Singer edits video with kids, arrested

[BigB08822]

As far as I am concerned, this "singer" committed internet porn. I am a parent and I would be pressing charges. This does not qualifiy as "art". This is one sick MoFo that should be on a watch list.

What charges would you be pressing? I am very curious to know what grounds you think you have to press charges on. Did he molest one or more of the children? Does this video actually meet the requirements to be considered child porn. Better yet, are there any such requirements? Are you going to sue film makers the world over for scenes involving both children and sex? I can think of a few off the top of my head (Hounddog has a very young Dakota Fanning being raped). The argument of whether this is child porn is very valid and I can't fault someone for saying yes. However, to "press charges" means he did something to your child (hypothetical child, in this case) and that does NOT seem to be the case. This seems like a civil matter, I'm not sure anything criminal was done. That is not surprising, everyone wants to sue someone.

[skatemommy]

^ well Brian if someone posts my child's likeness on Youtube with a lyric that says they want their index finger in her vagina; yea momma bear gonna strike early and often.

[BigB08822]

^ well Brian if someone posts my child's likeness on Youtube with a lyric that says they want their index finger in her vagina; yea momma bear gonna strike early and often.

That is understandable and I would be one pissed off parent, as well. But you did not answer my question. What charges would you press? What criminal act was committed? That is the question at the heart of the discussion. We all know what he did was wrong but was it criminal?

[MacMadame]

It makes me ill that people go online to trap these people for some television show. I completely understand WHY they do it but two wrongs do not make a right, IMO.

They don't trap them. If they did, they'd never be able to prosecute them and these guys do get prosecuted and successfully too. They also don't do it just for the tv show. They did it before the show and they do a lot of cases not related to the show. The show helps pay the bills because they are contracted to do all the research for the show rather than the show using employees to do it.

It doesn't sound like he molested anyone, it sounds like he touched a girls shoulder. If that is molestation then throw me in jail. I once turned around and brushed up against a coworkers breasts. She didn't have me thrown in jail or fired.

Give me a break, Brian. He didn't accidentally brush up against her. He was coming on to her and touched her as part of that process.

That is understandable and I would be one pissed off parent, as well. But you did not answer my question. What charges would you press? What criminal act was committed? That is the question at the heart of the discussion. We all know what he did was wrong but was it criminal?

Making and distributing child pornography is a crime. So is exploiting a minor. Using a minor without their parents permission to make a video counts even if the video had content that was acceptable to Mr. Rogers.

[curtisx]

its getting stupid im all for protection , but its getting to much

[skateboy]

Over the top here.

[antmanb]

Making and distributing child pornography is a crime. So is exploiting a minor. Using a minor without their parents permission to make a video counts even if the video had content that was acceptable to Mr. Rogers.

Making and distributing child pronography is indeed a crime, but I'm struggling to understand how the video edit would even begin to touch the very widest definitions of child pornography. I don't think anyone has actually seen the video but there would be a world of difference between child pornography and editing a sexually explicit song with images of children watching the performer do a completely ordinary song, for a (albeit in bad taste) humourous video. Speaking only from a UK perspective, the definition of pronography is very clear - it is something created "solely and princaplly for the purpose of sexual arousal".