Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
It's funny.  Laugh. United States Your Rights Online

Woman Ticketed For Nude Pics On Internet 768

Posted by timothy
from the use-undisclosed-location dept.
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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Woman Ticketed For Nude Pics On Internet

Comments Filter:
  • by r_glen (679664) on Wednesday December 31, 2003 @06:19PM (#7848945)
    Darn [melissalincoln.com]. (NOT SAFE FOR WORK!)

    :)
  • Smoking gun (Score:5, Informative)

    by Rkane (465411) on Wednesday December 31, 2003 @06:25PM (#7848999) Homepage Journal
    The smoking gun [thesmokinggun.com] also has an article [thesmokinggun.com] on this, and shows the offending pictures (blurred, so they are work safe).
  • by exhilaration (587191) on Wednesday December 31, 2003 @06:32PM (#7849048)
    No, you can't be COMPELLED to incriminate yourself, but you're more than welcome to do it.
  • by soccerisgod (585710) on Wednesday December 31, 2003 @06:47PM (#7849178)
    here [melissalincoln.com]
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 31, 2003 @06:53PM (#7849231)
    Why bother with passwords, her site is ...er, wide open. Maybe we can help with security:

    http://www.melissalincoln.com/galleries/001/
    ht tp://www.melissalincoln.com/galleries/004/
    http:/ /www.melissalincoln.com/galleries/006/
    http://www .melissalincoln.com/galleries/009/
    http://www.mel issalincoln.com/galleries/011/
    http://www.melissa lincoln.com/galleries/014/

  • by gerardrj (207690) * on Wednesday December 31, 2003 @07:04PM (#7849336) Journal
    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.
  • Re:Umm guys (Score:4, Informative)

    by ender81b (520454) <billd@NOspaM.inebraska.com> on Wednesday December 31, 2003 @07:05PM (#7849340) Homepage Journal
    Agreed. Not only that but this girl is dumber than a box of rocks. I live in lincoln, been to that bar. It's an upscale martini bar which -- most definately -- wasn't happy about this happening at their bar. It caters to upper middle class midwestern clientale, mostly conservative and christian (this is Lincoln after all).

    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 ;).
  • by Saeger (456549) <farrellj @ g mail.com> on Wednesday December 31, 2003 @07:37PM (#7849576) Homepage
    Actually, yeah, the last thing a porn site wants is poor quality traffic that won't convert into dollars. Slashdot traffic is the kind that knows how to get it for FREE, whereas *.aol.com loves to whip out those CC's.

    Back when I used to do this, a 1 in 500 conversion ratio (after an ever lower clickthrough ratio) was considered great.

    --

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 31, 2003 @08:01PM (#7849737)
    damn nice girl, pity to see this happen to her, for those interested in seeing some free pr0n, checkout Her Website [ibill.com]

    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]

  • by xpurple (1227) on Wednesday December 31, 2003 @08:05PM (#7849769) Homepage Journal
    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 [melissalincoln.com]

    Not safe for work!

  • by way2trivial (601132) on Wednesday December 31, 2003 @08:28PM (#7849914) Homepage Journal
    -everyone R's TFA
    -no one will complain if it is or becomes a dupe

    and I for one welcome our new pair of 34c overlords.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 31, 2003 @08:46PM (#7850028)

    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...

  • by xpurple (1227) on Wednesday December 31, 2003 @09:13PM (#7850220) Homepage Journal
    Yeah, she worked for the guy who runs nebraska coeds [nebraskacoeds.com] for a while.

    And yes, I wonder if she would come to the party I'm going to if I ask really nice :)

  • by autocracy (192714) <slashdot2007 AT storyinmemo DOT com> on Wednesday December 31, 2003 @09:14PM (#7850234) Homepage
    And yet, in the state of Maine, only men can now be charged with indecent exposure in public. Why? Well, a judge ruled in a case there that the law read "display of genitalia," and since the girl(s?) charged have the female characteristic of internal genitalia... well, they can run around in birthday suits. I don't know how well that judgement will hold up in future cases, but it's an interesting tidbit.
  • 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 [state.va.us].

    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]

    9.16.230 Public Nudity; Unlawful.

    (a) 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.

    (b) 'Nudity' means the showing of the human male or female genitals or pubic area with less than a fully opaque covering, the showing of the female breast with less than a fully opaque covering on any part of the areola and nipple, or the showing of covered male genitals in a discernibly turgid state.

    (c) This section shall not apply to:
    (1) Any theater, concert hall, art center, museum, or similar establishment which is primarily devoted to the arts or theatrical performances and in which any of the circumstances contained in this section were permitted or allowed as part of such art exhibit or performance;
    (2) Any dressing/changing room or restroom facility open to the public;
    (3) Any person under twelve years of age; or
    (4) Mothers who are breast feeding.

    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.

  • by pudge (3605) * <slashdot@@@pudge...net> on Wednesday December 31, 2003 @11:42PM (#7850860) Homepage Journal
    Laws prohibiting public nudity are frequently ruled unconstitutional

    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. :-) 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.

    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.
  • by KarmaOverDogma (681451) on Wednesday December 31, 2003 @11:58PM (#7850923) Homepage Journal
    the URL to this travesty of Justice:
    http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/9538 8_crash13. shtml
  • by drdink (77) * <smkelly+slashdot@zombie.org> on Thursday January 01, 2004 @02:17AM (#7851340) Homepage
    She plugged her site on Z92's (92.3 FM, Omaha) morning show, Todd 'n' Tyler [z92.com]. It is the #1 rated morning show in Omaha, if not Nebraska, radio. Site appears to be down now though.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 01, 2004 @03:31AM (#7851524)
    AAH! so much referrer-whoring! Feel free to remove all that id=pudcat crap from the URLs before visiting, people...
  • by jbordall (620303) on Thursday January 01, 2004 @08:49AM (#7852152) Journal
    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.)

I am not now, nor have I ever been, a member of the demigodic party. -- Dennis Ritchie

Working...