They were employees of the store and it took releasing the video to the media to identify them? I would have suspected employees first.

I realize this is "serious," and some people were probably offended, but really, is it necessary to charge these two kids (both 20) with a felony?

@Esquire99: At 20, they should know better than that.

That's Fort Smith, AR; not AK.

@MostlyHarmless:
I totally agree they should have known better and I think they deserve to be punished; I do question whether it's appropriate to charge them with a felony that, upon conviction or a guilty plea to that charge, will follow them around for a long time and could result in over a year in jail. Moreover, I wouldn't be surprised if such a conviction, in some states, would trigger mandatory sex offender registration given the "obscenity" aspect.

@TechnoDestructo:
That should have been obvious to Marc. I'm pretty sure they don't even have 'lectricity in Alaska, let alone DVD players. All they have is moose, snow and a view of Russia.

@TechnoDestructo: Don't worry, even McCain got them confused: [www.huffingtonpost.com]

AK? Thats Alaska.. I think you ment Arkansas which is AR. Even the link you provide says Arkansas.

Since my computer came with lots of free porn, I figured TVs came with them too.

@Esquire99: OK, fixed. Thanks.

I use to see all alarm clocks to go off simultaneously in Walmart. This though is more then I'd ever go.

@Esquire99: I think they should be charged with a felony. I wouldn't want my kid seeing that while we were shopping. I accidentally saw porn when I was a child and it was very traumatic for me. It's gross and some people find it very offensive. No one should have to be exposed to that unless they want to.

20 years-old is old enough to know better. They aren't 10 for Pete's sake.

@Esquire99: They should be forced to register as sex offenders.

@Esquire99: Well, then maybe they shouldn't have been such idiots, eh? I hope they do the maximum amount of time AND get labeled as sex offenders. That would teach them a lesson.

@smiling1809:
You can't be serious. You really think that two kids who played a prank that exposed some people to naked people engaging in a natural act should be forced to register as sex offenders? Hell, why not just gas them?

@AdvocatesDevil: They absolutely should not be registered as sex offenders, they should not be given the same punishment and lumped into the same group as rapists and child molesters.

@Esquire99: Even though it's not likely that there would be children there (10:45 Wednesday night) that's not the same as being impossible that children would be there. To my mind, that should be enough to get them labeled as sex offenders. The possibility of children seeing that would make this much worse than those cases of young men having sex with girlfriends a couple of years younger which can be enough to get labeled.

@AdvocatesDevil:
What kind of lesson does that teach them? Don't pull a prank or your entire life will be ruined? No one was actually harmed here (being offended, in my book, isn't harm). They deserve to spend a couple of nights in jail, a moderate fine and to be let to go on their way.

@Esquire99: America was founded by Puritans... remember that. The sight of sex is the worst possible thing ever.

@Esquire99: No, you don't understand. If this site has taught me anything, it's that the natural, yet non-vital act of breastfeeding is perfectly okay, but the natural, and completely vital act of sex is completely and absolutely wrong and should never occur.

But on a different note, one can get labeled as a sex offender for something as minor as public urination (also natural, by the way). There's an unnecessarily large range of things that will get you registered, and I don't really see this as one of them. Criminal mischief or a misdemeanor? Sure. Felony and registration as a sex offender? Not so much.

@supercereal:
I agree 100% that they deserve some punishment, and a mischief charge/misdemeanor is totally appropriate. A felony and permanent branding as a criminal, and possibly sex offender status, is simply over the line.

@Parnassus: "Even though it's not likely that there would be children there (10:45 Wednesday night) that's not the same as being impossible that children would be there. To my mind, that should be enough to get them labeled as sex offenders."

Are you for real? Porn never hurt anybody, the kids will survive. Certainly not deserving of sex offender registration. These guys aren't sexual deviants performing illegal sex acts, they just played a prank with a porn DVD. Get over it.

What better way to show off a TV than to play a little porn? it grabs the shoppers attention (no matter what the age) and right under every tv in a description and a price tag.

@gauden44:
I guess I would have thought that after enough years that would have gone away; clearly, judging just by the reactions here, I was wrong about that.

This is Wal-Mart you're talking about. 10% of shoppers were offended, the other 90% stopped to watch.

@Esquire99:

I could not agree more. They played a prank, a stupid prank, and yes at 20 years old they should know better, but I know a lot of 20 year olds that are quiet immature. And while that doesn't make what the did ok, the punishment should fit the crime. No one was physically harmed. They should get a fine, maybe some community service but not a felony.

I think they should be punished, but labeling them as sex offenders would be going a bit too far. Sex offenders are ones who do physical sex acts or download or posses child pornography. Unless they showed child porn on those dvds, then it wouldn't require for them to be registered. Labeling them as sex offenders would be like labeling someone who causes a car accident (just injuries, no deaths) to tried with attempted murder just because of the fact that shooting someone and injuring someone through a car accident both cause pain. In this case for the article the prank of showing a porn dvd and actually raping someone both cause emotional damage, but one is something that could screw up someone more (raping) than the other (seeing a porn).

@tackhouse1:
Hell, I'd even be OK with them tossing them in jail for 6 months or something. I'm not saying they shouldn't be fairly severely punished, but branding them felons for life, and potentially sex offenders, is totally uncalled for.

I should state that I base all of my opinions on the assumption that these two guys have relatively clean records and are otherwise reasonably "upstanding" citizens who made a bad decision to play a stupid prank. If they've got a record longer than a CVS receipt, that changes things entirely.

Beats the hell out of finding nemo.

@smiling1809:

I agree with this. Since virtually all American are already sex offenders (Peed in a bush? Sex offender. Mooned someone from a bus? Sex offender. Talked dirty to someone 17 when you're 18? Sex offender.) we need to get the labelling over with.

The only way "Sex Offender" will be absolutely nothing is when absolutely everyone is one.

@Esquire99: I think it's wrong to show porn at Wal-Mart but it is ridiculous that anyone would be charged with a felony for doing so. Being fired from Wal-Mart is honestly a big enough discipline. Perhaps Wal-Mart could sue them in civil court if they actually lost any customers based on this...

If the employees are convicted of a felony, they will not be able to get any legitimate job. I am disappointed when the government oversteps their authority like this.

I believe that it was George Carlin that said it best...

I would rather my child see two people making love than two people killing each other...

I agree with that...

Unless there was a donkey involved....

then that is just wrong...

What's the problem? After all, it was free and no one had to show a receipt.

Seriously, a misdemeanor at worst. Maybe a fine and some community service. This is just not felony territory unless the local DA is running for governor.

@ecwis:
In these cases, I'm more willing to chalk it up to an overzealous, puritanical prosecutor who probably has aspirations for higher office than to the "government" generally.

Am I the only one who thinks this is just plain funny? Couple people plaid a tasteless joke that didn't cause any property damage, hurt anyone, or cause any lasting effect on anybody. If anyone was traumatized, I think their issues go deeper than accidentally catching coitus on a tv monitor in a department store. Ban them from the store, get an apology, and move on.

I would bet any amount of money that had they put an ultra violent movie in there instead, the folks shopping either wouldn't have batted an eyelash or it would have taken a lot longer for someone to complain.

The article says, "They thought they were just pulling a prank." Lesson learned: Some pranks really are "pranks." Some others, however, are guaranteed to get you into big trouble — no matter how harmless one's intention might have been — and saying "it was just a prank" won't be enough to squirm out from under that.

@dragonfire81: SAW, for example.

But yeah, oh no! Boobies, get those outta here!!!
Come on!

@The Marionette: I so wish we lived in your ideal world where only real sex offenders were labeled sex offenders. Unfortunately, minor things like public urination will land you on the list. They'll probably end up on the list, since this is slightly worse than peeing in a bush.

@☠Grяrяrяrяrя, portrait of a chickenwolfmoosepig.: ....80% stopped to watch, 10% hid behind a display and followed along

Punishment depends on how hard-core it was. Registered Sex Offenders? Absolutely not. That would set a precedent for people guilty of leaving open porn mags around where unsuspecting "victims" may catch a glance.

@jrizos:
I do think the presence of a midget or a clown would count as an aggravating factor.

@Esquire99: Of course it's necessary. This is America, where seeing a boob (or worse yet, genitals!) is the worse possible thing that could ever happen.

Your body is a dirty, sinful thing and you should be ashamed of yourself.

@dragonfire81: When Dark Night came out I was surprised they were showing that in the electronics department. I enjoyed the movie, but really? That was deemed appropriate?

I realize you guys comb through news articles specifically looking for stories about Wal-Mart, but I don't think this was worth it.

This is the wrong way to prank walmart, you want to make walmart jump, make a cd that says "walmart needs to unionize" and have it repeat itself over and over on an automotive or electronics cd player. Now thats a prank worth doing. Nothing scares walmart worse than the word union. They have a special teams that will fly in over a prank like that.

"several customers who found the DVD footage inspirational have already been offered jobs in the adult-entertainment industry"

These ARE Wal*Mart customers we're talking about here. You just made me want to stop with the porn for a loooong time - just in case I would run across one of them in a movie.

@shinerunner12:
The team will fly in and start preparations to simply close the store.

What's the big deal? Back when Titanic was out on video a Target store I was in had the sex scene on their wall of tv's, no one seemed to care. It was during school hours and not that many kids were there but still.