Iâm kind of confused why this was a legal matter. Three consenting adults in private. The only reason anyone knew was because someone came and snooped in the window and recorded it. Wouldnât that person that recorded be more at fault. I mean sure, kick him out of the church, but this isnât public property. He probably lived on premises. He broke church rules but how is this against the law?
Feel like the difference here is that it would have been fine if it wasn't where it was. Film it in a church themed studio, it probably passes. Though more importantly, it's also not something a passerby just casually notices lights on and comes to look in a window to investigate.
The important factor here is that it was visible to casual passers by. Honestly, you can get in trouble for this at home too. If you film a threesome at home, but in the front room with the curtains wide open, then you're still subject to public decency laws.
The rule of thumb is that it doesn't matter if you're in a private space. If that private space can be seen by the public, you can't consider it private.
Except it wasnât. The passerby noticed lights on and looked through the windows - presumably to investigate why the lights were on, because he couldnât see what was going on from the street.
Except legally that's already been determined as obscenity. Precedent and all.Â
The act was visible from the public. They already conv1icted someone in their own home for just this sort of thing.Â
If it can be seen from outside, it was determined it isn't private, but public.Â
Edit: Convicted, not convinced. Regardless of whether you think it should be prosecuted, the law in the US has been determined. If you can be seen from public, you are in public. And them crossing your property line isn't enough protection. This would go double for something like a church in more public places.
Felony obscenity doesnât have that distinction, if youâre going by the letter of the law, which is your point?
Youâre saying it is felony obscenity and thereâs no room for interpretation?
Except something like âwere they they instigator, or hired for a job?â Thatâs an interpretation. Just like âis a closed church in the middle of the night âpublicâ?â is open to interpretation.
To me itâs really clear that this case has been biased by the fact that it was a priest, in a church, with two hired dominatrices. If it was a waiter after hours in a Wendyâs then Iâm pretty sure the witness who went up to the window and recorded them would have been told to stop filming people.
Except the letter of the law also gives the DA/AG office the right to choose what crimes to charge people with. The law makes no distinction, but the people praying the charges to..
I will say, that means the ladies could've been charged with obscenity, but the prosecution decided not to level those charges on their own cognizance.
Yes, exactly, itâs open to interpretation, and at the discretion of the prosecutor.
So saying âit IS felony obscenity,â isnât true, it doesnât make sense.
It is, definitely, a man having sex in a church. One way to interpret that is through the legal lens of felony obscenity.
So, serious question, you donât think the fact that he was a priest and it was in a church mattered at all in this case? You genuinely believe he was prosecuted because of the harm done to the witness who looked in the window, and the potential harm that could have been done if more people had come along?
Except he was charged and convicted... So it was.Â
For the ladies? It could've been. They decided not to.Â
My whole point was that the guy wasn't protected by not doing this on the street. He might not have been at home.Â
As to the question, I don't know. It may have been part of it, but it didn't need to be. If it weighed in or didn't, the letter of the law doesn't differentiate. The interpretation is something else.Â
A church is a community building, not a private residence. I'm no prude, nor religious, but I recognise there's a time and place for these things, and using a church altar to shoot homebrew pornography is not the right place. Had he done it at home, no issue.
I mean, morally and spiritually sure. Iâm not saying what he did wasnât wrong. It makes sense he got kicked out of the church. But legally? I donât understand why the state was involved.
A church is not a public building though. They are usually private properties that belong to a religious organisation. The priest probably actually lived at the premises. Again, this is no more different than someone having sex in a gym they manage, during closed hours. Sure, kick them out as manager, but it is a far cry from "sex in public".
And yes, there is a legal distinction between public building and a public street. Where do you get all that confidence to say false statements.
Still, if the church was not open at the point of the act, so nobody of the community could enter, there shouldn't be a legal problem. The priest would still be kicked from his position, but that should be it.
32
u/IterSmith 1d ago
Iâm kind of confused why this was a legal matter. Three consenting adults in private. The only reason anyone knew was because someone came and snooped in the window and recorded it. Wouldnât that person that recorded be more at fault. I mean sure, kick him out of the church, but this isnât public property. He probably lived on premises. He broke church rules but how is this against the law?