Youtube Prankster Sentenced to 60 days in Jail

[Sigz]

Evan Emory’s cunning attempt at musical comedy turned very serious, very quickly. The 21-year-old Michigan man won’t be laughing as he spends the next two months in the Muskegon County Jail.

The whole nightmare for Emory began when he posted a video of himself on YouTube singing a sexually explicit song to elementary school students. But before you take the side of law enforcement and the county, it’s not as raunchy and inappropriate as it sounds. The video was only edited to make it appear as if young children were in the classroom, even though they weren’t. Emory posted two disclaimers on the video that elementary school students were not exposed to the explicit lyrics.

The footage of the children was recorded in January when Emory performed a clean song for the class. It was only later that Emory returned to the empty classroom to record a vulgar song, which he edited with clips of the children and posted to YouTube in mid-February.

On Tuesday, Judge William C. Marietti of the Muskegon County 14th Circuit Court sentenced Emory under a previously arranged plea deal to 60 days in jail, two years probation, 200 hours of community service, mandatory counseling and fines and costs. And when he emerges from jail, Emory can’t be within 500 feet of children under the age of 17. All for a comedy attempt gone awry.

Emory in March pleaded no contest to the reduced charge of “unlawful posting of an Internet message with aggravating circumstances.” He had been charged with “manufacturing child pornography,” a charge that comes with a potential 20-year prison sentence.

Under the reduced charge, Emory will not have to sign up on the sex offender registry, which would have been the biggest crime committed by anyone involved in this case.

The video was taken off YouTube because of the lawsuit, and we’re unable to find a copy of it online. The judge in the case now considers it “contraband.” But some of the sexual lyrics in the song include: “I like the way you make your body move. C’mon, girl…See how long it takes to make your panties mine…I’ll add some foreplay in just to make it fun. I want to stick my index finger in your anus.”

Parents of the students from Beechnau Elementary featured in the short segment attended the sentencing hearing and applauded the decision. “It was lewd, it was disgusting, it was perverted,” parent Stephan Hellman told WWMT. “You are no longer a child, you are an adult. You should have known better.” Fellow parent Charles Willick said, “An innocence was taken, something we as parents try very hard to keep, something we hold sacred and dear was taken from the kids.”

Willick’s reactionary, inflammatory rhetoric begs the ultimate question: What innocence exactly was taken from the kids here? From their perspective, all they saw was a musician come in and sing them a happy, appropriate song — they were only exposed to the real thing. Emory only edited in the raunchy lyrics after the fact. So unless these first-graders have been surfing the Internet like I have just violated forum rule #1--please ban me pros and can dig up a copy of a video that doesn’t exist on the Internet, how would they have even seen the finished video?

WTF

[orcus116]

Old people need to understand how computers work.

[Chino]

People need to lighten up. That video sounds funny.

[El Barto]

I was going to say that the kid was the biggest dumbass of them all for copping a plea.  I would have liked to see a challenge to the unlawful posting law, but I can't really fault the guy for not wanting to go to trial on a child pornography wrap.  At that point, winning wouldn't have been much consolation.   Unfortunately, we've created a culture where it's better to plead guilty to bullshit charges than fight even more bullshit ones.  Christ, what a stupid place we live in. 

[William Wallace]

I was going to say that the kid was the biggest dumbass of them all for copping a plea.  I would have liked to see a challenge to the unlawful posting law, but I can't really fault the guy for not wanting to go to trial on a child pornography wrap.  At that point, winning wouldn't have been much consolation.   Unfortunately, we've created a culture where it's better to plead guilty to bullshit charges than fight even more bullshit ones.  Christ, what a stupid place we live in. 

Yes.

[Summers]

What the hell?  I don't see how he broke the law?  Kind of bad taste, but there's a million other videos on youtube they might as well bang people up for as well if they're going to do it for that one...

[El Barto]

What the hell?  I don't see how he broke the law?  Kind of bad taste, but there's a million other videos on youtube they might as well bang people up for as well if they're going to do it for that one...

I found the text of it earlier, and the law he plead guilty to he almost certainly violated.  However, given the breadth of the law, I suspect it'll see it's fair share of challenges.  In this climate, however, there's no telling how that'll turn out.  It used to be that laws which were overly broad or vague tended to get shot down, but nowadays we're expected to be good Homelandians and have faith that prosecutors will be reasonable in how they choose to interpret and act upon them.  A premise that's as stupid as it is fucking dangerous.

As for the child pornography charge they bludgeoned him with,  that was pretty flimsy, but the whole aspect of simulated kiddy porn is a huge gray area.  I suppose a fairly weak argument could have been made that he manufactured a video that simulated kids in an explicit sexual situation,  which might have been in violation of the PROTECT Act of 2003,  but it'd be a real stretch, and the only way it would have mattered under the best interpretation of that clusterfuck of a law is if the content would have also violated the Miller test, and I don't think that it would have. 

Honestly, it seems pretty unlikely that they would have gone forward with the child pornography charge.  He probably would have been fine if he had told them to fuck off, but that's a lot easier to suggest from my vantage point 2000 miles away.  They could have dragged the thing along just out of spite and ruined the kid's life. 

[orcus116]

I think sending him to jail might do that too. The second someone finds out he's in jail for something to do with kids he's fucked.

[j]

"Unlawful posting of an Internet message with aggravating circumstances" is breaking the law?  Good lord, you might as well lock us all up.

This is damn ridiculous.

I was going to say that the kid was the biggest dumbass of them all for copping a plea.  I would have liked to see a challenge to the unlawful posting law, but I can't really fault the guy for not wanting to go to trial on a child pornography wrap.  At that point, winning wouldn't have been much consolation.   Unfortunately, we've created a culture where it's better to plead guilty to bullshit charges than fight even more bullshit ones.  Christ, what a stupid place we live in. 

Wow, this was the exact sequence of my thoughts after reading the OP.

-J

[Ben_Jamin]

Wait?! He broke the law how?

[El Barto]

MCL 750.411s(1)

“(1) A person shall not post a message through the use of any medium of communication, including the internet or a computer, computer program, computer system, or computer network, or other electronic medium of communication, without the victim’s consent, if all of the following apply:
   
     (a) The person knows or has reason to know that posting the message could cause 2 or more separate noncontinuous acts of unconsented contact with the victim.
   
     (b) Posting the message is intended to cause
conduct that would make the victim feel terrorized, frightened, intimidated, threatened, harassed, or molested.

     (c) Conduct arising from posting the message would cause a reasonable person to suffer emotional distress and to feel terrorized, frightened, intimidated, threatened, harassed, or molested.
   
     (d) Conduct arising from posting the message causes the victim to suffer emotional distress and to
feel terrorized, frightened, intimidated, threatened, harassed, or molested.”


Violation of the foregoing provision is a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than two years or a fine of not more than $5,000.00, or both.

I misread this earlier in the day before saying that he certainly violated it.  I thought that any of the sub-sections were required, but now I see that all of them are.  I'd say that sub-section b might be a bit shaky in his case.  However, I don't gather he actually had the option of fighting this charge.  As I understand it, it was either fight the kiddy porn wrap or plead guilty to this. 

[Orbert]

He's screwed.  The worst part is, it doesn't even matter if he was right or wrong, or whether any or all of us think what he does is illegal or not, he was a moron to do it in the first place and think it was just some harmless fun.  Not today.  Not in this country.  So, so sad, but true.

[Sigz]

What I don't understand is how what he did is any different to the myriad of R rated films that do the exact same type of thing - have horrifically inappropriate situation with children in them, and use editing to make it look like they're there.

[ack44]

Moral of the story: be more anonymous on the internet.

[Perpetual Change]

I'm gonna take the side of the children here. Those kids and the schools were coerced. The kiddie porn charges are bogus, but this guy's a coercive doo-doo head.

[Nigerius Rex]

I'm gonna take the side of the children here. Those kids and the schools were coerced. The kiddie porn charges are bogus, but this guy's a coercive doo-doo head.

[hefdaddy42]

I'm gonna take the side of the children here. Those kids and the schools were coerced. The kiddie porn charges are bogus, but this guy's a coercive doo-doo head.

I agree.  He's a dumbass that should have known better.  If he had been labeled with the sex offender tag, that would have been bogus, but I have no problem with his sentencing as is.

[Sigz]

I'm gonna take the side of the children here. Those kids and the schools were coerced. The kiddie porn charges are bogus, but this guy's a coercive doo-doo head.

I agree.  He's a dumbass that should have known better.  If he had been labeled with the sex offender tag, that would have been bogus, but I have no problem with his sentencing as is.

Wait, so this:

60 days in jail, two years probation, 200 hours of community service, mandatory counseling and fines and costs. And when he emerges from jail, Emory can’t be within 500 feet of children under the age of 17.

Is an appropriate sentence?

[XJDenton]

What an idiotic ruling.

[Perpetual Change]

I'm gonna take the side of the children here. Those kids and the schools were coerced. The kiddie porn charges are bogus, but this guy's a coercive doo-doo head.

I agree.  He's a dumbass that should have known better.  If he had been labeled with the sex offender tag, that would have been bogus, but I have no problem with his sentencing as is.

Wait, so this:

60 days in jail, two years probation, 200 hours of community service, mandatory counseling and fines and costs. And when he emerges from jail, Emory can’t be within 500 feet of children under the age of 17.

Is an appropriate sentence?

See the bolded out part? I'm fine with everything but the part I bolded out for you.

[ehra]

Those aren't part of the kiddy porn charges.

[Perpetual Change]

What the hell do you guys want me to say? The guy is a dumbass. He lied to a school so he could exploit peoples' kids into making some dumbass video for youtube that isn't even funny. And now parents are mad. I'm not going to pretend that I know exactly what a just punishment for him is, but I'm sure he needs some kind of counseling and more than a slap on the wrist. .

[El Barto]

What I don't understand is how what he did is any different to the myriad of R rated films that do the exact same type of thing - have horrifically inappropriate situation with children in them, and use editing to make it look like they're there.

Insofar as the child pornography charge goes,  that's why the water's still murky.  On two separate occasions, SCOTUS has pondered that question with Soderbergh's Traffic used as a primary example.  Both times they shot down the laws (6-3 when they decided on this specific issue, Renquist, O'Connor and Scalia dissenting).  Where people have been convicted is when the material is considered obscene, where it has no protection anyway. 

As for the charge he plead no contest to, I gather it's a matter of intent.  The law seems to be aimed at intentional harassment, probably written to address online bullying after that girl hanged herself.  What I see as an issue is how it would relate to paparazzi pictures.  Also, plenty of other AFHV type vids on Youtube.  That chick stumbling into the fountain while texting would almost certainly run afoul of the law.  Honestly, I'm not sure how any depiction of a person being an idiot would be acceptable, since your point in posting it is to demonstrate what an idiot they are.

What the hell do you guys want me to say? The guy is a dumbass. He lied to a school so he could exploit peoples' kids into making some dumbass video for youtube that isn't even funny. And now parents are mad. I'm not going to pretend that I know exactly what a just punishment for him is, but I'm sure he needs some kind of counseling and more than a slap on the wrist. .

I'm not sure that he lied to the school.  He certainly misrepresented the nature of the final product, but he did what he told them he was going to do and why.  Plus,  I suspect that the effect on the kiddos was exactly what it was supposed to be when they agreed to let him perform for them. 

[Perpetual Change]

I'm not sure that he lied to the school.  He certainly misrepresented the nature of the final product, but he did what he told them he was going to do and why.  Plus,  I suspect that the effect on the kiddos was exactly what it was supposed to be when they agreed to let him perform for them. 

I don't see how that's not a lie.

[mrjazzguitar]

what about this???
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sCXaMNQOOFM

[Durg]

Wait?! He broke the law how?

If stupid was a law he'd need the death penalty.  I don't have a daughter but if I did and I saw a video on YouTube portraying my daughter as a sexual object by some idiot kid.  I'd be ready to kill him. 

Jail might be a safe place for him.  What a freaking idiot.

[Perpetual Change]

what about this???
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sCXaMNQOOFM

The people who made that video are the kinds of people who deserve to be pepper-sprayed, beat with blunt instruments, and locked up for a night or two.

[El Barto]

Wait?! He broke the law how?

If stupid was a law he'd need the death penalty.  I don't have a daughter but if I did and I saw a video on YouTube portraying my daughter as a sexual object by some idiot kid.  I'd be ready to kill him. 

How did he portray anybody as a sexual object?

[Durg]

How did he portray anybody as a sexual object?

From the article.

But some of the sexual lyrics in the song include: “I like the way you make your body move. C’mon, girl…See how long it takes to make your panties mine…I’ll add some foreplay in just to make it fun. I want to stick my index finger in your anus.”

If my daughter is shown in a video on YouTube while this idiot is singing those lyrics I would consider that she is being portrayed as a sexual object.  I'm not sure how you don't see that.

[El Barto]

If you're daughter is seated on stage while he serenades her with the song, then yeah.  If she's in the audience with a bunch of other people, then no, I don't see it.  I certainly didn't feel objectified when Trent Reznor sang that he wanted to fuck me like an animal. 

[hefdaddy42]

If you're daughter is seated on stage while he serenades her with the song, then yeah.  If she's in the audience with a bunch of other people, then no, I don't see it.  I certainly didn't feel objectified when Trent Reznor sang that he wanted to fuck me like an animal. 

Yes, but you paid money with the intention of him singing those lyrics to you.

[Perpetual Change]

If you're daughter is seated on stage while he serenades her with the song, then yeah.  If she's in the audience with a bunch of other people, then no, I don't see it.  I certainly didn't feel objectified when Trent Reznor sang that he wanted to fuck me like an animal. 

He had no permission to use people's kids for his video, especially based on the false premise. Objecting to the harshness of the sentence is one thing, but I really don't get how his behavior can be defended.

[Durg]

If you're daughter is seated on stage while he serenades her with the song, then yeah.  If she's in the audience with a bunch of other people, then no, I don't see it.  I certainly didn't feel objectified when Trent Reznor sang that he wanted to fuck me like an animal. 

There was no stage.  He stood in front of a classroom of children singing a funny song to them and recorded the kids reactions to the funny things he was signing.  Then he made the dirty recording later and inserted scenes of the kids reactions into the dirty video.  The intention was sick humor.  We can't see the video now to see exactly if he was singing directly to anyone but he might have shown someone's daughter innocently smiling or laughing while the lyrics talk about wanting to stuck his finger up her ass.  I'm not sure what you're imagining his video would have been like but it must have been pretty raunchy.  He knew it too and that's why he pleaded no contest.  

I'm not arguing over the legal part of it.  I'm saying he's an idiot.  It seems to me like your defending him.  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!

[El Barto]

If you're daughter is seated on stage while he serenades her with the song, then yeah.  If she's in the audience with a bunch of other people, then no, I don't see it.  I certainly didn't feel objectified when Trent Reznor sang that he wanted to fuck me like an animal. 

He had no permission to use people's kids for his video, especially based on the false premise. Objecting to the harshness of the sentence is one thing, but I really don't get how his behavior can be defended.

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

Seriously, though, that still wouldn't be objectification.  When I'm exposed to things I don't want to see, I don't feel objectified.  In this case, she was merely, portrayed as an audience member.

He had no permission to use people's kids for his video, especially based on the false premise.

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

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.

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. 

[Chino]

Didn't Will Farrel do a skit where he used a little girl that pretended to be a land lord? He was calling her a bitch and everything.