Comment RTFStatute (Score 1) 538
Maybe the prosecution should read their own state's laws. Under Sec. 750.145c of the Michigan Penal Code: "'Child sexually abusive material' means any depiction [...] which is of a child or appears to include a child engaging in a listed sexual act.
'Listed sexual act' means sexual intercourse, erotic fondling, sadomasochistic abuse, masturbation, passive sexual involvement, sexual excitement, or erotic nudity."
The only thing in the law even remotely resembling what Emory might have included in his video was children who appear to be engaging in "passive sexual involvement." Let's define it:
"'Passive sexual involvement' means an act, real or simulated, that exposes another person to or draws another person's attention to an act of sexual intercourse, erotic fondling, sadomasochistic abuse, masturbation, sexual excitement, or erotic nudity[...]."
Thus, the law requires that the video at the very least appear to depict children who are exposed to any of the bolded actions above. Even if, for the sake of argument, you could say the children in the video qualify under the "appears to include" language, the children are still not depicted as being exposed to any of the "listed sexual acts."
So it boils down to this: the video appears to (but does not actually) depict children watching Emory sing an explicit song, which falls under none of the actions covered by the statute. These children were not harmed, at least not in the way from which the statute is designed to protect them. In American law there exists a concept called the act requirement - meaning we can only punish people for things they actually did. Emory did not actually violate the law as it stands. The prosecution should pursue the case from a privacy rights angle, but leave it at that.
'Listed sexual act' means sexual intercourse, erotic fondling, sadomasochistic abuse, masturbation, passive sexual involvement, sexual excitement, or erotic nudity."
The only thing in the law even remotely resembling what Emory might have included in his video was children who appear to be engaging in "passive sexual involvement." Let's define it:
"'Passive sexual involvement' means an act, real or simulated, that exposes another person to or draws another person's attention to an act of sexual intercourse, erotic fondling, sadomasochistic abuse, masturbation, sexual excitement, or erotic nudity[...]."
Thus, the law requires that the video at the very least appear to depict children who are exposed to any of the bolded actions above. Even if, for the sake of argument, you could say the children in the video qualify under the "appears to include" language, the children are still not depicted as being exposed to any of the "listed sexual acts."
So it boils down to this: the video appears to (but does not actually) depict children watching Emory sing an explicit song, which falls under none of the actions covered by the statute. These children were not harmed, at least not in the way from which the statute is designed to protect them. In American law there exists a concept called the act requirement - meaning we can only punish people for things they actually did. Emory did not actually violate the law as it stands. The prosecution should pursue the case from a privacy rights angle, but leave it at that.
