Do you think he should've gotten jail time?

[frnchjeep]

I don't know how you guys come up with he will be a sex offender.

You may want to read the stated plea deal again.

Pleading guilty(which is what you do when you accept a plea bargain) to a sexual offense automatically lands you on the sex offender list. It's not part of the bargain, it is part of pleading guilty.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_offender

 

[Oscarum monstruoso]

I hope you people dont have children.

 

[jlnguyen74]

Pleading guilty(which is what you do when you accept a plea bargain) to a sexual offense automatically lands you on the sex offender list. It's not part of the bargain, it is part of pleading guilty.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_offender

Let me help you!!

...Initially, back in February, Emory was charged with a felony for manufacturing child pornography. He faced 20—yes, 20—years in prison.
However, after a plea deal, Emory was sentenced to 60 days in prison, two years probation, 200 hours of community service, and mandatory counseling. (Emory pleaded no contest to a reduced charge of “unlawful posting of an Internet message with aggravating circumstances.”) Once he gets out of jail, he won’t be allowed within 500 feet of any children under the age of 18. The plea deal prevents Emory from having to sign up for the sexual offender registry....

 

[koltsixx]

Quote:
Originally Posted by ballinouttacntrol
...Initially, back in February, Emory was charged with a felony for manufacturing child pornography. He faced 20—yes, 20—years in prison.
However, after a plea deal, Emory was sentenced to 60 days in prison, two years probation, 200 hours of community service, and mandatory counseling. (Emory pleaded no contest to a reduced charge of “unlawful posting of an Internet message with aggravating circumstances.”) Once he gets out of jail, he won’t be allowed within 500 feet of any children under the age of 18. The plea deal prevents Emory from having to sign up for the sexual offender registry....

I wonder what the not being allowed within 500 feet of children part of the judgement is. Is it a basic restraining order toward kids under 18? Also how do you stay away from kids under 18 years old? Do you never leave your house? Do you never go to McDonalds? Or does the order prevent him from going to area's where children under 18 are considered to congregate like schools and playgrounds and such?

Also at Oscarum Monstruoso with the "I hope you people don't have children" remark, which I personally find offensive. I do have kids and was under the impression he was going to be labeled a sex offender as part of the judgement, which I thought would be overkill. Now having kids I know what it's like to be fiercely protective of them and actually being prone to over reacting in situations involving things I consider to be an offense or an injury to them in one way or another. I do how ever know that I would regret it afterwards because that's exactly what I would be doing, over reacting. As a matter of fact I had a situation that got me arrested on one occasion for assault because of a situation involving my kids. It was as stupid as someone pushing harshly past my daughter while in a supermarket and not even saying excuse me, which I still believe to this day was done because she is just a kid and the person figured they could disrespect her because she's just a kid. I severly over reacted and without going into detail I was arrested for aggravated assault. Still I regret my actions not just because of the fact I was arrested, but because I know I should have tempered my anger and a reaction that severe was uncalled for. So while I understand the sensitivity of having children in such a circumstance I also understand that things can be pushed to far in such situations in reaction. Which I felt is what was happening here and would still be defending if he was being registered as a sex offender. I do not think condoning such a serious perversion of the law makes someone a better parent.

 

[frnchjeep]

Let me help you!!

sorry guys. I missed that part about five times. Even when derick said to reread it, I did and missed it again. Haha. You're right. Now that jlnguyen pulled my head out of my ass for me, I have to agree that this isn't that big of a deal. The worst part is the community service, but 200 hours at the soup kitchen isnt such a bad thing. I've known people that have gotten that for tipping over porta pottys before.

 

[SumoNinja]

A question for those that think he did nothing wrong: would you be ok if footage of your child was used in a sexualized video like in this case?

meh, i'd be upset but wouldn't feel that the guy needs to register as a sex offender. crime doesn't fit the punishment.

Hard for me to comment on this as I did not see the video containing his actions nor have I heard or read any of the the lyrics. I can only imagine that if I were to witness someone acting or speaking inappropriately towards my family in a sexual way whether it be them personally or even just and image of them, likely the cops would be arresting me for assault.

The guy got of relatively easy. Yes he looses 2 months of his life, but it is far from ruined.

Again, I can see why people are upset, but his life will be significantly affected because of the sex offender thing

he did not get off too easy, registering as a sex offender is kind of a big deal. he didn't sing the song in front of the kids, he edited the tape to seem like he did. so it's kind of not the same thing.

 

[SumoNinja]

sorry guys. I missed that part about five times. Even when derick said to reread it, I did and missed it again. Haha. You're right. Now that jlnguyen pulled my head out of my ass for me, I have to agree that this isn't that big of a deal. The worst part is the community service, but 200 hours at the soup kitchen isnt such a bad thing. I've known people that have gotten that for tipping over porta pottys before.

sorry x2

i also missed it

 

[ballinouttacntrol]

wow....haven't been on since i posted this thread...surprised it's still going, didn't seem to hot the first day. i haven't read through everything yet but he did NOT have to register as a sex offender according to the original story

Edit: i see the above point has been brought up several times but people keep missing it.

i was just under the impression that this would be covered under freedom of speech. i expected parents to sue but did not expect an actual criminal case. pro racism rallies and speeches are allowed where minors may be present, even if the speaker encourages volence at these rallies. i find these rallies, speeches, clubs etc to be more harmful on youth then this edited song that may catch the attention of pedophiles

 

[jlnguyen74]

I wonder what the not being allowed within 500 feet of children part of the judgement is. Is it a basic restraining order toward kids under 18? Also how do you stay away from kids under 18 years old? Do you never leave your house? Do you never go to McDonalds? Or does the order prevent him from going to area's where children under 18 are considered to congregate like schools and playgrounds and such?

Since we don't know the exact detail of that plea deal, all I can think of is it keeps him from repeating what he did.

wow....haven't been on since i posted this thread...surprised it's still going, didn't seem to hot the first day. i haven't read through everything yet but he did NOT have to register as a sex offender according to the original story

Edit: i see the above point has been brought up several times but people keep missing it.

i was just under the impression that this would be covered under freedom of speech. i expected parents to sue but did not expect an actual criminal case. pro racism rallies and speeches are allowed where minors may be present, even if the speaker encourages volence at these rallies. i find these rallies, speeches, clubs etc to be more harmful on youth then this edited song that may catch the attention of pedophiles

This is not about freedom of speech. This is about consent, and abuse. Imagine someone went to your sons and daughters school, filmed them and their classmates sitting, watching and listening to book reading, then without your knowledge and consent, edited the clip to make it look like them sitting, watching and listening to two porn stars in action, and blast it all over the internet. How do you feel about it, as parents?

 

[dysfunctionaljd]

If that happened to my daughter, i would be upset that they filmed my daughter without consent.

As far as editing it later to look like she saw 2 porn stars, i could care less, because she was never actually exposed to the 2 porn stars, so her innocence would not have been effected at all.

The Chappelle show had a skit about drugs and STDs a few years ago, it had kids all over it and nobody considered it child pornography. The fact that the kids and parents consented should not change the definition of "child pornography"