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!
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!
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?
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.
I only read slashdot for the "articles".
"Jesus saves sinners...and redeems them for valuable coupons"
Let's try this example on. I take a picture of myself nekkid and, using photoshop transpose my body in such a way that it looks like president Lincoln on the Lincoln Memorial is fellating me. I'ma perv who likes funny pics so I post it on my website and advertise that it is not fake. Also, lets assume that DC has the same public nudity law. Does this constitute photographic evidence? Should, on the basis of this photograph alone, I be ticketed for getting a hummer from Lincoln? I know the example seems outlandish, but when we look at laws and legal proceedure, we must take these kind of examples into account in order to create laws that are applicable universally.
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.
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 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
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.
... 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?
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?"
here
If a train station is a place where a train stops, what's a workstation?
uhm yes, I signed up just for helping her with money for her legal fund... that and the articles...
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.
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
Oh my god! MOM???
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.
You are correct that unless there is a victim, there is not crime, but there doesn't need to be a victim for a law to be broken.
It all depends on how the statute/ordinance is written. If it just requires that an act be performed for a fine to be assesed, then she's in deep. It the law requires the complaint of a victim for charges to be filed, then she'll be aquitted.
I know little about the circumstance, or the law of the town. In all it seems like a photo radar ticket: no officer saw you speeding, but the camera did. In this case the accused provided the camera instead of the government.
Article X: The powers not delegated... by the Constitution...are reserved...to the people
Protecting you from naked women in public. If guys can go topless, so can girls. Here that girls? :o)
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!
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.
Then you also have the right to, in effect, rule on the law itself. If you don't think the law is a good one, you can vote for a not guilty verdict.
Depending on the court, you either swear an oath of some sort, or are otherwise instructed, to rule on the case according to the law; and if you cannot or are unwilling to do that, you will be excused from serving.
That depends on how much you respect the oath you took before taking your position on the jury. You promise to rule on the case according to the law, not your feelings about the law.
To be sure, jury nullification happens, but usually only when the people on the jury find the law to be so abhorrent as to be violative of a principle much more important than adherence to the law, such as with Northern slave laws in the 1800s. You won't find too many people practicing jury nullification over someone flashing their breasts.
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
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
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
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
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.
Please stop the positivism. Law is not a science.
Saying "that's the way it is" merely justifies the collective circle-jerk that has become the U.S. judicial system.
Remember, the vampires can't come in your house unless you *invite* them.
"I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
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
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.
I wonder what all those chicks end up doing when they become too old and nobody wants so see their tits anymore.
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"
"Your honor, the defense introduces into evidence this box of computer software, labeled 'Photoshop,' and these three photos which purport to show the defendant flying over the Washington monument in the fashion of a comic book superhero, sitting in Abraham Lincoln's lap, and landing a fighter jet on an aircraft carrier in the Persian Gulf alongside President Bush. These events are entirely fictional. As we have demonstrated that photographs can be created even though no such event actually occurred, we now submit that inasmuch the defendant was not 'caught in the act,' the prosecution has failed to meet its burden of proof that any of the events in their complaint actually happened."
"Ain't no right way to do a wrong thing."
If God had meant for us to run around nude, we would have been born that way.
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
-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.
Actually, it's true. http://www.urbanlegends.com/legal/speeding_ticket_ pictures.html.
He who laughs last is stuck in a time dilation bubble.
Actually, I think the "victim" in this case is the bar owner who had a naked person in his bar and wasn't in some way monetarily compensated for this. No doubt, because of this girl's actions, his establishment will see a doubling of income and an amount of publicity it has never before seen. He obviously feels that he should be compensated for this egregious harm in some way. Greedy, stupid bastard.
"I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
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...
I make six figures too!
:(
Oh... you mean without the decimal point.
Have you tried Linux yet?
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?
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.
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
To quote myself at work, when the dress code comes up: "You fuckers are lucky I wear clothes at all."
You are born naked, and if you time things correctly, you will die naked!
Want to watch a movie that depicts people being decapitated, eviscerated (with very realistic-looking blood-and-guts effects), and turned into breeding hosts for acid-blooded parasites (the 'Alien' series)? No problem!
Want to watch news stories that capture the 'Horror of War' close up and personal? No problem!
Want to watch another movie that depicts people being hacked apart, in very grisly detail, by a chainsaw-wielding maniac? No problem!
Want to take a look at pictures of a naked female body on the Internet, or pictures of two people engaged in acts of trying to bring each other a little pleasure? NOW we have a problem!
Given all the awful stuff that's going on in the world today, am I the only one who thinks that police and other law-enforcement agencies could be doing better things with their time than illustrating (by example) that we, as a race, need to be Really Ashamed of our bodies?
Bruce Lane, KC7GR,
Blue Feather Technologies
If she hadn't admitted to the pictures, she probably could have used the Photoshop defense. Get a photo of the prosecutor and paste on a naked body with a public place in the background.
What possible justification could you have for letting people take off their clothes right there in front of you?
------
I wasn't aware that we needed justification for allowing people to do things. I thought all things were allowed, unless there is a justification for disallowing them...
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
"I was really drunk last night, and I wanted to take some pics... Started out taking some pics of me flashing out of my car window to some random guys walking by... that was fun... then we headed to Mickey's Club... After a few shots I was pretty messed up... started flashing my boobs pretty much nonstop... until one of the bouncer boys told me to cool it off... ;-)... so we took our fun up to the back room upstairs at Mickey's... and next thing I knew, my wet panties were on the floor... I had alot of guys trying to look into the room... It was pretty crazy... I'm really starting to like this whole public nudity stuff.... I have some sample pics that my girlfriends took below... but you'll have to join to see all the craziness..." (Link NOT safe for work)
It's kind of hard to dispute your own statements.
"...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
For the topless-only pictures involved, it's the due process clause, in particular selective enforcement, in that guys can go topless and girls can't. Hey, don't look at me. It worked in Canada! Different constitution, but the exact same argument.
Anyway, laws prohibiting public nudity are frequently ruled unconstitutional as soon as some D.A. tries to enforce them, e.g. this case allowing erotic dancing in Virginia. That turned on, among other things, selective enforcement vis-a-vis nursing mothers. The details of the law are what make the real difference.
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.
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.
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.
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
While I certainly feel people should be able to look at whatever they want in the privacy of their own home, I don't think I'd go as far as to argue that public nudity should be legal - if only because there is a large percentage of the population that I have no desire to see naked.
The point is voluntarism. You wouldn't want that people could watch other people forced to, or incapable of understanding their acts, such as images of rape or kiddie pr0n. Much in the same way that you don't want people (like you in particular) or people not mature enough, such as minors, to be forced to observe such acts.
However, in the case of public nudity it's slightly more complicated - it is after all how we are without garments, and it's not a negative "you can not do X" To disallow public nudity is to force people to wear clothes. At which point you have to argue which freedom is more important - the freedom not to wear clothes, or the freedom not to see other people without clothes.
While I agree - I wouldn't like to see most of the population naked - I find their right to decide over their own body, to be naked if they so please more basic than my right to decide what I want to see. Or even what my future kids someday will see. I admit, I wouldn't want them to see a flasher like this. But a naked guy walking down the street? Acceptable to me.
That does not extend to events they could reasonably keep private, or where the entire point is do to it in public (like e.g. having public sex), but nudity is not an action - it's rather an absence of an action - to wear clothes. Ask yourself - do you have the right to force everyone around you to wear clothes?
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
OK, with a superficial examination we see a woman who is relatively young, physically in pretty good shape, and she is pretty enough, in what looks to me to be a rather vacant sort of way.
You have to ask how this girl ended up nude on the internet in the first place? This isn't a handful of photos taken to please her boyfriend, its production sleaze. I am guessing that in addition to the three traditional orifices she'll end up dispensing nasal sex as soon as she completes reaming her sinuses out with methamphetamine. Would anyone like to make a bet on this chick being a sexual abuse survivor as well?
So, she is nice to look at today, but that'll fade quicker than you can say 'drugs made with household cleaner and other junk' three times, and you'll be left with a miserable wreck of a human being with emotional scars that will *never* heal.
Long term prognosis? Dead before age forty and it won't be glamorous.
I am very easy to get along with, but I don't have time to waste being nice to people who are being stupid. -Theo
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.)
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.
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!
Little known fact: Fiona Johnson, who played "the woman in the red dress" in The Matrix, caused a traffic accident during filming. A passing driver was distracted by her and hit a pole.
So while I agree with you that chemicals are more dangerous than naked boobs, don't underestimate how dangerous boobs can be.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});