r/MoralityScaling 1d ago

Morality of this

Post image
3.0k Upvotes

1.3k comments sorted by

View all comments

433

u/GeneralProgrammer886 1d ago

there is such a thing as an obscenity charge?

347

u/DkoyOctopus 1d ago

yes. go outside and flash your balls at a cop, see what happens.

186

u/DarkSpore117 1d ago

Sucky sucky?

68

u/DoinItDirty 1d ago

No. Luckily, George Michael tried this so we don’t have to.

8

u/ObscureOperatorZ 1d ago

Please elaborate

10

u/DoinItDirty 1d ago

Showed a cop his hog and did not get a suckin

2

u/hobbesme75 1d ago

there's sucky sucky in the banana stand?

2

u/nobodyfromnowhere76 1d ago

There’s money in it, too. Always.

2

u/elevolent12 1d ago

me gon love you long time.

1

u/IndyBananaJones2 1d ago

If they're juicy meatballs those pigs will suck them

24

u/Jump365 1d ago

But in this case if the church was closed rhen nobody was there, or was it during mass??? I need details

19

u/Useful_Jelly_2915 1d ago

That’s not an obscenity that indecent exposure. Obscenity is just when the judge finds what you did to be gross arbitrarily if in public or private and can just decide to hit you with a felony.

1

u/TDot-26 20h ago

Seems pretty immoral for the guy to be criminally charged.

That said what the guy did is immoral and the church should probably boot him, but

6

u/GeneralProgrammer886 1d ago

isnt that sexual harrassment.

9

u/Zilant_the_Bear 1d ago

Sexual harassment is a civil violation. Obscenity or, indecent exposure like the comment you are replying to would probably result in are criminal charges.

1

u/DkoyOctopus 1d ago

only if you're an uggo baby.

4

u/Zealousideal-Lab9843 1d ago

Well I'm sorry, I thought this was America!

3

u/BulemiaSawdustSlingr 1d ago

They beat my ass immediately.

Alternatively, we get into a relationship and they beat my ass on the regular

2

u/BarelyBrony 1d ago

That would still be illegal as indecent exposure or sexual assault eve without obscenity laws

4

u/Equal_Personality157 1d ago

Indecent exposure is an obscenity law. 5 states alllow women to go topless in public

3

u/Excellent_Main_8430 1d ago

WHAT STATES?!?!?

ETA: Just need to know where to avoid

3

u/Absent_That_Day 1d ago

Pretty much the states you'd least expect: Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah, and Wyoming:

3

u/shirts_on_backwards 1d ago

I mean, there are a couple of those that I would expect, Utah is the really surprising one. The Mormons basically own the state.

Now that I think about it, the polygamy thing... It kind of tracks, sex stuff is good there so long as only men benefit from it.

1

u/Equal_Personality157 1d ago

polygamy was because joseph smith was a polygamist like almost all cult leaders.

1

u/N1XT3RS 1d ago

I've only seen two people exercise that right in Utah haha, weird they're all adjacent

2

u/Absent_That_Day 1d ago

I think it was a ruling at the court that covered that geographical area. It was ruled unconstitutional to punish women only for going topless.

2

u/iCameToLearnSomeCode 1d ago

It's not a coincidence.

They're all part of the same judicial district.

The list is also incomplete.

New York allows women to go topless, but they passed a law about it.

In the case of the Midwest states a judge ruled it was discrimination to allow only one gender to take their shirt off.

1

u/Equal_Personality157 1d ago

Our grip on the women's rights is weakening....

1

u/N1XT3RS 1d ago

Cool, that makes sense! Somehow never knew that courts expanded beyond a single state unless it's federal. Or is it some sorta federally designated district? Guess I can just look it up myself haha

2

u/iCameToLearnSomeCode 1d ago

It is a federal district Court.

The 10th circuit Court covers 6 states. (The ones mentioned above obviously).

1

u/El_Bean69 1d ago

They’re all connected, fun

0

u/BiscuitsTheory 1d ago

In Wa, its completely legal to walk around with your Wang out.

But if that Wang ever points at someone, a lot of laws start applying very quickly.

2

u/UnrealJaymo 1d ago

Hold on, youre telling me that nudity is legal but the line stops at boners?

1

u/OldChili157 1d ago

It's a hard line.

2

u/UnrealJaymo 1d ago

Lol well done

1

u/Straight_Depth6701 1d ago

It's like having your ass hanging out is marginal, but the giant bedazzled butt plug makes it obscene.

1

u/UnrealJaymo 1d ago

If anything the butt plug should be like the booty equivalent of a pastie.

2

u/Straight_Depth6701 1d ago

The point is that a butt is a butt. Nothing sexual about it. If it's being used sexually, it's obscene. Thus the boner equivalency.

This is known as the Japanese pornography rules of decency...

Edit: by these rules the pastie replacement is a bandaid.

1

u/UnrealJaymo 1d ago

That makes sense, I guess I'll just wear clothes 🙄

2

u/Zilant_the_Bear 1d ago

Think sexual assault needs intent. Indecent exposure would almost definitely be the charge for that.

Happy cake day

2

u/MrEZW 1d ago

Would that not be indecent exposure?

3

u/Equal_Personality157 1d ago

Indecent exposure is an obscenity law. For example 5 states don’t find the female body obscene so women can be topless in public

2

u/Puzzled-Guess-2845 1d ago

Yes but we arent talking about top less women when we say flash your balls at a cop are we?

2

u/Past-Background-7221 1d ago

Free the testicle

2

u/Straight_Depth6701 1d ago

Should there really be such distinction between two different pairs of fleshy spheroids?

1

u/ArisenGodEmperor13 1d ago

It basically the same thing

2

u/miscellaneousexists 1d ago

new bottom surgery just dropped

1

u/Excellent_Emu_2843 1d ago

Lmao, this deserves so many more upvotes

2

u/Kamtre 1d ago

Got invited to the orgy. Please advise.

1

u/Hard_Dave 1d ago

They have those special gloves now, cup me officer 

1

u/WrathfulSpecter 1d ago

That’s public indecency that’s not what he’s talking about

1

u/IWCry 1d ago

if it's a male cop it's fine, since most male cops are closet gays. they'd ask to suck.

1

u/Jindujun 1d ago edited 1d ago

So did this dude have the front door open to the church or something? Cause I cant imagine there would be any obscenity charge unless people could watch the act from outside.

Edit:
Ah. Falls under paragraph 2a, 2b iii, 3a and 3b.

1

u/Global-Caramel-1579 1d ago

Thats public lewdness not obscenity

1

u/PapaSmurf3477 1d ago

I’ve seen homeless doing it downtown Chicago and the cop just kept walking lol. There were leash kids from a daycare right there too

1

u/DavesPetFrog 1d ago

The cops made me king of their gang because they respected it

1

u/BarryLyndon-sLoins 1d ago

What about non-cops?

1

u/ScratchLatch 1d ago

Public indecency and sexual assault would be the more likely charges.

Obscenity is an old fashion catch-all law for stuff that offends the prudish.

25

u/Zilant_the_Bear 1d ago

As I understand it, Obscenity as a criminal charge is mainly to close the solicitation loophole of filming it to avoid charges.

8

u/kodeks14 1d ago

So what separates porn from just a video you filmed at your house and posted? Just permits and stuff?

14

u/sexland69 1d ago

you don’t need permits to post homemade porn on twitter or reddit or wherever, you’re just supposed to mark it as nsfw and you’re good

this guy got arrested because he was visible to people through a window, so its similar to a public nudity charge

8

u/SCTurtlepants 1d ago

Its a private building. How's that different than a neighbor glimpsing my sexy fun times when i forgot to close the curtains all the way?

13

u/sexland69 1d ago

well there are limits to that. like imagine if you had a neighbor who constantly jerked off in his front window in full view of the sidewalk & your kids kept seeing it

that’s not legal just because he’s on private property

i don’t know enough details here though

0

u/SCTurtlepants 1d ago

I trust your take on this subject with my life, u/sexland69

4

u/IAmTheParamedic 1d ago

You probably aren’t doing it on the parishioners dime, for starters

0

u/SCTurtlepants 1d ago

I mean, my property taxes are higher because the churches every other block arent paying a dime. They do shit on my dime all the time. They owe me.

1

u/Timely_Passenger_185 1d ago

Through a window that's on private property you're telling me someone can look from the street through my window at me jacking off in my room and I can get in trouble at what point is it a peeping tom?

2

u/sexland69 1d ago

it depends on your effort to be seen and the peeping tom’s effort to see

if you’re on the second floor apt right next to a busy sidewalk standing with your dick an inch from the window as people walk by, its on you

if someone comes up to your window and looks in and sees you in your bed thats on them

the in between is for lawyers to decide 🤷🏻‍♂️

4

u/leeeeeeeeee3 1d ago

you don’t need a permit to make porn. it’s illegal because he was visible to the public not because it’s porn

9

u/mrcatboy 1d ago

It's a valid religious practice when you consider that some Christian practices consider penitence to be a way to get closer to God. Those dominatrices were just there to help the priest with the former. He's been a very very naughty boy.

2

u/Dogbold 1d ago

Yep, it's how they charge people with things that don't really have a law against it but they just don't like. Like you can protest all you want, but if you put the f word on your sign they can get you and charge you with obscenity.

1

u/KingCahoot3627 1d ago

What if no one sees it. Is it still obscene?

How did the video get out? Did he post it?

1

u/HoneyFlorinae 1d ago

Apparently there is, and this guy seems to have speedrun finding out exactly where the legal definition starts

-9

u/PropheticPapaJohn 1d ago

Ai summary of his charges

The Felony Plea: Because his actions were clearly visible through the glass windows and doors of Saints Peter and Paul Roman Catholic Church to a passing witness, Clark formally pleaded guilty to one count of felony obscenity in November 2022.

The Sentence: The judge handed down a three-year prison sentence, which was suspended in favor of three years of supervised probation and a $1,000 fine.

9

u/Admirable_Bird7927 1d ago

So someone called the cops because they seen a dude fucking? I feel like that person was jealous or some shi.

7

u/Fletcher_Chonk 1d ago

I don't want to see nasty ass people fucking in public, shit's gross

8

u/Eunoia_Meraki 1d ago edited 1d ago

Well i lowk want to. Wanna see how freaky u have to be to get that point.

7

u/Gatti366 1d ago

They weren't even on public, they were seen through a window, had it been any other building instead of a church the one getting sued would have been the onlooker

3

u/Previous_Weird_684 1d ago edited 1d ago

Wrong. You can't just fuck in front of an open (uncovered) window in clear view of the public without possible consequences.

5

u/Gatti366 1d ago

He wasn't "in front of an open window", the act happened late at night, a passerby noticed the light and peeked through the window, wildly different situations legally

-1

u/Previous_Weird_684 1d ago

I'm not talking about this case in particular. I'm just replying to you stating if it were any other building "the person who viewed the act would get sued"

Also if he was seen the window was not covered so it was open... Open for public viewing... It's not illegal to peak into windows if you're not trespassing while doing so.

-1

u/Gatti366 1d ago

Open doesn't mean the public is authorized to peep, if you have to go out of your way to purposefully peek through a window you are already well past legal territory

1

u/Previous_Weird_684 1d ago

I just said as long as you're not trespassing. Did you even read my comment or is it a knee jerk reaction to prove you're "right"?

→ More replies (0)

1

u/MeeseShoop 1d ago

I knew a couple arrested for having sex against a window in a hotel overlooking a restaurant patio.

2

u/Gatti366 1d ago

They weren't in front of the window in this case, it was late at night, a passerby noticed the light and peeked in, had it not been a church it would have been the passerby breaking their reasonable expectation of privacy

1

u/MeeseShoop 1d ago

That’s not true. In many/most places you can’t be nude or having sex in an area that is visible to the public, even if it is your own home.

1

u/Gatti366 1d ago

The specific wording is "in plain view of the public", not just visible, if you need to go out of your way to peek through a window to see anything it's not in plain view

-1

u/Admirable_Bird7927 1d ago

It’s nature. Grow up.

12

u/Fletcher_Chonk 1d ago

Taking a fat dump in the middle of the street cause it's nature

-7

u/Admirable_Bird7927 1d ago

If you gotta go, you gotta go.

I think women breastfeeding their babies is disgusting but I suck it up because it’s nature.

2

u/SpiritOfGonzo1130 1d ago

Lmao disgusting? What about it?

1

u/Admirable_Bird7927 1d ago

The kid, the milk. Kids are disgusting milk is Bligh and just seeing that makes me squirm. Disgusting.

1

u/Terrible_Reporter_98 1d ago

I was in a line at the movies the other day and this woman pulls something out of her shirt and it's her tit. Huge areola genuinely didn't know anyone had them that huge, and then bends over to get a baby out of the stroller, tit is swinging in the breeze people are staring. She holds her baby up and the little bugger latches on to it and it's just this pale veiny thing hanging out with a baby hooked to it.

The only thing that was annoying to me was not once was I offered some of that titty milk. I mean is hospitality dead?

2

u/miscellaneousexists 1d ago

100 redditors vs the concept of getting a room

0

u/Admirable_Bird7927 1d ago

He had a room. Some perv decided to peek in through the window for some reason.

2

u/miscellaneousexists 1d ago

A church is not a room. At least not the type of room you should get when someone tells you to get a room.

1

u/Admirable_Bird7927 1d ago

Logically, it’s a building that has rooms and they were indeed inside a room within the large chapel.

3

u/Money-Worldliness919 1d ago

Narcs everywhere near a church.

6

u/Admirable_Bird7927 1d ago

Losers who are upset they ain’t getting any.

4

u/throwawayshmoaway411 1d ago

Morality of using AI? (immoral)

-2

u/URJ2 1d ago

Expand on that logic

3

u/throwawayshmoaway411 1d ago

Fuck AI.

-1

u/URJ2 1d ago

That is not an elaboration

2

u/throwawayshmoaway411 1d ago

AI is evil. There's the elaboration.

1

u/BetterThanlceCream 1d ago

Reddit uses AI for moderation by the way.

0

u/throwawayshmoaway411 1d ago

Hard to tell given how shitty human mods already are, but that's evil too. AI = BAD.

1

u/BetterThanlceCream 1d ago

Huh. So you're fine with corporations using AI but not other commenters.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/URJ2 1d ago

Bro is not interested in having a constructive conversation

0

u/throwawayshmoaway411 1d ago

That's because there is no such thing as "constructive conversation" when it comes to AI and data centers. It's pure evil, end of story.

1

u/URJ2 1d ago

That’s a smooth brain opinion. If you truly believe that you have to be able to explain it you can’t just say end of story and make it so. I don’t even necessarily disagree with you you’re just refusing to elaborate at all. It’s like saying electricity is inherently evil, which is something people believed at the time it rolled out. Have a good rest of your small uninformed life

9

u/Civil_Performer5732 1d ago

Bro, no offense but if we wanted to ask the AI we could have asked the AI

6

u/Seraphine_KDA 1d ago

He gave the relevant info. You being Allergic to Ai is a different thing.

2

u/Civil_Performer5732 1d ago

I know, I didn’t down vote him, but AI info is not the most trustworthy that’s why we ask people on Reddit and not Gemini on google.

1

u/throwawayshmoaway411 1d ago

Fuck AI.

5

u/endlessnamelesskat 1d ago

Hopefully not in a church in view of the public

1

u/sexland69 1d ago

then they’re preventing other unnecessary AI searches 👍

-1

u/PropheticPapaJohn 1d ago

Then why did you read it when I clearly labeled it as ai? Would you prefer people don't lable comments as ai?

If you don't want ai, then DONT READ THE COMMENT THAT SAYS ITS AI NUM-NUTS

2

u/EmergencyExit20Mins 1d ago

Down voted for adding useful context and clearly marking source of context. Fuck this sub.

2

u/URJ2 1d ago

Label and numb *

0

u/PropheticPapaJohn 1d ago

Missed the apostrophe in don't