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This discussion has been archived.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:
  • Not too strange... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by jea6 (117959) on Wednesday December 31, 2003 @06:22PM (#7848972)
    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.
  • by politicalman (692933) on Wednesday December 31, 2003 @06:23PM (#7848980)
    HHHHmmmmm.....
  • by PReDiToR (687141) on Wednesday December 31, 2003 @06:29PM (#7849027) Homepage Journal
    I thought that under certain articles of the constitution you weren't allowed to incriminate yourself?

    Maybe this could be a test case for personal webspace falling under that canopy?
  • by Total_Wimp (564548) on Wednesday December 31, 2003 @06:31PM (#7849036)
    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
  • by Overly Critical Guy (663429) on Wednesday December 31, 2003 @06:31PM (#7849037)
    She took pictures, remember?

    Smokinggun.com even has them. It shows her publicly nude, including on a motorcycle right by a baseball field.
  • by AKnightCowboy (608632) on Wednesday December 31, 2003 @06:38PM (#7849096)
    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.

    Bah, this was on Fark a couple of days ago already. She's apparently loosely associated with Nebraska Coeds [nebraskacoeds.com] and they have much better pictures.

  • Ridiculous penalties (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Giro d'Italia (124843) on Wednesday December 31, 2003 @06:42PM (#7849137)
    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.
  • Back in College... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by DaHat (247651) on Wednesday December 31, 2003 @06:45PM (#7849165) Homepage
    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.
  • Life in Nebraska. (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 31, 2003 @06:47PM (#7849177)
    I've gone to school in Lincoln (The University) and to other schools in northeast Nebraska - the #1 complaint among students (that I can recall) is that the police are 'nazis'.

    In nebraska, you get harassed for walking the streets at night. If you drink and you're under 21, you can expect a $250 ticket and a night in jail. If you flash your goods at a bar, except to be arrested if there are any cops in the place (there frequently are to check for underage drinkers and uphold the 'peace)

    I finally moved out of Nebraska because they seem to be living in the 1950's.

    (Yes, I know underage drinking is illegal, but Nebraskans (and their economy) should be thankful that anyone would go to school in that god-forsaken state)
  • by Sensitive Claude (709959) on Wednesday December 31, 2003 @06:52PM (#7849227) Homepage Journal
    While in general you have a point about slashdotting comments going up to 5, she seems to be enjoying the attention. At least yesterday she was enjoying it. Here's her logs on her front page regarding this:

    12/30/2003 - I can't believe the amount of news coverage I'm getting out of all this! It's CRAZY! ;-) I'm on the Front Page of CNN.com right now... I'm also on the front cover of the local News Paper!.... AND USA TODAY also has the story....


    12/29/2003 - I can't believe it, I WON Gallery Magazine's Girl Next Door 2004!!! ... I'm on the FRONT COVER of the January Issue! Click here to see the cover! If you are here in Lincoln... Go buy your copy of the Magazine at Priscilla's on "O" Street!... Or, if you want a signed copy, click on the on-line store on the left, or click here and order one! You can have anything written on it that you want!

    12/29/2003 - Had a little run-in with the Lincoln Police Department today... It made the Associated Press Wire though... so it's not all bad... Here's the link to the article... MelissaLincoln in the news... I really don't know what I'm going to do about all of this... But I am going to fight it... If you would like to donate a few dollars to my legal defense fund... please either click the button below or send cash / check / or money order to:

    Melissa Lincoln ; PO BOX 82221 ; Lincoln, NE 68501
  • by mariox19 (632969) on Wednesday December 31, 2003 @07:01PM (#7849306)
    <tongue-in-cheek>
    1. Take a picture of an empty booth in a bar or other public place where anti-nudity laws exist
    2. Take a nude picture of yourself
    3. Using Photoshop, doctor up a picture of nude you sitting in the booth
    4. Important: Save all original photos and intermediate steps to disk
    5. Publish it on the Internet
    6. Publicize its existence, keeping quiet about Photoshop
    7. Wait for the cops

    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>
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 31, 2003 @07:07PM (#7849353)
    well, pudge, you must not pay attention to the supreme court.

    Virtual Reality kiddie porn = 1st amendment right

    Running a TV ad near an election = not 1st amendment right

  • I'll be her lawyer. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Junior J. Junior III (192702) on Wednesday December 31, 2003 @07:07PM (#7849356) Homepage
    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?
  • by tokengeekgrrl (105602) on Wednesday December 31, 2003 @07:31PM (#7849526)
    keep reading the logs:

    12/19/2003 - Z92 (92.3FM) held their annual "Sexy Santa" contest this morning... and I was there represent'n! I can't believe I won the $1,000 Grand Prize, paid by "Doctor John's Erotic Gift's"....

    I have to laugh at all the suckers (or possibly slashdotters) I am sure have sent her money for her "legal defense fund" - if you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you.

    - tokengeekgrrl
  • No, No, No! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by macemoneta (154740) on Wednesday December 31, 2003 @07:34PM (#7849550) Homepage
    She's a web designer, right? It's just a Photoshop/Gimp job! Since no one reported this (sarcasm) heinous crime (/sarcasm), it obviously never really occurred. I remember hearing that digitally processed photographs aren't evidence, unless someone can testify to the authenticity.
  • Re:shit traffic (Score:3, Interesting)

    by oaf357 (661305) on Wednesday December 31, 2003 @07:45PM (#7849624) Homepage Journal
    Ah but there are always a few good apples in a bad harvest. Lots of people surfing /. have money. Plus, links from any web site helps your positioning in search engines, especially slashdot.
  • by Kent Recal (714863) on Wednesday December 31, 2003 @08:03PM (#7849748)
    I wonder what all those chicks end up doing when they become too old and nobody wants so see their tits anymore.

  • by brassman (112558) on Wednesday December 31, 2003 @08:14PM (#7849830) Homepage
    "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."

  • by shfted! (600189) <shiftedMPAA@RIAAshifted.ca minus evil> on Wednesday December 31, 2003 @08:29PM (#7849915) Journal
    Like Houston, BC's Sharon Smith [sxxxy.org] (NOT SAFE FOR WORK).
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 31, 2003 @09:45PM (#7850389)
    Actually, yeah, the last thing a porn site wants is poor quality traffic that won't convert into dollars.

    I'd be surprised if paying customers are as hard to find as those who reply to email spam. The problem with porn is there's so much out there. All you gotta do is surf the preview areas, take care of your 'need', and be done with it. No money, heh.
  • sanitation. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by twitter (104583) on Wednesday December 31, 2003 @10:14PM (#7850481) Homepage Journal
    Public sanitation is hard enough without people leaving pubes, ass sweat and other drippings in public places. If everyone trotted around nude, places would look much like public restrooms do. They might even look worse because there's not enough people to clean up the much larger area outside the bathroom. People don't just look bad, they smell bad and have diseases. Can you hear me? I'm going to be honest with you. I hate this place, this zoo, this prison, this reality, whatever you want to call it where people are naked. I can't stand it any longer. It's the smell. If there is such a thing. I feel.. saturated by it. I can taste your stink. And every time I do I feel I have somehow been infected by it, it's repulsive. I must get out of here.

  • by js7a (579872) * <james@boviSTRAWk.org minus berry> on Wednesday December 31, 2003 @10:20PM (#7850503) Homepage Journal
    What, exactly, in the constitution do you find to prevent a state from passing laws against public nudity?

    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 [state.va.us]. That turned on, among other things, selective enforcement vis-a-vis nursing mothers. The details of the law are what make the real difference.

  • by erroneus (253617) on Wednesday December 31, 2003 @11:17PM (#7850761) Homepage
    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.
  • by ReadParse (38517) <john.funnycow@com> on Thursday January 01, 2004 @12:30AM (#7851018) Homepage
    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
  • by gantrep (627089) on Thursday January 01, 2004 @02:35AM (#7851383)
    I think the real issue is that the owner of Marz bar doesn't want to lose his license [journalstar.com] to serve liquor, not nebraskans being prude. The citation wasn't for the images; the citation was for public nudity as per section 9.16.230. [lincoln.ne.us] 9.16. 240e appears to make it illegal for business owners to knowingly allow "any person," not just employees, to engage in sexual acts, defined in section c at their business, because if this were allowed, it could create kind of a legal loophole and allow prostitution-like activities to go on. If owner Jerry Luth were to allow these kinds of activities at his establishment, he could get in some serious trouble.

    The issue isn't the nudity, it's the location of the nudity. I agree with your attitude towards sex and the human body, but the place for it is in private, not at baseball fields, not in bars. Drunk people + naked people is kind of a recipe for disaster. Even if you do feel it's ok to mix sex and business, you still have to agree that it's any business owner's right to decide whether or not he or she wants to run that kind of a business. Melissa's pictures were taken without the owner's consent, and therefore, she is not only in the legal wrong, but also the ethical.

    And really, there actually isn't much better for Nebraska police to do. Check out the police blotter for lincoln [journalstar.com]. Crime is not that high here, and this is relatively important to Jerry Luth anyway, as it could mean the loss of his livelihood.
  • by Pseudonym (62607) on Thursday January 01, 2004 @08:05PM (#7855889)
    Hey. You know what? The other stuff in a public bar is more dangerous. 2nd-hand cigarette smoke and drunk driving is going to kill WAY more people than naked boobs.

    Little known fact: Fiona Johnson, who played "the woman in the red dress" in The Matrix, caused a traffic accident during filming. A passing driver was distracted by her and hit a pole.

    So while I agree with you that chemicals are more dangerous than naked boobs, don't underestimate how dangerous boobs can be.

Badges? We don't need no stinking badges.

Working...