Cops: Conn. man coached boy, 8, to swear on YouTube video

Cops: Conn. man coached boy, 8, to swear on YouTube video

www.rawstory.com

A Connecticut man has been arrested on allegations he coached his 8-year-old neighbor to swear and say racial slurs for a video he posted on YouTube.

The boy's mother told the Connecticut Post that her son was paid $1 to make the video titled "Swearing Kid." She says the video has upset her family.

Police say the video shows the boy saying obscenities and racial slurs in his front yard, and a man's voice can be heard encouraging him to make the comments.

(visit the link for the full news article)

It looks like the communist/nanny state of Connecticut is at it again, always interjecting themselves into people's personal lives and homes. The state of Connecticut just can't seem to stay out of people's affairs. Personal freedom and individual liberty in Connecticut is as foreign to that state as it was to Soviet Russia or even Nazi Germany.

I don't support teaching your child (or any child) hate, however I also don't support the state trying to tell people how to live their lives or subverting their Constitutional protections. If that's how he wants to act, then he should be able to do so without state interference and the neighbors should keep track of their own child. In fact, the 1st and 14th Amendments should protect him from such frivelous charges, though not in this day in age to where the Constitution is no longer even worth the antique paper it was printed on.

The 1st Amendment should protect this guy's freedom of speech and expression. Furthermore, the 14th Amendment, particularly the "Due Process Clause" should force the state to abide by the Bill of Rights.

Finally, the charge of "impairing the morals of a child" is one of the most outragious things I have heard of in a so-called "free country". Who's to decide what morals should be instilled in a child? Who makes those morals? Is it the same government (State of Connecticut) who helped AIG make off with tax-payer money, then hand it out in large multi-million dollar bonuses? We are allowing this government to decide which morals we should be forced to teach our children? I think it's safe to say that their morals and my morals are not even close to being on the same page, yet we are forced to abide by their crooked morals, under penalty of prison.

This sure doesn't sound like a free country to me and Connecticut seems to be leading us into our current age of tyranny. Power to the Public! Take back your country!

--airspoon

Edited to substitute neigbor, though the premise still stands.



www.rawstory.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 26-8-2010 by airspoon]

Originally posted by airspoon

I don't support teaching your child hate, however I also don't support the state trying to tell people how to live their lives. If that's how he wants to raise his child, he should be able to do so without state interference. In fact, the 1st and 14th Amendments should protect him from such frivelous charges, though not in this day in age, to where the Constitution is no longer even worth the antique paper it was printed on.

The 1st Amendment should protect this guy's freedom of speech and since his child is a minor, he retains those rights for his child. Furthermore, the 14th Amendment, particularly the "Due Process Clause" should force the state to abide by the Bill of Rights.
www.rawstory.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

It wasn't his kid, it was his neighbor.

I can't agree more with on the Impairing morals law; even if we can all agree that hate is wrong, any violation of the freedom of thought and expression is against everything this country stands for.

Proof the populace is ****ing retarded. The cops, the family, the guy. All beyond stupid.

"impairing the morals of a child" is actually a crime, seriously? The nanny state is going to drive me insane some day.

Impairing the morals of a child?? Didn't even know this was a law. How bout charging the parents with letting their 8yo kid hang out with someone who impairs the morals of their child?

reply to post by airspoon


He'll be released. Freedom of speech DOES apply against being arrested.

I hope this guy sues that Police department and wins enough $$$ to be set for life.

reply to post by Snarf


Unfortunately, he won't. This is not the first time that this has happened in Connecticut and in fact, it is just as common as people being arrested for sexual/physical abuse or even neglect. In Connecticut, this charge is actually common and pursued quite often.

--airspoon

reply to post by airspoon

The 1st Amendment should protect this guy's freedom of speech and expression. Furthermore, the 14th Amendment, particularly the "Due Process Clause" should force the state to abide by the Bill of Rights.

Josh Eastman does not need the 14th Amendment in order to enjoy any protection of the freedom of speech. There is the matter, and perhaps more relevant to the case, of Constitution for the State of Connecticut

SEC. 4. Every citizen may freely speak, write and publish his sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty.

SEC. 5. No law shall ever be passed to curtail or restrain the liberty of speech or of the press.

SEC. 9. No person shall be arrested, detained or punished, except in cases clearly warranted by law.

I suppose we better start rounding up every Hollywood director, producer, writer and all the parents of the child actors.

reply to post by thisguyrighthere


This story reminded me of the movie "Kick-ass", they got the 11 year old girl on that movie to drop the "c-bomb", so i guess the writers and directors of that are going to jail now too.

en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by airspoon


then CT has the most incompetent lawyers in the land.

Serving time for spoken words is a text book violation of freedom of speech against the government.