Its a fine line, but he might be just over it. Depends on the specifics of Michigan law. If a pedophile took shots of children and then made it look like they were reacting to sexual lyrics, there'd be little doubt he did so for purposes of sexual gratification. If an artist does the same for a non-sexual motivation, as a community, you probably still don't want to allow it, because any pedophile could produce similar videos and have an easy "get out of jail free card."

"Mr. Tague argues that the state statute covers not only filming a child in a sexual activity but also making it appear that a child is engaging in that activity."

How is being edited to appear to listen to a rude song "engaging in sexual activity"? Sounds pretty hard to prove. (But oh, can 21 year olds be short sighted...and dumb.)

I wonder what they would have given him had he been singing about gruesome decapitations and torture involving disembowelments.

Oh let me guess... a television pilot for Comedy Central?

It's the most unhappy Wonder Showzen ever.

@ 2 - There's a lot to parse out in your comment, but I'll cabin it to this: any anti-child-pornography statute that would criminalize what Evan Emory did here would fall under "First Amendment Overbreadth." The Supreme Court has struck down statutes that criminalized far more distressing c… on overbreadth grounds.

People who think he should get stiff punishment are basing their reactions on gut instinct rather than logic.

No child was sexually assaulted. All of the children involved are in exactly the same state now, as they would be if the video were never made at all, so how is there even a crime here?

That said, what the guy did was stupid.

@6: Stupid link-shortening. that was supposed to say "that criminalized far more distressing conduct" as the link.

I don't understand this at all. Gus is right; this has been done so many times before (the difference here being consent forms, maybe?) on things like Wonder Showzen and music videos, and I've never thought that the kids were being abused.

Dan, thank you for posting about this. Reading about this case made me furious. No children were exposed to sexually explicit lyrics, no children were sexually abused or sexually exploited, and the video, though obviously ill-conceived, was clearly intended to be humorous. This young man is being persecuted by a group of vindictive, small-minded paranoids. That the plea deal under consideration would include jail time is shocking to me.

How was this a "dumb thing to do, without a doubt"? It's for comedic value (not "sexual gratification"), and it's certainly not a first. In movies, actors have used shocking language and it's been cut to look as though it is directed at kids (see Seann William Scott).
This is a kneejerk reaction by prudes who should be dismissed by any cognitive adult with the simple argument that THERE WERE NO KIDS PRESENT! Tony Tague is an uptight idiot, and lacks the conscience to care what impact his intolerant reaction could have on the life of Evan Emory. In the interest of protecting absolutely nobody, he's out to attack free speech and artistic expression. Mr Tague - and I don't say this lightly - you are a pathetic cunt.

@11, agreed. It's not a dumb thing to do. I haven't seen it, but depending on how well edited and executed it was, it could be a hilarious thing to do. I'm not a fan of cheap shock humor, but if it's done right, it can be funny.

Parents have the right to ask that he take the video off youtube, but if the original filming was supervised and consent, or implied consent was given, they can't really make a big deal out of private screenings, and they certainly can't make a big deal out of the fact that he edited kids listening to a different song.

How sad. I hope he can sue them when this is done.

@11 - It was a dumb thing to do because he didn't have the informed consent of the kids parents to use their likeness in that manner. I would imagine that shows like Wonder Showzen got signed releases from everyone, and told the parents how their child's likeness may or may not be used. That's not child porn (in fact, I don't think its a crime), but it certainly does create civil liabilities for Mr. Emory.

Because of the internet he will have to explain this prank to every potential employer or spouse or spouse's family or adoption agency or legal action etc... for the rest of his life. Punishment enough.

Still waiting for Newt Gingrich to go to jail for his unauthorized use of children in his latest Photoshopped website picture.

@7 If the basis for deciding what's child porn and what's not is whether children were harmed, than virtual and illustrated child porn should be legal. They aren't.

For the record, I think they should be, but that's the problem with our panicked society on this issue: logic doesn't apply. And with our new invented logic of child porn laws where only the end product matters, this guy might be guilty.

It sounds like it could be pretty funny, depending on how well done it was, of course. It wouldn't be out of place in a BBC2 or Channel 4 sketch show. What if it was Jon Le Joie or Bo Burnham, who each have big internet followings and have converted that into minor mainstream success (and if you've not seen any of their musical work, go YouTube now!)? Sure, he should have asked the parents beforehand if it was ok to use the images of their kids like that - I know some parents who would object and others who would find it hilarious (again, depending on the quality if song and editing). Makes me glad I live in the UK.

Somehow I don't think he would have received permission from the parents to include the kids, and he knew that. Have any of you who think this would be hilarious actually read the lyrics:

“See how long it takes to make your panties mine”

(wide shot of the children)

“I'll add some foreplay in just to make it fun”

(close up of girl laughing)

“I want you to suck on my testes until I spurt in your face”

(close up of girl covering her mouth)

“I'll lick on your chewie”

(close up of two girls covering their mouths)

“I want to stick my index finger in your anus”

(close up of boy making a shocked face)

“I'll be the bus riding your ass up and down my town”

(close up of boy with grossed-out look on his face)

“I'm gonna use my sausage to make fettucine, then for dessert have a Harry Houdini”

(close up of girl laughing and rocking)

The result of all this is that I have now turned into a Pedaphobe. I avoid tykes at all times, flee from school groups and keep my eyes glued to my book at the mall food court. I cover the back of my Android phone when I make calls (to assure the "watchers" of no surreptitious camera use).

I play lots of 40 year old music (like the Rolling Stones) and watch the evening news (replete with Lipator commercials) in the hope it will act as "kid bane" to keep anyone under 21 (or hopefully older even) far from my personage and convince them that I am the most uncool person in South King Country.

Perhaps we should be encouraging "childfree" streets where one can speak and act like adults without fear of reprisal.

OK, it's an idiotic law. But it is what it is, and he broke it. Until I get on the Supreme Court (don't hold your breath), he's guilty.

It's easy to be in favour of probation for mugging when you live in a safe neighbourhood.
It's easy to be in favour of the video when it ain't your grade school kid edited in to lyrics where an adult sings about cumming on her face.

How hard is it to keep kids out of adult sexuality? Seriously, it's not that goddamned difficult and it is a sensible thing to do. To argue that this guy is just a harmless artist who is one contract away from being on Mitchell and Webb is to impliedly or overtly accept that the integration of children -- even at a remove -- with adult sexuality is acceptable. It's not, period, end of story. Leave adult things to adults.

He may not be a child pornographer, or a criminal. But let's not fall all over ourselves -- as most have here -- to write him off as a harmless fellow. He used video cutting to sing about commiting sex acts on children. Are we all so open-minded here that our fucking brains have fallen out? He's a perv and a creep and if we are going to be fighting for sexual freedoms let's make sure that includes freedom from quasi (and plausibly deniable) pedos like this.

Let's consider an alternate version of this story, shall we?

If, say, a Christian organization had obtained a footage of Dan's son and cut it with video songs of sex acts would all of you be leaping to that pastor's defence? No, you'd rightly be thoroughly disgusted that an adult could do such a creepy thing.

He did a creepy thing, and he used their children without proper consent. Anyone who has a problem with what he did, complain about that. Wonder Showzen did the exact same kind of stuff and broadcast it on national TV (basic cable, sure). The only difference is that their parents signed release forms and knew what was going to be done with the footage.

So complain about how he didn't get proper consent.

But did he produce child pornography? NO. Think about what you're saying when you want him punished. It's ridiculous to claim that that's child pornography, and it's a horrible idea to let it be considered child pornography and set idiotic precedents just because you think he's a creep.

If this news story is accurate then even the act "using children's likenesses without their parents' permission" is a "lesser felony" that may "be reduced to a misdemeanor if Emory successfully completed probation".
http://tinyurl.com/4ah9534

Forky, you are creating a false dichotomy. I personally wouldn't call it child pornography in as a question of law, but it isn't child pornography or nothing . Neither the fact that he isn't a child pornographer nor that he's been overcharged magic him out of the "perv", "creep", or "deceitful lying bastard" categories. He may even be guilty of a different felony, if the above-noted article is accurate.

What I take issue with is the manichean idiocy shown in this thread: that if he isn't a child pornographer then he must utterly blameless outside of not getting the right waiver and, hey, just like Gilda Radner. He may not be a child pornographer, but somebody that juxtaposes children and the lyrics shown above is a slimeball of the highest order and best shunned, not lauded or excused.

@26 - What felony could he have possibly committed?

Ah, but the way the law is worded, he is a child pornographer. (And that's a felony, @27).

@27: read @25 and link.
Whether the article's statement of law is not something that I can speak to. All I know is that even here in liberal squishy Canada with professional prosecutors uninterested in making election-boosting headlines it is very likely indeed that he would have been charged with making child pornography, according to my crimlaw colleague.

Good lord. By these standards, then Kevin Smith is a child pornographer; remember this scene from the original Clerks? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JSmE7mhmC…

For the sake of fuck, doesn't information want to be free? Someone has to have rehosted this somewhere. WTB link.

It's all about consent, MythicFox. The child in Clerks was an actor, whose parents had signed off on the process.

And, let us not forget, that the scene in Clerks didn't speak to sex acts ON the children; this douche's film did. I think we're of subtle enough mind to differentiate between a film of “I want you to suck on my testes until I spurt in your face” cut to be said in front of a child and the same phrase cut to be spoken TO a child.

Emory is free to disagree of course, but if he ends up on a sex offender registry don't expect me to cry myself to sleep. He's either a pedo or a Darwin Fail On A Massive Scale.

Immediately thought of this.

What a way for my home town to get a mention here. So other than voting against the ass (which I did last time Tony was up for re-election) and signing up at the facebook page (not going to happen. I don't have a facebook account. I don't want a facebook account.) what can I do?

@32 -- Perhaps. But I think @34 has the right idea that this should be more of a civil case than something that could get you on a sex offender list.

(Trivia note regarding the Clerks scene I linked: Jeff Anderson, the guy who plays Randall, wasn't comfortable reading off the list of porn titles in front of the woman and the kid so they filmed his half of it separately. But because they needed reaction shots, when we see the mother and daughter it's actually Kevin Smith off-camera reading the list to her.)

I don't get it ... I am pretty liberal, but this just is not funny. Should the guy go away for 25 years? No, but this is not a slap on the wrist sort of thing.

Kids WERE harmed, they were used. These were real kids, not some cartoons (not that the suggestion made with cartoons would be okay in my book). It's subtle, psychological. I will compare it with child abuse...a parent who tells their child they are stupid is generally less abusive than physically or sexually abusing them. The crazy part is that with verbal abuse, many kids may never realize they were abused, that they're not stupid, whereas the kid who was beat understands what was done was wrong.

It's just plain wrong and not funny. Kids are vulnerable and still thickening their "skin" and it is our job as adults to let guys like this know that it is not okay to do something like he did. Had he made the video without any kids in it, would he still have done it or would there be any issue?

I was gonna post something, but seeker6079 pretty much knocked it out of the park already. Well said.

Making it seem as if a child is involved in something sexual, even if they weren't actually involved, counts as child pornography to me. Is it as BAD as the kind where the child is in fact harmed in the process? No, of course not. But we also make the other kinds illegal, because it sexualizes children and encourages pedophilia in general. So although I'm going farther with this than seeker6079 would, I too endorse the sentiment. Would you feel this was so harmless if someone did this to your child, and your child had the experience of feeling violated by having been made into a sexual object in this video? That's terrible, and I am rather surprised at how many people think it's funny or want to excuse it as nothing.

I might add, this is NOTHING like what Gilda Radner did, including in the link above, and it unfairly besmirches poor Gilda's name to be associated with this. Low blow.

re: Seeker:

> but somebody that juxtaposes children and the lyrics shown above is a slimeball of the
> highest order and best shunned, not lauded or excused.

Shouldn't it depend on the content of what he's saying with the juxtaposition? There's a fixation on the form here which goes beyond issues of just consent.

Obviously if it were just about consent it would be a much more minor issue. What's at stake is the juxtaposition of sexuality and children.

Shouldn't the content of the juxtaposition determine whether or not the video is deemed perverse enough to warrant vilification and imprisonment?

The need to punish any connection of childhood with sexuality is just a manifestation of our society's twisted puritanical perversion of both sexuality and children. When our society reacts so strongly to what is meant to be a work of art / a provocative piece in the form of a comedy, we only betray the fact that we so firmly think of children as sex-objects and that we think of sex as infantile -- that we hate ourselves for it and revel in the punishment of someone who touches the nerve.

Because, after all, he's been a bad bad boy and he deserves to be spanked.

1. Kids were not harmed.

2. Worse things have been done.

proof: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HpoaXVr8A…

1. Kids were not harmed.

2. Worse things have been done.

proof: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HpoaXVr8A…