Wet Spots

2006_03_21_ws_nitke.jpg

· Ever feel like you’re not getting the full level of service you deserve when you’re on the phone with one of those call centers in India? Don’t blame it on the language barrier—your helpful customer care representative is probably just tired from all the sex and drugs he’s been having with the girl in the next cubicle. (timesonline.co.uk)

· Following up on the Spencer Tunick news from yesterday, some police officers in Britain have been accused of selling close-up, closed circuit television images of the participants in his U.K. shoot last year. So much for that “safety in numbers” concept. (nzherald.co.nz)

· .XXX: the domain that refuses to die! (theinquirer.net)

· The good news: Winona Ryder’s bare breasts make a much-anticipated appearance in Richard Linklater’s upcoming “A Scanner Darkly”. The bad news: the boobies in question are animated. (cinematical.com)

· Google is claiming victory in its “porn probe fight” (mmm, probes) with the government over search data subpoenaed by the Department of Justice: the company says it will submit some URL data but will not turn over information on search queries from its users. Then again, you don’t have to worry anyway because you find your porn on Fleshbot instead of searching for it from scratch … er, right? (zdnet.co.uk)

· Meanwhile, art photographer Barbara Nitke‘s federal obscenity charge* appeal was denied by the Supreme Court this week. Be afraid. Be very afraid. (latimes.com) (*Update – see comments below.)

Thumbnail via Barbara Nitke: The Sexuality Project (barbarnitke.com)

* * * * *

Previously: Morning Wood Archives/Wet Spots Archives

Tags: , , , , ,

  • Tony Comstock

    Barbara Nitke has not been charged with or convicted of obscenity, and she is not appealing an obscenity charge.

    Nitke is appealling her loss in a 2001 law suit she file again John Ashcroft which challenges whether or not the Miller test (Miller v. Ca), particularly Community Standards, can be applied to work published on the internet without violating the First Ammendment rights of the publisher; the theory being that since obscenity can only be determined by a trial, and in a yet to be determined venue, the threat of loss of property and liberty has a chilling and ultimately unconstitutional effect on free speech as it pertains to sexual expression.

    For now the answer to this question appears to be yes.