The issue is not the nudity, it's the authoritarian "We'll be watching you, buster," reaction. This was obviously a case where the ridiculous definition of "nudity" (pasties are Ok, but a sliver of areole isn't?) were violated by accident. So why does he have "a note in his record?"

And how convenient, that emails executing the Red Queen's orders are confidential. Did that get him another back mark on his record?

I'm curious about the pasties rule. How about a picture of a penis in a hot dog bun? Ok as long as the glans is covered? As I understand it, it's still nudity if you cover it with a non-clothing item, right? As in two allegedly naked people standing behind a bush? So butt crack jeans would be nudity even if you can't see the crack. Renderers be warned. It isn't enough to cover your plumber's butt; it's what you cover it with.

In my opinion, all pictures should be flagged nudity, because we are all naked under those clothes. Even pictures of houses should be flagged, if someone suspects nude people inside. That's do this right, and protect the world from the most important threat -- worse than global warming, mayhem in Iraq, the national debt, AIDS, and the desensitization of the human soul -- to America: naked pussy.

As I understand the Jesuitical parsing of the flag requirements, I need to check all three. Ten points to the first person who identifies the cause for each flag. And no, "Jesuitical" does not mean I'm a rabid hater of Catholics. Some of my best friends are bilingual.