UNanny States Of America: Woman faces 6 months in Jail for posting nude photos of herself on Net

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
Originally posted by: McCarthy
Unless you can "PROVE" she "Harmed" one person in some way go to China and pull this kind of crap, not here. There is "REAL" criminals and crimes out there that need to be addresses not sh1t like this.
Like spam? ;) There's plenty of ways to harm a business, being a nuicanse and distraction is certainly one. How come you want UNanny to make them to ask for permission, but not her? Take the nudity out, still should have asked for permission to use the establishment for a photo shoot.

If you don't agree with a law, work to get it changed. Disagreeing doesn't give you the right to just ignore it. Even at that, the only reason it's being enforced in this instance in the first place is because she decided her entertainment or enterprise (as it seems she's selling the images) is more important than the establishment owner's.

That the site she's linked to/affiliated with got in trouble recently is an aggrivating factor. They rented a building for a Halloween party, telling the owner of the building it would be for a party. And it was, sort of. They had a party, gave away lots of free alcohol to any attractive women who wanted it, got them plastered and dared them to bare for pictures. Most were adults, can't recall now if any pictures of minors were posted, though there were minors drinking at the event. Don't take your clothes off in public if you don't want people to see so too bad for them. Just as the woman in this discussion is responsible for consequences of her actions, so were the women that night. But I don't agree with the web site operator's tactic. And neither did a lot of people in the community. So when someone else associated with the site uses a business as a backdrop for her photo shoot a few months later I can certainly see the potential for harm through association. I'm glad the owner is saying it's not ok, even though I suspect he's nor more popular with the "enlightened" university crowd than he is in this thread. Of course they're probably too busy downloading mp3s in another "who does it harm" crime to read the news.

You're entitled to dislike people in my area for thinking differently and for not frequenting an establishment because of their views. You're entitled to make laws in your area supporting your beliefs so long as they follow the constitution of the United States and of your state. You're entitled to enforce those laws. You're not entitled to deport me to China.
and

No, woman faces jail time and/or fine for using someone else's property without permission for a photo shoot, which in this case happened to be commercial to boot.
Oh come off it macarthy, Supreme court ruled long time ago you can snap photo at any public place, yes malls, resturants, bars are public places..How you think national equirer stays in business?

She was ticked for nude in public which is acceptable..however any lawyer with half a brian could beat this for her.
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,894
46
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: Zebo
Originally posted by: McCarthy
Unless you can "PROVE" she "Harmed" one person in some way go to China and pull this kind of crap, not here. There is "REAL" criminals and crimes out there that need to be addresses not sh1t like this.
Like spam? ;) There's plenty of ways to harm a business, being a nuicanse and distraction is certainly one. How come you want UNanny to make them to ask for permission, but not her? Take the nudity out, still should have asked for permission to use the establishment for a photo shoot.

If you don't agree with a law, work to get it changed. Disagreeing doesn't give you the right to just ignore it. Even at that, the only reason it's being enforced in this instance in the first place is because she decided her entertainment or enterprise (as it seems she's selling the images) is more important than the establishment owner's.

That the site she's linked to/affiliated with got in trouble recently is an aggrivating factor. They rented a building for a Halloween party, telling the owner of the building it would be for a party. And it was, sort of. They had a party, gave away lots of free alcohol to any attractive women who wanted it, got them plastered and dared them to bare for pictures. Most were adults, can't recall now if any pictures of minors were posted, though there were minors drinking at the event. Don't take your clothes off in public if you don't want people to see so too bad for them. Just as the woman in this discussion is responsible for consequences of her actions, so were the women that night. But I don't agree with the web site operator's tactic. And neither did a lot of people in the community. So when someone else associated with the site uses a business as a backdrop for her photo shoot a few months later I can certainly see the potential for harm through association. I'm glad the owner is saying it's not ok, even though I suspect he's nor more popular with the "enlightened" university crowd than he is in this thread. Of course they're probably too busy downloading mp3s in another "who does it harm" crime to read the news.

You're entitled to dislike people in my area for thinking differently and for not frequenting an establishment because of their views. You're entitled to make laws in your area supporting your beliefs so long as they follow the constitution of the United States and of your state. You're entitled to enforce those laws. You're not entitled to deport me to China.
and

No, woman faces jail time and/or fine for using someone else's property without permission for a photo shoot, which in this case happened to be commercial to boot.
Oh come off it macarthy, Supreme court ruled long time ago you can snap photo at any public place, yes malls, resturants, bars are public places..How you think national equirer stays in business?

She was ticked for nude in public which is acceptable..however any lawyer with half a brian could beat this for her.
"any lawyer with half a brian could beat this for her" and get him deported to China, PLEASE
 

McCarthy

Platinum Member
Oct 9, 1999
2,567
0
76
Originally posted by: Zebo

Oh come off it macarthy, Supreme court ruled long time ago you can snap photo at any public place, yes malls, resturants, bars are public places..How you think national equirer stays in business?

She was ticked for nude in public which is acceptable..however any lawyer with half a brian could beat this for her.
Yes, I'm aware of that. If you read the post you just quoted you noticed I mentioned an event open to the public where pictures were taken. Number of the people in those pictures regretted them the next day, but the pictures aren't their property. That's what I've been talking about all along, property.

There is a difference between taking pictures in public venues and staging commercial operations though. You can film a street if you like, but you can't shut down a street to film without permission. Where the line is between observational and staged filming that would require permission I'm not sure. In this instance it was far from observational though and extremely disrespectful to the owner of the business. Like public nudity? Fine. Don't like it? Fine. I don't really care one way or the other, but let's face reality. If someone got thrown out of a bar for dressing up like Danny DeVito and posing for pictures this thread wouldn't have catch much interest. Nudity catches interest and people react to it in different ways. We all realize that, just as this woman does. She didn't care how it might affect someone else's business so she is evil and must be destroyed. ;)

Heck, caught my attention, especially when I saw my state mentioned. From the topic I was all ready to rant about people minding their own business and chilling out. Like that Lady Mayor in Canada who posed for some pics in her office. She never intended for those to be public, didn't intend to have those pictures become a reflection (good or bad) on her city. She was just being playful with her husband and some idiots had to try to hurt her over it. That's what I was expecting coming into the thread, but that wasn't at all the case in this instance.
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
Originally posted by: McCarthy
Originally posted by: Zebo

Oh come off it macarthy, Supreme court ruled long time ago you can snap photo at any public place, yes malls, resturants, bars are public places..How you think national equirer stays in business?

She was ticked for nude in public which is acceptable..however any lawyer with half a brian could beat this for her.
Yes, I'm aware of that. If you read the post you just quoted you noticed I mentioned an event open to the public where pictures were taken. Number of the people in those pictures regretted them the next day, but the pictures aren't their property. That's what I've been talking about all along, property.

There is a difference between taking pictures in public venues and staging commercial operations though. You can film a street if you like, but you can't shut down a street to film without permission. Where the line is between observational and staged filming that would require permission I'm not sure. In this instance it was far from observational though and extremely disrespectful to the owner of the business. Like public nudity? Fine. Don't like it? Fine. I don't really care one way or the other, but let's face reality. If someone got thrown out of a bar for dressing up like Danny DeVito and posing for pictures this thread wouldn't have catch much interest. Nudity catches interest and people react to it in different ways. We all realize that, just as this woman does. She didn't care how it might affect someone else's business so she is evil and must be destroyed. ;)

Heck, caught my attention, especially when I saw my state mentioned. From the topic I was all ready to rant about people minding their own business and chilling out. Like that Lady Mayor in Canada who posed for some pics in her office. She never intended for those to be public, didn't intend to have those pictures become a reflection (good or bad) on her city. She was just being playful with her husband and some idiots had to try to hurt her over it. That's what I was expecting coming into the thread, but that wasn't at all the case in this instance.

Disrepectful, no doubt...if the business in the photos is indentifiable...however illegal? No. Not on those grounds.

Well you can sue for anything you want on civil grounds, the question for the court/jury would be, did the site/pictures cause financial harm to the business in question. to be continued I guess but good luck proving that one.

Now as far as public nudity. I think it should be against the law in public places since it offends *some* peoples sensibilites like my wife for instance. But that's an entirly different from what you're saying.
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,894
46
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: Zebo
Originally posted by: McCarthy
Originally posted by: Zebo

Oh come off it macarthy, Supreme court ruled long time ago you can snap photo at any public place, yes malls, resturants, bars are public places..How you think national equirer stays in business?

She was ticked for nude in public which is acceptable..however any lawyer with half a brian could beat this for her.
Yes, I'm aware of that. If you read the post you just quoted you noticed I mentioned an event open to the public where pictures were taken. Number of the people in those pictures regretted them the next day, but the pictures aren't their property. That's what I've been talking about all along, property.

There is a difference between taking pictures in public venues and staging commercial operations though. You can film a street if you like, but you can't shut down a street to film without permission. Where the line is between observational and staged filming that would require permission I'm not sure. In this instance it was far from observational though and extremely disrespectful to the owner of the business. Like public nudity? Fine. Don't like it? Fine. I don't really care one way or the other, but let's face reality. If someone got thrown out of a bar for dressing up like Danny DeVito and posing for pictures this thread wouldn't have catch much interest. Nudity catches interest and people react to it in different ways. We all realize that, just as this woman does. She didn't care how it might affect someone else's business so she is evil and must be destroyed. ;)

Heck, caught my attention, especially when I saw my state mentioned. From the topic I was all ready to rant about people minding their own business and chilling out. Like that Lady Mayor in Canada who posed for some pics in her office. She never intended for those to be public, didn't intend to have those pictures become a reflection (good or bad) on her city. She was just being playful with her husband and some idiots had to try to hurt her over it. That's what I was expecting coming into the thread, but that wasn't at all the case in this instance.

Disrepectful, no doubt...if the business in the photos is indentifiable...however illegal? No. Not on those grounds.

Well you can sue for anything you want on civil grounds, the question for the court/jury would be, did the site/pictures cause financial harm to the business in question. to be continued I guess but good luck proving that one.

Now as far as public nudity. I think it should be against the law in public places since it offends *some* peoples sensibilites like my wife for instance. But that's an entirly different from what you're saying.
Well the Liquor Board seems to be "harmed" in some way and coming down on the Bar owner therefore "harming" him. It's all made up "Harm" by Nanny "Heil" Dictators hence the uNanny States Of America, especially apparently the Almighty State of Nebraska.
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
Maybe Daves thread title is confusing to some folks. She was not ticketed for posting nude photos of herself. She was ticket for being nude in pubic. The photos on the internet just provided the evidence.
 

alchemize

Lifer
Mar 24, 2000
11,489
0
0
Originally posted by: Zebo
Maybe Daves thread title is confusing to some folks. She was not ticketed for posting nude photos of herself. She was ticket for being nude in pubic. The photos on the internet just provided the evidence.
Which is illegal in most, if not all, states?
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: Zebo
Maybe Daves thread title is confusing to some folks. She was not ticketed for posting nude photos of herself. She was ticket for being nude in pubic. The photos on the internet just provided the evidence.
Which is illegal in most, if not all, states?
I think it's more of a local issue, but some states may be exceptions. I think most nudity arrests get overturned if they push it to a higher court. Public indecency is enforcable, but that requires more than simple nudity. Many states use alcohol laws to keep nudity out of bars (or alcohol out of strip clubs, take your pick). That's why the owner is upset. He doesn't want to lose his liquor license.

(Just my impression, and I'm not a lawyer.)

 

McCarthy

Platinum Member
Oct 9, 1999
2,567
0
76
Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Well the Liquor Board seems to be "harmed" in some way and coming down on the Bar owner therefore "harming" him. It's all made up "Harm" by Nanny "Heil" Dictators hence the uNanny States Of America, especially apparently the Almighty State of Nebraska.
"I'm the one who called police to complain about the nude pictures," said Luth. (The bar owner)

Casady said the police department planned to send a letter to the state Liquor Control Commission to see if the bar violated any state laws. (The Police Chief)

Liquor Board has had no role so far. They may be getting a letter from the Police Dept. Now they could have a role in revoking his license in another scenerio, but that's not the story you posted.

The "Nanny" here is the bar owner, or by extention the community. He's the one who reported the event. He's the one who could suffer harm to his business if the community reacts to the images. The state's following up on a complaint from a citizen about a few of the images and not pursuing the others. Even though the police chief stated "showing her naked at one of our downtown bars and in several other locations around the city" which suggests if they got out a magnifying glass and compared the photos to locations around the city they could probably ticket her for the others. But they're not, they're following up on a complaint brought to them about a few.

Can't fault Dave for the title, AP did that with the headline. Worse yet they continued with the myth in the face of facts with the opening sentence stating "but police ticketed a Lincoln woman for posting nude pictures of herself" Which of course wasn't the case.

She probably will get off, (already did sounds like) or get a small fine. Everyone will go back to their lives as before, which is the point. Bar owner was just defending himself and his property. I'm defending my region against the nonsensical writing of the article. Not sure what Chinese nudists have to do with anything, but as I'm not planning to move there nobody need defend them against me.
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,894
46
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: Zebo
Maybe Daves thread title is confusing to some folks. She was not ticketed for posting nude photos of herself. She was ticket for being nude in pubic. The photos on the internet just provided the evidence.
Which is illegal in most, if not all, states?
I think it's more of a local issue, but some states may be exceptions. I think most nudity arrests get overturned if they push it to a higher court. Public indecency is enforcable, but that requires more than simple nudity. Many states use alcohol laws to keep nudity out of bars (or alcohol out of strip clubs, take your pick). That's why the owner is upset. He doesn't want to lose his liquor license.

(Just my impression, and I'm not a lawyer.)
That's exactly it. We have Clubs here in Georgia that used to serve alcohol along with full nude T & A. Now if they want to serve alcohol the girls have to have a bikini bottom and top on. If they strip they cannot sell alcohol.


 

leeboy

Banned
Dec 8, 2003
451
0
0
Originally posted by: blurredvision
Originally posted by: conehead433
Nice looking gal. A shame this is, yes.

Melissa
:Q:Q:Q:Q:Q:Q:Q:Q:Q:Q:Q:Q:Q:Q:Q:Q:Q:Q:Q:Q:Q:Q:Q:Q:Q:Q:Q:Q:Q:Q:Q:Q:Q:Q:Q:Q:Q:Q:Q:Q:Q:Q
Thinking this ticket will be the best thing that ever happened to her "business".

 
Feb 3, 2001
5,156
0
0
well, I just read the article, and I think it's very clear that the title is misleading. She isn't ticketed for being nude on the net, she's ticketed for being nude in a PUBLIC PLACE. Now, I wouldn't think it to be a big deal, but the point is that it's illegal to be nude in public where she lives. Not only did she do it, but she pretty much handed the world the evidence that she did so.

Now that said, I agree there really are bigger fish to fry, so why we worry about stuff like this, I dunno. But she did break the law, and made sure she provided proof. If they throw the book at her, well...she's got no one to blame but herself.

Jason
 

alchemize

Lifer
Mar 24, 2000
11,489
0
0
Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
well, I just read the article, and I think it's very clear that the title is misleading. She isn't ticketed for being nude on the net, she's ticketed for being nude in a PUBLIC PLACE. Now, I wouldn't think it to be a big deal, but the point is that it's illegal to be nude in public where she lives. Not only did she do it, but she pretty much handed the world the evidence that she did so.

Now that said, I agree there really are bigger fish to fry, so why we worry about stuff like this, I dunno. But she did break the law, and made sure she provided proof. If they throw the book at her, well...she's got no one to blame but herself.

Jason
Of course the title is misleading, look who the original poster is!

Dave, who wants god, but no morals. Who wants a booming economy, with no big corporations. Who wants us to be charitable, but cannot spare a dime. Who wants a job, but wears a tin foil hat to an interview ;)


It is a very small fish. Not unsuprising that chicken little declared it a whale.

 

AaronB

Golden Member
Dec 25, 2002
1,214
0
0
well, I just read the article, and I think it's very clear that the title is misleading
dmcowen674 typically uses misleading alarmist titles. I have come to expect this of him.
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,894
46
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
well, I just read the article, and I think it's very clear that the title is misleading. She isn't ticketed for being nude on the net, she's ticketed for being nude in a PUBLIC PLACE. Now, I wouldn't think it to be a big deal, but the point is that it's illegal to be nude in public where she lives. Not only did she do it, but she pretty much handed the world the evidence that she did so.

Now that said, I agree there really are bigger fish to fry, so why we worry about stuff like this, I dunno. But she did break the law, and made sure she provided proof. If they throw the book at her, well...she's got no one to blame but herself.

Jason
She smokes, lock her up and throw away the key. At least she'll get all she wants with bars and chains and gangs, oh my :Q :D
 
Feb 3, 2001
5,156
0
0
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
well, I just read the article, and I think it's very clear that the title is misleading. She isn't ticketed for being nude on the net, she's ticketed for being nude in a PUBLIC PLACE. Now, I wouldn't think it to be a big deal, but the point is that it's illegal to be nude in public where she lives. Not only did she do it, but she pretty much handed the world the evidence that she did so.

Now that said, I agree there really are bigger fish to fry, so why we worry about stuff like this, I dunno. But she did break the law, and made sure she provided proof. If they throw the book at her, well...she's got no one to blame but herself.

Jason
She smokes, lock her up and throw away the key. At least she'll get all she wants with bars and chains and gangs, oh my :Q :D

Ummm....OK.

Jason
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY