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.
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.
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
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!
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
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
No, you can't be COMPELLED to incriminate yourself, but you're more than welcome to do it.
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"
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?
here
If a train station is a place where a train stops, what's a workstation?
Promote Sensitivity on Slashdot, make me your friend.
Oh my god! MOM???
You're not required to incriminate yourself. They couldn't have forced her to post those photos. But she did, and she's busted.
Yeah, she's busted alright...
that the /. crew actually research the links and people actually go to the links before posting.
I don't know.
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.
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.
Actually, it's true. http://www.urbanlegends.com/legal/speeding_ticket_ pictures.html.
He who laughs last is stuck in a time dilation bubble.
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
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