Woman Ticketed For Nude Pics On Internet 768
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.
"The article does not link to Harrington's website (Score:5, Informative)
:)
Smoking gun (Score:5, Informative)
Re:She's been posting EVIDENCE, for heaven's sake! (Score:5, Informative)
Ohhhhh...btw...this picture's here (Score:5, Informative)
Re:here's the link to her site... (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.melissalincoln.com/galleries/001/
h
http:
http://ww
http://www.me
http://www.meliss
Re:No victim no crime? (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Re:Umm guys (Score:4, Informative)
Got to give her props though, she did get a ton of free publicity off this. I know the guy who runs nebraskacoeds.com and she's making a crap ton of money off all this.
While it might not seem like a reasonable law, note that this is *nebraska*. It's very republican and conservative. If you don't like it, move to another state
Re:"The article does not link to Harrington's webs (Score:3, Informative)
Back when I used to do this, a 1 in 500 conversion ratio (after an ever lower clickthrough ratio) was considered great.
--
Her website and pic galleries (Score:5, Informative)
free gallery 1 [melissalincoln.com]
free gallery 2 [melissalincoln.com]
free gallery 3 [melissalincoln.com]
free gallery 4 [melissalincoln.com]
free gallery 5 [melissalincoln.com]
free gallery 6 [melissalincoln.com]
Re:"The article does not link to Harrington's webs (Score:5, Informative)
Her webmaster is probably enjoying all the extra traffic.
In case you want to see th picture that got her in trouble [melissalincoln.com]
Not safe for work!
at last, a topic where (Score:3, Informative)
-no one will complain if it is or becomes a dupe
and I for one welcome our new pair of 34c overlords.
Re:It's just like the speeding ticket cameras, yea (Score:5, Informative)
Gee, was that I-405 near Bothell, WA? (Score:3, Informative)
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...
Re:"The article does not link to Harrington's webs (Score:3, Informative)
And yes, I wonder if she would come to the party I'm going to if I ask really nice
Re:Your Tax Dollars at work (Score:3, Informative)
probably constitutional but with absence of malice (Score:4, Informative)
The determination is in the details. Ms. "Lincoln" is charged with a violation of Lincoln Municipal Code Section 9.16.230, which reads: [lincoln.ne.us]
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.
Re:probably constitutional but with absence of mal (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Re:Ridiculous penalties (Score:2, Informative)
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/953
Re:Wait a second . . . (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Her website and pic galleries (Score:2, Informative)
Re:"The article does not link to Harrington's webs (Score:2, Informative)