Hacker News Reader

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.

In a lot of jurisdictions, he does, especially if you did that knowing that he was watching.

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.

Sure:

https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna34483145

Maybe the article is slanted, but he sounds like an exhibitionist, not someone minding their own business.

"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.

I remember this case. I also remember that he appealed and won: https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna36239042

Well this guide from the UK then. There are tonnes of examples:

https://www.jdspicer.co.uk/site/blog/crime-fraud/uk-indecent...

Yep, I think the wording might be "caused to be delivered".

Could this be solved by just adding some TOS to his site?