3 ms·

https://law.justia.com/cases/massachusetts/supreme-court/2019/sjc-12594.html https://law.justia.com/cases/massachusetts/supreme-court/201...

by ipaddr 8mo ago

deleted 8mo ago
[deleted]
somenameforme 8mo ago
I'm not sure that's what you meant to link to. The description there is beyond lurid, and that guy only ended up on a registry after a lot of shenanigans.
- iso1631 8mo ago
  > he was convicted in 2015 of two counts of open and gross lewdness for displaying his genitals to a neighbor through the window of his home So he was naked in his own home? #Land of the free
  - doubled112 8mo ago
    It's all about levels here. First level? Open and gross lewdness for the home owner. Third level? Voyeurism for the person outside.
    - tempaccount420 8mo ago
      The disgusting, gross lewdness of a naked body. Thank God someone did something.
      - somenameforme 8mo ago
        A peer message quoted the PDF of the things he did, before finally getting put on a registry. It wasn't just being naked in his home to say the least. The message was auto-flagged because of its content.
  - amiga386 8mo ago
    [dead]
- thaumasiotes 8mo ago
  Are you talking about the link in your parent comment? It's a judgment that overturns the guy's placement on a public registry. (He does seem to be placed on a different registry not accessible to the public.) He is appealing his placement on the registry on three grounds: 1. He can't be guilty of a qualifying offense, because he has no prior conviction; 2. The officer who put him on the registry did so solely on the basis that his risk of reoffending was "moderate", when it was also necessary to find that he posed a "moderate" danger to the public; 3. He did not in fact pose a danger to the public. And the judgment rules against him on argument 1 while ruling for him on arguments 2 and 3, nullifying his registration. Given that this judgment overturns a judgment below, it is evidence that you can be placed on a public registry for purely spurious reasons. That's what happened originally, and it's what was affirmed in the judgment below.
  - somenameforme 8mo ago
    A peer comment [1] reviewed the guy's history, but the comment ended up auto-flagged because of content. If this guy isn't on the sex offender registry, then it's largely evidence that such a thing is reserved for the absolute worst of the worst. [1] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47048094 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47048094
    - thaumasiotes 8mo ago
      You're crazy. Read that history for yourself. There is a reason he was found to pose no danger to the public. The guy is not even alleged to have done anything other than exposing his genitals at any point.
      - somenameforme 8mo ago
        I see nothing wrong with exhibitionism so long as it's mutually agreed upon. This guy was reported exposing and "playing with" himself on the order of dozens of times with nonconsensual partners, so it's likely that it's happened hundreds of times. I don't think this is socially acceptable behavior in 'normal' society. And in response to his deciding to visibly 'rub one off' (as I believe this term is what results in auto-flagging) towards his neighbor, his response is that she was a "trigger" for him. So he himself is already claiming that he can't control himself, which is more less the entire point of such registries. Imagine you have daughters, let alone a wife. Would you want to live across the street from such a person? And again I'd emphasize he actually got removed from the registry. So imagine the sort of behavior required to stay on one. It's damn sure not just urinating in public or whatever.

https://law.justia.com/cases/massachusetts/supreme-court/2019/sjc-12594.html https://law.justia.com/cases/massachusetts/supreme-court/201...

by ipaddr 8mo ago

https://law.justia.com/cases/massachusetts/supreme-court/2019/sjc-12594.html https://law.justia.com/cases/massachusetts/supreme-court/201...

deleted 8mo ago

[deleted]

somenameforme 8mo ago

I'm not sure that's what you meant to link to. The description there is beyond lurid, and that guy only ended up on a registry after a lot of shenanigans.

iso1631 8mo ago
> he was convicted in 2015 of two counts of open and gross lewdness for displaying his genitals to a neighbor through the window of his home So he was naked in his own home? #Land of the free
- doubled112 8mo ago
  It's all about levels here. First level? Open and gross lewdness for the home owner. Third level? Voyeurism for the person outside.
  - tempaccount420 8mo ago
    The disgusting, gross lewdness of a naked body. Thank God someone did something.
    - somenameforme 8mo ago
      A peer message quoted the PDF of the things he did, before finally getting put on a registry. It wasn't just being naked in his home to say the least. The message was auto-flagged because of its content.
- amiga386 8mo ago
  [dead]
thaumasiotes 8mo ago
Are you talking about the link in your parent comment? It's a judgment that overturns the guy's placement on a public registry. (He does seem to be placed on a different registry not accessible to the public.) He is appealing his placement on the registry on three grounds: 1. He can't be guilty of a qualifying offense, because he has no prior conviction; 2. The officer who put him on the registry did so solely on the basis that his risk of reoffending was "moderate", when it was also necessary to find that he posed a "moderate" danger to the public; 3. He did not in fact pose a danger to the public. And the judgment rules against him on argument 1 while ruling for him on arguments 2 and 3, nullifying his registration. Given that this judgment overturns a judgment below, it is evidence that you can be placed on a public registry for purely spurious reasons. That's what happened originally, and it's what was affirmed in the judgment below.
- somenameforme 8mo ago
  A peer comment [1] reviewed the guy's history, but the comment ended up auto-flagged because of content. If this guy isn't on the sex offender registry, then it's largely evidence that such a thing is reserved for the absolute worst of the worst. [1] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47048094 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47048094
  - thaumasiotes 8mo ago
    You're crazy. Read that history for yourself. There is a reason he was found to pose no danger to the public. The guy is not even alleged to have done anything other than exposing his genitals at any point.
    - somenameforme 8mo ago
      I see nothing wrong with exhibitionism so long as it's mutually agreed upon. This guy was reported exposing and "playing with" himself on the order of dozens of times with nonconsensual partners, so it's likely that it's happened hundreds of times. I don't think this is socially acceptable behavior in 'normal' society. And in response to his deciding to visibly 'rub one off' (as I believe this term is what results in auto-flagging) towards his neighbor, his response is that she was a "trigger" for him. So he himself is already claiming that he can't control himself, which is more less the entire point of such registries. Imagine you have daughters, let alone a wife. Would you want to live across the street from such a person? And again I'd emphasize he actually got removed from the registry. So imagine the sort of behavior required to stay on one. It's damn sure not just urinating in public or whatever.