Jessica Lynch Poses for Hustler

Cafe Society
41

You misunderstand. Well, no, I didn’t make myself clear. What I meant was, 19-year-olds do stupid stuff all the time. That doesn’t mean they can’t handle serious responsibility and be serious about it, but it does mean that when the serious responsibility stuff is up, they sometimes act like dumbass kids (think of the stereotype of the sailor on shore leave). When she was working, she, like most soldiers, probably understood the seriousness of what she was doing.

I was married shortly after my 20th birthday. I still acted like a dumbass kid sometimes, even though I was otherwise mature and responsible.

42

Could I possibly have used the word “serious” or a derivative any more times in that post? Sheesh.

43

gatos–

The purpose of the training is so that they do NOT act like dumb-ass kids when they are deployed.

However, as they are sitting around bored as hell stateside with nothing to do— THEN I think we can expect them to act like dumb-ass kids sometimes.

Cut her a little slack.

44

Maybe she’s shaved.

45

So I can’t legally publish a (hypothetical) picture I took back when I was in the military of a now-famous friend at a party? What if this party took place when we were off-duty or something like that? A lot of government employees have pictures of other government employees that reveal “private information”–drinking a beer, kissing under the mistletoe, etc. All this is unpublishable (even if the photographer or photo subject is now famous and thus news-worthy)? Or is it just that I couldn’t sell my pictures when I worked for the government but am able to do so now that I’m free? I ask because I’ve seen pictures like this in a lot of books and magazines (though admittedly, none of those pictures were nudes or anything). Of course I’m also worried about what will happen to the pix my Army buddies took of me acting like a drunken fool, what with me myself being a future famous person and all . . .
*Color-coding for emphasis mine.

46

I just think that is a hoot, considering your username! :smiley:

Hell, I’m twice as old as a 19 yr old and I do stupid, dumb-ass shit all the time! :wink: I’ve taken it from “Art form” to “Science”. :smack:

Never kiss an animal that can lick its own butt.

47

Mephisto,

I am not a lawyer. All I can really give you is my general understanding from the training I had to take as a professional videographer (read, News Cameraman) back in the day, plus what I can find out on the net by reading various case decisions.

Basically, if it occured in the public view, it’s fair game. By example, if you were doing a story on Valentines Day and took footage of a couple walking hand in hand down the street, obviously quite taken with one another… and you show that tape… then when it turns out that while they are married, it’s not to each other, they don’t have a cause of action. Because they are in public view. Just so, pictures of some celebrity topless sunbathing on a public beach (or even one which can be seen from a publicly accessible place) is allowed.

If on the other hand you are in a place where a reasonable expectation of privacy exists, or on private property, or on Federal property… you may be in for the lawsuit of your life. Especially if you broadcast it, most especially if you resell, for profit, copies of the tape.

Lynch was at a party, but it wasn’t in public view, it was in a Military Barracks on Federal property. The person who took the pics, unless he got a model release form signed by her, probably doesn’t have the right to sell them. It’s the for profit thing. Because once you sell the pics that makes the taking of the pics a commercial activity, and you need both a permit from the Installation Commander (or Bureau of Natural Resources) and model releases from the people there. Consider that there may be other people in those photographs in the background. More specifically, Flynt probably doesn’t have the right to mass produce and resell them, because such photos would probably (almost certainly) be considered “intimate” and outside the public view.

By example… remember the infamous Pam Anderson / Tommy Lee honeymoon video that was sold without their permission? They sued, and they won. 1.4 million dollars. And they were arguably less protected because at least some of the action apparently took place in public view on the deck of some boat out on the water.

There would be a veritable stampede of lawyers heading towards Hustler if he ever publishes those pics. They’d demand a jury trial, and then we get to see bad old meanie porn purveyor Flynt go up against the young naive war veteran rape victim.

A jury would massacre him financially.

Flynt knows all this though, which is why he’s using the posession of the pics to give himself a public forum. By NOT releasing them he is both teasing the public (which, lets face it, gets off on this sort of thing in a weird way) and manipulating himself into a public position to criticize Bush while being “noble”.

CNBC producer 1: Larry Flynt wants to come on and criticize Bush.

CNBC producer 2: Like we have time for ole mumble lips.

now:

CNBC producer 1: Larry Flynt has nude pics of Lynch which he’s not going to release and wants to come on.

CNBC producer 2: HELL YEAH!

Regards,
-Bouncer-

48

Cool. Thanks for the information.

49

“Because they are in public view. Just so, pictures of some celebrity topless sunbathing on a public beach (or even one which can be seen from a publicly accessible place) is allowed.”

And what if they are underage? I think it would get the cops attention if someone was taking pictures in public of nude children on the beach.

50

Wasn’t Jessica Lynch raped when she was captured or did I misunderstand? Isn’t that considered torture?

Isabelle, if someone were standing on the ledge of a building, would you chant “jump”?

51

Rape victim!? How did I miss that?

52

Why? SHE’S the one who was almost shot, taken captive, and spent weeks as a prisoner, with a broken arm and leg. Fuck charity. I say she deserves every penny she can get.

53

She says she doesn’t remember any rape, or anything else, before she was in the hospital. Why is the military so intent on publicly proving, otherwise.
Army meds report some anal tearing, Iraqui meds didn’t see any.
She should get all the attention she seeks. That’s it, IMO.
Peace,
mangeorge

54

Not just any old rape, but anal rape . Lynch is not making the claim, rather her ghostwriter is mentioning “medical evidence”

Since this thread is now on the second page, yet another reminder, the OP is incorrect, Jessica Lynch did not pose for Hustler magazine. The photos were evidently taken by fellow servicemembers in Iraq.

55

“The photos were evidently taken by fellow servicemembers in Iraq.”

My understanding is the photos were taken before deployment to Iraq, while in the US (at Fort Bliss in TX). Just wanted to clarify.

56

Does anyone have a link about the guy from Kansas who defended the convoy from a mortar company? I don’t subscribe to the Kansas City Star.
:slight_smile:

57

Right, well, if a 19 year old strips for her co-workers in her place of business, it’s a perfectly reasonable thing to do, because she’s just a dumb kid.

At what age, then, does it become an example of bad judgment and unprofessionalism? At what age does stupid behavior begin to reflect on your character and decision-making abilities? At what age do we stop getting a free pass on this stuff.

Really, I need to know. I’m only 26. At the next attorney retreat, I’m thinking of stripping off for my male co-workers and having some pictures taken. After all, we’re just hanging around on our down time, and I’m too young to know better. Right?

Or am I already past the “magic age” at which we’re all expected to learn that taking off our clothes in front of our colleagues in a work-related setting is a really, really bad idea?

I didn’t say she was evil; I said her actions were unprofessional and showed bad judgment. This is true if she’s 19 or 90. And if she’s old enough to hold the job, she’s old enough to be expected to act professionally and make reasonably good decisions on basic questions like “is it dumb to take off my clothes in front of my co-workers?”

58

Never served in the enlisted military eh, Q.N. Jones? Not exactly an “attorney retreat” I’ll venture.

59

Bouncer, I believe you’re right in principle but wrong on the details. There is a reasonable expectation of privacy that can protect nude photos. If for example you’re photographed by a hidden camera in a changing room or tanning booth, you’re covered (at least in a legal sense). Pamela and Tommy Lee were protected because they presumedly took their video for their own private viewing and never willingly distributed it. However, from what we’ve heard of the Lynch photos, they were taken openly at a party. In a case like that, the subject would most likely not be considered to have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Legally speaking, if you flash a roomful of people, you’ve flashed the world.

60

Little Nemo…

If that’s the case, (and I’m not saying it isn’t), then why do you have to have permission to photograph people in a nightclub?

Regards,
-Bouncer-