Slashdot Mirror
Woman Ticketed For Nude Pics On Internet
Oneamp writes "A woman in Lincoln, Neb. has been ticketed for appearing nude in public after she published photographs of herself doing so. Apparently, it's not neccessary to be caught in the act. CNN article here" The article does not link to Harrington's website.
Darn. (NOT SAFE FOR WORK!)
:)
The smoking gun also has an article on this, and shows the offending pictures (blurred, so they are work safe).
Celebrate Steak and a Blowjob Day!
No, you can't be COMPELLED to incriminate yourself, but you're more than welcome to do it.
here
If a train station is a place where a train stops, what's a workstation?
Why bother with passwords, her site is ...er, wide open. Maybe we can help with security:
t tp://www.melissalincoln.com/galleries/004// /www.melissalincoln.com/galleries/006/w .melissalincoln.com/galleries/009/l issalincoln.com/galleries/011/a lincoln.com/galleries/014/
http://www.melissalincoln.com/galleries/001/
h
http:
http://ww
http://www.me
http://www.meliss
You are correct that unless there is a victim, there is not crime, but there doesn't need to be a victim for a law to be broken.
It all depends on how the statute/ordinance is written. If it just requires that an act be performed for a fine to be assesed, then she's in deep. It the law requires the complaint of a victim for charges to be filed, then she'll be aquitted.
I know little about the circumstance, or the law of the town. In all it seems like a photo radar ticket: no officer saw you speeding, but the camera did. In this case the accused provided the camera instead of the government.
Article X: The powers not delegated... by the Constitution...are reserved...to the people
Agreed. Not only that but this girl is dumber than a box of rocks. I live in lincoln, been to that bar. It's an upscale martini bar which -- most definately -- wasn't happy about this happening at their bar. It caters to upper middle class midwestern clientale, mostly conservative and christian (this is Lincoln after all).
;).
Got to give her props though, she did get a ton of free publicity off this. I know the guy who runs nebraskacoeds.com and she's making a crap ton of money off all this.
While it might not seem like a reasonable law, note that this is *nebraska*. It's very republican and conservative. If you don't like it, move to another state
Back when I used to do this, a 1 in 500 conversion ratio (after an ever lower clickthrough ratio) was considered great.
--
Power to the Peaceful
free gallery 1
free gallery 2
free gallery 3
free gallery 4
free gallery 5
free gallery 6
I doubt it.
Her webmaster is probably enjoying all the extra traffic.
In case you want to see th picture that got her in trouble
Not safe for work!
http://www.xpurple.com
-no one will complain if it is or becomes a dupe
and I for one welcome our new pair of 34c overlords.
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
Actually, it's true. http://www.urbanlegends.com/legal/speeding_ticket_ pictures.html.
He who laughs last is stuck in a time dilation bubble.
Just curious! That one irked the shit out of me. Cop's wife wipes out an entire family and gets barely a slap on the hand. I drive by the burned spot in the road where three of the four died on the scene, every time I drive to work. It's a straight section of road in a wide, shallow dip that allows you to see way ahead. There's no excuse for not seeing the upcoming obstruction, and no excuse for the driver to not get slammed with four counts of manslaughter at the least, if not vehicular homicide. Grr...
Just remember, in the US, violence is OK and to be admired (except in certain circumstances), but nudity and sex are NOT and are to be shunned in all circumstances...
Yeah, she worked for the guy who runs nebraska coeds for a while.
:)
And yes, I wonder if she would come to the party I'm going to if I ask really nice
http://www.xpurple.com
And yet, in the state of Maine, only men can now be charged with indecent exposure in public. Why? Well, a judge ruled in a case there that the law read "display of genitalia," and since the girl(s?) charged have the female characteristic of internal genitalia... well, they can run around in birthday suits. I don't know how well that judgement will hold up in future cases, but it's an interesting tidbit.
SIG: HUP
The determination is in the details. Ms. "Lincoln" is charged with a violation of Lincoln Municipal Code Section 9.16.230, which reads:
So, given part (c), she probably doesn't have the selective enforcement hook that the linked Virginia case turned on, other than the male/female topless selectivity thing that worked in Canada last year.
However, the government, if faced with an unconstitutionality claim, will have to state exactly what the compelling interest of the law is, and almost certainly it will be the same common law opposition to public nudity that is supposed to prevent people from being "shocked and offended." (Or driven mad with lacivious rage, or whatever.)
Now, for a conviction of a crime of intent (i.e., other than some kind of neglegence), scienter or "malice aforethought" must be proven. The defense in this case will almost certainly be able to prove an absence of malice, unless the procecution can produce a member of the public that observed the conduct depicted in the photographs and swears under penalty of purjury that they were shocked and/or offended. (With those breasts, I'm guessing you'd want a male for shocked and a female for offended.) The prosecution must also prove that the suspect was aware of the witness, or at least of the possibility of the witness's presence. The defense can counter with the likely fact, likely supported by witnesses, that (1) the indoor flashing was for a very brief period of time, and (2) the outdoor flashing was during a private party from which witnesses were being excluded.
In short, the prosecution has to prove, at the "beyond a reasonable doubt" level, that she was reckless about whether someone would be offended, which is not going to be easy.
Laws prohibiting public nudity are frequently ruled unconstitutional
:-) Yes, of course, we often hope that it is such. But in practice, it often isn't. However, I don't see how this would be difficult at all. There have been far more cases upholding nudity laws than striking them down, and the latter are in places like NYC, not Nebraska.
That case was related to public nudity, but in a location clearly marked for the purpose of nudity. That's only tangentially related to the case at hand.
However, the government, if faced with an unconstitutionality claim, will have to state exactly what the compelling interest of the law is
That's an interesting fiction.
Now, for a conviction of a crime of intent (i.e., other than some kind of neglegence), scienter or "malice aforethought" must be proven.
Which will be exceedingly simple. She has appeared nude in public on many occasions, has documented it, and has even advertised it, on her web site. That's an open-and-shut case.
The defense in this case will almost certainly be able to prove an absence of malice, unless the procecution can produce a member of the public that observed the conduct depicted in the photographs and swears under penalty of purjury that they were shocked and/or offended.
It seems like you are trying to say that the existence of offense is evidence of intent to be nude in public. But the actual existence of offense isn't relevant in any way, as best I can tell, least of all as evidence of intent. I am not sure where you are going with this, but I am pretty sure it's not helping her case.
Actually, I think you are getting hung up on "malice." If you mean "malice aforethought" in the sense of premeditation to cause harm to someone, then no, there is absolutely no need for the prosecution to prove this. This statute does not require that sort of malice, let alone premeditation of it. Only intent to be nude in public is necessary for conviction, not intent to harm anyone.
If we were to follow that route, then any act that did not harm anyone else would be legal. I could -- as noted previously -- shoot a gun in public as much as I wanted to, as long as I didn't hit anyone.
The defense can counter with the likely fact, likely supported by witnesses, that (1) the indoor flashing was for a very brief period of time, and (2) the outdoor flashing was during a private party from which witnesses were being excluded.
And neither argument has any legal relevance. The statute makes no exclusions for brevity, and "private party" isn't relevant if the property is public or open to the public. That would only apply if the property is private AND not open to the public.
the URL to this travesty of Justice:8 8_crash13. shtml
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/953
uR iGn0ranc3, Their Power
She plugged her site on Z92's (92.3 FM, Omaha) morning show, Todd 'n' Tyler. It is the #1 rated morning show in Omaha, if not Nebraska, radio. Site appears to be down now though.
Beware, Nugget is watching... See?
Found this login on a pirate board some time ago. It still works! Everyone, please enjoy and Happy New Year! http://cam305rs:108988@www.melissalincoln.com/memb ers/
(I wget'd her galleries. Cute girl. Not very bright.)