Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Woman Ticketed For Nude Pics On Internet

timothy posted more than 10 years ago | from the use-undisclosed-location dept.

It's funny.  Laugh. 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.

cancel ×

768 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

"The article does not link to Harrington's website (4, Informative)

r_glen (679664) | more than 10 years ago | (#7848945)

Darn [melissalincoln.com] . (NOT SAFE FOR WORK!)

:)

Re:"The article does not link to Harrington's webs (5, Insightful)

FortKnox (169099) | more than 10 years ago | (#7848986)

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.

Re:"The article does not link to Harrington's webs (5, Funny)

NetJunkie (56134) | more than 10 years ago | (#7848998)

Yeah, the last thing a porn site wants is traffic. :)

God made her hot. (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7849071)

A surgeon made her busty.
The cops made her famous.
And now geeks will make her rich.

It's the new American dream.

Re:"The article does not link to Harrington's webs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7849045)

It's still quite responsive. No visible /. effect, and I'm sure she's crushed she's got all this traffic. ;)

Re:"The article does not link to Harrington's webs (2, Interesting)

AKnightCowboy (608632) | more than 10 years ago | (#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.

Re:"The article does not link to Harrington's webs (0)

TheCleo (735991) | more than 10 years ago | (#7849139)

Porn sites know how to handle traffic.

Re:"The article does not link to Harrington's webs (1)

stangbat (690193) | more than 10 years ago | (#7848988)

As if she wasn't already an attention whore. I'm sure she is happy as can be with this new found fame. The AP. Fark yesterday. Slashdot today.

Re:"The article does not link to Harrington's webs (5, Funny)

eschasi (252157) | more than 10 years ago | (#7849018)

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?

Re:"The article does not link to Harrington's webs (5, Funny)

whereiswaldo (459052) | more than 10 years ago | (#7849035)


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?

Uh, she WAS caught in the act (3, Interesting)

Overly Critical Guy (663429) | more than 10 years ago | (#7849037)

She took pictures, remember?

Smokinggun.com even has them. It shows her publicly nude, including on a motorcycle right by a baseball field.

Re:"The article does not link to Harrington's webs (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7849041)

Ug, those transgenders are a real turn-off!

Porn bimbos vs. geek grrrls! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7849143)

A typical porn-bimbo.

A real turn-off.

Give me a hot geek grrrl instead!

Where's the "Boobies" icon? (5, Funny)

poopie (35416) | more than 10 years ago | (#7849147)

... 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?

A million Goatse.cx Links (-1, Offtopic)

WordODD (706788) | more than 10 years ago | (#7848947)

And none of to the page in question.

Where can I enlist in the Russian army? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7849099)

I want to become a Spetzsaz.

She's been posting EVIDENCE, for heaven's sake! (4, Insightful)

peeping_Thomist (66678) | more than 10 years ago | (#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.

Re:She's been posting EVIDENCE, for heaven's sake! (0, Interesting)

PReDiToR (687141) | more than 10 years ago | (#7849027)

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?

Re:She's been posting EVIDENCE, for heaven's sake! (5, Informative)

exhilaration (587191) | more than 10 years ago | (#7849048)

No, you can't be COMPELLED to incriminate yourself, but you're more than welcome to do it.

Re:She's been posting EVIDENCE, for heaven's sake! (3, Insightful)

peeping_Thomist (66678) | more than 10 years ago | (#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.

Re:She's been posting EVIDENCE, for heaven's sake! (1)

HiThere (15173) | more than 10 years ago | (#7849061)

It is forbidden that you be coerced into incriminating yourself. If you choose to do it of your own free will, that's another matter altogether.

OTOH, I'm not sure that I really consider this good evidence. Gimp et al. can do so many surprising things with photos. And I know of no law saying that you can't lie about sex related matters. (Well, certain specific matters, yeah. Breach of promise, e.g., but nothing that would cover this.)

Re:She's been posting EVIDENCE, for heaven's sake! (1)

EvanED (569694) | more than 10 years ago | (#7849077)

No... you're allowed to *not* incriminate yourself. There's a big difference.

I agree this is a no brainer; it's no difference than using security camera shots in a trial, or indeed any evidence left behind.

If I make a public comment that I did something, it can be used against me. There's some issue with not being informed of Miranda rights or having those rights not honored, but in general that's the case. If I talk to a newspaper reporter and say that I committed some crime, the police can come get me on that evidence. It may not be enough to convict because I could say I'm lying, but it'd probably go a long way.

Re:She's been posting EVIDENCE, for heaven's sake! (1)

jdhutchins (559010) | more than 10 years ago | (#7849129)

The constitution says that you can't be forced to incriminate yourself. This basically just means that you can't SAY anything that could be used against you (unless you want to)

It'd be like if you got busted for carrying drugs. If you have a sign on your back, plainly visible, saying "I've got drugs", that's not incriminating yourself. If the police search you and find drugs, it's not self-incrimination. For it to be self-incrimination, the police would have to question you without giving you your miranda rights.

Re:She's been posting EVIDENCE, for heaven's sake! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7849055)

What about testifying against herself?

Re:She's been posting EVIDENCE, for heaven's sake! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7849056)

It seems to me that there is a fundamental difference between evidence that indicates guilt in a crime that the police are investigating and evidence that causes the police to open an investigation.

If the police were actively searching for the public menace who ludely exposed herself in a public bar and came across these pictures, then I'd have no problem with them being used as evidence. But if the police only learned about the crime from the pictures, it seems wrong to use them against her.

Re:She's been posting EVIDENCE, for heaven's sake! (1)

peeping_Thomist (66678) | more than 10 years ago | (#7849089)

If the police were actively searching for the public menace who ludely exposed herself in a public bar and came across these pictures, then I'd have no problem with them being used as evidence. But if the police only learned about the crime from the pictures, it seems wrong to use them against her.

So if I embezzled a lot of money, and no one yet knew about it, I could post information about my crime without that information being used against me? R-i-i-g-h-t.

Speaking of the evidence... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7849076)

Here [melissalincoln.com] are the pictures in question.

THIS LINK LEADS TO NEKKID PICTURES... NOT SAFE FOR WORK... WARNING: PRON...

You were warned, if you don't like it, don't click.

Re:She's been posting EVIDENCE, for heaven's sake! (1)

AKnightCowboy (608632) | more than 10 years ago | (#7849120)

She's doing something that's illegal where she lives, and she's posting to the Internet photos of herself doing it.

Yes, heaven forbid we allow women to go around nekkid in public places! What would the Lord say when we stand before him on Judgement Day? Lighten up people. If some chick wants to show her breasts at a bar and the owner doesn't have a problem with it then don't complain. Nobody forced them to watch her.

Re:She's been posting EVIDENCE, for heaven's sake! (1)

bellings (137948) | more than 10 years ago | (#7849135)

If some chick wants to show her breasts at a bar and the owner doesn't have a problem with it then don't complain. Nobody forced them to watch her.

Actually, it was the bar owner who complained.

I was (5, Funny)

bigjocker (113512) | more than 10 years ago | (#7848951)

Ticketed just for looking at said pictures ...

Of course, the ticket was from my wife, not the police

here's the link to her site... (-1, Redundant)

Numeric (22250) | more than 10 years ago | (#7848953)

http://www.melissalincoln.com/ [melissalincoln.com]

should fellow slashdotters help her legal fund by signing up for month subscription?

Re:here's the link to her site... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7849022)

Well... if one slashdotter did that, and wanted to help out another slashdotter... they could donate a password. :D

Wow.. (-1)

Shky (703024) | more than 10 years ago | (#7848959)

Melissa J. Harrington. [google.com]

I'm hot already.

Camera evidense for crimes commited is common (2, Insightful)

shuz (706678) | more than 10 years ago | (#7848967)

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.

Re:Camera evidense for crimes commited is common (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7849033)

the state has cameras inside the restaurant in question?

Re:Camera evidense for crimes commited is common (1)

EvanED (569694) | more than 10 years ago | (#7849093)

The state doesn't have cameras inside stop and go stores, banks, restraunts, etc. either.

Re:Camera evidense for crimes commited is common (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7849057)

Laws like this are to "protect" the public from seeing something that they don't want to see. Not even the bar owner knew that it had happened so obviously there had been no complaints. Quite different from theft or moving violations. If anything, she should be given a warning.

Re:Camera evidense for crimes commited is common (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7849119)

Yeah I'm so glad they're dutifully searching all the porn sites to catch any hot women who might have been nude in public.

My thoughts are as follows:
1) Clearly there is nothing better they could be doing with their time.
2) This scourge of nubile toned and tanned naked women wandering around naked must be stopped.

It's just like the speeding ticket cameras, yeah? (3, Insightful)

dukerobillard (582741) | more than 10 years ago | (#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?

Being from Lincoln (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7848970)

And hearing nothing but this story on the radio and television yesterday, I feel obligated to post the link

http://www.melissalincoln.com/

Non clickable for your viewing pleasure (and so you realize that it is a porn site). Also worth mention, I've known Jim for some time, and this isn't the first time one of his site has gotten in trouble like this.

Non-News. (2, Insightful)

big_groo (237634) | more than 10 years ago | (#7848971)

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?

Re:Non-News. (1)

Philosinfinity (726949) | more than 10 years ago | (#7849025)

If she did have permission, we wouldn't be posting here, would we?
Yes we would. You see the law in question involves nudity in public locations. Even if the owner had given permission to take the nude pictures, it would not deviate from the fact that, in Lincoln Nebraska, that bar is considered a public place and thus the act of being nude in that place is against the law.

Re:Non-News. (2, Funny)

big_groo (237634) | more than 10 years ago | (#7849103)

Yes, and in Temple, Texas, it is punishable by hanging to steal cattle [dumblaws.com] - on the spot no less.

The only reason she was charged was because the bar owner objected.

Re:Non-News. (1)

pudge (3605) | more than 10 years ago | (#7849115)

The only reason she was charged was because the bar owner objected.

Anyone could have objected; it didn't need to be the bar owner, or anyone affiliated with the bar. Maybe someone else would have complained, maybe not, but it has no bearing on the legality, or enforcement.

Re:Non-News. (1)

Philosinfinity (726949) | more than 10 years ago | (#7849148)

Yes, and in Temple, Texas, it is punishable by hanging to steal cattle - on the spot no less.
And your point is...? Since my argument was not that the law was a good one, but rather that it is not the bar owner's obection that caused her to be ticketed, I fail to see what point you have with this.
The only reason she was charged was because the bar owner objected.
Really? Why didn't you say so in the first place? I'll just take your word for it then. No wait, I think I'll evaluate the arguments. There's my argument which shows exactly why the bar owner's objection is not necessary for prosecution, and then there is your bold unsupported statement that it is so because it is so. Well, let's see which one isn't circular...

Not too strange... (3, Interesting)

jea6 (117959) | more than 10 years ago | (#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.

Re:Not too strange... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7849020)

Are you sure? The authorities were not in posession of the camera. Couldn't the pics just be doctored / enhanced? Doesn't there have to be an uninterrupted chain of posession of the evidence, to prove that it wasn't corrupted / tampered? I suspect a decent a attorney could slam dunk this one.

Re:Not too strange... (1)

EvanED (569694) | more than 10 years ago | (#7849156)

"The authorities were not in posession of the camera."

The authorities are not in possession of cameras that are used in bank robberies, convienience store robberies, etc. either. Yet if there's a clear picture those are sometimes enough to pretty much ensure a conviction.

"Couldn't the pics just be doctored / enhanced? Doesn't there have to be an uninterrupted chain of posession of the evidence, to prove that it wasn't corrupted / tampered?"

If I were the prosecutor for this trial I'd have you try to demonstrate your Photoshop abilities if you went that route. Say "if the shots were doctored, who doctored them?" Then get that person to come in and testify that they doctored those photos and demonstrate a similar task. Good people can do amazing things with Photoshop, but it still often can be distinguished from the real thing, and my aim would be to show that the photos were probably not doctored.

"I suspect a decent a attorney could slam dunk this one."

Not if the prosecutor was a decent attorney. I'm not saying it'd be a sure conviction, but it certainly wouldn't be a slam dunk.

Re:Not too strange... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7849058)

So appearing nude in public is a 'stupid' crime? I'd like to see your definition of an intelligent one.

Re:Not too strange... (4, Funny)

pudge (3605) | more than 10 years ago | (#7849130)

You honestly think a law prohibiting public nudity sounds unconstitutional? How many Froot Loops box tops did you collect to get your law degree?

She's Probably Happy (5, Funny)

blunte (183182) | more than 10 years ago | (#7848975)

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.

Re:She's Probably Happy (1)

Carnildo (712617) | more than 10 years ago | (#7849031)

Now if she was really cool she'd get someone to take some naughty shots of her in the police station.

But only after making sure there weren't any identifiable objects in the background -- or she'd get busted again!

DUH. (0, Insightful)

ActionPlant (721843) | more than 10 years ago | (#7848977)

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,

Re:DUH. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7849028)

I can't see this being a successful defense for murders though...

According to your logic... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7849060)

...if I post a picture of me killing your parents, nothing should be done, after all, I wasn't caught at the time. After all, Photoshop can do some amazing things these days. Deal?

Re:According to your logic... (1)

ActionPlant (721843) | more than 10 years ago | (#7849140)

Not exactly. Pictures of yourself in a public establishment showing your bare top (which is only illegal because of laws based on gross and outdated cultural taboo) are quite a bit different than staged murder of persons not in agreement to appear in your picture. Your analogy was more than a little rediculous.

When I am President...Howard Dean (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7848978)

Naked girls on the intarweb will be a federal crime.
I have to serve my feminist constituency after all.
Pornography exploits women!

Ahem, how did they find them? (5, Interesting)

politicalman (692933) | more than 10 years ago | (#7848980)

HHHHmmmmm.....

Best paragraph (5, Funny)

larry2k (592744) | more than 10 years ago | (#7848984)

From the note: "They're not going to stop me from doing what I'm doing. I enjoy what I do and they really don't have any grounds now"

That's what i call "The Pr()n spirit"

Where is Nebraska? (4, Funny)

The Creator (4611) | more than 10 years ago | (#7848985)

In Iran?

Keep in mind.... (2, Insightful)

malibucreek (253318) | more than 10 years ago | (#7848992)

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? (4, Insightful)

mod_parent_down (692943) | more than 10 years ago | (#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.

Re:fakes? (4, Funny)

pclminion (145572) | more than 10 years ago | (#7849062)

Considering today's technology, photographs should never be admissable as evidence unless the source can verified and possibility of tampering is eliminated...

Ah yes, I see, the Lincoln City Council has taken upon itself to surreptitiously photograph its citizens, then edit the photographs to make them appear as if they are violating ordinances in order to collect citation income from them.

Tell me, do you have the aluminum foil hat, or did you get the spiffy titanium one?

Re:fakes? (1)

Parsa (525963) | more than 10 years ago | (#7849125)

I don't think this is what the OP was trying to get across.

Photoshop can do some great things...Suppose there's a funny picture someone just took of you and your friend goofing off...your friend is on the ground and you're standing over him. Someone takes the picture and adds blood and you holding a chainsaw...

That would be easy enough to disprove though when you took police to your friends house and he's in his recliner watching Survivor though.

But the point is digital photography manipulation is something courts will have to start taking into account.

J

Re:fakes? (2, Insightful)

pudge (3605) | more than 10 years ago | (#7849149)

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.

Smoking gun (5, Informative)

Rkane (465411) | more than 10 years ago | (#7848999)

The smoking gun [thesmokinggun.com] also has an article [thesmokinggun.com] on this, and shows the offending pictures (blurred, so they are work safe).

Best thing that could have happened... (1)

Philosinfinity (726949) | more than 10 years ago | (#7849000)

Who says getting a ticket is a bad thing? Now we have some publicity for this woman. Even though her website was not listed in the article, I'm sure subsequent ones will. Further, this is a great case that could easily fall under the same lines of argumentation that the cameras on stop lights have.

The Register also have a story on this (0)

ThePlasticSurgeon (730373) | more than 10 years ago | (#7849007)

Here is a link to another story about it [theregister.co.uk] .

Due Process (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7849008)

Casady said it was obvious to him that the photos were taken inside the Marz Intergalactic Shrimp and Martini Bar


Obvious to him I notice. Good to know that this Casady guy is the fount of all wisdom and has the last word on this subject.

And why is this given a "It's funny, Laugh" sectioning. Surely this a "Your Rights Online" issue. Perhaps I'll submit an article linking to a story about racism in the LAPD and claim that "everything's okay. It's funny after all." If the /. editors thinking this sort of fascism is funny then they're bigger arseholes than I imagined.

.. (smacks forehead) (-1, Flamebait)

User 956 (568564) | more than 10 years ago | (#7849012)

Apparently, it's not neccessary to be caught in the act.

She *was* caught in the act, by her idiot friend with the camera. How else do you think they got pictures?

If I post pictures of me killing someone, nobody would be surprised if there were legal action. How is this any different? Breaking the law is breaking the law. If you don't like it, move to Canada. Hippies.

Re:.. (smacks forehead) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7849072)

How is this any different?

Hits own forehead

Killing is not dependant on your location. This crime is dependant on it being public. She could have taken the photos which is perfectly legal and then added herself, which is also perfectly legal. Prove she didn't. I will be moving to Canada if idiots like you are all that's left. Thanks.

Re:.. (smacks forehead) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7849132)

Killing is not comparable to being nude in public. Contrary to puritanical moral beliefs, nudity doesn't hurt anyone. There were no complaints, this was a victimless crime and is not worth the state's time or money in prosecuting.

What's the problem? (1)

pclminion (145572) | more than 10 years ago | (#7849029)

If I murder someone and take photos of it, that's pretty good evidence of my crime. The fact that I wasn't caught "in the act" of murdering someone doesn't make it any less of a crime -- nobody would disagree with that.

Whether you agree or disagree with the reasonableness of the law she violated is irrelevant. Plenty of people also believe that growing pot should be legal, too. Yet if someone was arrested based on photographic evidence of their marijuana plantation, I don't think we'd be hearing people make the same argument they are making in this case.

She broke the law, and took photographic evidence to boot. End of story.

Re:What's the problem? (2, Insightful)

Philosinfinity (726949) | more than 10 years ago | (#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.

Not "public" nudity if nobody saw her at the time. (5, Interesting)

Total_Wimp (564548) | more than 10 years ago | (#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

But she WAS seen! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7849117)

By the photographer. Here only argument to say no one saw her is to say she rigged up the camera to be triggered by her, and that in itself would be an admission of guilt anyway.

Re:Not "public" nudity if nobody saw her at the ti (0)

snkmoorthy (665423) | more than 10 years ago | (#7849136)

LATFP[look at the fucking pictures] the pictures from the bar show other people looking on...

Re:Not "public" nudity if nobody saw her at the ti (1)

ibjhb (173533) | more than 10 years ago | (#7849153)

Unfortunately your legal defense probably wouldn't hold up. She's still in a "public" place. Now I haven't read the law but I doubt it matters if there are people present. I'm pretty sure it has to do with "where" the pictures were taken.

Not to mention, you'd have to be able to prove that other people weren't around...

Wait a second . . . (5, Funny)

dorlthed (700641) | more than 10 years ago | (#7849044)

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

Re:Wait a second . . . (5, Funny)

icenine4u (577037) | more than 10 years ago | (#7849141)

"It's unlawful to be naked in public in Lincoln," said Police Chief Tom Casady. Casady said it was obvious to him that the photos were taken inside the Marz Intergalactic Shrimp and Martini Bar. ...so we at least know that when the Chief of Police is not surfing for porn, he is hanging out at the local bar.

TICKETED? (1)

SnprBoB86 (576143) | more than 10 years ago | (#7849074)

But, I thought pretty girls were above the law...

you call this weather? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7849080)

the winds of change are whipping tonight? you probably think the ?weather? you're in is 'unique' to you/your area?

to many, it's just another shared resource?

mynuts won, nothing to see hear?

cosmic conspiracy theorists moving inland? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7849150)

chickens? or is it soy? we'll have to stay alive to find out?

there's no where/need to hide? if you end up in water, you'll need to behave like an aquarian? what a hoot?

Sex? (0, Flamebait)

xfs (473411) | more than 10 years ago | (#7849082)


Oh no, an article about sex... This will probably get more comments then the 9/11 posts

Re:Sex? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7849123)

Oh no, an article about sex... This will probably get more comments then the 9/11 posts

Are you going to make sure of that?

Honest Mom... (5, Funny)

healy (234314) | more than 10 years ago | (#7849083)

I only read slashdot for the "articles".

Her Site (0, Redundant)

pbug (728232) | more than 10 years ago | (#7849087)

I found her site [ibill.com]

Re:Her Site (1)

dorlthed (700641) | more than 10 years ago | (#7849146)

. . . and how convenient that it brings you revenue whenever someone clicks on it. You're an idiot, someone found the site in the VERY FIRST POST.

Others are worse (1)

dspyder (563303) | more than 10 years ago | (#7849108)

Check out BarMeet.com [barmeet.com] apparently a website devoted to the sport this lady has been arrested for.

Also, Oasis [cum2oasis.com] seems to have done a lot more serious stuff in public and only have minimal run-ins with the law.

--D

p.s.'s No affiliation with either site (and not even a member), and both are probably NOT safe at work. (thank god for half-days!)

Umm guys (4, Insightful)

cybermace5 (446439) | more than 10 years ago | (#7849121)

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."

what ... (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7849126)

what pathetic perverted sick domineering tightass prude working at the police department is pursuing this one? ah hah! here he is!! [lincoln.ne.us] LOSER!!!

Boohoo (1)

soccerisgod (585710) | more than 10 years ago | (#7849127)

The article does not link to Harrington's website.

And I was just gonna look at that article...

Agh (3, Funny)

Bullet-Dodger (630107) | more than 10 years ago | (#7849128)

The article does not link to Harrington's website.

The one article people would actually read, and you have to go and ruin it!

She's real torn up (2, Insightful)

LittleLebowskiUrbanA (619114) | more than 10 years ago | (#7849131)

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 :)

unPatriotism (0, Troll)

MoFoQ (584566) | more than 10 years ago | (#7849133)

this is SO unAmerican.
Many men have died fighting for the ones they loved or would've loved to love....

Hell, why can't America be more comfortable with sexuality like europeans? If the french with their bullfrog laughing can do it (from The Simpsons), why can't we?

besides.....for the most part, she's only topless (and thx to dbl standards...men who are topless aren't considered naked) and not really naked.

On a sidenote, she's got some good twins.

Its not the conviction... (1)

doublebackslash (702979) | more than 10 years ago | (#7849134)

Its the evidence. I can make a person look like they are having sex with president. She did it. I know she did. Her website is a giveaway. BUT Robin Williams has admited to smoking pot in his shows. He can just sy he was lying for a joke. I've seen posters of guys doin' weed. They can say it was tobaco. The smae sort of thing could protect her if she was innocent.
I would just pay the ticket and not do it again. On second thought, I wouldn't do it. But if she wants to fight it, and the pictures were actually photoshopped (again, they weren't she is guilty, a toutched photo would not have such poor contrast) She could prove it, I'm sure ,and get off.
Perhaps she should just do that in the future.
On a side note, I think that this isn't our rights being nibbled away at, but more of an example of what police do at the office.
Now if you'll pardon me, I'm off to fight crime.

Ridiculous penalties (5, Interesting)

Giro d'Italia (124843) | more than 10 years ago | (#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.

not bad (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7849154)

she'll probably make more money from you^H^H us horny nerds looking at her site than the ticket costed :p

Positive ID (2, Funny)

Lindy (139834) | more than 10 years ago | (#7849155)

I want to see her in a line up! We need to get a positive ID before charges are brought.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>