292) Homepage
    As ridiculous as it may sound, replace "Santa Claus" with "God" and all of a sudden we're not that far from reality anymore.
  • by uninformedLuddite ( 1334899 ) on Saturday February 19, 2011 @07:40PM (#35256494)
    I am a 44 year old male. I was at the park a while ago and I always take my labrador and my chicken(she's very free range). Two young girls(probably about 12 or 13 years old) came up to me and started to talk to me. They sat down and were patting the chicken who is very tame and interesting. The whole time they were there I was nice and polite but couldn't help wanting them to just fuck off(mostly because they were inane little twits). A lady walked up and complimented me on the dog and talked about the chicken and said it was nice to see a father out with his kids. I said they weren't my children and they had just come up to pat the chicken. She gave me a filthy look and walked away. Fifteen minutes later a police car pulled up at the park wanting to know everything about me and why I was at the park.They weren't shy about trying to claim I was a molester who used my chicken to attract children.
    Also, my wife writes children's book and has 26 published. I was pulled over by the side of the road one day talking on my cellphone and a police car pulled up wanting to know what I was doing. One of the cops saw some kid's books in the car and asked me how old my kids where. I responded that I didn't have kids and he asked me if I used the books as bait. So rest assured USA this pedo-hysteria happens in Australia too.
  • Re:doh (Score:5, Interesting)

    by commodore6502 ( 1981532 ) on Saturday February 19, 2011 @08:43PM (#35256794)

    Too bad I'm not a judge.

    The prosecutor, the arresting officer, the officers that entered the home, and the lawyers in the courtroom (excepting the lawyer defending the victim) would automatically be sentenced to 1 month in prison for violating Amendments 1, 4, 9, and 14 of the Supreme Law of the land, as well as violating the Michigan Constitution, and their oaths.

    PLUS the State would be required to give this victim $10,000 as recompense for his inconvenience of time spent in jail, his house ransacked, plus any lost wages incurred as a result of not being able to report to work. And of course pay for his court fees.

    Failure to pay the monies to the victim would be considered contempt-of-court, and the responsible persons sent to 1 year additional jailtime.

  • Re:The Trauma Myth (Score:5, Interesting)

    by cas2000 ( 148703 ) on Saturday February 19, 2011 @08:52PM (#35256840)

    I haven't read or even heard of the book before, but just reading the wikipedia article about the author confirms my initial thought that a *very* short summary of her thesis might be that the actual crime of child abuse may be compounded many times over by the constant barrage of people telling the victim that they ought to be severely traumatised actually makes them far more traumatised than they would otherwise be, in a manner reminiscent of the way that deluded, obsessive, or even outright malicious "therapists" *create* False Memory Syndrome [] in susceptible people.

    i.e. that the crime of abuse may have happened, but that the trauma may be partly or even wholly created after the fact.

    it's not even a particularly surprising or unusual thesis...the Satanic Ritual Abuse [] moral panic of the 1980s clearly shows that it's possible to create such trauma even in children who *haven't* been sexually abused.

  • Just so you know... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Damase ( 951471 ) <> on Saturday February 19, 2011 @09:51PM (#35257100)

    I live here in Muskegon, Mi. These are the same people who tore down an 80 yr old retired WW2 veteran's home (basically) because they could not afford to take it by eminent domain @125% of value. It was an historic home. The home was built by the first mayor of the city and was on the city's precious historic trail. The man was a hoarder - a known mental illness- so the house was filthy on the inside. After the first hit by the wrecker the city declared the house structurally unfit and finished demolishing the home.

    These people have a nickname -- Gestapo. They are extremists in their puritanical beliefs, and this musician knows this. Therefore he wasn't just being a moron, his actions went to the level of recklessly - moronic - imbecile. He should have moved to Detroit first then did this using a willing classroom out there. Does he deserve 20yrs in prison and the reputation afterwards? Does a guy who puts his hand in a running lawnmower blade deserve to keep his hand? I guess fate plays it's part in these kinds of cases. He lost.

  • Re:The Trauma Myth (Score:4, Interesting)

    by AK Marc ( 707885 ) on Saturday February 19, 2011 @10:11PM (#35257184)
    How can a "stranger" abuse a child without abducting them? The only conceivable scenario for that is if you are home asleep and they break into your home, abuse them in the house, then leave before anyone notices. I'd assert that the incidence of that is zero. Otherwise, they must abduct them or they weren't "strangers."

    The stats use "stranger" to indicate people who were invited into the house or for whom permission was given for the child to be alone with. Even if not well known, I think that makes them non-strangers. The people who define the crimes define "someone who the parents have met and are willing to leave their child alone with voluntarily" as a stranger in order to increase the number of "stranger" crimes to increase fear.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 19, 2011 @10:34PM (#35257282)

    I'm a single dad with an 11 year old daughter. She and her friends play after school all the time at each other's houses, but never at our house. Not because I don't welcome them, but because I'm a single dad. Many of my daughter's friends have outright said that they are not allowed over at our house. My daughter had a birthday party 2 weeks ago and had invited 12 of her friends to come over for a pizza and movies, but only 2 rsvped that they would be allowed to attend. When we changed to location to a local pizza joint (same night, same time), all of a sudden all 12 girls could come to the party. My daughter is punished because my wife passed away... amazing how paranoid and hurtful people can be.

  • by VortexCortex ( 1117377 ) <.moc.edargorter- ... . .xetroCxetroV.> on Saturday February 19, 2011 @10:36PM (#35257296)

    So true. One day my cable Internet went down (I work at home). My city has WIFI coverage, so I took my laptop to the park directly across the street from my house to get better reception. On the other side of the park (over 150 meters away) is an elementary school.

    While I downloaded my email a couple walked past on the way to pick up their child from school. We made small talk about the speed & cost of the city WIFI.

    Five minutes later a police officer walked up and began questioning me. He said that a few parents reported a suspicious man in the park near the school with a computer. I told the cop exactly what I was doing -- Using the WIFI I've paid for in a public place. He asked if I was waiting on the children to be let out of school, and if I would mind if he took a look at the computer.

    I told him that my fiancée's son goes to a different school, and I had no children of my own. I also refused any searches unless he had a warrant to do so. The officer became visibly aggravated at this point. He called his partner over while he checked my ID and asked asked why I preferred to be working on my computer closer to the school than in the comfort of my own home (across the street). I pointed out the WIFI antenna above my head, explained in detail how signal to noise ratio relates to WIFI speed, and asked his partner if he didn't prefer being couped up in the stuffy police car instead of this park on such a pretty day.

    After a questioning me for another half an hour (trying to get me to slip up and say something suspicious?) the officers eventually left me alone. I thanked them for "doing a fine job", and finally realised why I never see anyone in the park. Apparently, being a 30-something male in a public place is suspicious -- especially if the place is a park near a school (regardless of the proximity of your home).

  • Re:doh (Score:4, Interesting)

    by gpmanrpi ( 548447 ) on Sunday February 20, 2011 @12:30AM (#35257670)

    While not the exact thing you're saying is possible, something along those lines could be possible. This seems like a malicious prosecution. Since IAAL, I would unofficially say without having read up on my Michigan case law, I think at least a strong admonishment is in order, and I would double check the statute on malicious prosecution in Michigan... oh wait here it is:

    "600.2907 Malicious prosecution or action; civil liability, penalty. Sec. 2907. Every person who shall, for vexation and trouble or maliciously, cause or procure any other to be arrested, attached, or in any way proceeded against, by any process or civil or criminal action, or in any other manner prescribed by law, to answer to the suit or prosecution of any person, without the consent of such person, or where there is no such person known, shall be liable to the person so arrested, attached or proceeded against, in treble the amount of the damages and expenses which, by any verdict, shall be found to have been sustained and incurred by him; and shall be liable to the person in whose name such arrest or proceeding was had in the sum of $200.00 damages, and shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable on conviction by imprisonment in the county jail for a term not exceeding 6 months."

    So, looks like a misdemeanor. There could be professional responsibility sanctions separately brought through the Michigan Bar.

    My other cent. No reasonable attorney under the circumstances would interpret the law as this prosecutor has interpreted it. If I were representing him, I would move to dismiss w/ prejudice ASAP, as it is clearly not a valid charge, or move to have the charging document clarified as to how the action is a violation of the law. This is called several things in several states. But if your information or indictment fails to clearly state a claim, it needs to be clarified or dismissed. If those don't work, move to dismiss based on the fact that the statute is unconstitutionally vague, overly broad, etc. That usually isn't a winner because you can use the reasonable person standard, but it really sounds like it is completely vague in this case.

    This is one of the few times if I were a judge I would dismiss the case at arraignment or first appearance(bond hearing). That almost never happens, ever. The fact that this man hat to pay any bond is also a mystery to me. Is he honestly a flight risk?

  • by Jafafa Hots ( 580169 ) on Sunday February 20, 2011 @01:14AM (#35257806) Homepage Journal

    The place where I worked opened a day care center right in the front of the building for children of employees.
    They built a playground in part of where the parking lot used to be, in front of the entrance.
    They also had picnic tables for employees who didn;t want to be ramped in the depressing cafeterias during lunch on nice days.

    I like kids. I have 6 nieces and a nephew, had a large part in raising my eldest niece, and what it more pleasant and stress reducing than watching a playground full of happy kids? I should add here that I worked for - A TOY COMPANY.

    We made toys, we needed to understand kids, we made products for them, needed to see how they interacted with them. And it would be pretty good if you're working at making kids' toys that you - ya'know, kinda LIKE kids, care about them, understand them, be able to see through their eyes, etc. All of that. Would be hard to work for a toy company and not have an understanding of kids.

    So I sat out there one day at a picnic table eating my lunch, looking around, sometimes watching the kids play. I was maybe 26 and was also hoping to be a dad someday, I think I would have made a good dad.

    The looks I got from people - that was enough, I never went outside for lunch by myself ever again.

    For fuck's sake, I was an employee of a toy company on lunch break, and people gave me strange looks for watching the other employee's kids play in the company playground.

    There's something wrong when a male of child-rearing age cannot even say "I like kids" without that coming across as creepy to a lot of people.

  • by parlancex ( 1322105 ) on Sunday February 20, 2011 @03:04AM (#35258170)
    My friend and I once decided to go to a fast food restaurant (at the time we were ages 20 and 21). It was raining and my friend didn't have a coat, as a joke we cut up a garbage bag and he put it on, and even though I had a coat I thought it would be goofy if I wore my girlfriend's lab coat. We took a camera to record people's reactions (note what GP said about cameras) which I put in my vest pocket, where it was quite obvious / visible. We stood in line and placed our order, a few people working in the store thought we looked ridiculous and it was funny.

    There was a lady in front of us there with her daughter who looked like she was about 15 that suddenly turned around and accused of taping her daughter for sexual purposes. Her daughter was dressed as a whore but obviously that was not our aim; If we were there to make videos of girls we would probably not wear weird costumes to attract attention to ourselves, and we might actually try to hide the camera. I offered to delete all the video we had shot because I understand some people might be uncomfortable being taped without their consent, but she insisted that we had hidden the pornographic material on the camera and that we wouldn't really delete anything. Her husband called the cops and at that point my friend and I figured we should just stay and explain ourselves to them because if we leave it's going to look like we fled, so we sat around and waited for the cops to show up. They eventually showed up and escorted my friend and I to the squad car where we explained our side of the story. After another half hour of waiting while they talked to the insane lady in the restaurant the cop came back and asked to see the camera which I happily handed over and showed him how to retrieve what was on it. Eventually he let us go, and the restaurant banned us for "causing" a disturbance.

    Long story short the moral of the story is that it is a crime to 1) Be male and be near girls under 18 2) Do / wear anything weird 3) Be in possession of a camera. Even though we weren't actually arrested or charged with anything we still had to waste a few hours of our day to deal with the incident and suffer the embarrassment of the situation in public just because we were accused.

We all like praise, but a hike in our pay is the best kind of ways.