Digitus Impudicus

Woman Sues City Over Wet T-Shirt Arrest

LINCOLN, Neb. -- Melissa Harrington feels the city of Lincoln, Neb., is all wet -- for busting her at a wet T-shirt contest.

She's filed a $75,000 claim for restitution against the city and the police department, claiming officers are intimidating bar owners to keep them from hiring her for promotions.

She was sentenced in August to six months' probation for violating a public decency ordinance. Harrington had hosted a wet T-shirt contest at a Lincoln bar in March. Officers charged her with being topless. But Harrington claims she wasn't, because her nipples and areolas were covered with pink paint.

Uh, "for busting her at a wet T-shirt contest." Haha - busted. I love it.

So I received word from Distaff #2 about this article. She apparently was genuinely offended at this business woman's exploits, as detailed at the woman's MySpace. So, let's take a look at the pertinent particulars.



Status: In a Relationship
Here for: Networking, Friends
Orientation: Bi
Hometown: Lincoln, NE
Body type: 5' 7" / Slim / Slender











Uh, those aren't the pertinent particulars? Okay, I'll try again.

How about:
I don't see the problem. Well, I see how other people might have a problem, but I'm just not one of those people. She was busted (heh heh) for holding a wet T-shirt contest in her own place of business, in sight of patrons who willingly entered that business. Unless there's more information here (say, some of the contestants, or she, walked outside in public view), and it appears there isn't, what business is it of others what she does on her own property?

I mean, I'm the World's Biggest Property Rights Freak, and I know other conservatives are as well. So where is the consistency here? It's wrong for the courts or legislatures to mandate green zones, and to limit use of private property without just compensation, correct? It's also wrong for the government to swoop in and condemn your private property because the government thinks it can get more tax dollars if they sell your property to a local hooked-up business baron, right? So why is it okay for that very same government to arrest, charge and punish this businesswoman for providing a service to her customers that they're obviously so interested in they're willing to pay for it? And as a side effect, do damage to her business in the process?

Or, as I suspect, is it not okay for the government to tell her what to do on her own property as long as we Conservatives don't have a problem with what she's doing on her own private property - but it's okay for that same government to put her on probation, and damage her business, so long as she's doing something we think is indecent?

If so, if the hypocrisy has gotten that deep, then I don't ever want to hear another Conservative bitch about "big" government or oppressive Liberal unfunded mandates, or out-of-control courts taking people's property without just compensation. After all, we sanction the same stuff, right? So long as it's in service to some "moral" standard.

Just keep that in mind the next time some Liberal tells you that it's "indecent" for you to have so much money - and that the "moral" thing to do is to hand it over to the government so it can be distributed to those less fortunate.

Damn, but doesn't it just suck when that ol' sword cuts both ways?




UPDATE: FOX News reports