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This discussion has been archived.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 peeping_Thomist (66678) * on Wednesday December 31, 2003 @06:20PM (#7848949)
    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.
  • by shuz (706678) on Wednesday December 31, 2003 @06:21PM (#7848967) Homepage Journal
    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.
  • by dukerobillard (582741) on Wednesday December 31, 2003 @06:22PM (#7848969)
    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?
  • Non-News. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by big_groo (237634) <groovisNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Wednesday December 31, 2003 @06:22PM (#7848971) Homepage
    The owner of the bar, Jerry Luth, told Omaha television station KETV he is extremely upset by the pictures and did not give Harrington permission to shoot the pictures at the bar.

    What's the problem here? Get permission next time. If she did have permission, we wouldn't be posting here, would we?

  • DUH. (Score:0, Insightful)

    by ActionPlant (721843) on Wednesday December 31, 2003 @06:23PM (#7848977) Homepage
    If she didn't get caught at the time, why is she being ticketed now? How can they prove she was really there? Photoshop can do some amazing things these days.

    Stupid stupid stupid.

    Damon,
  • by FortKnox (169099) on Wednesday December 31, 2003 @06:24PM (#7848986) Homepage Journal
    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.
  • Keep in mind.... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by malibucreek (253318) on Wednesday December 31, 2003 @06:24PM (#7848992) Homepage
    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.
  • fakes? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by mod_parent_down (692943) on Wednesday December 31, 2003 @06:25PM (#7848997)
    Considering today's technology, photographs should never be admissable as evidence unless the source can verified and possibility of tampering is eliminated...

    They're easier to fake than lie detectors.

  • by peeping_Thomist (66678) * on Wednesday December 31, 2003 @06:33PM (#7849051)
    I thought that under certain articles of the constitution you weren't allowed to incriminate yourself?

    You're not required to incriminate yourself. They couldn't have forced her to post those photos. But she did, and she's busted.

    Prediction: she'll either move to a place where it's legal, or she'll stop posting incriminating photos.
  • by Philosinfinity (726949) on Wednesday December 31, 2003 @06:38PM (#7849086)
    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.
  • Umm guys (Score:4, Insightful)

    by cybermace5 (446439) <g.ryan@macetech.com> on Wednesday December 31, 2003 @06:41PM (#7849121) Homepage Journal
    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."
  • She's real torn up (Score:3, Insightful)

    by LittleLebowskiUrbanA (619114) on Wednesday December 31, 2003 @06:42PM (#7849131) Homepage Journal
    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 :)
  • Re:fakes? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by pudge (3605) * <`slashdot' `at' `pudge.net'> on Wednesday December 31, 2003 @06:44PM (#7849149) Homepage Journal
    Considering today's technology, photographs should never be admissable as evidence unless the source can verified and possibility of tampering is eliminated...

    Since the photo came from her, and it is her web site that admits they were taken in the bar in question ... this really isn't an issue, in this case. Really.
  • by Total_Wimp (564548) on Wednesday December 31, 2003 @06:45PM (#7849158)
    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
  • Re:DUH. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Kenja (541830) on Wednesday December 31, 2003 @06:46PM (#7849173)
    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.
  • by fastidious edward (728351) on Wednesday December 31, 2003 @06:52PM (#7849226)
    From the site:

    Hi, I'm Melissa, as you've probably already guessed ;-)... I'm 21 years old, even though most people think I'm younger...

    Funny, I would date her more around 27/28 years old. Guess I'm not most people. Besides, she looks like a slut.
  • 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 [geocities.com], 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.
  • by spicedhamhawg (718466) <jbyrne@texaport.org> on Wednesday December 31, 2003 @06:53PM (#7849232)
    Actually, it is clear. The law is against public nudity, and a nude photo taken in her home would not be public nudity. A nude photo taken in her front yard (at least if it didn't have a fence through which no one could see her) would be.

    What's so backward about Lincoln's law? I'm not aware of anywhere in the United States where public nudity is legal, with the exception of nudist colonies and nude beaches. In the case of nude beaches, it's often not that they are legal, but that there is just no enforcement. My home town, San Diego, has a nude beach (Black's Beach), not by statute, but by remoteness (you have to go down high cliffs to get there, or walk in from the north or south) and tacit understanding that no one will be busted for public nudity there.

    Walk across, say, your university campus naked and you will likely be busted.

    She's not the only person to put photos of herself nude in a public place on her website, several other "net models" do/have done the same, but AFAIK she's the first one to be busted for it.
  • by Artifakt (700173) on Wednesday December 31, 2003 @06:54PM (#7849239)
    Law enforcement, in the line of duty, is not restricted by that government policy. There is a specific exemption written right into the code to cover such cases. Even posting a disclaimer on a site that says clicking on the "I Accept" button means you have declared you are not Law enforcement doesn't have any legal validity at all.
  • by Kris_J (10111) * on Wednesday December 31, 2003 @07:04PM (#7849328) Journal
    I've noticed Fark influence lately on a number of Slashdot stories and mostly it's not a good influence. I think the editors should try to avoid sinking to the lowest common denominator because there's a lot of people interested in more high-brow stuff that just leave quietly when the signal to noise ratio begins to suck.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 31, 2003 @07:08PM (#7849360)
    "Besides, she looks like a slut."
    • ...and the problem is what?

  • by pudge (3605) * <`slashdot' `at' `pudge.net'> on Wednesday December 31, 2003 @07:09PM (#7849372) Homepage Journal
    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.
  • by benjamindees (441808) on Wednesday December 31, 2003 @07:11PM (#7849384) Homepage
    And naked pictures on the internet victimize *no one*. Since no one wants to say that they saw her *in person* and were victimized by it, no crime has been committed.

    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.

  • by MadAnthony02 (626886) on Wednesday December 31, 2003 @07:30PM (#7849513) Homepage

    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.

  • by enjo13 (444114) on Wednesday December 31, 2003 @07:32PM (#7849531) Homepage
    Those are the MAXIMUM penalties. Maximums, as a general rule, are quite stiff. They generally involve multiple offenses and come only after multiple convictions.

    She won't be facing anything remotely CLOSE to those penalties. Probably something in the range of a few hundred dollars and short unsupervised probation. If she continues to violate the law, the penalties will increase.

    Before you post some apparently 'insightful' gibberish about how "this country is screwed up beyond help", at least take the time to understand the legal system that it uses.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 31, 2003 @07:47PM (#7849642)
    No. Of course not. My child would be scarred for life. Just like you were when you sneaked a peek at Playboy as a kid.

    I can't imagine the horror of seeing a beautiful woman nude. Just the thought of it has me frightened.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 31, 2003 @07:51PM (#7849668)
    "I finally moved out of Nebraska because they seem to be living in the 1950's."

    In the 1950's, it was easier to get sex than it is today, the drinking age, where it existed, was not enforced with the vigor of today (and was only 18, anyway), and things like nudism were actually trendy and common in much of the USA.

    I'm afraid Nebraska is living in the 21st century. There was much more liberty in the 1950's.
  • by benjamindees (441808) on Wednesday December 31, 2003 @07:51PM (#7849675) Homepage
    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.
  • by The Creator (4611) on Wednesday December 31, 2003 @07:56PM (#7849701) Homepage Journal
    Well i don't want to read your stupid posts, but is that a reason to ban freedom of speach?

  • Re:shit traffic (Score:5, Insightful)

    by I Be Hatin' (718758) on Wednesday December 31, 2003 @08:01PM (#7849739) Journal
    The only thing is that Slashdot is shit traffic. It's some of the worst I've ever seen... Some of us were even thinking of banning anyone with a /. referrer since it's just a waste of bandwidth.

    Then why do you have a link to your pr0n site in your sig, numbnuts?

  • by benjamindees (441808) on Wednesday December 31, 2003 @08:10PM (#7849800) Homepage
    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.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 31, 2003 @08:11PM (#7849807)
    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'.
  • by Stonent1 (594886) <stonent AT stone ... intclark DOT net> on Wednesday December 31, 2003 @08:23PM (#7849884) Journal
    A surgeon made her busty.

    No..

    I'm 5'7" tall, 118 lbs, my breasts are 34c's... and of course all natural!
  • by suwain_2 (260792) on Wednesday December 31, 2003 @08:25PM (#7849897) Journal
    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.
  • by benjamindees (441808) on Wednesday December 31, 2003 @08:40PM (#7849982) Homepage
    In this case, the "victim" would be anyone who viewed the site that didn't want to.

    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.

  • by macdaddy357 (582412) <macdaddy357@hotmail.com> on Wednesday December 31, 2003 @08:54PM (#7850086)
    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.
  • by mikeg22 (601691) on Wednesday December 31, 2003 @09:02PM (#7850140)
    The idea is that she wasn't in the public eye when she took her clothes off. Nobody saw her, so it wasn't public nudity.
  • Re:Umm guys (Score:2, Insightful)

    by mikeg22 (601691) on Wednesday December 31, 2003 @09:09PM (#7850194)
    There are many, many people that you absolutely do NOT want to see naked.

    Yeah, and there's a guy down my street with a really annoying voice who I would prefer not to hear. Does that mean we should make a law outlawing him from talking? Because thats exactly what we have done with the act of not wearing clothes.

    Just because you don't like something doesn't mean there should be a law against it. Seeing someone without their clothes does not violate your rights, and should not be illegal.
  • by KC7GR (473279) on Wednesday December 31, 2003 @09:31PM (#7850328) Homepage Journal
    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?

  • by TClevenger (252206) on Wednesday December 31, 2003 @09:35PM (#7850345)
    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.
  • by be-fan (61476) on Wednesday December 31, 2003 @09:50PM (#7850405)
    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...
  • by Kjella (173770) on Thursday January 01, 2004 @12:55AM (#7851106) Homepage
    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
  • that is *so* sad (Score:3, Insightful)

    by puzzled (12525) on Thursday January 01, 2004 @01:49AM (#7851265) Journal
    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.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 01, 2004 @09:29AM (#7852251)
    1) Public nudity rarely gets anyone in trouble. Especially women. There are places all over the US where men go to pay women to be naked in public for them. This was inside a bar, so I have to think that any possible witnesses were over 18. Point in her favor.

    2) Using the bar as a backdrop. That's the point. The ticket is based on a photo that is not reliable evidence of anything. Anyone who thinks every photo they see on the internet is "real" is in for a sad awakening. The bar could be a similar looking bar in a place where nudity is allowed. The nudity could have been grafted onto pictures of otherwise legal proceedings.

    3) Why is this on Slashdot? I don't know. Probably for the same reason it got up on CNN, because it's bizarre-- and the twist is that it involves a web site, something that nerds tend to care about. You have to think the police in this case are going to have a hard time making their case because the only evidence they have is her own photo of the event. Without complaining witnesses I don't see how they have a case on such flimsy evidence.

    4) This case is important, whether we recognize it or not, because the implications are staggering. In an age where kids are being expelled from school for the content of their private web sites and now criminal citations are being issued on the basis of jpeg files? Even if these files represent a document of an actual event (i.e. some illegal public nudity), do they really constitute an evidentiary chain that establishes her guilt beyond a reasonable doubt? I suppose the state is willing to call expert witnesses in digital alteration and photographic compression techniques to argue that there was no apparent alteration of the image at any point? Do you realize the cost of this entire prosecution could easily be more than any "harm" caused by the defendant?

    5) In many parts of the civilized world (and many uncivilized parts as well), women can be naked in public and not have to worry about getting a ticket. The risk of serving jail time for going about in the state in which one is born, in which many people sleep, and in which 99% of us bathe... is ludicrous. This is typical American prudery at its worst. Not one single person was caused any harm or was in danger of being caused harm by her actions. She has a basic human right to wear or not wear clothes at her own discretion. A right which ought to be protected as self-expression under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and the fascist state of Nebraska is depriving her of that right. Furthermore, the only evidence they have of her doing so is a digital image. Personally I think the standard for criminal conviction needs to be higher than that, especially in cases where no demonstrable harm to anyone can be displayed.
  • by Creep73 (647258) on Thursday January 01, 2004 @01:22PM (#7853166) Journal
    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!

No skis take rocks like rental skis!

Working...