Youtube Prankster Sentenced to 60 days in Jail

[bertoltus]

I wonder what these guys would think of this case:



They've been shopped into a lot of similar situations, but has there ever been a lawsuit?

[Sigz]

Technically speaking the parents did give permission for their kids to be filmed:


https://www.reelseo.com/youtube-legal-evan-emory/

VanLoon explained to me that Ravenna Schools has its own “op-out policy” via an Emergency Information Record form. He said it is provided to all parents at the start of every school year; and an individual parent is required to fill it out for every child they have attending their schools. VanLoon had a copy of this form sent to me and highlighted the relevant areas, which I have copied verbatim below.

Right before where parents are supposed to sign, is the following statement:

I grant permission for the school, in whole or in part, to use photographs, written extractions, and voice recordings of my student(s) for the purpose of marketing and publications unless otherwise notified in writing.”

On a second page or back page of the same form, there is a section under “STUDENT PICTURES FOR PUBLICATION,” which reads as follows:

During the course of the school year, occasions may arise when photographs of students will be taken for newspapers, school publications or other media. Usually the student is identified in these pictures. Parents are to provide written indication of any objections to their child’s picture being published in this fashion at the beginning of each school year.”

[Durg]

Maybe I went to see David Bowie and had no idea who this NIN guy even was.

David Bowie and NIN?  I missed that one.

And in terms of my defending the guy, I'll agree that he's an idiot.  But, I'll call him an idiot only in that he should have known that people are fucking irrational when it comes to kids, and even doing something that effects absolutely no one can land you in jail in a society where the "think of the children!" mentality has completely obliterated common sense.  I see no harm whatsoever in his actions, but he probably should have known that you don't need to do anything wrong to get hosed by the paranoid and dimwitted culture of overprotective parents.

   wow.  just...... wow!  irrational?  paranoid?  dimwitted?  overprotective?

common sense is is exactly what this kid was lacking.  The kids were not in on the joke.  Will Ferral can pay a kid lots of money to be in his skit and curse at her.  But calling parents who were outraged over this all those names is ignorant.  Clearly you don't have any kids and can't relate to the overwhelming desire to protect your kids.  There are so many perverted sexual predators out there that make us that way.  Maybe a childhood's innocence is not important to you right now in your life but it sure is to us irrational overprotective parents.

::slams door while walking out::

[ehra]

You want to compare a Nine Inch Nails song which is targeted to adults and sold with a warning label to some moron kid's innocent recording of school children edited with lewd messages?  Come on man!

I don't see what the big deal is. Youtube videos that are flagged for inappropriate content aren't able to be viewed unless you make an account and, as far as I know, say that you're 18+. The video should have absolutely no affect on the kids.

And, to go along with Sigz' link, every year of school I was sent a form my parents had to sign saying they were ok with my picture being taken and used for whatevs.

common sense is is exactly what this kid was lacking.  The kids were not in on the joke.  Will Ferral can pay a kid lots of money to be in his skit and curse at her.  But calling parents who were outraged over this all those names is ignorant.  Clearly you don't have any kids and can't relate to the overwhelming desire to protect your kids.  There are so many perverted sexual predators out there that make us that way.  Maybe a childhood's innocence is not important to you right now in your life but it sure is to us irrational overprotective parents.

What does this have to do wit hthe kids' innocence? All they saw/heard was the song the school brought him in the sing. Your Wil Ferral example doesn't work because the guy didn't say anything lewd to the kids. The only way the kids would see the video and have any affect on their "innocence" was if they went on youtube and watched the video, which was most likely flagged for inappropriate content anyway (or if their outraged parents showed it to them and told them they were being harmed by a video they would have never saw otherwise).

[El Barto]

Maybe I went to see David Bowie and had no idea who this NIN guy even was.

David Bowie and NIN?  I missed that one.

And in terms of my defending the guy, I'll agree that he's an idiot.  But, I'll call him an idiot only in that he should have known that people are fucking irrational when it comes to kids, and even doing something that effects absolutely no one can land you in jail in a society where the "think of the children!" mentality has completely obliterated common sense.  I see no harm whatsoever in his actions, but he probably should have known that you don't need to do anything wrong to get hosed by the paranoid and dimwitted culture of overprotective parents.

   wow.  just...... wow!  irrational?  paranoid?  dimwitted?  overprotective?

common sense is is exactly what this kid was lacking.  The kids were not in on the joke.  Will Ferral can pay a kid lots of money to be in his skit and curse at her.  But calling parents who were outraged over this all those names is ignorant.  Clearly you don't have any kids and can't relate to the overwhelming desire to protect your kids.  There are so many perverted sexual predators out there that make us that way.  Maybe a childhood's innocence is not important to you right now in your life but it sure is to us irrational overprotective parents.

::slams door while walking out::

When you said you didn't have a daughter, I assumed you didn't have any kids.  Now I gather you actually are a parent.  I wasn't trying to lump you and Hef into the group I was criticizing.

That said, I've long maintained that parents make insane decisions in their efforts to protect their kids.  This is no exception.  Protecting your kid is fine.  Imposing idiotic laws on everybody else in the misguided belief that you are protecting them is not.  There was no theft of innocence here, and I see insisting otherwise as another example of people's vision being clouded by the parental instinct. 

In the case of this prosecution, I see it merely as punishing somebody for a crime he pretended to commit.  Somehow or another, parents are manufacturing an excuse to be outraged to pursue the prosecution.  Frankly, I suspect that it really has more to do with all the civil suits that are sure to follow than any perceived harm that came their way. 

BTW, it's interesting to me that you (Durg) addressed this only as it would pertain to a daughter you don't have.  It would have troubled you less if your son had been in the room?

[Ben_Jamin]

What ehra said is right? Meaning it makes sense.

One: we can't see the video for ourselves, which was stupid in their part.

Two: All he did was edit two videos. Plus, if the parents were there and know he sang a different song its not hurting the kids. The only thing he did was exploit for humor, which TV and Movies do all the time.

Three: If its because they exploited them, one could use the TV argument. Then it might be money they want.

This is just insane. I have no idea how people can think he is wrong.

[HarlequinForest]

Bad taste at worst (sounds pretty funny, though).  In no way a criminal offense, imo.

[Perpetual Change]

Then the fault lies with the school that allowed the kids to be videotaped without their consent.  Why isn't anybody questioning them?

Didn't the guy already say that he wasn't honest with the school about his intentions?

I see no harm whatsoever in his actions, but he probably should have known that you don't need to do anything wrong to get hosed by the paranoid and dimwitted culture of overprotective parents.

Sorry, this is one of the few times I honestly can't figure out where your coming from. If he'd been honest with the school about the kind of video he was making, parents could have objected and made sure their kids weren't a part of it. Instead, they had no choice. He coerced a room full of people into being a part of his video. How is that fair? Frankly, if I showed up in someone's video without permission or even knowledge of what kind of video was being made I'd be angry, especially if I found the subject material and the way I was presented to be offensive. Among other things, I'd be looking for a paycheck!

I'm curious how outraged people would be if this had occurred on Madd TV.  Sounds like the sort of thing they'd have done. 

Probably not. Mad TV would have told the parents of the children exactly what was going on. They probably would have paid them for it, too.

[El Barto]

Then the fault lies with the school that allowed the kids to be videotaped without their consent.  Why isn't anybody questioning them?

Didn't the guy already say that he wasn't honest with the school about his intentions?

This is one of the things that baffles me.  If I were a school administrator, nobody would be filming my students.  Period.  Maybe, if ABC wanted to do a feature on how mine was the greatest school in the universe, maybe.  Some guy wants to film first graders for some alleged project?  No dice.  There's just too much liability.  They had waivers signed, so the CYA aspect is taken care of, but it's still a pretty bad idea and they're still going to be settling lawsuits for the next 5 years. 

I see no harm whatsoever in his actions, but he probably should have known that you don't need to do anything wrong to get hosed by the paranoid and dimwitted culture of overprotective parents.

Sorry, this is one of the few times I honestly can't figure out where your coming from. If he'd been honest with the school about the kind of video he was making, parents could have objected and made sure their kids weren't a part of it. Instead, they had no choice. He coerced a room full of people into being a part of his video. How is that fair? Frankly, if I showed up in someone's video without permission or even knowledge of what kind of video was being made I'd be angry, especially if I found the subject material and the way I was presented to be offensive. Among other things, I'd be looking for a paycheck!

So the harm here is that they didn't get the opportunity to cash in?  That's actually the first argument I've seen that makes any sense.  Except that there was no commercial element here.  My problem is with the parents, both the real ones and the hypothetical ones in here, discussing how they lost their innocence.  That's ridiculous.  This had absolutely no affect on those kids, unless the parents sat them down and showed them the video, and even then I doubt they'd give a shit.
 



How 'bout these guys.  They didn't seek to be on camera.  All they did was enter a venue with a sign posted that said you might be filmed--deal with it.  Exactly the same level of consent that the parents signed off on at this school.  I'd say that these two have much more of a right to be outraged than the parents of those kiddos since they're intentionally being made the objects of ridicule instead of merely being unaware spectators (like everybody sitting around them),  and yet I suspect that none of us would suggest that anybody should be sued or prosecuted over this.  If it were a kid picking his nose, all of these same parents would say "d'awwww, how cute!"


Now, for my one and only bit of contrition.  None of us have seen the video.  I can actually imagine a scenario where it might have been over the line.  If he edited it in such a way that when he alluded to the shocker in his song, there was a close up of a girl reacting as if she wanted a finger in her ass, then yeah, we've got a problem here.  But at the same time, my initial thought about the video was that the kids were presented just like the old ladies in every single Monty Python episode.  No harm, no foul.  I guess where we might be having this disconnect is how we automatically assume the content of a video we haven't seen. 



Old women react to another fantastic El Barto post

[Durg]

::walks back in with a cooler head::

My problem is with the parents, both the real ones and the hypothetical ones in here, discussing how they lost their innocence.  That's ridiculous.  This had absolutely no affect on those kids, unless the parents sat them down and showed them the video, and even then I doubt they'd give a shit.

Your making an assumption here that the video would only get back to the kids if the parents showed them.  That might have been true if he kept his lewd video for himself and maybe showed a few of his friends.  But he crossed the line when he uploaded it to YouTube.  Videos on YouTube can go viral very fast and it is very conceivable that those kids might see it before their parents would even know about it.  I'm not sure how old the kids were but little elementary kids certainly shouldn't be questioning why anyone would want to stick their finger up their ass.  That's what I'm talking about with the whole innocence thing.  Don't be so naive to think that someone can produce something thats objectionable using little kids, post it to a highly visible internet sight, and expect that the kids won't see themselves eventually.  Sure in this case YouTube removed it, but how long was it up and running before someone caught on.  Who found it on YouTube first?  A parent?  A teacher?  Or was it one of the kids?


As far the other stuff about people showing up on the baseball game TV picking their nose?  Apples and Oranges.  It might be embarrassing if everyone sees you picking your nose but if your a little kid and your watching yourself on the internet be the object of a sexual comment or song..... Totally different. 

Also, when parents sign off on those papers that allow their kids to be on a Web site or a newspaper article (and I have signed these papers before).  Your not giving permission to anyone that happens to visit the class.  The forms I've signed have been fairly specific.  The kid deceived the teachers in order to make a lewd video of the kids so he could post it on YouTube.  Criminal?  I don't know.  Stupid?  EPIC stupid.
 

[icysk8r]

I agree with everything El Barto said, as usual.

[ReaPsTA]

I have to almost entirely agree with El Barto.  I don't understand what law he broke.  I guess you're not allowed to be dishonest to someone about why they're being filmed and then not get consent afterwards.  But I don't know the specifics of the law.  Aren't people videotaped under false pretenses all the time?  In a certain percentage of circumstances I know release forms are signed after the fact, but I don't know if that's in all of them.  Still, this I can see as a charge, fine.  But 60 days in jail, counseling, and not being allowed to be around children?  Super excessive for just being an idiot.

Anything related to child porn I don't understand in a legal sense.  No kids were exploited sexually.  I certainly understand how it could be offensive, but not illegal.

[Perpetual Change]

So the harm here is that they didn't get the opportunity to cash in?

Pretty much. I mean, they should've been asked. But what I'm getting here is not that innocence was lost but that you should have at least some kind of choice to let your kids be a part of this sort of thing.