Musician/Comedian Faces 20 Years In Jail For Silly Video No Different Than Done On TV & In Movies
from the that's-not-right dept
Slashdot points us to yet another example of overzealous prosecutors going after someone with felony charges for a joke (perhaps done in poor taste). In this case, it involves 21-year-old musician/comedian Evan Emory, who performed childrens' songs in front of some elementary school kids. Later that day, after everyone else had left, he also performed and recorded another song with sexually explicit lyrics. He then cut the footage of the two songs together, to make it look like he was singing the explicit song to the kids. This is, admittedly, in extremely poor taste -- but as the Slashdot post notes, it's no different than what has been regularly done on various TV shows and in movies. The Slashdot post has even more examples, but those three all seem to be pretty "mainstream" and well-known examples of this tactic.Yet, when Emory did it, he was arrested, charged with a felony for "manufacturing child sexual abusive material" and now faces 20 years in prison. Emory appears to be deeply remorseful, and notes that he obviously never intended to harm any kids, and searches of his house and computer showed no evidence of any actual child porn. But it doesn't seem to have stopped prosecutors from their plans to charge him with this felony. The prosecutor seems to be willfully ignoring the intent of the video:
"If you insinuate that you want to have sex with young children in Muskegon County and put that in the Internet, you've got a problem with the law," Tague said.Except, of course, Emory did not insinuate he wanted to have sex with those kids. It was a (crass and tasteless) joke video. I'm all for law enforcement prosecuting real child abusers to the fullest extent possible under the law. But going after folks like Emory here seems to make a mockery of the law, and take away efforts from stopping those who actually do want to do harm to children.
"As prosecutor of Muskegon County, I feel I have a strong obligation to vigorously defend all the children in our county. To insinuate on a tape that you want to perform perverted acts on children is clearly within the scope of the law with which Mr. Emory is charged."
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: comedy, evan emory, felony, video
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Why should they change their minds?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why should they change their minds?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If you seek a stupid prosecutor, look about you...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is a flagrant attempt at destroying his First Amendment rights under the guise of the old "think of the children" boogeyman.
It's just another reason why I stay far away from children in any situation whatsoever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
An interesting thought -- I wonder if the over bearing righteous chest thumping of (many) breeders, and those who do inane things to "protect the children" will have an unintended effect of reducing the "demand" for things like parents (i.e. making more people consciously decide to remain childless), teachers, and other lifestyles/occupations that entail interaction with children?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
That is my viewpoint of all children, coming from asking people when they first did 'sexual' things, even if they didn't know that name for it.
I am all for going after people who physically force or drug children or anyone else into sex.... but this is going way too far and turning pedosexuals into a boogie man that society is using to replace the homosexual boogie man and heterosexual outside of marriage boogie man.
Simply put, if a child doesn't want someone to touch them sexually, all they have to do to get that person to leave them alone is yell "DON'T TOUCH ME THERE!" and that person will back off and run away.
Another fact? Most 'child sexual abuse' in this country is better called consensual sexual touching/sex between adults and children.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
That's really sad for you. The fact you don't realize it is even worse. I really hope this is a troll. I mean, how do kids know to yell "DON't TOUCH ME THERE" if they are being abused by their parents?
On another note. Is their a link to the video causing all the outrage? I can't find it through the article links?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
It's very much like the other excuse rapists use about women wearing provocative clothing and thus wanting to be raped.
Very frightening.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
A highly respected woman who would be a terrific mother has chosen not to have children because she fears this crazy "protect the children" thing that causes normal behavior to become a crime because some pervert saw something perfectly innocent and interpreted it from his own distorted perspective.
Essentially, because parents now go to jail for non-criminal behavior like bad housekeeping, or because a wily two year old slips out of the house in his nightwear, or because someone makes a joke, she is afraid to start a family.
She is intelligent, hard working, healthy, and responsible, but her genes will be lost. Will it eventually turn out that only the irresponsible breed?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Heh, ever seen the movie "Idiocracy"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Note: I come from an uneducated 'poor' family. I love my family, but they tend to remind me of the Clampetts. All is not lost, but we do seem to be filling the gene pool with toxic sludge.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Stupid people die more often, remember? That's what survival of the fittest is about . . . smart people might breed less often, but they have a higher rate of survival. And the higher rate of survival actually matters more than the rate of breeding because stupid people don't always produce stupid kids, (They might be stupid due to circumstance, ie: less education, mutations can occur, the mixing of genes can produce a smart child, recessive genes can surface, etc. etc.).
. . . it's just a pet peeve of mine that people sometimes use an incomplete idea of evolution to justify eugenics.
And I know that's not what you were doing, but the first step was there, (the incomplete idea of evolution, assuming that the higher rate of breeding meant human kind was becoming stupider).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
1) I don't have the data, I don't know if the breeding rate IS actually higher for 'stupid people'.
2) I don't know how to differentiate between 'stupid people' and 'smart people' except through over-generalization
3) I don't know if 'smart people' survive more often, but if it is safe to assume stupid people breed more often, that's probably also a sage assumption, or at least cogent.
4) I assume intelligence is genetic. This may not be true, or true enough to matter.
5) The difference between survival and breeding rates only needs to be very, very small, about a tenth of a percent effect, to have the necessary effect of evolving towards the higher survival percentage in a normal animal population. .1% is well within the noise caused by the randomness of the environment, AFAIK. Animals are effected by the environment much more than humans since they do not have, say, planes to fly in food from far away, or central heating to turn on when it gets cold. Or medicine.
6)Yes, within more strict definitions, the last paragraph doesn't mean much. I'm not writing a scientific paper, just understand that, AFAIK, a very small difference will still trend the way I suggested it would. It would just take longer the less extreme it is.
Sorry, it just bothers me to leave i's undotted and t's uncrossed where I would expect them from other people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Becoming typical now
Past time to make frivolous prosecution a felony, prison time the only option, also making judges responsible for even trying these 'expanded' laws.
Maybe that'll rein in some of this stupidity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Becoming typical now
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You just can't cure stupid...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You just can't cure stupid...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: You just can't cure stupid...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: You just can't cure stupid...
-Hugh Laurie, House
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This subject has become a minefield
I'm all for law enforcement prosecuting real child abusers to the fullest extent possible under the law. But ...
Seriously - why do you feel the need to write this every time? Do you think people will believe that you are somehow in favour of paedophilia if you don't?
It seems to me that political correctness has meant that criticising all kinds of activities that used to be regarded as immoral is now off limits - but of course we all agree about this one. Old fashioned adultery damages far more children - but of course too many of us are involved - whereas child porn is perpetrated by them.
There is a quote here somewhere (something about motes and beams and eyes) that a lot more people would do well to remember.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This subject has become a minefield
You're not new here, you should know the answer to this: That's *exactly* what would happen. Hell, every time Mike says that arists need to learn that they can make more money giving away their music instead of locking it down and attacking "pirates", he says that he is against piracy, yet how many times have you read someone accuse him of being "pro-copyright infringement" or of "fowarding the pirate agenda"?
Imagine if Mike *didn't* clearly state those things every time. Yikes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: This subject has become a minefield
You're not new here, you should know the answer to this:
Of course - but the answer reveals something doesn't it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: This subject has become a minefield
seriously, when coffee cups need a warning that their contents may be hot, (just off the top of my head... there are far more absurd warning labels out there) and fanfiction needs lables saying that the author does not own the copyright on the characters there in (despite being hosted on a site containing nothing but fanfiction), and one can sue and Win based on the lack of such things, of Course such disclaimers are going to become necessary...
and that's before even taking into account that most of the people who respond to techdirt posts and disagree with them fail at reading comprehension and just love to latch onto exactly that sort of idea.
(admitting there is a problem, admitting that the current attempts at solution don't work, and proposing a way of turning the problem into an advantage/a different way to solve it is not the same thing as supporting the problem... or it's cause.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: This subject has become a minefield
You mean like peanut butter or even packets of nuts having a label stating the product may contain nuts?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This subject has become a minefield
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Disney Sexual innuendo
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Disney Sexual innuendo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-kl4hJ4j48s
But when Jasmine smiles when she first sees the magic carpet over the balcaony, it was the first thought I had. Always a girl for the guy with a nice car.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Disney Sexual innuendo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-kl4hJ4j48s
But when Jasmine smiles when she first sees the magic carpet over the balcaony, it was the first thought I had. Always a girl for the guy with a nice car.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You know why! Because he would get accused of it if he didn't as would you or me or anyone else.
You are quite correct of course, anytime a situation occurs,
such as muslims being expected to start any conversation about islam in the west with a disclaimer against fundamentalists etc, then it is a distraction and a weakening of the point actually under discussion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Relivent perhaps
He never said those words to the kids, the video makes it look like it but you can make a video or photos say or do just about anything. What if I release a video of me killing somebody that I actually didn't kill?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Criminal Acts
Apply this exact same idea to any movie or TV show that features a crime and suddenly all the actors are responsible for the murder, drugs, rape, theft, espionage, sabotage, and every other illegal activity their character commits.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Criminal Acts
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Criminal Acts
That's why states like Michigan have no movie industry. They'd rather leave all that money to California and prosecute people that make videos they don't like. You got money problems Michigan? Maybe you deserve it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/74/the-landlord-from-will-ferrell-and-adam-ghost-panther-m ckay
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
remember, prosecutors in the US are elected politicians
Prosecutors have strong incentives to keep their conviction rates high, and indeed Tague prides himself on his. From Tague's own site:
"Citizens can rest assured that crime in the community is taken seriously and that law breakers are held responsible for their actions. As a result of this continuing 'tough on crime' stance, the Muskegon County Prosecutor's Office, on an annual basis, has one of the highest felony jury trial conviction rates in the state of Michigan."
Tague must realize that he will not win this particular case. Given his high conviction rate, that makes this case an aberration. However, once one remembers that Tague is a politician elected to office, his actions are easily understood. Like Cuccinelli, Tague doesn't mind losing witch hunt cases - the positive publicity far outweighs the strike on his record.
Election of prosecutors has interesting effects. Incidentally, from a Norwegian perspective, electing prosecutors seems rather crazy and bound to politicize the justice system. In Norway, police attorneys advocate for the state in all but the most serious cases which are handled by a special office - and NOT by politicians seeking to generate attention for their next election campaign. The American justice system is certainly unique.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: remember, prosecutors in the US are elected politicians
How can we take away the incentive of high conviction ratings may just make our justice system side more with normalcy than the inane witch hunts that seem to occur from the elected office.
You know that win or lose this case, Emory's name will be in shambles, "justice" has prevailed, and the state has gotten ever more powerful in silencing speech...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: remember, prosecutors in the US are elected politicians
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Did he get authorization from the parents?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Did he get authorization from the parents?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Did he get authorization from the parents?
For instance, slander and libel are often committed without a profit-motive, often using the likenesses of individuals, yet are still illegal.
And in a day and age where things are uploaded to Youtube, where they display ads, it means that there is no longer anything such as a non-commercial video/song/etc. Youtube profits, at the very least. (The musician obviously profits from the publicity, as well)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Did he get authorization from the parents?
The *public* school he was *invited* to is public property. You don't have an expectation of privacy in public spaces.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wait.. you mean the law is not a mockery itself? Or maybe you mean it mocks the American people? Either way, hilarious...
We keep hearing (and Mike posting) how people confuse the actions for the US govt. with the actions of the people... doesn't the people vote for their govt? Then allow this to happen? Then bitch at it? I love it. Assured drama every time. Priceless.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So basically, every second American complaining about his government could have done something about it but didn't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nipple sucking babies
OK that's a joke... but a world in which some perverts will see breast feeding in that light doesn't seem to be far off...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Elected official vs Parents/Voters who demand that something be done. He is appeasing them, and who cares if its a mockery of the law, the parents get exactly what they want. They ruin this guys life for having dared make a dumb, but legal, video that made them angry.
I would cordially invite the prosecutor to get warrants for the parents homes and computers. They more than likely are guilty of real crimes. Letting your child surf the web without monitoring them, leaving sexually explicit images where a child can access them, and I am sure a bunch of other things they don't consider illegal but that are. If you want to protect the children then you need to use that double edged sword both ways.
They searched his home looking for pedophile trophies (like underwear) and found none, how soon until they look again and magically find some? If kids underwear in the home is all it takes to tag someone as a pedophile aren't these parents screwed?
Just because your offended by something and have a child does not give you magical rights to special justice. If your kid saw this video, is it not your fault for not making sure your child was supervised on the internet where the pedophiles just pop out of the end of a wire directly into your home?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wow
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Prosecutor won't learn
He may have oversteped himself again. In 2009 he had a conviction overturned in a case of a sleazy elected official was caught with some 100,000 collected images burned onto CDs. TV Tony went after him full force, as a producer of kiddie porn, despite the lack of evidence the he in anyway was producing or distributing child porn. It fell on the Michigan Supreme Court to overturn this overly broad interpretation of the law that he was able to sell to the jury.
http://www.mlive.com/news/muskegon/index.ssf/2010/07/michigan_supreme_court_rules_f.html
I predict Tony Tague will plea bargin this case down, or face another slap in the face from the Michigan Supremes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Selective Prosecution
Well, that would cover a whole heck of a lot of Hollywood movies. "Taxi Driver" anyone? Or there was that more recent one with that creepy little child actress Dakota Fanning who played a kid who was raped.
If those aren't examples of "making it appear as if children were actually abused", I'm not sure what is.
But those are big corporations with lots of money and lawyers. This guy is a nobody without the resources to fight back. And therein lies the difference.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]