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.
That’s deplorable. It takes a special kind of scum bucket to destroy their dead parent’s reputation.
It is. And they lack the maturity and judgment to pull it off.
Well, let’s put it this way, I am operating under the assumption that porn requires a visual element. And it’s possible that something could be considered porn without visuals. Maybe that’s where the problem lies. People are at each other here. I have trouble with the idea of non visual porn. If you want to sharpen your argument, something like “words can be porn” “you don’t need pictures to have porn”.
False light invasion of privacy though. putting those kids in there, implying that they liked that, without their knowledge.
man, this was a long time ago. would a reasonable person think that the kids were actually there or would a reasonable person think that the kids were actors? That sounds like a fairly decent reasonable man type thing for something like this. And then you’d have the video playing and the jury would see if it looked more like a comedy skit, where the comedy is coming from the weird kid reactions and the shockingness of what he’s saying, or real live footage of some bad thing that actually happened. Even if it’s found to be a movie rather than real life, the argument can be that he gave the false impression that the person was an actor who would work in that sort of comedy sketch. So, if that’s a cause of action, and I think it is, they seem to have a good case.
You would be against any porn in lyrics of top 40 songs I take it? Would you be offended by this line “Booooooy, put it inside of me, oh had to implant your seed until the end of time”.
Because that’s actually more important than this issue which should just go away. That line either will or will not be in a song that’s about to become a big hit.
That’s Timothy Bloom Til the End of Time - available tomorrow on iTunes.
You don’t think that porn can exist as the written word?
You can’t redefine pron to suit your preferences.
That’s just trying to justify what you know is wrong.
You don’t think that porn can exist as the written word?
You can’t redefine porn, or any other word, to suit your preferences.
That’s just trying to justify what you know is wrong.
So you should be imprisoned for your thoughts?
No — you shouldn’t.
But when you put them on video, with vulnerable children in the background, each very recognizable, and use objectionable content in connection with their images — which you do NOT have permission LEGALLY to use — then you PUBLICLY post this video for the world to SEE?! I’d certainly have to conclude that you violated the rights of these children AND their parents, and I think it’s quite reasonable to say you’ve committed a crime.
I’m not sure it get’s one put on any “sex crimes registry” necessarily. But civil damages are in order, as are criminal penalties for theft, misuse of “personal property” or images, and things of that nature. 20 years? Maybe not — but if my kids face was plastered all over YouTube with a video like that playing as the soundtrack, he’d better pull a little time — and then make restitution....
doubtful, but maybe. you never know. You know that Freerepublic might not like it when people call other people names like pedophile and its untrue. It’s namecalling. I’m not sure the wording, but namecalling is discouraged. I’m not calling anybody any names, and if JimRob follows my posts he knows I’m 100% against Magic Underwear, and am also a very strong supporter of Palin. I also like Ron Paul, true, but the argument can be made that he’s a true conservative, and I don’t argue foreign policy too much. I’d like to see the Palin people and the Paul people be nice. I think that Palin is more likely to be there at the end, and if it goes that way, I would hope that the Paul people would feel welcomed by the Palin people. That way, Palin gets the Paul votes. And there will be more Paul votes this time than last. He just made 692K in a moneybomb for LibertyPAC. Not massive, but solid.
If this is a valid defense arguement, how many murderers, arsonists, etc... can use it to get away with their crimes?
just read my posts.
i said that my natural instinct was to consider it visual.
but now I get where your coming from.
good to be on message.
sure it can, it’s just not what i think of as porn. it slipped my mind. and most people don’t think of words as porn either. the guy making the video did not think that he was making porn either. Clerks did get an X for language though, but it wasn’t porn. Usually spoken seems more obsenity than porn. I’m not saying that it isn’t porn, just that a lot of people would not think of what he was doing as porn, but as obscenely outrageous comedy. And he wouldn’t think he was doing porn, but comedy. He’s not going to show something on stage that he thinks is porn.
Something wacky happened between the late 70s and now.
Back in the late 70s, we were getting fairly close to nudity on tv. Charlie’s Angels was the classic, but there were a lot of other similar shows. Cheryl Tiegs in SI Swimsuit, pretty much full on topless shot (fishnet). And then some feminist/Christian antiporn alliance came in and changed everything around. Still no breasts. But weird gayness all over the place. I don’t want to see any weird gayness at all (that includes this thing with the kids). But I wouldn’t mind seeing nice breasts on tv, tastefully and whatnot. MTV should ease into nudity after 11pm, and with all that action, they could ease way way back on the gay stuff, and the other depravities. You do not want to know all the crazy stuff there is on tv, but it’s much worse than breasts. And telling you what it is is not what everyone wants.
Right. Ron Paul said it.
You put it on the list.
Explain.
It was on a list of things that Ron Paul said. How much simpler can it be? Are you always so easily confused?
Right, but why that particular one. forget it. i think we can forget this thread.
We have permitted the public school adults to involved other people’s children in their adult sexual problems and agendas. No wonder these peolpe don’t understand there is a line they are not to cross as adults involving children in their adult sexual expressions.
He and his generation need to get the message that it is socially inappropriate and illegal to involve kids in adult sexual realms. But sending him to prision in this circumstance is unjust. Sound like mindless zero tolerance.
They could just put a giant fence around the US, call it a jail, and be done with it. You are all sinners and evildoers, every last one of you!
On a positive note, Obama, through executive order, gave himself the right to have terrorists (foreign or domestic) killed by agents. /s/
I apologize for what I called you, even under the circumstances, it was uncalled for.
I should be more careful when poking around in a hornets nest!
You put it on the list.
Explain.
Look kid, you haven't been here 10 years and you just proved it.
There's a link in that post. Go there to read what I posted. It came from the link.
I am a parent of a 23 year old daughter that has some judgement challenges. Nothing this serious Thank God. That being said this young man IMO crossed a very big line which involves pornography and very young children. He has some deep problems. A jury or a judge will decide this and rightly so. This is exactly why we have a justice system.
(((group hug)))
: )
I think someone's screen name needs editing. The "truth" part ought to come out.
Actually, with the anarchy that results from the kind of *freedom* libertarians advocate for, the "freedom" part ought to go as well.
“i think we can forget this thread”
I think NOT, at least until the “musician” child abuser is behind bars!
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.