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.
She's doing something that's illegal where she lives, and she's posting to the
Internet photos of herself doing it. She's providing them with the EVIDENCE
they need to convict her.
This is a no-brainer.
Anything worth doing is worth doing badly -- G.K. Chesterton
In many states cameras are used in intersections to catch people running red lights and also speeders. Cameras are used at gas stations to catch "gas and go's", I don't see how this situation should be any different. Law enforcement officials are simply doing thier job.
There is or can be built a machine that can simulate any physical object. -Church-Turing principle
When you get a ticket mailed to you because you were caught speeding or running a light by one of those cameras in intersections, no body "caught you in the act" then, either, right?
What's the problem here? Get permission next time. If she did have permission, we wouldn't be posting here, would we?
If she didn't get caught at the time, why is she being ticketed now? How can they prove she was really there? Photoshop can do some amazing things these days.
Stupid stupid stupid.
Damon,
http://actionPlant.com
Wow, on top of legal bills, she'll have bandwidth bills.
Sometimes I wonder why slashdot (or comments pushed up to score:5) even link to sites that will either flame up in DoS-style burnination, or will cost the provider a crapload of cash for going over bandwidth limits.
Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
The key legal point here is that the Web posting appears to be *the evidence* that she appeared in public nude, in violation of Lincoln's backward, boring, typically lame Nebraskan ordinance.
The posting itself is not necessarily the violation. If she posted a nude picture *taken in her home* it is not clear from this article that she ever would have been charged.
Why is it called COMMON sense when so few people have it?
They're easier to fake than lie detectors.
Let's try this example on. I take a picture of myself nekkid and, using photoshop transpose my body in such a way that it looks like president Lincoln on the Lincoln Memorial is fellating me. I'ma perv who likes funny pics so I post it on my website and advertise that it is not fake. Also, lets assume that DC has the same public nudity law. Does this constitute photographic evidence? Should, on the basis of this photograph alone, I be ticketed for getting a hummer from Lincoln? I know the example seems outlandish, but when we look at laws and legal proceedure, we must take these kind of examples into account in order to create laws that are applicable universally.
I'm not sure why there are so many posts bashing the law that prohibits nudity in public. There are many, many people that you absolutely do NOT want to see naked. You'd be crying for the law to be reinstated within minutes.
In order to keep all of us from clawing our eyes out, we must have an evenhanded law that punishes all violators equally. Because then it gets very problematic for officials to say that only hot people can be naked, and then who is responisble for defining "hot."
...
All of this free publicity? Yeah, that's worth that little ticket. Listen carefully and you can hear Slashdotters (too cheap to subscribe to ANY website) hustling to their favorite file sharing app for pics and videos of this chick. :)
I know because we can smell our own
This guy is way out there
I'd once again use the beach analogy. If my spouse holding the towel sees me is it any more "public" then it would be in my house? I'm not displaying myself to an unsuspecting "public" if only the photographer sees me.
TW
From the site:
;-)... I'm 21 years old, even though most people think I'm younger...
Hi, I'm Melissa, as you've probably already guessed
Funny, I would date her more around 27/28 years old. Guess I'm not most people. Besides, she looks like a slut.
karma karma karma karma karma chameleon, you come and go, you come and go.
If nobody saw her when the picture was taken then she wasn't nude in "public".
:-)
This is not a legal argument you are making, but a "what I think it should be" argument, and those don't usually hold up so well in court.
if I were defending myself on this I'd argue that since nobody saw me (assuming this is the case) it wasn't a "public" display.
And the judge would laugh at you.
Laws are usually quite specific about what their terms mean; some less so than others, but "public" is very clear in law.
I found one Nebraska public decency law, for example, that says "in a public place and where the conduct may reasonably be expected to be viewed by members of the public". Whether or not someone saw anything is irrelevant, in this law: it only matters whether the act might reasonably be expected to be seen by members of the public.
So, if it is a private party in a public place, not a problem. If it is during public business hours at a table in the local pub, that's a problem. The law she was cited for is not this one, but it is likely the wording is similar, as most of them are.
Law enforcement, in the line of duty, is not restricted by that government policy. There is a specific exemption written right into the code to cover such cases. Even posting a disclaimer on a site that says clicking on the "I Accept" button means you have declared you are not Law enforcement doesn't have any legal validity at all.
Who is John Cabal?
I've noticed Fark influence lately on a number of Slashdot stories and mostly it's not a good influence. I think the editors should try to avoid sinking to the lowest common denominator because there's a lot of people interested in more high-brow stuff that just leave quietly when the signal to noise ratio begins to suck.
Then you also have the right to, in effect, rule on the law itself. If you don't think the law is a good one, you can vote for a not guilty verdict.
Depending on the court, you either swear an oath of some sort, or are otherwise instructed, to rule on the case according to the law; and if you cannot or are unwilling to do that, you will be excused from serving.
That depends on how much you respect the oath you took before taking your position on the jury. You promise to rule on the case according to the law, not your feelings about the law.
To be sure, jury nullification happens, but usually only when the people on the jury find the law to be so abhorrent as to be violative of a principle much more important than adherence to the law, such as with Northern slave laws in the 1800s. You won't find too many people practicing jury nullification over someone flashing their breasts.
Cameras are used at gas stations to catch "gas and go's", I don't see how this situation should be any different.
In that case, there would be someone who was deprived of property, a *victim*. In this case, there is no such person.
The police are doing their job, which is to pander to commercial interests and justify their budgets by making innocent Americans into criminals.
"I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
While I certainly feel people should be able to look at whatever they want in the privacy of their own home, I don't think I'd go as far as to argue that public nudity should be legal - if only because there is a large percentage of the population that I have no desire to see naked.
I have blog like everyone else
Those are the MAXIMUM penalties. Maximums, as a general rule, are quite stiff. They generally involve multiple offenses and come only after multiple convictions.
She won't be facing anything remotely CLOSE to those penalties. Probably something in the range of a few hundred dollars and short unsupervised probation. If she continues to violate the law, the penalties will increase.
Before you post some apparently 'insightful' gibberish about how "this country is screwed up beyond help", at least take the time to understand the legal system that it uses.
Turn s60 photos into awesome videos with mScrapbook for all S60 3rd edition phones!
No. Of course not. My child would be scarred for life. Just like you were when you sneaked a peek at Playboy as a kid.
I can't imagine the horror of seeing a beautiful woman nude. Just the thought of it has me frightened.
"I finally moved out of Nebraska because they seem to be living in the 1950's."
In the 1950's, it was easier to get sex than it is today, the drinking age, where it existed, was not enforced with the vigor of today (and was only 18, anyway), and things like nudism were actually trendy and common in much of the USA.
I'm afraid Nebraska is living in the 21st century. There was much more liberty in the 1950's.
Please stop the positivism. Law is not a science.
Saying "that's the way it is" merely justifies the collective circle-jerk that has become the U.S. judicial system.
Remember, the vampires can't come in your house unless you *invite* them.
"I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
Well i don't want to read your stupid posts, but is that a reason to ban freedom of speach?
FRA: STFU GTFO
Then why do you have a link to your pr0n site in your sig, numbnuts?
I know god exists. I read it on the internet, so it must be true.
I'd like to think that our country is based on more than just arbitrary laws passed down from on-high. Something, oh, I don't know, like freedom maybe.
That having been said, I'll continue to exercise my freedoms irregardless of what's il-legal. This person sounds like she's going to do the same.
Until the exercise of my rights causes verifiable harm to someone else, I have no reason to feel "guilty" and no one can judge me so.
"I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
A surgeon made her busty.
No..
I'm 5'7" tall, 118 lbs, my breasts are 34c's... and of course all natural!
I've always considered myself pretty liberal in most things. However, I'm a little confused on this one. She essentially publishes 'proof' of a crime, and it's outrageous when she's convicted of it?
I'll grant you that public nudity probably isn't the biggest crime out there right now, but I'm really baffled here. If I rob a bank and have a friend videotape it, then put the videotape up on the web, being convicted based on the videotape makes me a complete moron, not the victim of some 1984-style society.
The Internet isn't a guarantee of anonymity and complete prevention of liability. This shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone here.
________________________________________________
suwain_2
Actually, I think the "victim" in this case is the bar owner who had a naked person in his bar and wasn't in some way monetarily compensated for this. No doubt, because of this girl's actions, his establishment will see a doubling of income and an amount of publicity it has never before seen. He obviously feels that he should be compensated for this egregious harm in some way. Greedy, stupid bastard.
"I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
A lot of chicks flash their tits at bars if the DJ plays Itty Bitty Titties, and show snatch if the DJ plays Pussy Control. They don't get busted. Unless she was caught in the act, those puritan nazis should give it a rest. What will they do next? Arrest anyone who has kids, because they have obviously had sex? Maybe they don't because they still believe in the cabbage patch or the stork, and are unaware of the connection between babies and sex. This kinda reminds me of Cincinnati, Ohio. If you aren't covered in dirt there, you have obviously had a bath or shower, and were therefore naked, so you might be arrested.
How ya like dat?
Want to watch a movie that depicts people being decapitated, eviscerated (with very realistic-looking blood-and-guts effects), and turned into breeding hosts for acid-blooded parasites (the 'Alien' series)? No problem!
Want to watch news stories that capture the 'Horror of War' close up and personal? No problem!
Want to watch another movie that depicts people being hacked apart, in very grisly detail, by a chainsaw-wielding maniac? No problem!
Want to take a look at pictures of a naked female body on the Internet, or pictures of two people engaged in acts of trying to bring each other a little pleasure? NOW we have a problem!
Given all the awful stuff that's going on in the world today, am I the only one who thinks that police and other law-enforcement agencies could be doing better things with their time than illustrating (by example) that we, as a race, need to be Really Ashamed of our bodies?
Bruce Lane, KC7GR,
Blue Feather Technologies
If she hadn't admitted to the pictures, she probably could have used the Photoshop defense. Get a photo of the prosecutor and paste on a naked body with a public place in the background.
What possible justification could you have for letting people take off their clothes right there in front of you?
------
I wasn't aware that we needed justification for allowing people to do things. I thought all things were allowed, unless there is a justification for disallowing them...
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
"I was really drunk last night, and I wanted to take some pics... Started out taking some pics of me flashing out of my car window to some random guys walking by... that was fun... then we headed to Mickey's Club... After a few shots I was pretty messed up... started flashing my boobs pretty much nonstop... until one of the bouncer boys told me to cool it off... ;-)... so we took our fun up to the back room upstairs at Mickey's... and next thing I knew, my wet panties were on the floor... I had alot of guys trying to look into the room... It was pretty crazy... I'm really starting to like this whole public nudity stuff.... I have some sample pics that my girlfriends took below... but you'll have to join to see all the craziness..." (Link NOT safe for work)
It's kind of hard to dispute your own statements.
"...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
While I certainly feel people should be able to look at whatever they want in the privacy of their own home, I don't think I'd go as far as to argue that public nudity should be legal - if only because there is a large percentage of the population that I have no desire to see naked.
The point is voluntarism. You wouldn't want that people could watch other people forced to, or incapable of understanding their acts, such as images of rape or kiddie pr0n. Much in the same way that you don't want people (like you in particular) or people not mature enough, such as minors, to be forced to observe such acts.
However, in the case of public nudity it's slightly more complicated - it is after all how we are without garments, and it's not a negative "you can not do X" To disallow public nudity is to force people to wear clothes. At which point you have to argue which freedom is more important - the freedom not to wear clothes, or the freedom not to see other people without clothes.
While I agree - I wouldn't like to see most of the population naked - I find their right to decide over their own body, to be naked if they so please more basic than my right to decide what I want to see. Or even what my future kids someday will see. I admit, I wouldn't want them to see a flasher like this. But a naked guy walking down the street? Acceptable to me.
That does not extend to events they could reasonably keep private, or where the entire point is do to it in public (like e.g. having public sex), but nudity is not an action - it's rather an absence of an action - to wear clothes. Ask yourself - do you have the right to force everyone around you to wear clothes?
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
OK, with a superficial examination we see a woman who is relatively young, physically in pretty good shape, and she is pretty enough, in what looks to me to be a rather vacant sort of way.
You have to ask how this girl ended up nude on the internet in the first place? This isn't a handful of photos taken to please her boyfriend, its production sleaze. I am guessing that in addition to the three traditional orifices she'll end up dispensing nasal sex as soon as she completes reaming her sinuses out with methamphetamine. Would anyone like to make a bet on this chick being a sexual abuse survivor as well?
So, she is nice to look at today, but that'll fade quicker than you can say 'drugs made with household cleaner and other junk' three times, and you'll be left with a miserable wreck of a human being with emotional scars that will *never* heal.
Long term prognosis? Dead before age forty and it won't be glamorous.
I am very easy to get along with, but I don't have time to waste being nice to people who are being stupid. -Theo
1) Public nudity rarely gets anyone in trouble. Especially women. There are places all over the US where men go to pay women to be naked in public for them. This was inside a bar, so I have to think that any possible witnesses were over 18. Point in her favor.
2) Using the bar as a backdrop. That's the point. The ticket is based on a photo that is not reliable evidence of anything. Anyone who thinks every photo they see on the internet is "real" is in for a sad awakening. The bar could be a similar looking bar in a place where nudity is allowed. The nudity could have been grafted onto pictures of otherwise legal proceedings.
3) Why is this on Slashdot? I don't know. Probably for the same reason it got up on CNN, because it's bizarre-- and the twist is that it involves a web site, something that nerds tend to care about. You have to think the police in this case are going to have a hard time making their case because the only evidence they have is her own photo of the event. Without complaining witnesses I don't see how they have a case on such flimsy evidence.
4) This case is important, whether we recognize it or not, because the implications are staggering. In an age where kids are being expelled from school for the content of their private web sites and now criminal citations are being issued on the basis of jpeg files? Even if these files represent a document of an actual event (i.e. some illegal public nudity), do they really constitute an evidentiary chain that establishes her guilt beyond a reasonable doubt? I suppose the state is willing to call expert witnesses in digital alteration and photographic compression techniques to argue that there was no apparent alteration of the image at any point? Do you realize the cost of this entire prosecution could easily be more than any "harm" caused by the defendant?
5) In many parts of the civilized world (and many uncivilized parts as well), women can be naked in public and not have to worry about getting a ticket. The risk of serving jail time for going about in the state in which one is born, in which many people sleep, and in which 99% of us bathe... is ludicrous. This is typical American prudery at its worst. Not one single person was caused any harm or was in danger of being caused harm by her actions. She has a basic human right to wear or not wear clothes at her own discretion. A right which ought to be protected as self-expression under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and the fascist state of Nebraska is depriving her of that right. Furthermore, the only evidence they have of her doing so is a digital image. Personally I think the standard for criminal conviction needs to be higher than that, especially in cases where no demonstrable harm to anyone can be displayed.
What will they do next? Arrest anyone who has kids, because they have obviously had sex?
If you aren't covered in dirt there, you have obviously had a bath or shower, and were therefore naked, so you might be arrested.
The point isn't that she was naked. The point is she was naked in public so your example doesn't really apply.
Sexuality is a private issue. If you are proud of your body and want to walk around naked stay within your home. Whatever you bring into the public becomes the publics responsibility. This public made laws that made public nudity illegal. Most people in this country would agree with this law.
A lot of chicks flash their tits at bars if the DJ plays Itty Bitty Titties, and show snatch if the DJ plays Pussy Control. They don't get busted
It is fallacious to think just because something has become commonplace it is now ok. The law is clear and it should be enforced or removed. Most people would vote to have this law enforced rather than removed.
Some may feel that laws they do not agree with should be circumvented or ignored but those who would break any law could use that same argument. Crimes such as rape, murder, and incest are also committed by people who do not believe they should be held accountable. What makes these laws different?
Maybe we should only enforce those laws that harm people but who is to define what harm is, the victim or the attacker? A rapist doesn't always feel he is harming his victim. Some actually believe they are helping that person. Giving them what they really want. A murderer many times will rationalize what they have done. If the victim is to define what harm is then what prevents me from saying that it harms to see a nude women in public. Some people still value purity and I do not wish to see nude people in public places. I view it as an attack on my emotional sensibility. Should that be the way of things?
Perhaps we can only enforce physical harm. But that would leave out threats and many forms of emotional abuse. I know you just want to be a hypocrite about our legal system and encourage its downward spiral into irrelevance.
Most people in this nation still feel clothing are a necessity in public and at this time it is the law. If you dislike this law please feel free to lobby for its removal but at this time it is the law and should be enforced.
Lastly, the human body is wonderful and I respect it and it's creator (and I am not talking about the surgeon). The viewing of ones body is an intimate thing that shouldn't be taken for granted. We should respect those who value purity.
Happy New Year!