3 ms·

I want to see this argument play out in court. He's the one specifically replacing one thing with another under some circumstance. Not the person embedding it

• b800h 3y ago
  Yep, I think the wording might be "caused to be delivered".
• Kapura 3y ago
  If a man is using a telescope to look into my house to watch the football game, he does not get to be upset when I change the TV to weird inflation porn.
  • b800h 3y ago
    In a lot of jurisdictions, he does, especially if you did that knowing that he was watching.
    • KittenInABox 3y ago
      Do you have a link to such a case? Genuinely asking because I want to know how the lawyers argue this in court without bursting into giggles from embarrassment.
      • b800h 3y ago
        Sure: https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna34483145 https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna34483145
        • MerelyMortal 3y ago
          Maybe the article is slanted, but he sounds like an exhibitionist, not someone minding their own business.
        • amenhotep 3y ago
          "in a place that can be seen through a telescope" is very different from "standing in front of a window clearly visible from the street" in a way that a court would, imo, not have trouble distinguishing.
        • theodric 3y ago
          I remember this case. I also remember that he appealed and won: https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna36239042 https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna36239042
          • b800h 3y ago
            Well this guide from the UK then. There are tonnes of examples: https://www.jdspicer.co.uk/site/blog/crime-fraud/uk-indecent-exposure-laws-a-guide https://www.jdspicer.co.uk/site/blog/crime-fraud/uk-indecent...
• yAak 3y ago
  Could this be solved by just adding some TOS to his site?