It's like saying:

1. A gentleman retires and starts a bar 2. Stock it with liquor 3. One night a kid breaks in and gets drunk 4. Cops show up. 5. Bar owner gets prosecuted for supplying alcohol to minors.

So you believe it's irrelevant and should not be discussed?

No more than a) barman sells beer to 20 year sold in USA (1), b) someone leaks a photo of it, c) the authorities find out, d) the twit gets charged.

Hence my question: "What am I missing?"

It fits a pretty simple pattern: "someone broke a local law, it leaked, got punished".

(1) although legal elsewhere

Generally we shouldn't be glad when inhumane laws are enforced, yes?

Even if you supported anti-pornogrophy laws (I know you aren't saying that), another reason why this should be challenged is because it's going to be enforced in gender-biased ways. Primarily women will share a disproportionate burden of scrutiny for this law, particularly so in the case of revenge porn or deepfake.

It's important to advocate for treating women fairly, even when that comes at the cost of cultural insensitivity.

Indecent exposure laws tend to primarily target men. Anti-pornogrophy laws tend to primarily target women.

What conclusions can we make of a culture that have both laws that get enforced in their gender-biased ways?

That there seems to be much of sexual frustration in the men of that culture. Hard to say about the women's sexual frustration because it manifests differently.

It seems that indecent exposure in combination with public urination is quite common. Not sure how much correlation that has with sexual frustration.

> hurr-durr inhumane laws

Dura lex, sed lex.

Laws were humane enough when allowed one to run for president

The issue is that this local law Is flawed, and this flawed law double tapped with criminal activities to hurt female citizens. That is why most of us emphasize with the victim here, but concern less about an underage getting beer from some barman exposed.

If a law is considered unfair that's a perfectly fine topic of discussion. You are being obtuse on purpose.

I think the issue is that the law is unjust and shouldn’t exist.

If HN had to discuss every daft, wrong rule in every country that offended our progressive, post-national sentiments, we would never have time to discuss compilers.

And that would be a crime itself.

I don’t think it would be a crime, but definitely boring.

In this situation I think it’s more newsworthy because of the nature of the violation is more unusual since a law against pornography seems to be intended to punish producers but this person isn’t a producer.

Also, it’s an attractive lady, so that usually makes more people want to discuss.

And Uganda has some other particularly bad laws related to sexuality.

> punish producers but this person isn’t a producer.

Er, then who made it?

Hint, when a common law document says "…the production of…" it means exactly that; they use "… and/or distribution of…" to capture the derived crime of, well, distributing it.

Like kiddie porn, DIY nuclear weapons, and counterfeit money, some things are a crime to simply make - even in the basement their mother's house.

Adults need to be careful in life.

> Also, it’s an attractive lady

Bingo. A ton of karma later, we finally get somewhere.

HackerNews - always about the consistent application of principles without favour or exception.

> Adults need to be careful in life.

No, they don't.

Proponents of such world view are those who feel that they cannot compete with regards to merit and talent, so they hope to do so via their "superior morality".

Bill Clinton did such an amazing job that he could have had orgies with Victoria Secret models in the WH every night for all I care.

Same with Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Eric Shmidt, Angela Merkel (Armani male models maybe?).

Mary Barra? With that mid-engine Corvette at 59k MSRP she can "dance with mr. Brownstone" every day for all I care, as long as they keep pumping them out in Dearborn.

Same goes for the Rwandan woman in the article.

>> Adults need to be careful in life.

> No, they don't.

Atheists like me can go to Saudi Arabia (or Uganda) and say and do as we like without pause for the consequences (unreasonable as they may be) to myself and the people that dependent on me?

Come now, this thread is just getting silly.

I will have to bow out now.

> Atheists like me can go to Saudi Arabia (or Uganda) and say and do as we like without pause for the consequences

Honestly, you can. You show the bald eagle in your passport and you'd be looking at a slap on the wrist in all places except North Korea and Iran.

If you want to discuss compilers, why did you click on this thread?

Because - and focus now - I came to learn something. I even said so in my OP.