1. its illegal to produce pornographic material in Uganda*
2. she produced pornographic material (of herself)
3. it came to light (its always a risk)
4. she has been charged.
If you play silly games…
* I don't think it should be, but that's their law.
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.
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
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.
Dura lex, sed lex.
Laws were humane enough when allowed one to run for president
What conclusions can we make of a culture that have both laws that get enforced in their gender-biased ways?
And that would be a crime itself.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.