Post number 2225

baylink — Wed, 21 Jun 2000 15:15:55 -0800

One last one before I run out to dinner (sorry for running off at the keyboard this afternoon, folks...)

The Supreme Court had to rule on this? That scares me a *lot*.

By: aaron

aaron — Wed, 21 Jun 2000 15:57:37 -0800

I don't think they ruled on it per se; I think they refused to hear the case.

By: thirdball

thirdball — Thu, 22 Jun 2000 16:59:21 -0800

Ok my response is a little different because of the comment before mine. But in order for the plantiff (New York I suppose) to appeal to a higher court it must find an error of law, either judge ignored a piece of evidence or some form was filled out wrong or whatever. They just can't appeal because they didn't win. This is also why some lawyers "keep it to themselves" when they notice an error or something else done wrong during a trial, they want to be able to have something to appeal to if they lose. And frankly I'm happy the Supreme Court is ruling/asked to rule on this, it means that the rights of the photographer/artist/model weren't crushed. Not to get involved in a conversation of nudity in public.

Comments on: Comments on 2225

Post number 2225

By: aaron

By: thirdball