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!)
:)
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
Ticketed just for looking at said pictures ...
Of course, the ticket was from my wife, not the police
Life isn't like a box of chocolates. It's more like a jar of jalapenos. What you do today, might burn your ass tomorrow.
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?
It's never necessary to be "caught in the act" to be prosecuted for a crime so, while the details of this case are modestly noteworthy, she did commit a crime and provide evidence to that effect. That the alleged "crime" is stupid and law sounds unconstitutional is something else entirely.
sarchasm: The gulf between the author of sarcastic wit and the person who doesn't get it.
This kind of "exposure" can only help her site and her income.
Getting busted over something minor isn't the point.
Now if she was really cool she'd get someone to take some naughty shots of her in the police station.
.sigs are for post^Hers.
HHHHmmmmm.....
That's what i call "The Pr()n spirit"
The package said "Windows XP or better. Pentium Class Processor or better"... So I got a Mac with OS X
In Iran?
FRA: STFU GTFO
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!
As if she wasn't already an attention whore. I'm sure she is happy as can be with this new found fame. The AP. Fark yesterday. Slashdot today.
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.
Yeah, the last thing a porn site wants is traffic. :)
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!
Who says getting a ticket is a bad thing? Now we have some publicity for this woman. Even though her website was not listed in the article, I'm sure subsequent ones will. Further, this is a great case that could easily fall under the same lines of argumentation that the cameras on stop lights have.
Also, the story on Usa Today
DVD Ripping, Divx, VCD, SVCD under Linux
Rarely was an 'informative' rating supplied with such speed. Only a few responses, and already modded up to +5, too. Who says ./ers don't recognize a good thing when they see it?
Whether you agree or disagree with the reasonableness of the law she violated is irrelevant. Plenty of people also believe that growing pot should be legal, too. Yet if someone was arrested based on photographic evidence of their marijuana plantation, I don't think we'd be hearing people make the same argument they are making in this case.
She broke the law, and took photographic evidence to boot. End of story.
She sees the swarm of slashdot referral log entries on her server.... "Ewww!!!!" and pulls the plug.
So I wonder if the cop who spotted her naughtly little secret is going to own up?
If nobody saw her when the picture was taken then she wasn't nude in "public". The analogy would be if woman changed into her swimsuit on the beach while others were holding a big towel in the way. Since no one saw her naked body there was no "public" involved even though she was briefly not wearing clothing in what would otherwise be considered a public space.
In most of these voyeur-style pictures the shot is taken when no one is looking. I am definitely not a lawyer, but 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.
TW
She took pictures, remember?
Smokinggun.com even has them. It shows her publicly nude, including on a motorcycle right by a baseball field.
"Sufferin' succotash."
How did the police find the pictures?
Hmm . . . it's also unlawful to use government property to surf porn sites at work, you know . . . :p
A surgeon made her busty.
The cops made her famous.
And now geeks will make her rich.
It's the new American dream.
But, I thought pretty girls were above the law...
http://brandonbloom.name
I only read slashdot for the "articles".
"Jesus saves sinners...and redeems them for valuable coupons"
Bah, this was on Fark a couple of days ago already. She's apparently loosely associated with Nebraska Coeds and they have much better pictures.
Check out BarMeet.com apparently a website devoted to the sport this lady has been arrested for.
Also, Oasis seems to have done a lot more serious stuff in public and only have minimal run-ins with the law.
--D
p.s.'s No affiliation with either site (and not even a member), and both are probably NOT safe at work. (thank god for half-days!)
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."
...
The article does not link to Harrington's website.
And I was just gonna look at that article...
If a train station is a place where a train stops, what's a workstation?
The one article people would actually read, and you have to go and ruin it!
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
Its the evidence. I can make a person look like they are having sex with president. She did it. I know she did. Her website is a giveaway. BUT Robin Williams has admited to smoking pot in his shows. He can just sy he was lying for a joke. I've seen posters of guys doin' weed. They can say it was tobaco. The smae sort of thing could protect her if she was innocent. ,and get off.
I would just pay the ticket and not do it again. On second thought, I wouldn't do it. But if she wants to fight it, and the pictures were actually photoshopped (again, they weren't she is guilty, a toutched photo would not have such poor contrast) She could prove it, I'm sure
Perhaps she should just do that in the future.
On a side note, I think that this isn't our rights being nibbled away at, but more of an example of what police do at the office.
Now if you'll pardon me, I'm off to fight crime.
md5sum
d41d8cd98f00b204e9800998ecf8427e
She faces a fine and up to 6 months in the big house? That would be far more than this cell phone yakking soccer mom got who killed 4 people a few miles from my house (she got a 400 dollar fine after the DA refused to prosecute, and her being a cop's wife had nothing to do with it, wink wink). More evidence this country is screwed up beyond help.
Not exactly. Pictures of yourself in a public establishment showing your bare top (which is only illegal because of laws based on gross and outdated cultural taboo) are quite a bit different than staged murder of persons not in agreement to appear in your picture. Your analogy was more than a little rediculous.
http://actionPlant.com
. . . and how convenient that it brings you revenue whenever someone clicks on it. You're an idiot, someone found the site in the VERY FIRST POST.
... this should have been the story, and it needs a Farkin' boobies tag.
Oh wait, I thought this was fark for a moment.
Slashfark?
How about a boobies.slashdot.org section?
Unfortunately your legal defense probably wouldn't hold up. She's still in a "public" place. Now I haven't read the law but I doubt it matters if there are people present. I'm pretty sure it has to do with "where" the pictures were taken.
Not to mention, you'd have to be able to prove that other people weren't around...
I want to see her in a line up! We need to get a positive ID before charges are brought.
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
Some non-bright people would be written up for time to time because of pictures of them in possession of alcohol while in their dorm rooms (it was/is a dry campus).
Many didn't think it 'fair' as no one had caught them in the act, few fully recognized how damaging a photo like that can be... even if false.
One friend took a picture of me and Photoshoped a water bong and a bottle of vodka into it with me... it was so good looking that the university actually 'investigated' to see if it was true, thankfully it didn't get that far for the simple reason that they knew I wasn't stupid enough to let a real picture like that of me exist.
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
Its not like she's trying to deny doing it. It would be one thing if she claimed that the images where fake. Then you would have grounds to fight it. But she admits that there real, in fact she seems to down right proud of it.
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
I've gone to school in Lincoln (The University) and to other schools in northeast Nebraska - the #1 complaint among students (that I can recall) is that the police are 'nazis'.
In nebraska, you get harassed for walking the streets at night. If you drink and you're under 21, you can expect a $250 ticket and a night in jail. If you flash your goods at a bar, except to be arrested if there are any cops in the place (there frequently are to check for underage drinkers and uphold the 'peace)
I finally moved out of Nebraska because they seem to be living in the 1950's.
(Yes, I know underage drinking is illegal, but Nebraskans (and their economy) should be thankful that anyone would go to school in that god-forsaken state)
here
If a train station is a place where a train stops, what's a workstation?
I'm surprised she survived being posted on www.fark.com. They call it getting farked instead of slashdotted.
--------- Steve Martin once said, "Sex is the most natural, most beautiful, most wonderful thing that money can buy."
I've read several people argue here that because no one SAW her naked then she shouldn't be charged. Even if pictures were taken.
IANAL but in some states if a rape has occured and the victim doesn't want to file a complaint then since there's technically not a victim there's technically not a crime?
Am I right in assuming this? Wouldn't the same apply here? If there was not a victim to get upset at her public display then how could there be a crime?
I understand the picture proves she was naked, but it doesn't prove there was a victim.
J
Abiit, excessit, evasit, erupit.
Silly rabbit, tits are for kids.
This brings to mind an interesting tangental issue I've been wondering about for a while. With pretty good digital media editing programs existing, that in the hands of a graphic artist can be used to merge two pictures together in a flawless manner (given enough time invensted in it), are we seing the end of the age where a picture is still considered good evidence? What's to stop me from "photoshopping" an image to make it look like you were caught on a security camera shoplifting? Sure, for low-profile cases like shoplifting, it's not worth the effort, but for bigger cases that sort of thing could be worth the time invested.
And with analog photography and film starting to die off and be replaced with all-digital techniques, this could become a real problem that affects all photos people take.
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
uhm yes, I signed up just for helping her with money for her legal fund... that and the articles...
"She could have taken the photos which is perfectly legal and then added herself, which is also perfectly legal. Prove she didn't."
That would be difficult, but I think I could prove beyond a reasonable doubt. I'd also be sure that anyone who would know would testify under oath that the pictures were doctored. (Her, the photographer if there is one besides the self timer, and the person who did the doctoring.)
However, she didn't even argue that they were faked.
Well, no. In addition to the pictures, they'd also have other evidence. Like, two dead bodies, and whatever instrument you used to do the deed. Had she claimed "faked", rather than confessing, there is no evidence that a crime was commited.
--
You sure got a purty mouth...
Is there pictures of her getting farked too?
Saying Java is nice because it works on all OS's is like saying that anal sex is nice because it works on all genders.
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.
Promote Sensitivity on Slashdot, make me your friend.
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.
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
I wonder if they talked to the other women in the first pic before they ticketed her? As for other evidence, did the cops dust for boobie-prints?
Damon,
http://actionPlant.com
Oh my god! MOM???
I guess she decided she could make more money with her body than her brains.
It is a simple thing, she was arrested for taking her clothes off in a public place, the bartender at the place she did the "clothing removal" called the cops and she posted the evidence. Come on people, a little early to start cerebrating the nude year.
PS: Lart the pinheads.
A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing. Emo Philips
While it is possible that no person viewed the act as it occured, there is irrefutable(sp) proof that the act did occur. That is equally as good as, if not better than, a cop with a radar gun catching you. Either way you are still "caught in the act".
Your original argument was "I wasn't caught in the act, so therefore I'm not guilty". Your above post is now is a disagreement as to whether certain laws should be even valid. What's rediculous is your inabilty to apply consistent reasoning to law.
Both arguments work in the context of each-other. Obviously there have to be reasonable limits. I'm saying if they couldn't prove she did it, it's crazy to try to ticket her for something this antiquated.
In Bismarck, North Dakota it is technically illegal for two people of the opposite sex to co-habit outside the bounds of a family relationship. This too is antiquated. I'm saying that because I rent two apartments they can't prove I live with my fiancee, and even though technically I'm breaking the law, the law itself is outdated and not consistent with the laws of other states. Why waste money going after me when there are more serious crimes happening just across the street (at our neighborhood methlab)?
I think the same applies here.
Either way though, she doesn't seem too concerned about it. And like so many others have said, this will only help business.
Damon,
http://actionPlant.com
that the /. crew actually research the links and people actually go to the links before posting.
I don't know.
Now, the trick would be to encourage pretty girls to do this. I think if local geeks were generous enough to offer their help with Photoshop, more girls would be encouraged.
If enough people do this, it will clog up the court systems and put an end to these public nudity laws. Best of all, the public nudity law was never broken!
It's civil disobedience for 2004! Get on board!!!
</tongue-in-cheek>quiquid id est, timeo puellas et oscula dantes.
This looks like a slam dunk of a conviction.
Big deal. A fine will be all she gets.
The CNN Article only mentions that she took pictures in a bar, and that was considered "public."
Isn't a bar private property?
Getting permission from the bar's owner is another matter, but I think that is more civil than criminal.
Smokinggun.com even has them. It shows her publicly nude, including on a motorcycle right by a baseball field.
GIF! GIF! GIF!
(ahem)
A public baseball field? Like a little league bassball field? Durring a game or at night?
Is the zen paradox of "If a tree falls in the woods, and nobody hears it, does it make a sound?" acceptable as a legal argument?
I also wonder if she might use the argument that public nudity laws are stupid/archaic.
And because it is winter right now I'm thinking, why do they need laws against nudity in Nebraska?
Promote Sensitivity on Slashdot, make me your friend.
Most women should be fined for posting nude photos of themselves.
Bowie J. Poag
I live and work in Lincoln. If you look on her site, in addition to having pics of her at the bar, there are pictures of her topless in an alley in downtown Lincoln. That alley happens to be next to my office, you can't tell in the thumbnails (she used to link to the full size pics), but it is *definitely* our alley. Just to be clear, it's about 15 feet from my desk. According to her, she took the pics during the day on a monday, and we all missed it! I'm not sure how... but we did. We even have several large windows overlooking the alley. Oh well.
Protecting you from naked women in public. If guys can go topless, so can girls. Here that girls? :o)
thanks dude- I needed my afternoon nut bust
I call bullshit. Prove me wrong.
photoshop and psp put a digital 'watermark' into the file. So, if the file was ever saved within photoshop, you could tell...
:)
Maybe she is a linux geek and used GIMP
Promote Sensitivity on Slashdot, make me your friend.
I'll show the jury photos of her nude on the moon, at the Last Supper, in the limo next to JFK, and shaking hands with Elvis Presley. How would they ever know beyond a reasonable doubt that she had really appeared nude in Nebraska if she could be shown to have appeared nude where she couldn't possibly have been?
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
The cameras are owned and controlled by the state or city or whatever and therefor are much more credible. Its much more difficult to make the arguement that some cop photoshop'd a photo to show someone running a read light than it is to argue that this woman photoshop'd a photo to put on her porn site to get more members with a fetish for public nudity.
"It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
Well, according to the police report she was born in 1982
No! Nudity! FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, NOT NUDITY!
Auuugh, my precious eyes are going to be corrupted! I can feel my mind melting under the hidious hideiousnedd of NUDITY!
Why, you know the dangers of nudity in public? Well, there's a lot of them, I'll tell ya!
* World might implode
* Meteor might impact earth
* Solar flare could fry us
In addition, it might contribute to GLOBAL WARMING!
FIGHT NUDITY TODAY!
---
Never criticize religion on Slashdot. You will be modded down for "Troll" no matter how factual it is.
You're right.
And in Oregon, if you send a letter to the prosecutor saying simply "I am innocent of these charges, please drop them." they are legally required to drop the charges!
Another non-functioning site was "uncertainty.microsoft.com."
The purpose of that site was not known.
Apparently the authorities didn't think this was quite so funny so they sent him another letter containing a picture of some handcuffs.
This reminds me something that happened last year (2002) at the Office. Once our two-year receptionist decided to quit, the management realized that it was easier and cheaper to hire a temp for the task. The first temp lasted one week, the second two weeks and the third was at the time going apparently well. Three weeks after the new temp was in place, rumors started circulating that she had a "semi-nudie" site on the internet. After paying lunch to some shady characters, I finally managed to see the site. It showed pictures of the lady in skimpy underwear, with some very useful and desirable bodily attributes on display. Unfortunately, for her, the news about her site was well-known at the time, and she got sacked "not for being half-naked", according to the brass, but for "divulging such information at the work environment..."
And here I am, saying that we should have sacked the management instead and hired more temps...
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"
Apparently it was the owner of one of the bars she was in.
7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
Ok, I think this has been some time coming. But since so many of us get most of our news via the web I think we need new journalistic guidelines for the web. Writing up a story an not providing a link to the site that the story is about is just unaccaptable. If the site contains adult material note it, if thats not good enough maybe they shouldnt be doing the story. With so few major media companies playing such a large role in offline and online publication we need standards to keep them honest. We need to start a campaign at the universities to install standards. If the schools sign on, the media outlets will need to follow suit or by definition they are un-professional.
OMG!! Free porn! Thankyouthankyouthankyou!!
Try that line around the missus.
"I was browsing that porn site looking for people to arrest."
"She looks guilty."
"That sheep looks familiar."
I'd like to know which fine upstanding police officer risked his eyes to bring her to justice.
Next she'll post pics of herself being strip searched by the police.
www.voiceofthehive.com - Beekeeping and Honeybees for those who don't.
spelled? where?
but yea...that and the censoring of language is annoying....come on...they don't censor the f-word on pbs....so why do the networks have to?!
Ugh, IN Howard Stern? Where are the pictures of that?
If you don't hit someone.
But cops will ticket you and the judge will uphold it.
actually ya
nobody did....
Mr Luth went on to say "At Marz Intergalactic Shrimp and Martini Bar, 1140 O St Lincoln (happy hour 6-7pm), we definitely do not encourage our patrons to disrobe."
Heh, on this page it's described as a "martini bar with an interesting decorative theme". I'll say.
oh hell naw.
adventure-today.com
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
>> if they couldn't prove she did it, it's crazy to try to ticket her for something this antiquated.
:-) But that's not going to mean a damn thing to a judge.
That doesn't make a damn bit of difference. It's the law, period. I don't care if it dates back to the year 0003, and I don't care how stupid you (and I) think it is, if it's the law then it's the law. The parent was right, you're not being consistent.
Pictures of a murder aren't enough to convict either, and certainly not ones of unknown origin, which is what we have here. There has to be a lot of other evidence, because as has been said, photos can be manipulated easily.
All that said, I do think it's stupid to go after her for it. I think we all know no one was hurt or offended
keep reading the logs:
12/19/2003 - Z92 (92.3FM) held their annual "Sexy Santa" contest this morning... and I was there represent'n! I can't believe I won the $1,000 Grand Prize, paid by "Doctor John's Erotic Gift's"....
I have to laugh at all the suckers (or possibly slashdotters) I am sure have sent her money for her "legal defense fund" - if you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you.
- tokengeekgrrl
Like protecting all that corn and wheat out there from TERRORISTS?!?!?!
She's a web designer, right? It's just a Photoshop/Gimp job! Since no one reported this (sarcasm) heinous crime (/sarcasm), it obviously never really occurred. I remember hearing that digitally processed photographs aren't evidence, unless someone can testify to the authenticity.
Can You Say Linux? I Knew That You Could.
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
Claim that no, the shot was faked. Setup a Photoshop demonstration for the jury. It doesn't have to be true to create reasonable doubt, just enough to make the jurors think it could plausably be.
Hmm, handy way to get off a murder charge methinks ;)
Face it. If you had breasts that looked like that, you'd be proud of them too.
Ah but there are always a few good apples in a bad harvest. Lots of people surfing /. have money.
Plus, links from any web site helps your positioning in search engines, especially slashdot.
. . . it's a good bust.
No, oods are I'd wonder why a guy had breasts and then spend a lot of time alone in the shower.
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
Now whether this girl's pictures are doctored or not, that's not the issue. The point is that a crime does not have to be witnessed in the act to be found guilty of. That's all we're trying to correct you on.
Actually, considering you were replying to a point I was free to make, I find it highly amusing that you're trying to "correct" me in "assisting" me in staying on topic with my own post, when I was later qualifying WHY I feel that there is no need to go after this girl when I didn't see any clear indication (I could have missed it though) that the authorities really investigated the photos themselves. There's no reason to believe they're false and the girl seems to have admitted to it, but I'm STILL implying that them ticketing her is absurd, especially considering their only evidence wasn't even called into question. (The owner of the establishment sure didn't see it happen.)
http://actionPlant.com
here's the offending picture. It's blurred out so it's work safe, but it clearly shows that she was flashing the camera and her friends were looking on. She wasnt hiding in a corner with no one in sight or behind a towel.
Don't trust a bull's horn, a doberman's tooth, a runaway horse or me.
For every friggin' New York Times Article 10 people stand up and complain about registration.
So where's the login/pass for this link?
Hey, don't complain, it's a website for geeks, remember?
I have a photographic memory for numbers. I know almost a hundred of them.
Well i don't want to read your stupid posts, but is that a reason to ban freedom of speach?
FRA: STFU GTFO
It doesn't reflect the waves.
I used aluminum siding for mine. But I cut it with tinsnips.
But that means nothing in this context.
Even without a "victim", some things are illegal.
That is the way it is.
If you don't like it, you can work to change it. But that is the situation right now.
You said that no crime had been committed, but that is based upon YOUR view of what SHOULD be legal.
But until you get the laws changed, your view is worthless. She can still be prosecuted and found guilty.
free gallery 1
free gallery 2
free gallery 3
free gallery 4
free gallery 5
free gallery 6
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.
This isn't about someone's "right" to be naked.
This is about public nudity.
And it seems that you do NOT have a "right" to be naked in public.
Hmmmm, imagine that.
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
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"
I, for one, do *not* need to click to enlarge...
C|N>K
If God had meant for us to run around nude, we would have been born that way.
"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."
Actually, they can. And once they judge you, they can imprison you.
"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."
Possibly. And I can see the local law enforcement making lots of money off of fining her for her actions.
mel@melissalincoln.com
- Quote from: http://www.melissalincoln.com/support.html.
I am sure that a lot of guys wonder how far she is willing to go as far as helping someone out. One of the troubles with her site is that it's not a real thing....
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
A few years back some feminists made some noise about men being allowed to be topless in public but not women. The upshot of this is that it is perfectly legal for a woman to be topless in downtown Columbus. Unfortunately, there aren't scads of hot looking women asserting their topless rights in the spring and summer. However, a few years ago an exotic dancer promoted the Columbus leg of her tour by posing and signing autographs topless downtown during the rush hour. I've got some spiffy jpegs of it.
-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
Like Houston, BC's Sharon Smith (NOT SAFE FOR WORK).
He who laughs last is stuck in a time dilation bubble.
Rights are not defined by what is *allowed* by government.
Your argument is still positivism: "She was arrested, therefore she has no rights." That's fine for a scientist. It's not fine for a legal scholar.
The fact is that *being naked* is one of the most basic rights a human can have, after *eating* and *drinking* and *fucking*.
"I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
Ditto. This has completely stuffed up the NY res I made.
You make the mistake of thinking you can educate the fundamental stupidity out of people. You can't.
Here's to hoping.... /cheers/
my karma will be here long after I'm gone
If she didn't get caught at the time, why is she being ticketed now? How can they prove she was really there?
Perhaps because she admits on her web site that she was there and the bouncer, um, bounced her. Not that I actually checked out her web site with all those supposedly nekkid pictures of her in the bar - it's just hearsay, and I'm really surprised it's not slashdotted with all those graphics; that's good hosting - I mean it's got to be slashdotted anyway.
Photoshop can do some amazing things these days.
If not Photoshop, surgery sure can - er, I mean yes, absolutely.
Actually, it's true. http://www.urbanlegends.com/legal/speeding_ticket_ pictures.html.
He who laughs last is stuck in a time dilation bubble.
I think there's a bit of a difference between speech and nudity. A lot (not all, but a good portion) of the people who'd be going around nude if it were legal are probably perverts. Public nudity sounds cool until it's an overweight 60-year-old pedophile standing behind me in line somewhere, or sitting next to me in a restaurant.
Freedom of speech has limits, just as public dress should. For the most part, you can say what you want, but if you're sexually harassing someone, threatening someone, etc., it's illegal, and just about everyone likes it that way. Similarly, you can pretty much dress as you like, but if you're completely nude in public, it's illegal, and most people like it that way. The will of the majority, IMHO, is more important than extreme right-wing interpretations of the constitution.
________________________________________________
suwain_2
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...
Rights most certainly ARE defined by the government.
Yes, it is positivism. So what?
"Legal positivism is a conceptual theory emphasizing the conventional nature of law. Its foundation consists in the pedigree thesis and separability thesis, which jointly assert that law is manufactured according to certain social conventions. Also associated with positivism is the view, called the discretion thesis, that judges make new law in deciding cases not falling clearly under a legal rule."
Now, to me, that sounds EXACTLY like our current legal system.
So, you're claiming that my position is completely in line with our current legal system and that it is incorrect.
"The fact is that *being naked* is one of the most basic rights a human can have, after *eating* and *drinking* and *fucking*."
Go ahead and fuck in public and you will find out how mistaken you are. You will be arrested and charged.
Even drinking alcohol in public is illegal in many areas.
Oh, you don't view "illegal" as being "illegal" because you believe you have a "right" to do something.
Tell it to the judge.
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.
When dealing with crazy laws the Judge usually sides with "what is the intent of the law".
I'd say the intent of this law is to prevent people from seeing naked people in public. Since no one saw her naked in public, she didn't break the spirit of the law.
I make six figures too!
:(
Oh... you mean without the decimal point.
Have you tried Linux yet?
Cellphone conversation between some dudes:
Dude 1: Dude, I'm driving up 3rd Street, I'm almost at your house.
Dude 2: That's cool.
Dude 1: Hey man, there's this really hot naked chick walking up the street!
Dude 2: Sweet! Whistle at her!
Dude 1: (whistles) Weeet-Weeeow
Car 1: Metallic crunch, dude!
Dude 1: <lost carrier>
I mean, surf on the web, look for porn, and I bet with you that you will be able to find porn done in the most strange place (fake classroom for example with 30 years old women disguised as young schoolgirl). For pity's sake some colleague put on some other colleague workstation as a joke porn involving a big pig, a woman, and something I would rather forget.
And that harlington woman got busted for posing *NUDE* (nude posing is different than porn. If you want to know the difference porn involve act of sexual nature, fellatio, anal sex, vaginal coit, whatever whereas nude posing is just that). My god some people have their freaking priority straigth.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
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?
She isn't being charged with having a sex site.
..."
She is being charged with being public nudity. The evidence for that being the pictures on her site.
"In the case of a right, there is normally always a victim
What do you mean? I have a right to vote. Where is the victim in me exercising my right to vote?
I really love to stay and chat but I'm heading out to a party now. TTFN
"If god had wanted people to run around naked we'd have been born without no clothes on."
That's all the justification I need. But then I was taught to make a destinction between being naked (not being clothed) and being nekid (not having cloths on and being up to something). This woman was definitly nekid.
I could easily make nude photos of myself standing in downtown Lincoln, if I wanted to...
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
What is "nudity"? In Iran as a man you can't go topless in public, but in the USA it is legal. Why the double standard? A really physically fit man is very appealing to the opposite sex with his shirt off... just as a physically fit woman is appealing with her top off.
The fact that a topless woman is considered obscene is really sad. We all feed off of breasts for the first year of our life... what is wrong with a girl exposing her boobs in public? Do you really think it is going to hurt someone?
Could it be possible to pre-process the picture so artefacts characteristic for modification would be introduced, so it won't be possible to prove beyond reasonable doubt if the photograph in question is real or fake?
actually it seems that she IS the webmaster, and on this site you can find some more pics of her.
you guys have no idea how weird i feel, sitting here in lincoln, NE, and getting pr0n off slashdot...
If you don't know what AltaVista is (was), get off my lawn.
yes, but I don't patronize jack-asses.
"there is a large percentage of the population that I have no desire to see naked."
I agree. There is also a large portion of the population whos dress and jewelry offends me. Amazingly enough there is nothing that can be done about that since they are not naked.
I have a difficult time understanding how it's ok to discriminate against nudity but not ok to discriminate against clothed people with metal stuck through their noses/tongues/eyebrows/etc/all-of-the-above.
. Quit playing Monopoly with Bill. Switch to one of many non-Microsoft products today.
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
Just because something makes people uncomfortable doesn't mean it should be made illegal. I'd say that woman's right to freedom of expression trumps your right not to accidentally see something you don't want to see.
There is only one word for that kind of thinking: prejudice!
Public nudity sounds cool until it's an overweight 60-year-old pedophile standing behind me in line somewhere, or sitting next to me in a restaurant.
In your fantasy, what is this old fat pedo doing to you? Just sitting there? This thought just scares you because you are not used to nudity, you are used to living in a sick unnatural society where you are fed FUD.
Freedom of speech has limits, just as public dress should. For the most part, you can say what you want, but if you're sexually harassing someone, threatening someone, etc., it's illegal, and just about everyone likes it that way. Similarly, you can pretty much dress as you like, but if you're completely nude in public, it's illegal, and most people like it that way. The will of the majority, IMHO, is more important than extreme right-wing interpretations of the constitution.
It's funny how you allow speach until it becomes harrasment, but you don't give nudity the same benefit of the doubt, it's simply retarded hipocrisy.
FRA: STFU GTFO
What, exactly, in the constitution do you find to prevent a state from passing laws against public nudity? Just wondering - please quote the exact section and relevant precedent if you don't mind.
"He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere. " -- John Calvin, commenting on Genesis 1
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 you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen!
hummmm
This is her web site, designed by her. It is run on Apache on BSD. I would say that while she may not be a hard core geek (or maybe she is, but does not wish to limit audiance), she is not stupid.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Actually, yeah, the last thing a porn site wants is poor quality traffic that won't convert into dollars.
I'd be surprised if paying customers are as hard to find as those who reply to email spam. The problem with porn is there's so much out there. All you gotta do is surf the preview areas, take care of your 'need', and be done with it. No money, heh.
It's hard to fake photographs that look as real as the photographs on thesmokinggun. The prosecution could probably convince the jury this woman didn't have the ability to do it. Not only that, but someone had to take those photographs, and that person would have to perjure themself along with the other people in those photographs.
In short, she should pay the damn fine and realize what she did was dumb. I don't really have a problem with what she did, but there's no doubt it was illegal and she doesn't have much of a case.
It's nothing but crumpled porno and Ayn Rand.
-1: Creepy
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
I hope they change any URLs similar to:
:)
http://www.melissalincoln.com/main_files/ drunk_marz/IMG_3235.jpg
Time for me to be drunk. Happy New Year!
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.
from what i've...*heard*...saying "This isn't like most of the other sites out there that just has one girl... This one is actually run by me!..." is pretty common for sites like hers..
this is just a placeholder till i send back my real sig from the future.
or the showing of covered male genitals in a discernibly turgid state.
Doesn't that mean it's an arrestable offense to pop wood in public?!?
Fellowship 9/11
"Is this some kind of a bust?"
"Yes, very impressive, ma'am."
That green slime had it coming.
In order to be arrested, you must "knowingly or intentionally" "show" your woody in a "discernably turgid" state. This gives you a few ways around the charge.
1. You can claim lack of knowledge and intention. "Your honor, I had no idea I was turgid." I think it is highly unlikely that the prosecution could effectively counter this without spending a whole lot of money, but the jury might not buy it.
2. You can cover your woody with whatever is handy. Presumably a book or backpack would draw less attention than using your hands alone, which might put you in a different "lewd act" category of trouble.
3. You can immediatly remove your socks, stuff them down your pants aside your woody, preventing the discernability of your turgidity.
Otherwise, get a boner, go to jail.
In Dallas, two complaints must be filed to have a ticket issued. This stipulation requires that someone be an active observer and that they be actively offended by the act. This pretty much allows anyone hot-n-sexy to walk down the street nekkid 'cause it ain't likely anyone will be offended... 'cept maybe blimpo women who practice oral sex on cheetos.
preventing the discernability of your turgidity.
.sig! :)
Could you claim that Viagra or P3n*1s 3ngorgem3nt spam is illegal, in that it would make your wood discernable? Or is this discrimination against the "big-boned?"
Otherwise, get a boner, go to jail.
Sounds like a good
Fellowship 9/11
When dealing with crazy laws the Judge usually sides with "what is the intent of the law".
I'd say the intent of this law is to prevent people from seeing naked people in public. Since no one saw her naked in public, she didn't break the spirit of the law.
Well, if she had been charged with the law I quoted, no, she violated the very spirit of the law. Read it again. It talks about "where the conduct may reasonably be expected to be viewed by members of the public." Not that it IS viewed. Even IF members of the public did not see it, that she risked being seen is violative of the spirit, and the letter, of the law. It'd be like shooting a gun into the air in public, being charged with illegal use of a firearm, and saying, "well, I didn't hit anybody, so I didn't violate the spirit of the law."
And seeing female breasts in public? And seeing someone's genitals? What's so wrong about this? Why is it worse (legally) than, say, physical assault?
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.
It's not necessary to be caught in the act for murder either. We should be concentrating on the absurd public nudity laws, not the way in which she was caught. Also--the definition of public nudity is much too general.
Yaa, yaa, and now "Duba" wears a business suit on the carrier deck. 'Pixels are a wonton mistress"
"...while history is usually explicable it is often irrational" --Roger Spiller
Naked woman ?! What happened to you guys ? I thought you like goatse.cx
Apparently the authorities didn't think this was quite so funny so they sent him another letter containing a picture of some handcuffs.
Mmmm, I think they thought it funny, but they just raised the bar a little.....
Browsers shouldn't have a back button!! It's all about going forward...
That's a good point, actually. An attempt at scarcasm (and moderated up to 5 as "Funny"), but this is actually the worst thing that can happen to sites in many cases.
Front-end success was the worst thing that happened to a lot of dot-coms during the boom. A site would decide they wanted traffic so they would put on a cute Super Bowl commercial. Poof! No more site. Too many users, and none get served.
It's an interesting problem that doesn't apply to most things. TV shows, for example... too many viewers? No such thing. Radio is the same. Magazines, movies. Sure, theaters have only so many seats, but you can always see a movie in the first weekend if you really want to.
The only thing that comes close is call centers. Have you ever tried to call a radio station during a contest? Pretty hard to get through. So you don't want to advertise the greatest thing since Sliced Bread (tm) and just have one guy answering the phone, or 99% of your customers who have already decided to buy cease to exist.
I say "front-end" success because a whole lot of dot-coms had sites that didn't kill them, but fulfillment that did. Holy crap! 6,000 order today. It sounds cool, but have you ever tried to stuff and address 6,000 packages in day on your dining room table? And then get them shipped? You could take a week, but in that week you'll get tens of thousands of more orders.
Oh wait, I'm off topic. OK, I'm done. My point is that lots of traffic is not always a good thing, which is exactly what a slashdotting is all about. One of the most interesting games in this business is the game of figuring out how much traffic you really want, not to little and not too much, and getting your site ready to handle that range of traffic without making it too complicated or too expensive. Whoops, even more offtopic. Gotta go.
RP
He is probably abusing the same system he accuses of "shit traffic" to raise his google rating.
Slashdot Sig. version 0.1alpha. Use at your own risk.
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
Why is this newsworthy? She's just another pr0n queen, as her website makes clear. I appologize to the .001% of slashdot readers who are women - yes, I am a pig, I had to look.
BSA: "Would you like a free Software Audit"? me: "No, thanks. My software is all Free".
Wow, that's a strange interpretation of your sig.
"Your right to your body ends where my discriminating tastes begin."
Look out honey, 'cause I'm using technology; Ain't got time to make no apology
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
And she'd have to be a pretty good liar to pull that one off anyway.
It not a trivial task to make a realistic picture depicting yourself some place you couldn't have been. If you just made a slap together picture the judge would go "fake fake fake fake...real." You lose.
And anyone with two eyes (even one) and a brain can tell that's a real picture of her. Classic crap (35mm) picture with all the proper shadowing in a poorly lit room.
She'd be better off being very sorry and take a slap on the wrist plea bargain and not listening to crackpot "lawyers" who think they can play dumb and get away with a crime.
Ben
Work Safe Porn
If the defense challenges the constitutionality of a law, it's the prosecution's burden to show the law is constitutional. That means that unless they can quote a case in which the law was shown constitutional under a similar challenge, that they have to, among other things, state what the compelling government interest in the law is. Often this means simply pulling the legislative record, i.e., the city council minutes, and summarizing what the legislators were considering preventing. If they do find a similar challenge holding the law's constitutionality, that case will state the compelling government interest in the law.
The "injury" presupposed by the crime of public nudity is almost always "shock" and/or "offense." (Indiana tried to find a way around this, and in doing so outlawed nudity in theatrical performances including even R-rated movies, before the Supreme Court overturned them.)
The importance of the "compelling government interest" in the law, which is to say its purpose, is because if you have a law forbidding X in order to to prevent Y, then you can't be convicted of X, even if it was knowing and intentional X, if you have taken effective steps to prevent Y. For example, even if your town has a leash law, you don't need a leash on a dog being carted around in a cage.
The concept that a "moral" crime requires scienter , or mens rea , is an idea "deeply entrenched" in American criminal law [Joshua Dressler, Understanding Criminal Law sec. 10.01 (1987)]. The Supreme Court strongly expressed that notion in the 1952 case of Morisette v. United States [342 U.S. 246]; Justice Jackson wrote:
--Id. at 250.
No, that would be criminal negligence, reckless endangerment, creation of a hazard, and breach of peace. Whether you hit anyone or not doesn't mean that you didn't put people in danger, either directly because you might accidentally hit someone, or indirectly because they might get hurt while panicing and diving for cover. Convictions for negligence, recklessness, etc., even parking over a time limit, don't require a showing of scienter; crimes involving "moral wrongs" do. So, although the prosecution wouldn't have to show scienter for negligence for conviction, they would and could to convict you of reckless endangerment, creation of a hazard, and breaching the peace.
The ordinance in this case, which forbids "knowingly or intentionally" being nude in public, explicit
This is a very good point. Breasts aren't sexual organs. I'm also sure that there are a lot of fatso men with bigger tits than a lot of women.
-------- -------- Support Wesley Clark for president!!!
Digital photographs are sometimes considered inadmissable in court because they're so easy to fake.
Digital Photos as evidence
If the digital images taken from the web are presumed to be suspect, than the prosecution would bear the burden to prove the images are authentic and not a Photoshop job.
-------- -------- Support Wesley Clark for president!!!
There is a very very big difference between a traffic offence and a criminal offence. I'm amazed that this is even being considered. How many girls lift their tops and never get arrested? This is purely because she decided to post them online.
Plus, I dont see how lifting your top for a quick picture is endangering anyone. I can see how speeding is - or running a red light.
.
The topic is nudity, the tubgirl is something else altogether. I really fail to see how you find the next logical step to allowing hot chicks to roam nude and free on the streets is having them stick their asses inthe air and squirt liquid shit on the sidewalk.
what's the statute of limitations?
she says the picture is one year before that...
who can argue beyond reasonable doubt without witnesses?
If the defense challenges the constitutionality of a law, it's the prosecution's burden to show the law is constitutional.
... don't require a showing of scienter
The defense can make specific challenges of constitutionality, and the prosecution can address those specific points. For example, if someone's right to free speech were abridged, the government would need to show that there is a government interest in that. But that is not at all difficult for public nudity laws, which are far more often upheld and enforced than struck down.
The "injury" presupposed by the crime of public nudity is almost always "shock" and/or "offense."
And the injury presupposed by the crime of firing a gun in public is almost always "death" or "maiming." Yet we disallow it even if no such injury occurs, because of the *chance* of such occurrence. We disallow public nudity because you *might* offend people, and you can't know you won't.
To enforce this law as you would like would be chaos: you could, conceivably, have nude people roaming the streets in broad daylight, and unless you could prove the person knew someone would be offended by it, you couldn't do anything about it. That's ridiculous. The law assumes that someone *might* see you and be offended, not that someone *will* see you, or be offended.
The concept that a "moral" crime requires scienter , or mens rea , is an idea "deeply entrenched" in American criminal law
Yes, many laws require knowledge of/intent to commit the act, such as murder, and public nudity. She had such knowledge, clearly, so that's a losing issue.
No, that would be criminal negligence, reckless endangerment, creation of a hazard, and breach of peace.
Do you honestly not see the hole you are digging for yourself? How is public nudity not the same? Firing the gun is negligent, endangerment, and hazardous because I *might* do damage. Public nudity is illegal because you *might* offend someone. And breach of peace is even more obvious: if no one feels unpeaceful, is it still a breach of the peace? Should you need to find a witness who felt unpeaceful as a result in order to convict on that count?
Convictions for negligence, recklessness, etc.
That is absolutely false. Sorry. Negligence and recklessness presuppose that you are doing something you know you shouldn't, or that you are not doing something you know you should. If I were legally carrying a firearm and a car hit me, and the firearm discharged, that cannot be negligence or recklessness. "negligence" and "recklessness" have no meaning for someone who acts without scienter.
The ordinance in this case, which forbids "knowingly or intentionally" being nude in public, explicitly references scienter.
Yes, it specifically says the person must be knowingly nude in public. You really think she didn't know she was nude in public? Come on.
If the defense can prove that they took adequate precautions to prevent any member of the public from observing the evil nudity, then they are almost certainly off the hook for the literal violation of the law.
Yes, but only if you read the statute in a way that it isn't written. The statute makes not a single reference to being observed, witnessed, or causing offense. It simply talks about being nude in public, and knowing/intending to be in that state. She was nude in public, and knew it, and intended it. She was literally in violation of the law.
The only way to get out of it would be to challenge the constitutionality, which is a losing battle in Nebraska. They wouldn't stand for it.
Going back to the example of the leash law, suppose that there is an ordinance that, "all dogs in any public park must be on a leash." Is your literal interpretation of such a law that it makes no exclusions for porta-kennels?
I have three dogs, and have lived in several states, and driven
hooray for b00b13s....nice breasticles on dat girl...
um, pardon me, i see breasts and suddenly I deevolve. My bad.
"What we do in life echoes in eternity." Maximus Decimus Meridius
Locally, some women have been going topless at the local community swimming pool to force the police to arrest them, but after a lengthy legal battle it was determined that if men can go topless, so can women. The local newpaper had a picture of a local man shaking hands with the determined young women (arm doing shaking strategicly placed) and in the back ground is a very happy 12 year old boy. Once the point was made, the young woman reverted to wearing a top.
Anarchists never rule
Bein' that fine should be a crime. Oh wait, it is!
Manipulate the moderator system! Mod someone as "overrated" today.
You argument is flawed. Sometimes certain conditions make something that would otherwise be viewed as wrong necessary. In these situations they should be allowed to do it. For one example, self-defense. For another, crossing over the centerline in a highway to avoid running over a pedestrian. In fact, they should sometimes be _required_ to do it. To make every mother carry a bottle when leaving the house, or feed the baby in the bathroom, or starve the baby is ridiculous. She should not be punished for doing something so vitally important for another human being.
I will let you figure out the rest.
I'm not so sure about that. Plenty of modern theater contains nudity, even some of which has played in Nebraska, maybe even Lincoln. All you need is one performance of "Hair" or "Oh! Calcutta!" unharrassed by police to show selective prosecution. I used to live in Nebraska, and their community standards are nowhere near, say, rural Tennessee. Scotts Bluff, Nebraska has corner porn+liquor stores and porn cable in their hotels just like everywhere from Chicago to Salt Lake City to Dallas.
Anyway, a little research shows that the particular application of Lincoln's ordinance in this case is almost certainly unconsitutional, even if the ordinance on its face is not. From Erie v. Pap's A. M. [529 U.S. 277, 289 (2000)]:
When the government prosecutes public nudity for any "compelling interest" against someone nude for the sole purpose of publishing photography, that runs afowl of prong (3), that "the governmental interest must be unrelated to the suppression of free expression." Barnes, [501 U.S. at 570] and prong (4) of O'Brien, especially since in this case there are apparently no complaining or known witnesses unacquainted with the subject, which is to say, those members of the public which the ordinance was designed to "protect."
So, clearly, the unconstitutionality of the ordinance as applied in this case is a real possibility, while we agree that the the constitutionality of the law on its face is not an issue. Perhaps that poster far above doubting the constitutionality has collected more box-tops for his law degree than you have suspected.
Well, for recklessness you're right, but sober people with clean records who get in nasty fatal automobile accidents are convicted of criminal involuntary manslaughter all the time. I don't think juries confuse slow reflexes, which they are fairly eager to punish, with guilty knowledge. Industrial penny-pinchers who make a considered decision on the wrong side of safety often face criminal negligence charges. They don't know they were doing something wrong until after the fact.
On the contrary, have another look at Lincoln Municipal Code Section 9.16.230: "It shall be unlawful for a person to, knowingly or intentionally, in a public place or in any place open to the public, appear in a state of nudity.
The law does not forbid simply being nude (e.g., as one might change clothes in a secluded yet public spot), but actually requir
Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
I wasn't saying that wearing clothes is unnatural, i was saying that the opinion that not wearing clothes is perverted, is unnatural an sick.
See the difference?
FRA: STFU GTFO
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.)
"in a public place and where the conduct may reasonably be expected to be viewed by members of the public"
So if the bar was closed and the door was locked, she could reasonably expect no one to walk in on her, and thus the bar wasn't a public place at the time. (I hope the photographer doesn't count as "public", that would mean problems any time anyone sees anyone naked)
Photoshop comes in boxes? I thought it came over kazaa...
If God had intended us to go around naked, we would've been born that way, dammit!
Slashdot traffic is the kind that knows how to get it for FREE...
Where, sadly, "it" refers to pornography. Not quite the most desirable know-how.
Phiwum's law: anyone that names an obvious law after himself and then puts it in his own sig is just pathetic.
1 - If there was noone to witness it, then it wasnt legally 'public'.
2 - who is to prove it wasnt faked, its REAL EASY to fake something like that these days.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
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!
So if the bar was closed and the door was locked, she could reasonably expect no one to walk in on her, and thus the bar wasn't a public place at the time.
:-)
Correct. However, in this case, she'd have been guilty of trespassing.
there is a large percentage of the population that I have no desire to see naked.
:)
I don't like seeing disabled people with serious deformities. I don't like seeing dribbling cretins and idiots. I don't like seeing gays and transvestits. I don't like seeing blacks and christians. I want a law to prohibit all these people from walking in public places during the day. And while we are at it, how about a law banning Jews from sidewalks?
On a more serious note, while I might find you and your beliefs disgusting, I would fight for your rights blah-blah-blah. And I believe that the chance to see every once in a while a beautiful girl fully naked in public would more than compensate for watching the ugliest members of our species.
Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
what link?
There no crime in lying on her website. She's perfectly allowed to lie to the public about the orgins of her pictures.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
Just because it's on CNN doesn't mean it's true either.
He who laughs last is stuck in a time dilation bubble.
-1: Rude :)
Seriously, though, naked teenagers is just a wee bit on the creepy side!
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
Underaged girls are the finest life has to offer?
I'm no sexually repressed puritan (indeed, I'd have no problem with legal public nudity), but I draw the line at sexualizing girls under the age of consent.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
And by yours those who feel child incest and rape should be legal have the duty to rape and abuse little children. Do you support the rape of little children?
We have no duty to obey unjust laws
It is easy for a "Coward" to say such but it is much more difficult to define such. I gave you a list of logical considerations about how we could make legal judgments. You say that we have no duty to obey unjust laws however you fail to define what an unjust law is.
Let's put a little more thought into this people. If you want to argue against my position at least do so intelligently. Don't just label something as a fundamental human right and pawn it off as truth.
Wearing cloths is NOT a fundamental human right. I would be amazed if you could point out the foundation to that fundamental human right. The problem with rights is that everyone thinks they have more fundamental ones than they really do. I would be surprised if you could define the difference between fundamental human right and a non-fundamental right.
If you like clothes, feel free to wear them. But you have no right to tell someone else that they have to.
Your killin me here hahaha. Umm yes I do have that right. The government has given me that right by making laws.
What you are saying is that some objective human right exists somewhere that states that all people have the right not to wear cloths in public if they wish. That is simply ludicrous. What star is that written on? Government grants rights my friend. The only other granter of rights would be God and He made the first clothing and did so for a purpose.
When I say "Wearing cloths is NOT a fundamental human right" I mean the the act of "not" wearing cloths is NOT a fundamental human right. Thanks,
Actually I find that american culture tries too hard to keep thier children "innocent". They do this by "protecting" them from the harmless truth. And what purpose does it serve? Maybe pornography will keep some of those hormones back at home, and out of school. There is more good then bad in porn.
1. The actresses make money to support them.
2. Look at other countries and how they deal with porn, and how many rapes they have. I dont think that a sex open society is going to have as many rapes as one that isnt.
3. Its good clean fun. Admit it, we all know you like porn, dont deny. and if you do deny(and your a man) then likelyhood is that your a liar.
Besides shouldnt we be more busy protecting our kids from voilence than from porn. Whats worse, having sex, or killing people. I would like to have any person prove to me why pornography is morally wrong, and no "they will become a sexual deviant" bullshit.
Make me your friend; my fans get +1 comment scores.
Many modern operating systems use filesystems which are designed to prevent fragmentation in the first place. Try doing a search for ext2 (or ufs) and defrag.
for $200 (and/or some 'favors' if local..) I'd setup a page for someone, complete with easy to update self management system and a 'this one is actually run by me!' tag, so take that as you will.
Pain lasts, kid. Its how you know you're alive. Sometimes I think this growing up thing is just pain management-TheMaxx
... nakedness is not penalized anymore.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Pictures of yourself in a public establishment showing your bare top (which is only illegal because of laws based on gross and outdated cultural taboo) are quite a bit different than staged murder of persons not in agreement to appear in your picture. Your analogy was more than a little rediculous.
Is rediculous the same as ridiculous? I'm guessing not since murder is a cultural taboo. Just ask any aboriginal cannibal whose culture is quite different from your own.
I'm also not quite sure if you're saying that it's OK to murder people as long as they agree to be filmed, but it sure sounds like it.
--
As a matter of fact, I am a lawyer. But I play an actor on TV.
You're not John Ashcroft are you?
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Be a mysogynist if you want, but keep in mind that people like you will be first against the wall when the Patriarchy falls.
How can I abuse a right?
I posted a very clear definition of it.
And you are incorrect in saying that Legal positivism is the scientific method applied to law.
"It also conveniently ignores the entire concept of human rights. Why would anyone but tyrants want to promote that interpretation?"
Nice statement, but you do not provide any support for it.
Then you go on to agree with me that it sounds exactly like our current legal system.
Therefore, the US is a tyranny?
If that were so, then this site would be shut down because you posted that here.
The US is not a tyranny, therefore your statement about legal positivism is incorrect.
"What do you think judges are for, decoration?"
Okay, so I see that your political education has been somewhat lacking.
The cops are not the judges and the judges are not the cops.
Neither the cops nor the judges write the laws.
So, you exercise what you think is your "right" and the cop (on branch) tickets you for violating a law. The judge upholds that ticket. Therefore, all three branches are in agreement that you do NOT have that right.
The people who wrote that law are citizens.
The cops are citizens.
The judges are citizens.
So it seems that the citizens do NOT believe you have that right.
But you do.
In 99% of the cases, someone who believes something that the rest of society does not believe is termed "delusional".
She was in an adult establishment, by the looks of it. As for being outside, no, if I had kids I wouldn't appreciate you stripping in front of them, but if there are places for you in which it is legal to do so it would be my reponsibility to avoid those areas when my children are with me. There are such things as nudist colonies and beaches. It didn't look like there were any children in the backgrounds of any of her pictures.
http://actionPlant.com
I'm also not quite sure if you're saying that it's OK to murder people as long as they agree to be filmed, but it sure sounds like it.
Sorry, that's not quite what I meant. I said a staged murder. They happen all the time in the movies. Do you believe Hollywood really kills that many actors?
http://actionPlant.com
Try reading the entire thread please.
He was trying to make the argument that it is our duty to disobey an unjust law however he failed to define what an unjust law was. A rapist may trully feel that rape laws are unjust. Under this same thought is it his duty to rape people because he feels the rape laws are unjust?
Who defines what is just and unjust?
Do you?
Does the rapist?
Does the government?
Who?
You just pop into the thread and make a little comment without trying to understand my point.
You seem to want to defend the fundamental right to "not" wear clothing so please explain the basis for this right. Where does this right come from? What makes it fundamental?
To be honest I didn't get your Ashcroft jab though I don't pay much attention to the actions of Ashcroft so.
I hope it entertained those that know him better.
Pray tell what right does slander evolve from?
For anyone to expand from that that someone who's opposed to anti-nudity laws must thus be against anti-pedophile laws is obnoxious and evil. The two things cannot be lumped together, but you did it. Hyperbole with a little mix of fascism.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
He said that the law against nudity was unjust and people should stand up to unjust laws. So, within the confines of the topic, he was indeed defining an unjust law
Declaring a law unjust and defining an unjust law are not the same. If I were to say that the law against spitting on the sidewalk was unjust that does not define the reasoning why that law was unjust. I just stated my opinion. I am asking for a definition or reasoning. Instead, people coming out of the woodwork to attack my mannerisms.
Even if he hadn't, the principle of fighting an unjust law is a good one
You are just not getting it. I have not once bashed the concept of fighting against an unjust law. I have bashed its use in this case. You and your friends have done nothing to but say that public nudity laws are unjust. You have not shown ANY cogent reasoning as to why it is unjust.
Saying that unless you define "unjust" you're somehow claiming all laws are unjust is an absurdity.
I have said nothing of the kind. I have said that just because you say things are unjust doesn't make them unjust. You must qualify what you are saying which you have not done. You must believe that you and your friends here are part of some exclusive club where every subjective thing you say is perceived and accepted as truth.
Let me ask you this question again.
Question:
If a rapist believes that rape laws are unjust is it his duty to rape women in protest of that law?
Answer:
No! An unjust law is more than just one mans opinion. Something must qualify a law to be deemed unjust.
Question:
What is that qualifier?
I have asked many questions in order to get you all to think about what you are saying and it just doesn't seem to be working. Arbitrarily calling a law unjust does not give one license to break the law without consequence.
She broke the law. She should be punished. Deal with it.
You calling something a fundamental right does not make it so. You calling something unjust does not make it so.
Think some of this through a little bit.
I apologize if I come across harshly. I would concede to an intelligent argument against my position if it made more sense than my own position however at least here such an argument cannot be found.
Sorry, that's not quite what I meant. I said a staged murder. They happen all the time in the movies. Do you believe Hollywood really kills that many actors?
Ah.Well the parent didn't seem to be talking about a staged event, and at any rate, just because something is staged doesn't mean it isn't real. By taking pictures of an actual killing and posting them publicly you have staged the event in a way to bring it to the public eye.
As for Hollywood killing actors? Well..... that's open for debate.
--
As a matter of fact, I am a lawyer. But I play an actor on TV.
Until its your bar that loses it's liquor license.
In the US, certain rights are stated to be inherent. That does not mean that the exist outside of the legal system of the US.
What rights do you believe the government will NOT infringe upon?
Is slander a crime?
Yes - then Freedom of Speech does not mean what you say it means because it cannot be a crime if it is a right.
No - then you live in a fantasy world.
Posting about how someone in Canada was restricted from saying something in Canada really doesn't matter. Nor is posting some Nazi site. Newsflash for you, it is 2004, not 2025 like on their front page.
If I say "all Jews are faggots", you can, legally, sue me for libel or slander.
Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
I think this is exactly what I have said. Those "moral constraints" referred to are called "natural rights". That law is "posited" basically means that powerful people tell less powerful people what to do. We'll leave it to posterity to decide whose "political education" is lacking in this case.
BTW, did you happen to *read* any of that page you quoted about legal positivism? It mostly just discredits the idea.
The judge upholds that ticket. No judge has yet spoken on this matter. Regardless, he would be derelict to ignore either the rights of the defendant or the lack of a victim, as you have. Besides, you still haven't given any indication that you have a *clue* what judges do, other than "uphold ticket(s)". Here's an explanation, also from the source *you* quoted:
So, since the Supreme Court says that an unconstitutional law isn't really a law, and the Constitution says that rights are retained by the people, do you think *maybe* that judges should, oh I don't fucking know, take that under consideration? Or are you still holding onto the idea that rights are defined by the legislature and laws are merely "upheld" by judges? (If so, might I suggest that you move *back* to the motherland.)
I see now that the construction used in my last post was unclear. I never meant to say that legal positivism was the scientific method. I said that *logical* positivism was basically the scientific method. What I meant to get across was that both the scientific method and legal positivism were derived from *logical* positivism, as both took their preference of observation over contemplation from it. Here is a relation of positivism to the scientific method:
Compare that with this description of legal positivism from here:
"I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
But right now, their job is to enforce the law as it is.
There are simply too many laws for law enforcement to enforce them all. In every community, law enforcement is a selective effort. It's not that the police had to prosecute, they chose to.
So the original comment stands: law enforcement, when given the choice (and they are), should choose to go after those who would seek to deprive other individuals of life, liberty, and property. In other words, predators.
I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
Many cities and states in the US have hate crime laws too. Here's one from our nation's capital, Washington DC.m
http://mpdc.dc.gov/info/other/hatecrimes.sht
You might want to note the part about "Telephone harassment" and "Use of racial slurs" and "Verbal abuse" in there.
Again, I really don't care what Canadian law is. This isn't about Canada or Canadians or Canadian law. This is the SECOND time you've tried to use Canada as an example of US law. The next time you do that, I'm going to assume that you are too stupid to understand that Canada is not the US and that you are incapable of rational discussion on this subject.
You can sue for libel or slander even if it does not specifically address you.
As for your book example, now you're getting into "Freedom of the Press". That's in the same amendment but it is slightly different.
The KKK can say things in private meetings that are not allowed to be said in public places.
Just as, in the original story, the woman can be naked in private, but not in public places.
Woah.
This guy has one serious afro.
Either that or she really needs to think about shaving.
That's right, "Freedom of Speech" does not mean "Freedom to say anything I want to". If it isn't the truth, you can be sued.
Much appreciated.
You do not have the freedom to say anything you want.
If you say something and it harms someone and it is FALSE, then you can be sued for it and that person can claim damages.
If you say something and it harms someone and it is TRUE, then they will not win, even though harm has occured in both cases from you saying something.
Therefore, the difference is whether it is true or false.
Now, unless I can be sued for exercising my Constitutional rights (in which case, they are not rights at all), that means that I do not have a right to say things that aren't true.
Unless you do not understand what the word "right" means in this context?
So I do not know why you are bringing this up.
As for why you don't think a city in the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA is relevant to a discussion of LAWS IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, well, that's your problem then.
Ooooh, "speakers corner". Your link is Canadian. Why do you have trouble understanding that the US is not Canada?
"...and say "All Jews are faggots" *how* are you going to sue?"
You go to the "judge" and you "file" a "lawsuit".
Is that too complicated for you?
"*How*?"
Again, you go to the "judge" and you "file" a "lawsuit".
"I've heard people doing this before (the joys of "Voice of America's" more eclectic programming) and they don't go to jail."
Since you seem to have serious trouble differentiating between Canada and the US, I'm not going to accept your claims about what you have heard.
"If I can get away with that then libel/slander don't cover hate speech in the general sense, do they?"
Did you read the link to the Washington DC page? Why are you trying to claim that libel/slander covers all of "hate speech"? If you aren't claiming that, then what are you claiming?
"Just in the specific sense, such as me saying an untruth like "khasim is a faggot"."
Again, you can't tell the difference between Canada and the US and you don't see why me pointing out that the US has "Hate Crime" laws (with DC as an example) is applicable.
Now, if I was a faggot, would I have any legal recourse to what you just said?
No.
If I was not, then would I have legal recourse?
Yes.
Therefore, whether I have legal recourse depends upon whether what you say is true or not.
Which boils down to you can say anything TRUTHFUL and your Right to Freedom of Speech will protect you.
But you do NOT have a Right to say something UNTRUE.
You think that everything that isn't a Right is illegal
-or-
That everything that isn't illegal is a Right.
That's not how the US system works. You have basic Rights and the various city, state, federal governments cannot pass laws that limit those rights.
But not EVERYTHING is illegal or a Right.
There are LOTS of activities that are not Rights that are also not illegal.
I can grow green beans at home, but I cannot grow marijuana. The Constitution does NOT have a list of things I can plant at home and things I cannot.
My Rights protect me from unconstitutional laws.
If I had a Right to say untrue things, then I could not be sued for libel or slander because it would be unconstitutional.
That is why the definitions (as posted by the other person) for libel and slander refer to untrue statements.
Again, everything is NOT split between Rights and Crimes.
I did not understand that you did not know that so my examples were difficult for you to understand.
So, someone saying "Jews are faggots" does NOT have the Right to say that because it is not true.
He can be subject to various legal actions (because he does not have that Right).
Which actions depend upon the exact circumstances.
I can go around saying that the moon is made of green cheese.
It's obviously untrue.
I do NOT have a Right to say it.
But it is NOT illegal in any way.
There, is THAT clear enough for you?
Now, when you start saying things about individuals or groups, then it becomes actionable. What actions depend upon the specifics.
Scenario #1. You read a book where someone said all Jews are faggots. You'd have to prove that you were somehow injured by that.
Scenario #2. Someone in Times Square starts talking loudly about how all Jews are faggots. The cops will ask him to shut up and if he refuses, he will be arrested.
Scenario #3. Someone is a home with his friend and he says that all Jews are faggots. Not much you can do there. In fact, you probably won't even be aware that it was even mentioned.
And so forth.
Because it is not a Right does NOT mean that it is a crime.
Because it is NOT a crime does not mean that it is a Right.
Back to the ORIGINAL story.
Public nudity is NOT a Right.
Therefore, laws can be passed against it.
As happened in that city.
And she broke that law.
I just don't accept that it "discredits" anything.
But it does provide a good definition so I used the definition.
"On a more practical matter, though, are you even *from* the US? From what it sounds like, you've never read the Constitution and your username hints of foreign origin. If so, why should you care about US law and why should anyone else value your opinion of it?"
Seattle, Washington, USA
Deal with it.
"Regardless, he would be derelict to ignore either the rights of the defendant or the lack of a victim, as you have."
So, if the people elected vote to pass a law, and the cops enforce that law and the judge finds that they were correct in doing so....
Well, they're just all wrong because YOU know what is "right".
In 99% of cases such as that, you would be considered delusional.
Check out the local psychiatric ward. They're filled with people who "know" what is "right" and "know" that everyone else is "wrong".
Sorry, only works for photo radar speeding tickets and photo red light tickets.
Gotta find Johnny Cochrane to get you off that murder wrap.
Another non-functioning site was "uncertainty.microsoft.com."
The purpose of that site was not known.
Everything is NOT divided into Rights and Crimes.
Lots of things are not Rights that are not Crimes.
Saying the sky is pink is one of them. It is not a crime, yet it is not a Right.
You say that limitations on the right of free speech are relevant to harm.
Yet libel and slander do not apply if it is the truth.
So it seems that the limitation is whether it is true or not.
"By reading this sig you hereby acknowledge that all opinions in this post, whether stated or implied, are correct."
Damn, I was going to contradict you on that sig.
Karma: -2^0.5 . Mainly due to the imbibing of dihydrogen monoxide
Nebraska Vice Squad: It's the toughest job you'll ever love.
I don't know about tough, but I'm guessing that for many of the officers checking out these pics, things may have gotten pretty "hard" after awhile.
The only women who will wear a chain mail bekini in public will be the exact kind of woman you don't want to see in a chaim mail bekini.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
...that you cannot be at fault for practicing your Rights.
Which is why some laws have been found to be unconstitutional. Because those laws punish or prevent people from practicing their rights.
Yes, laws have been found to be unconstitutional. Those laws are then removed.
I say something that damages someone's rep and it is false, I can be sued.
Key points:
I said it.
It caused damage.
It was false.
I say something that damages someone's rep and it is TRUE, I am safe.
Key points:
I said it.
It caused damage.
It was true.
The difference is whether it was true or false.
If I had a Constitutional Right to make false statements, then I could not be sued for making false statements.
Civil/Criminal, neither matter in this case. If you aren't comfortable with libel and slander, how about perjury? How about fraud?
Both are CRIMES.
Free speech is not limited by truth. I have the right to say untrue things, as long as I am not causing harm by doing so. I have a right to write and publish fiction if I choose. I can claim that the earth is flat one day, and spherical the next. One of those statements must be untrue, but I still have the right to say it.
In the case of free speech, it actually is a binary situation, since the right of free speech covers all expression that is not outlawed. (And occasionally, some that is, in the case of laws that are found unconstitutional).
The limitation on libel and slander as regards to truth is a limitation of the scope of libel and slander laws, not a result of any limitation on the right of free speech.
I don't see anything in there which limits free speech to truth, do you? In any case where free speech is constrained by government, it is done on the basis of harm, either to an individual or to "public morality".
Not all true things are covered by free speech, either. Graphic child pornography is "true", in that the photographs are of real things and real events, but that doesn't prevent the government from banning them, due to the harm that has been done to the child, and an expected increase in similar or worse harm.
Politas
So, you can say untrue things as long as you don't cause harm.
But you can cause harm as long as what you say is true.
So the harm is NOT the distinguishing factor.
The distinguishing factor is whether it is true or not.
"In the case of free speech, it actually is a binary situation, since the right of free speech covers all expression that is not outlawed. (And occasionally, some that is, in the case of laws that are found unconstitutional)."
Look at that.
"Covers all expression that is not outlawed."
How can it be outlawed if it is a Right?
Laws can be ruled "unconstitutional".
Rights cannot be ruled "illegal".
"I don't see anything in there which limits free speech to truth, do you?"
No, I don't. Neither do I see anything about slander or libel or perjury or fraud. Yet those most certainly are illegal.
Yet your quote from the Constitution would seem to say that laws against perjury and fraud are unconstitutional.
"In any case where free speech is constrained by government, it is done on the basis of harm, either to an individual or to "public morality"."
But the Constitution says that the government CANNOT abridge the freedom of speech.
But now you're saying that the government CAN and DOES abridge the freedom of speech.
So, does the Constitution say that the government can or cannot abridge the freedom of speech?
Your position is not consistent with your example.
I don't know what argument the US government uses to override/limit Amendment I. Possibly Amendment VI, in the case of slander and libel. Whatever, it isn't relevant; I don't know, and I don't need to know. What is relevant is that slander and libel can only be found if the statements are BOTH harmful AND untrue. I could write on my blog that you have blue hair, and you couldn't sue me for libel, since it wouldn't harm you. (Hardly anyone reads my blog!)
So slander and libel depend on those two factors. What other laws limit the right of free speech? Incitement to riot, causing a public nuisance, public obscenity laws, etc. What do all these laws have in common? The concept that someone or something is harmed. Harm to another person or another person's property; that is the principle that is used when justifying any limitations to the right of free speech. Not truth.
Public indecency laws are a limitation on free speech/expression, and they certainly have nothing to do with truth.
Politas
"I don't know what argument the US government uses to override/limit Amendment I."
No, it is not VI.
"Whatever, it isn't relevant; I don't know, and I don't need to know."
Yes it is because your position does NOT fit the established facts. Therefore, there is something lacking in your position or the facts are wrong.
"What is relevant is that slander and libel can only be found if the statements are BOTH harmful AND untrue."
Yep.
But a statement that is HARMFUL and TRUE is NOT slander nor libel nor perjury nor fraud.
It isn't the HARMFUL that is the key, it is whether it is true or false.
Which pretty much brings this argument back to the beginning, again.
"What do all these laws have in common? The concept that someone or something is harmed."
Nope. Two of your examples have the word PUBLIC right in the name.
Like back in the ORIGINAL story about PUBLIC NUDITY.
How does "obscenity" harm someone?
"Harm to another person or another person's property; that is the principle that is used when justifying any limitations to the right of free speech."
Again, you're confusing the issue with your binary logic.
You have the Right to say TRUE statements.
Even if they cause harm.
So harm is not the deciding factor.
"public nuisance" using only freedom of speech? How?
"public obscenity" using only freedom of speech? How?
"Public indecency laws are a limitation on free speech/expression, and they certainly have nothing to do with truth."
No they aren't. What statement was she making by taking off her clothes?
"As I said, I can claim that you have blue hair, or pink hair, and I have a right to do that. It is not harmful to you."
8 79 064
You only have the Right to say true things.
But that does not mean that all untrue statements are illegal. That is up to the courts to decide. This is NOT a binary situation.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=91155&cid=7
Point for my side.
"Explain how free speech is limited by truth when pornography is censored. Is pornography untrue?"
I can purchase pornography at the corner 7-11. It is not censored.
Another point for my side.
Game, set and match.
You said that pornography was censored.
1 55&threshol d=1&commentsort=0&tid=133&mode=thread&pid=7888133# 7889597
I said I could pick up pornography at the corner 7-11.
"Making statements doesn't prove a point."
No, but presenting FACTS does. Such as the FACT that you were WRONG about pornography being censored.
"Go look at censorship debates over fiction. They are about harm, not truth, obviously, since fiction is by definition untrue."
What censorship debates? Hmmmm? Go ahead. Substantiate your position. I have YET to see any non-fiction worked censored. I have seen debates about carrying it in a school library. But never about censoring one.
"Some pornography is censored, eg Child pornography. How is that censorship related to truth?"
That was covered in New York v. Ferber before the United States Supreme Court.
The USSC declared that child pornography does NOT fall under the 1st amendment.
I believe I have just delivered a "smackdown" on your position.
Or do you feel up to arguing against the USSC?
heh heh heh
Don't feel bad. You made a mistake of relying upon your ignorance and inherent stupidity when you were facing an opponent with an IQ that's more than triple your's.
To quote you back at yourself:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=91
"I don't know what argument the US government uses to override/limit Amendment I."
-and-
"Whatever, it isn't relevant; I don't know, and I don't need to know."
!!!SMACKDOWN!!!
The USSC decalred that child pornography does not fall under the 1st amendment. And what was their reasoning for that?
/.?
When I say "I don't need to know", it's because I'm not a US citizen, so US laws aren't relevant in my life.
And your IQ is three times mine? Wow. I've never met anyone with an IQ well over 400 before. You must be amazingly clever. Why aren't you off working in some useful field, rather than trolling on
You still haven't answered my question. Does freee speech cover fiction? Well?
You can blather on all you want, thinking you have found the answer, but it's not that simple. The right of free speech does cover everything that is not specifically banned. Free speech is not limited to truth. it's far more complex, which is why attempts to restrict speech end up in the supreme court.
Politas
"The USSC decalred that child pornography does not fall under the 1st amendment. And what was their reasoning for that?"
That doesn't matter. The USSC has THE final say on what is legal and Constitutional.
YOUR point was that child pornography was censored, but that censorship did not fit my position on the first amendment.
"When I say "I don't need to know", it's because I'm not a US citizen, so US laws aren't relevant in my life."
Yet you will go on and on and on and on about how I, a US citizen who has been educated in US law am wrong and you, someone who has not been so educated, is right.
Despite my showing you the decision by the USSC.
!!!SMACKDOWN!!!
"You still haven't answered my question. Does freee speech cover fiction? Well?"
Yes I did. Over and over and over.
Free speech ONLY covers the truth.
Do you believe fiction is truth?
"You can blather on all you want, thinking you have found the answer, but it's not that simple."
Actually, it is. The USSC reviewed the case and made their judgement. Therefore, it is US law.
"The right of free speech does cover everything that is not specifically banned."
Keep saying that. "When I say "I don't need to know", it's because I'm not a US citizen, so US laws aren't relevant in my life." Yet you keep saying that you know it better than I do.
"Free speech is not limited to truth."
Keep saying that. "When I say "I don't need to know", it's because I'm not a US citizen, so US laws aren't relevant in my life." Yet you keep saying that you know it better than I do.
"it's far more complex, which is why attempts to restrict speech end up in the supreme court."
You've been shown to be wrong on pornography (maybe in the country YOU live in, it is censored).
You've been shown to be wrong on perjury.
You've been shown to be wrong on fraud.
You've been shown to be wrong on libel.
You've been shown to be wrong on slander.
You've even been shown to be wrong on child pornography.
Well, that certainly bolsters your chance of being right on the subject of the first amendment, doesn't it?
"I don't know what argument the US government uses to override/limit Amendment I."
-and-
"Whatever, it isn't relevant; I don't know, and I don't need to know."
You don't know and you don't need to know, but you know that it is more complex than I have stated.
And, again, you are WRONG!
!!!SMACKDOWN!!!
"The USSC can't just declare off-hand that something doesn't fit within the constitution."
It wasn't done "off-hand". Read the citation.
"No, you didn't show me the decision, you told me the result of the decision."
Yes I did. The decision was that child pornography does not fall under the 1st Amendment.
You are wrong AGAIN!
"As I said, US laws don't affect me, but the right of free speech enchrined in the first amendment is drawn from English common law, and Australian law also acknowledges the right of free speech."
Yep, and electricity can produce light and candles can produce light, but because you might know something about candles does NOT mean that you know anything about electricity.
"So I know about free speech, and I know it is intended to cover more than simply truth."
Nice try. You might know SOMETHING about free speech in England and Canada and Australia, but that does not mean you know ANYTHING about free speech in the USofA.
"After all, how can free speech allow flat earthers, creationists and scientists all to have the same rights to publish their viewpoints?"
Because it is NOT a binary system. I've been over that before.
"How can the legal system determine "truth" in philosophy?"
Why should it? Truth in legal terms is all it is concerned about.
"Yet all these things are covered by the right of free speech."
No they are not. You keep thinking in your binary "logic" mode.
"Why is the defining statement of free speech "I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"?"
Strange, but I do NOT see that statement in any of the US laws. Maybe you can cite it? After all, if it is not part of the US law, how can it be the defining statement of US law?
Once again!
I deliver the !!!SMACKDOWN!!!
http://www.aclu.org/FreeSpeech/FreeSpeech.cfm?ID=1 0420&c=83
And check the rest of the free speech resources on their site.
Please do this. I shudder at the thought of an America where this sad belief of yours is prevalent.
Politas
You will notice that the State of NY did something and the ACLU is protesting it saying that it is unconstitutional.
Now, refer back to my points that not EVERYTHING is broken down to Rights and Crimes.
Then, refer back to where I pointed out that laws can be passed that may be unconstitutional, and those laws are challenged in court to determine their constitutionality. (Not, as you maintain, Rights are restricted as new laws are made.)
So, what you are refering to seems to be this EXACT PROCESS.
!!!SMACKDOWN!!!
"Please do this. I shudder at the thought of an America where this sad belief of yours is prevalent."
Shudder then.
It's not my belief.
!!!IT IS THE LAW!!!
!!!SMACKDOWN!!!