Because it wasn’t open to the public, so, it’s NOT “public indecency”, just another LOOPHOLE in the system here, from the Newspapers, translated…
A hairstylist with great body, Chen, four years ago started working as a strip-newscaster online four years ago, so she could earn more money, but, the stripping herself down was spied on, and the video of her stripping and reporting had been sent to the free and open forum online, and, one of her male customers who’d gotten a trim by her had sued her for spreading of sexually-illicit materials, “I hope she can turn over a new leaf and start earning an honest living”. The D.A. reviewed the case, and thought that the forum which the woman had stripped on wasn’t open to the general public, that there wasn’t enough evidence, so they’d dropped the charges against her.
A man, Chen from Hsinbei City last year went to the cops, said that as he’d logged online, he’d found a friend he’d met online “Hennessey” had spread the sexually-illicit photographs and videos for the public to view, and the person in the footage was the hairstylist, Chen.
Chen claimed that she’d changed tracks from the beauty industries to the webcam reporters for a year, that at the very start of her reporting career, she did, strip herself down, but the clients had to pay extra and join in the membership of the online sites in order to view one-on-one, that the company strictly prohibited the airing of the footage on the free open forums, that one of her clients must’ve filmed her secretly, then, posted the footage. She’d admitted, that the one who’d turned her in was one of her former clients from when she worked as a hairstylist, but she’d not known how he’d managed to find the videos, and was unclear as to why she’d gotten turned in.
Chen claimed, that he hoped to redirect Chen’s behaviors, that, was why he’d collected the evidence, and sued for obstruction of social norm, and, as he’d shown up for the court sessions, he’d handed a “letter of persuasion”, hoping that the courts can give it to Chen, to help her turn over a new leaf, and stop doing what she was doing.
The D.A. believed, that the lead in the video footage was Chen, but, because the platform the video was found on was a charging, one-on-one, and unopened to the public means of interactions among the members, that Chen did NOT publicize her own sexual videos to the free or public pages, that the D.A. wasn’t ruling out that it may have been a hacker or someone being there and filming her without her consent, that the whole case didn’t fit the criteria for “Seeing and Sharing”.
And so, this, is still, giving KUDOS or rather, OKAYS to strippers online, and this, would be, a VERY bad example that the law sets, because, so long as you’re stripping on a private online space, meaning that NOT the general public CAN and would HAVE access to, then, you’re NOT guilty of public indecency? And, the client probably hoped that this woman who works as a hairstylist can turn over a new leaf, that, was why he’d gone to the police and exposed her, hoping that she could learn a lesson, or he may have an alternative motive of sorts, we can’t and don’t know for sure, because, this is, what the newspaper gave us, just the information provided above…