Wow, that girl's got a healthy set of, ummm, lungs. What an hourglass figure. A little undernourished in parts, but she looks pretty powerful.
[...Trying to imagine the pics she's being blackmailed with....]
Daaay-umm.
Posted on 07/08/2007 4:11:58 PM PDT by HAL9000
Doubtful. The extortionist would have no leverage whatsoever with photos that the victim knew to be fake.
Wow, that girl's got a healthy set of, ummm, lungs. What an hourglass figure. A little undernourished in parts, but she looks pretty powerful.
[...Trying to imagine the pics she's being blackmailed with....]
Daaay-umm.
Unless he is demanding money, I don't see blackmail. He could just be interested in a more 'moral' NJ representative. If she originally posted them on the internet, where is the problem other than her potential embarassment? If the letter writer is associated with the runner-up, that might casr a different light on the matter, but still not a crime.
WHY do I think Miss NJ is behind this hullabaloo? Self-promoting her own blackmail....hmmmmm?
According to the article posted in #42 above, she published them on a "private website". That means they were not available to the public internet.
The difference between a private site and a public site is the same as the difference between inside your house and on the street in front of your house. Just because your house has a front door and a walkway to the street, it doesn't mean that all your private pics and papers in the house are "on the street".
It sounds to me like somebody gained access to her "private house" and copied the pics, and now threatens to post them "on the street". She has a right to be pissed off about that, because it's not fair.
Oh well, life's not fair.
She was stupid to publish the pics at all. But it's not accurate to say they were available for public view before this.
If you put it on the internet, it's not private.
> If you put it on the internet, it's not private.
Sorry to say it, but you are simply misinformed. A properly maintained "private" site is just as private as your home, behind a closed and locked door. If you entrust a key to a friend who betrays you, that's unfortunate, but your house is private, not public.
I maintain a number of public and private websites, in addition to some secure business sites. I cannot vouch for the security or procedures of the private portion of the website that this girl's photos were published on, of course, but I have to tell you that -IF- the owners of the site were doing their job, then the only way the photos could become public was an "inside job" -- one of her friends or family leaked them.
If so, then she should be disqualified, for monumental stupidity.
And can you cite some sort of law this person may have broken? He/she may be a jerk, but that doesn’t make him/her a criminal.
Not a criminal, if the story is as it seems to me. Somebody who had legit access to the private part of the site compromised the privacy -- for example, maybe they downloaded the pics to a computer that someone untrusted had access to, or any of scores of other non-criminal acts that compromise privacy. Most computer users are dreadfully uninformed about privacy, and let's not even mention knowledge of actual security...
So it's most likely a breach of privacy, so maybe there's a civil suit, but not a criminal one, unless they actually stole something or broke into the computer.
Same as if you had a roommate or boarder who took pictures inside your house and published them publicly. Breach of privacy, but not a criminal act.
If someone else had posted the pictures, she might have a cause of action, but she posted them.
I don’t see how you can compare the inside of one’s house with posting something on the internet.
“Extortion” is the act of using biographical leverage to obtain favor or payment.
“Blackmail” is the act of payment.
You’d think a journalism student would know the difference.
Jack.
Then say hello to a fellow cynic. If the photos are nothing “compromising” then why is she calling press conferences and saying she will fight? Had she not called a presser would anyone have ever known? I agree it seems like a publicity stunt to me and if not she has seen something she doesn’t want us to see and is getting ahead of the scandal in true Clintonista form :)
I have a feeling it has to do with underage drinking....
Oops.....no underage drinking involved....how about kissing another girl?
“In an interview on NBC’s “Today” show Monday, Amy Polumbo said the photos show no nudity, pornography or underage drinking.”
http://apnews.excite.com/article/20070709/D8Q95T5O0.html
Miss NJ keeps saying the photos aren’t bad and cdertainly not bad enough to force her to relinquish her crown. She says it’s the caption comments that are bad but she had nothing to do with that???
She is appearing on every TV show defending what she says isn’s bad.....is this a publicity stunt?
Publicity Stunt?
Now she’s saying it has something to do with her wearing a Halloween costume. I can’t believe the pictures haven’t “leaked” out yet.
Yea, I heard the Halloween costume reference on O’reilly and said to myself, if she says it’s no big deal why are they playing cat and mouse in releasing anything??
http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2007/07/miss_nj_blackmailed_over_cabar.html
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.