this post was submitted on 02 Feb 2024
183 points (100.0% liked)

news

23090 readers
238 users here now

Welcome to c/news! Please read the Hexbear Code of Conduct and remember... we're all comrades here.

Rules:

-- PLEASE KEEP POST TITLES INFORMATIVE --

-- Overly editorialized titles, particularly if they link to opinion pieces, may get your post removed. --

-- All posts must include a link to their source. Screenshots are fine IF you include the link in the post body. --

-- If you are citing a twitter post as news please include not just the twitter.com in your links but also nitter.net (or another Nitter instance). There is also a Firefox extension that can redirect Twitter links to a Nitter instance: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/libredirect/ or archive them as you would any other reactionary source using e.g. https://archive.today . Twitter screenshots still need to be sourced or they will be removed --

-- Mass tagging comm moderators across multiple posts like a broken markov chain bot will result in a comm ban--

-- Repeated consecutive posting of reactionary sources, fake news, misleading / outdated news, false alarms over ghoul deaths, and/or shitposts will result in a comm ban.--

-- Neglecting to use content warnings or NSFW when dealing with disturbing content will be removed until in compliance. Users who are consecutively reported due to failing to use content warnings or NSFW tags when commenting on or posting disturbing content will result in the user being banned. --

-- Using April 1st as an excuse to post fake headlines, like the resurrection of Kissinger while he is still fortunately dead, will result in the poster being thrown in the gamer gulag and be sentenced to play and beat trashy mobile games like 'Raid: Shadow Legends' in order to be rehabilitated back into general society. --

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
183
Gay sex wins again (hexbear.net)
submitted 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
 

gayroller-2000

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 14 points 9 months ago (1 children)

So they didn't have any laws on the books that prohibited what happened?

[–] [email protected] 19 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

I am definitely not a lawyer, but I think conviction for indecent exposure/lascivious conduct often requires someone to actually witness the perpetrator(s). Since no one actually caught them in flagrante delicto, that condition wouldn't apply. Other things that aren't issues, off the top of my head:

  • They didn't access the building unlawfully
  • All parties in the video consented to both the sex and the recording
  • D.C. no longer has any sodomy laws
  • Video wasn't filmed/distributed for commercial purposes

It's just hard to identify a harmed party when you think about it. It'd be nice to hear an analysis from someone who understands the D.C. criminal statute and its interpretation, though--I wouldn't be surprised if their conduct is illegal in other jurisdictions.

Not authoritative, but I did find this page from a D.C. law firm which states:

Indecent exposure requires exposure at a time and place in which a reasonable person would know that his/her acts will be open to the observation of others.  Parnigoni v. District of Columbia, 933 A.2d 823 (D.C. 2007).  The accused does not need to have a specific intent to expose himself to any particular person.  It is sufficient if the defendant generally intended to expose himself so as to draw attention to his exposed condition.  Id.  

The required criminal intent for indecent exposure is usually established by evidence indicating that the defendant attempted to draw attention to his exposed condition or by display in a place so public that it must be presumed it was intended to be seen by others.  Hearn v. District of Columbia, 178 A.2d 434 (Cr. App. 1962).   In other words, surreptitious masturbation in a public place — without more — might not satisfy the requirements of the statute.  

If I remember the facts of the case correctly, they were in a hearing room not accessible to the general public. Presumably this was taken at a time where there was no hearing scheduled anytime soon and no reason for anyone to enter that room, so it would be difficult to establish the intent to expose themselves to someone physically present.

(Side note: when I was looking for more info I saw that most of the posts on reddit were from right-wing subreddits with titles that made sure you knew it was SODOMY and ANAL SEX. The horror!)

[–] [email protected] 6 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

I appreciate your response, it was well written and answered my questions on the story. It has been an interesting story to see develop. Regardless of legal consequences, the reputation of those men have been considerably tarnished.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 9 months ago (1 children)

It still was very much against their employer’s code of conduct though to have sex at the workplace, so the staffer was fired

[–] [email protected] 7 points 9 months ago (2 children)

True. They really burned some bridges there. They gotta be quite privileged and dumb to do that.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 9 months ago (1 children)

being fired for fucking while other staffers are writing memos on the billions of dollars and weapons that are needed to commit genocide is such a juxtaposition of priorities lol.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago

It's their residual puritanical colonial mindset.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 9 months ago

They are lanyards, so that follows.