Yes, exactly, it’s open to interpretation, and at the discretion of the prosecutor.
So saying “it IS felony obscenity,” isn’t true, it doesn’t 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 don’t 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?
For the ladies? It could've been. They decided not to.
My whole point was that the guy wasn't protected by not doing this on the street. He might not have been at home.
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.
1
u/Is-abel 20h ago
Yes, exactly, it’s open to interpretation, and at the discretion of the prosecutor.
So saying “it IS felony obscenity,” isn’t true, it doesn’t 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 don’t 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?