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.
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.
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.
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.