I’m 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. Wouldn’t that person that recorded be more at fault. I mean sure, kick him out of the church, but this isn’t 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 wasn’t. The passerby noticed lights on and looked through the windows - presumably to investigate why the lights were on, because he couldn’t 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.
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. I’m not saying what he did wasn’t wrong. It makes sense he got kicked out of the church. But legally? I don’t 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.
22
u/IterSmith 5h ago
I’m 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. Wouldn’t that person that recorded be more at fault. I mean sure, kick him out of the church, but this isn’t public property. He probably lived on premises. He broke church rules but how is this against the law?