Posted on 02/21/2011 10:29:38 AM PST by Gena Bukin
Regardless of whether a judge or jury finds Evan Emory guilty of a sex offense for creating a lewd video with schoolchildren in the background, the case has highlighted a cultural divide between the so-called Millennial Generation and pretty much everyone else.
Many of the Millennials — mostly young adults without children — wonder what all the fuss is about. So Emory made a video with Ravenna elementary children in the background looking surprised and smiling a lot. They say since Emory sang a harmless “Lunch Lady Land” song to the children during his actual performance and subbed in lyrics with sexually graphic references afterward, before posting the video to YouTube, that no harm was done.
These Millennials see the video as a joke and comedy, and even if some admit the video was in bad taste, they believe no crime was committed. This kind of thing is on comedy shows and MTV all the time, they reason. And it’s certainly on YouTube, the social networking site that allows anyone to post a video of almost any kind for the entire world to see.
They are outraged that Emory, who was a good student himself at Ravenna and never got into any trouble, is facing a 20-year felony charge of manufacturing child sexually abusive material. They can’t fathom that Emory, if convicted, is facing the possibility of having to be on the sex offender registry the rest of his life when he didn’t actually “expose” the children to anything.
Then there is the opposite spectrum — those who are horrified that someone would find humor in using children as a backdrop for a sexually explicit song. Whether the children actually heard the lyrics or not is beside the point, they reason, because it was the children’s innocent faces that were shown smiling and giggling when Emory’s nasty words were heard by hundreds and perhaps thousands of people before the video was removed from YouTube.
The parents of the children on the video are especially horrified, and as a parent, I can’t blame them. It would make me sick to my stomach to see one of my children placed in a situation like that. Many of them think the charges fit the crime, though it’s pretty clear that a 20-year felony for something like this is way over the top.
Still, the Muskegon County Prosecutor’s office wants to make an example out of Emory so they went after the “big” charge. And Ravenna Superintendent John VanLoon probably echoed the sentiments of many folks when he said: “If you think that’s something funny, you really need to review and look at your personal values.”
Which brings up a bigger challenge in this age of technology. There was a time when you could limit the kind of garbage kids are exposed to — a time when TV programming didn’t allow even partial nudity and there weren’t hundreds of cable channels from which to choose, smart phones, the Internet and social media. Today there is no place to hide and despite the best efforts of parents, kids are influenced by all these contraptions they can access almost anywhere, anytime.
According to Wikipedia, the Millennials have been shaped by the rise of instant communication technologies and are “peer-oriented.” Reality TV, MTV, YouTube and the like have helped to desensitize teens and young adults to the difference between right and wrong.
Many young folks seek the instant gratification and star quality so prevalent in society today. And they seek it without considering the consequences.
Which, at least, might explain the cultural divide this case has highlighted — even if it doesn’t provide a good way to fix it.
It isn’t the so-called “music” in question here, is it?
I am in favor of States’ Rights. States should be able to have laws against pornography and obscenity if they so desire.
But due to the communist founded ACLU and sick sacks of **** like Larry Flynt, the leftist SCOTUS shot down the States’ Right of being able to make such laws.
What does this have to do with the federal government, other than an overbearing “think they’re God” SCOTUS?
We have these people, who I guess might be characterized as authoritarian social conservatives, as a fairly significant part of the Conservative coalition. And the D’s know they’re with us, and the D’s know full well that when it comes to wedge issues, it works in their favor to paint all conservatives as authoritarian socons.
What the authoritarian socons seem to want does not fit at all with the core tea party message, a popular message, which is limited constitutional government.
Tea partiers are typically socons, in favor of traditional values and the constitution, but they don’t want to put someone in jail for pedophilia for making a video they don’t like.
Yes prank.
You obviously know very little about this case.
If you don’t agree with Jim Robinson’s message that he chooses to put forth on his own site, why are you here?
“That ANYONE would think it’s fine to portray elementary school age kids as enjoying explicit sexual lyrics is very scary.”
What you just don’t seem to understand is that there is a wide wide area between “fine” and “illegal”.
You need to understand that the world contains many many things that you don’t like, but that doesn’t mean that everybody who does something you don’t like should be locked in a prison at public expense.
It seem that you want to make everything “illegal” that you don’t think is “fine”.
And that’s exactly what the Democrats do.
Conservatism in 2011 is all about Limited Constitutional Government.
The end result here is that he made a video portraying children as enjoying sexually explicit music. That makes children appear as sexually aware and enjoyable by the wrong people.
Is that the best you can do? What a looser! ROFL
The men who wrote the Constitution and envisioned a much, much smaller federal government than we are burdened with now, had no problem with - get this, read carefully - STATES enacting such laws.
You are an ignorant and morally blind idiot.
You’re in it already, buddy.
My father was a pedophile. My siblings never got help and they are a mess. Just so you know, he never bothered me. I was the mouthy one.
You have no idea what I have been through.
Which permits States Rights.
Ever heard of States Rights?
FALSE. These children will never escape the consequences of this “prank”. The video will be around forever, and their identities are known, because the parents’ names are known.
You need help. I hope you seek it and find it.
Which part of “before posting the video to YouTube” did you not comprehend?
I get it. Well, given that you have no idea what’s going over the public airwaves, or over the cable channels, to millions and millions of people all over the US, I can understand where you’re coming from.
Hollywood is much worse. Take that on. Not only are they influencing more minds, but they’re making big money doing so, and advertisers, big companies, are making that money too.
Attack Hollywood, not some local youtuber.
Take a look at the people who are running Hollywood. Try to draw as many conclusions you can about the types of people running Hollywood and anything else you can. You happen to discover a fairly common theme, I’ll agree. Hollywood is 100% against Traditional Christian Values and they are making lots and lots of money trying to hurt Christians in America. Every day. Intentionally and systematically hurting Christian values every day.
Christine O’Donnell, who I gave money to, and continue to be in favor of, was one of the few who did talk about the negative effects of culture on society. I’d like to see the Hollywood AntiChristians knocked back on their heels, hard.
But some local youtuber is likely just to be someone who was influenced by the Millionaire Hollywood AntiChristians. He is not in some entrenched position like the Hollywood AntiChristians, he’s just a guy who pushed the limits a little to hard for some.
If this was a Hollywood AntiChristian productions, the kids would’ve been paid, and there’d be no story. Because this was some dumb local youtuber, he left himself open to parents who didn’t sign a release. Hollywood AntiChristians make you sign a release.
Really? I’ve seen you logicians trying to argue that this clip will trigger child molestation. It’s a ridiculous argument. If you like, you can explain how that works.
Explain how emboldening takes place from an obscure videoclip. It’s just silly. DU looks at this and says “Conservatives are stupid” And I’m going “I hope “conservatives”, who don’t really believe in Limited Constitutional Government, or, in other words, Conservativism don’t say anything like pedophilia and songs about pedophilia are the same thing.” There is depravity in culture. It comes from the AntiChristians in Hollywood. They’re been doing it for close to 100 years. Hollywood is most certainly the enemy of Conservatism.
C. In neither case were Children engaged in pedophilia. Are you arguing that cartoon pedophilia cannot influence people, that only having real children in a video, that’s the only thing that’s going to have that “emboldening” effect? Because your argument isn’t that kids were hurt. Your argument is that the video might cause bad outcomes. A national TV show doesn’t embolden, but a local youtube does?
By the way, this particular youtube clip does not make the existing laws against pedophilia go away. The law is the stopper there, not the nonexistence of an obscure youtube clip.
Invasion of privacy I think is the hurt with peeping toms and here. Not a crime in this case, but. That might be where the civil c/a lies, somewhere around there.
Paying children to star in pornographic videos is not the solution to the abuse he inflicted on them, any more than paying victims of child rape would make them happy little prostitutes. Please stop using this forum to defend the sexual abuse of children.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.