Now
Fair
13°
High
32°
Low
24°

Woman guilty of public nudity

Text Size: 
Tools Sponsor

By the Lincoln Journal Star

Wednesday, Jun 28, 2006 - 05:21:46 pm CDT

A 23-year-old Lincoln woman who took her public nudity case to trial — with a case hinging on a layer of pink paint — lost her fight this week.

Lancaster County Judge Jean A. Lovell, who heard the case, found Melissa Harrington guilty of the charge. Police cited Harrington with the city ordinance violation after they went to Cheerleaders, where she was emceeing a wet T-shirt contest and  appeared to be topless.

Harrington testified at trial she satisfied the ordinance, requiring an opaque covering over the areola and nipple, by putting a layer of pink paint on that part of her breasts.

Story Photo
Harrington

But an officer testified at her trial that, if she had paint on that night, he couldn’t tell.

Harrington could face as much as eight months in jail or a $500 fine when Lovell sentences her Aug. 2.


$1 Sunday Delivery - Subscribe Today!
Extras > Back to Top of Story

All posts to JournalStar.com are subject to our Terms and Standards.
Your posted comment will appear after it has been approved.
Frequently asked questions about story commenting.
(optional)
   
Tired of it! wrote on June 28, 2006 12:00 pm:
" Can someone just glue some clothes on her or something....this is getting REALLY OLD! "

CS wrote on June 28, 2006 12:02 pm:
" Whether or not the officer 'could tell' shouldn't be the issue. The statute reads opaque-if the paint was demonstrated to be opaque in the court room, then it satisfies the letter of the statute. The statute makes no claim of what constitutes opaque to the general observer. Paint in sunlight or fluorescent light is opaque; put it on someone under a black light, micro-flood, or fresnel and that changes. If a stage light shining is enough to cause this to count as public nudity than I think LPD and UNL PD would have just as much issue 'telling' what is covered or not watching O street on a Friday night in any club in town with black lights or other stage lighting. This is such a non-issue, but of course we can't have Lincoln associated with a pay website with nudity on it-because we are all children, apparently, and can't handle the human form. "

JA wrote on June 28, 2006 12:14 pm:
" It's hard to form an opionion on this without being there and seeing for oneself. If she had the paint on and the law says the area has to be "covered" and doesn't say what is acceptable to use for covering, then she is innocent and the law needs some refinement. Maybe the law needs to say the covering has to be neon orange so everyone can tell there is a covering. If it is inappropriate then the law needs some work because we all know pepole find ways around the law and take things as far as they can for whatever reason. Sounds like it is the police officers word over hers. "

SF wrote on June 28, 2006 12:26 pm:
" I am amazed how successful Melissa has become because of this publicity. If anyone remembers, the first time she was ticketed, she was just another girl in the midwest. For all of those who are so ashamed of the human body and complain, fight and are disgusted by this behaviour. Guess what, your attention to the matter has brought fame and fortune to Melissa. I am sure she is thanking you, for now she has contracts with Penthouse, Sirius radio, among other International publications. Your whining, has brought enough cash for her to live in a beautiful house and for her to provide for her family. I hope her sentence is light, because it is this useless cases that bog down our justice system. As they say, publicity is a good thing, whether it is good or bad. "

Laura wrote on June 28, 2006 12:27 pm:
" I am so SICK of hearing about this! Free publicity, that's all she wants, and that's what she's getting. "

Tom wrote on June 28, 2006 12:41 pm:
" I would rather see her without a shirt then most of the men walking around without one. Most have man breasts big enough to warrant a bra! Talk about sexual discrimination! Sure glad Lincoln and Nebraska is spending my money on discriminating against this woman. Too bad they can't take the time and money to make my worthless brother in law pay his child support instead. "

jon wrote on June 28, 2006 1:02 pm:
" No opaque covering over the areola and nipple? The HORROR!!The HORROR! And how much citizen's hard earned money did it cost to come to this conclusion?Thousands? "

DT wrote on June 28, 2006 1:24 pm:
" I am all for her getting the jail time--I am sure there are some women in jail that would LOVE to see her without her clothes! I would be so embarrased to be her parents. "

An American male wrote on June 28, 2006 1:34 pm:
" Sorry all you catty women, but if you got it, flaunt it! I'll bet if a male judge presided Melissa would have been found not guilty by reason of common sense... "

Sylvia wrote on June 28, 2006 1:54 pm:
" "Well judge, I didn't have a radar gun, but the guy sure looked like he was going 65 in a 55 to me." Nice concrete evidence Lincoln's finest! Equal protection under the law should require men to cover their nipples with a nice, opaque covering...one that will tear out all their greasy man-hairs...be it at the swimming pool, sand volleyball courts, or just walking down the street. Does this also mean as a woman, if I wear a nipple-shaped pastie over my real nipples, I would receive a fine even though I would be in full compliance with the law? "

GG wrote on June 28, 2006 2:03 pm:
" This is absolutely the most ridiculous trial to ever enter the Lancaster County Court. What this tells me is that Lincoln, indeed, has WAY TOO MANY police officers on the pay rolls. Obviously, I'm not advocating taking away police officers to a level where crime and disobedience thrive, but there MUST be some middle group. What other moderately sized city can you find a police officer sitting in his car monitoring a 'No Right Turn on Red' sign and ticketing violators in the middle of the day??? It just doesn't happen, folks. Save our city some money and find better places to spend the money (or provide for lower taxes to citizens of the city) than to fund an obnoxiously over-zealous police force that most of us would rather not have to deal with. Maybe this is one factor to explain the increase in "For Sale" signs found in Lincoln's neighborhoods. The point of diminishing returns has been reached!!! "

Trish wrote on June 28, 2006 2:08 pm:
" I sure hope all of you breast lovers are also supporters of a woman's right to breastfeed in public, legislation that continually gets set aside by our representatives year after year. There is nothing obscene about the female body, but instead of rallying for the breasts secondary 'sexual' role, why not show support for what breasts are primarily for; feeding babies. "

Gary wrote on June 28, 2006 2:13 pm:
" It's been said before, and I'll say it again...who was the victim in this crime? "

Lincolnite wrote on June 28, 2006 2:52 pm:
" Sure am glad my tax dollars are paying for LPD and the court system to worry about this kind of crap when our city is experiencing such a "budget problem". Hey Mayor, can't you look into this as unnecessary spending? And don't give me this "our lawyers are paid the same regardless of what cases they try" stuff, either ... I'd rather have city attorneys fighting real criminals, not some public nudity charge in a bar, of all places. "

melissa = no class wrote on June 28, 2006 4:02 pm:
" What a classy girl. I am glad she is not my daughter or related to anyone in my family. Melissa needs to gain some self respect. Not only is this about her exposing her breasts; but she is also pretending to perform sexual acts in public. Melissa may as well just be all the way nude with what she wears or doesn’t wear. This is not just about one small issue such as she showed her breasts. Melissa did get citied for more then one ticket people. She was cited for public nudity, public indecency and prohibited sexual contact. If she wants to be a prostitute or a stripper, let’s have her do it somewhere other then the city of Lincoln. People are forgetting that Melissa is doing this in establishments that serve alcohol, and yes these establishments have rules to follow. What happens when Melissa is around some drunken patron who touches her wrong, and then something transpires? If she does this because she claims it is art, how come she doesn’t pull these stunts in the art museums? Get a life Melissa! "

d-bonz wrote on June 28, 2006 4:05 pm:
" I was there in the front row, and I can tell you that she did in fact have something painted on her. It was hard to tell, but definately there. Again, who was the victim...lame Lincoln..hey mayor go fix more streets in Lincoln at the same time. "

Cooper wrote on June 28, 2006 4:59 pm:
" Melissa is a marketing genius. $500 worth of fines will turn into $1000's of dollars of cash. She's laughing all the way to the bank. Melissa, if you're out there, will you marry me? Hot, smart, and rich, it just doesn't get any better. "

c.h. wrote on June 28, 2006 5:04 pm:
" OK, doesn't anyone watch these people??? Who's responsible for spending MY money bringing this kind of junk before a judge? Paint, or no paint? Who on earth could possibly care?! "

Luke wrote on June 28, 2006 5:20 pm:
" If the bar allowed her to do it, they have every right to do so. Nobody was forced to watch. Kudos to the girl for making a ton of money. Hopefully she will use it well. "

J.D. wrote on June 28, 2006 5:51 pm:
" Old guys like me can remember 35 years or so ago when the Omaha city prosecutor spent several hundred thou prosecuting court cases and appeals to keep folks up there from seeing bare breasts in a bar. Meanwhile in Lincoln, topless dancers kept performing in Lincoln without much problem. Then a few years ago we elected a few council members who felt they should impose their views on everyone else (which is why most folks run for the council) and we got the current situation. The next step, I suppose, is for the council to ban cohabitation--unmarried folks shacking up. Some of us are old enough to remember when Lincoln had a policewoman who led raids on folks committing that horrible crime. "

embarrassded for the fam. wrote on June 28, 2006 5:56 pm:
" Yes, she is getting free publicity from all of this but that is what she wants. With every action there comes a consequence. And whatever happens to her she is not going to learn. She will just keep on taking off her clothes in public no matter how much the fine is. Last time she got in trouble all she had to pay was a $200 fine. And what did she learn from the experience ummm... let see NOTHING. Maybe some jail time woudld be good but then again she would get even more publicity from that. So in all reality what is a good punishment for her. What she is doing is seeing how far she can stretch her limits to. After awhile it does get old hearing about her. But, she gets her thrill from it. I am sure her family is embarressed I know after seeing her I would be embarressed for her. "

Nykki wrote on June 28, 2006 6:29 pm:
" I say this over and over that if your bad mouthing Melissa for what she does than you must be jealous because your not making the money or getting the attention she is. If you don't like what she is doing than find something else to focus your attention on. She must spark your interest some how or you wouldn't be on here making any comments. "

ridiculous wrote on June 28, 2006 7:31 pm:
" I say give her the jail time. I have seen her, clothed, and not clothed, and she doesn't really do much that you couldn't see at a legal strip joint. So why give her the publicity? Here's my plug, though, I will say it again she isn't worth it. For Over $400 bucks she will come dance at a party for an hour. Was it worth it...NO, could I go to another strip club and spend $30 bucks and see something better? Yes. Throw her in jail, give her probation, etc. But a little fine isn't going to do anything but make this moron laugh at the system. "

out of the loop wrote on June 28, 2006 8:55 pm:
" Would someone please call me the next time she sheds her clothes. Just so I can form my own opinion. Pleeeeease! "

What a Crock wrote on June 28, 2006 10:09 pm:
" Great job folks. Way to use those tax $$ wisely.No wonder why our youth move away from the state. Bars close at 1am. You can't smoke when you drink. and the culture of the town comes down on kids having fun. "

Wow... wrote on June 28, 2006 10:45 pm:
" Hurry up and throw this trashy skank in jail so we can stop hearing about it. "

TLV wrote on June 28, 2006 11:39 pm:
" Put her in jail for a good 8 months to a year. At least we won't have to hear about her for that long! A $500 fine?? What a joke ... like someone else said ... she makes that much in an hour boinking a pencil in front of a roomful of men for an hour. There's a place and time to take your shirt off ... last time I heard it wasn't out in public - keep it at home or move to a nudist colony (good riddance)Melissa! Your a skank. "