What happens when you sing a sexually explicit song and then edit video footage to make it look like you’re singing in front of classroom full of kids?
You go to jail.
Back in January, Evan Emory, a 21-year-old musician, performed a clean song in front of a classroom of children at Beechnau Elementary in Michigan. Later, he came back to the classroom when it was empty and performed a new song with sexually explicit lyrics. He then edited the footage together and posted it on YouTube in February. The video—which has been removed—contained two disclaimers saying that the children were never exposed to the explicit lyrics.
Parents and school officials were obviously upset, but it escalated way too quickly. Initially, back in February, Emory was charged with a felony for manufacturing child pornography. He faced 20—yes, 20—years in prison.
However, after a plea deal, Emory was sentenced to 60 days in prison, two years probation, 200 hours of community service, and mandatory counseling. (Emory pleaded no contest to a reduced charge of “unlawful posting of an Internet message with aggravating circumstances.”) Once he gets out of jail, he won’t be allowed within 500 feet of any children under the age of 18. The plea deal prevents Emory from having to sign up for the sexual offender registry.
It still seems like a bit much, no? Emory really didn’t do anything to the kids. He used his computer to make them a part of a dumb joke, but that was it: a dumb joke.
It’s easy to see why parents would be upset. Emory used their kids in a video with some vulgar lyrics, and he did it without getting permission. Shouldn’t that be the big problem here? It’s that he didn’t ask for permission, not that he, as one parent suggested, stole the innocence from these kids.
Emory is a 21-year-old kid who was trying to be funny, but ended up making an ass of himself. Haven’t we all been there? Sure, he deserves some kind of punishment for being an idiot and not really thinking this through, but two months in jail is two too many.
Website Trackback Link…
[…]the time to read or visit the content or sites we have linked to below the[…]…
This is a travesty. This is not a crime. Offended parents should sue Emory for having inappropriately used their child’s image without permission, but it is shameful that the police/courts/prosecutors pursued a stupid young person’s prank to such an extreme. He is obviously not a sex offender and he poses no obvious threat to children at all.
Incidentally, he can’t appeal because he accepted a plea bargain (probably scared stiff from the threats of 20 years in jail and also genuinely remorseful)
Shameful response by those we put in charge of administering the law.
The pedophile hysteria is getting completely out of hand – apparently in the US as well as here in Europe. We’re getting to the point where anyone saying “child” and “sex” in the same time risk going to jail.
Yes, sexual abuse of children is really, really bad – but this kind of overreaction is not helping anyone, least of all the victims of real abuse.
He screwed up by broadcasting images of children without prior permission. I writes stories that involve students all the time, and each time I have to get written permission to use a kid’s face in a photo. However, the backs of heads are OK as long as the kids are unidentifiable. The reason this is such a big deal is what if a kid has a parent in the witness protection program? Or they’re hiding out from an abusive parent, so identifying them would put them in jeopardy. I know that sounds far-fetched, but I’ve run into both cases over… Read more »
Idiot? This man is a f***in’ genius. The fact that he’s going to jail is just a proof of how much this fascist society is trying to repress every form of free thought and witty creativity.
Totally ludicrous that he is now MARKED as a sex offender because of a prank! The Judge IS an idiot!! Whoops .. i’ll probably got to prison for 10 yrs for defamation of character!!!
Seriously APPEAL!!!!
Read it again… he is not on the sex offender registry. #Readingcomprehension
Messed up. What he did was dumb but to even hint at any child molestation or abuse is really mind numbingly ridiculous. I don’t have kids of my own but I did babysitting for years and was a regular nanny for a few families. I wonder how diligent these same parents are when it comes to things these kids are actually exposed to everyday like songs on the radio, general internet content or TV. I know 8 year olds who listen to Jay-Z and Brittney Spears. 8 year olds! And whose parents turn around and complain about Brittney Spears but… Read more »
Clearly, this kid could not afford decent counsel. This is a violation of his free speech. This video could be considered a parody. Not just a parody – but OF HIS OWN WORK.
IMO, the judge failed here by not throwing the case out.
Free speech has limits. You cannot use the images of kids whose parents did not consent in a video that was vulgar and sexually explicit. No releases were signed. No permission was given. He deceived the school and the parents and everyone.
What bothers me the most is that he they are treating him as a sex offender. He isn’t. Should he have gotten permission? Of course…but should he be treated as a pedophile? no.
And the people that do abuse kids are left out there still abusing.
I agree.
He used images of children without getting permission first.
But manufacturing child pornography ?! What kind of song was he singing ?!
If that is what can happen then I fear for the teacher that accidently swears in front of class.
Also, is it even possible to stay away 500ft from minors ? I don’t see how.