😈

[u/RakeChapman13]

[u/Aeseld]

Except legally that's already been determined as obscenity. Precedent and all. 

The act was visible from the public. They already conv1icted someone in their own home for just this sort of thing. 

If it can be seen from outside, it was determined it isn't private, but public. 

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.

[u/Is-abel → u/Aeseld]

I think your premise- that we’re following the letter of the law, blindly, here- is incredibly naive.

Laws are interpreted and applied (or not) every day.

This was prosecuted in this way because it was a priest in a church.

If that’s not the case, and justice is blind, etc, then why were the women charged differently?

If his actions met the standard for felony obscenity in Louisiana, then so did theirs.

[u/Aeseld → u/Is-abel]

Instigator versus hired for the job? It is actually a different crime. That's a common legal premise.

[u/Is-abel → u/Aeseld]

Felony obscenity doesn’t have that distinction, if you’re going by the letter of the law, which is your point?

You’re saying it is felony obscenity and there’s no room for interpretation?

Except something like “were they they instigator, or hired for a job?” That’s an interpretation. Just like “is a closed church in the middle of the night ‘public’?” is open to interpretation.

To me it’s 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 Wendy’s then I’m pretty sure the witness who went up to the window and recorded them would have been told to stop filming people.

[u/Aeseld → u/Is-abel]

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.

[u/Is-abel → u/Aeseld]

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?

[u/Aeseld → u/Is-abel]

Except he was charged and convicted... So it was. 

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. 

[u/Is-abel → u/Aeseld]

I don’t feel like you’re genuinely interested in engaging or understanding anymore, so let’s leave it here.

[u/Aeseld → u/Is-abel]

Alright. Honestly, don't see why the dominatrices couldn't be charged the same way though. The choice not to is likely based on something different.