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.
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?
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!
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"
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!
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?
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
here
If a train station is a place where a train stops, what's a workstation?
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.
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.
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"
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
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
. . . it's a good bust.
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.
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 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
Are you fucking kidding me? Their job? Maybe their job should be looking out for people who are actually doing some damage. Like rapists or murderers or thieves. Maybe they could be conducting traffic at a congested intersection. Or investigating some sort of crime where a person actually gets hurt?
Running red lights and speeding can put others in *danger* and that is why it is illegal. The reason people can't be naked in public is because America is far happier to watch people get beaten up and killed than some chicks tits.
You people are fucking sick. Just because something is 'illegal' doesn't make it wrong. Use your own god damn sense of judgement and stop letting others think for you you fucking sheep.
Of course if you really really think she should be punished for this because you believe someone could have been hurt or affected negatively, then we have a friendly disagreement and I'll settle for calling you a retard and not fuzzy white animal that says 'BAAAAA'.
"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
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.
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?
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.
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
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...
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.
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
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.