Sexual Assault or Implied Consent? St Louis jury says ... - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind
Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 07-24-2010, 11:29 PM   #16
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 12:07 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liesje View Post
Are you serious? I don't intend to allow my "bits" to be on the Internet or to ever feel that it is "normal" to do so...
Ahem.

Quote:
Originally Posted by financeguy
at some indeterminate point in the future
__________________

__________________
financeguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2010, 11:30 PM   #17
Blue Crack Distributor
 
corianderstem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Seattle
Posts: 63,720
Local Time: 03:07 PM
I think that's an entirely different topic. Taking shame away is all well and good, and good on them, but that was done in consent (although there could be a whole 'nother topic about Kendra Wilson, whose sex tape revealed her to be unwilling to be filmed in the act, but then later turning it around for her own publicity).

This is not about someone being ashamed about their breasts being on DVD. It's about someone saying "I did not consent to that," and a jury of her so-called peers shrugging and saying "Too bad, you dirty whore, you shouldn't have been dancing like that."
__________________

__________________
corianderstem is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2010, 11:39 PM   #18
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 12:07 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by A_Wanderer View Post
I'd agree generally but I don't think we can justifiably say higher or lower when it comes to life.
Higher form of pervert, then.
__________________
financeguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2010, 12:16 AM   #19
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 09:07 AM
That's better
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2010, 02:54 AM   #20
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Jive Turkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 13,646
Local Time: 06:07 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by financeguy View Post
Of course. But, we're still in the post-Christian guilt phase, for want of a better expression. If we look at, say, the Amish communities: 200 years ago, their way of life was the norm: now, it's viewed as backward, puritanical, and plain odd. Now, we have celebrities posting their sex-tapes on the internet as a career move (or so I've heard) and most of them (in my opinion, rightly) give no impression of being remotely ashamed. It's like "Oops, here's some footage of me shagging my girlfriend or boyfriend, it seems to be on the internet for some odd reason, but anyway, I had fun, some other folk got their rocks off watching me get my rocks off, and big deal. It was a good career move, I got my name in the papers, and all publicity is good publicity, as they say."

So, is shame regarding sex and sexuality basically an out-dated Judeo-Christian concept, and, if so, with technology, whither the concept?

Now, I could be wrong; our ancestors may swing the other way and turn out to be the most god-fearing puritans in history - but that would of necessity have to involve some form of globalist control legislation, which, if it happens, in my view is something to be feared. More so, perhaps, than a girl getting caught out on a GGW tape getting her tits out.
I would say that what goes for celebrities rarely goes for the general public. How many of your close friends have sex tapes on the internet? Scandal for publicity is hardly a new phenomenon. I think we - at least we non celebrities - will be free from the internet's perverted eye for quite some time... as long as we choose to, of course
__________________
Jive Turkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2010, 11:48 AM   #21
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,289
Local Time: 06:07 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jive Turkey View Post
Perhaps then her case is against the person who pulled her shirt down and not the producers?
She can name as many people as she feels are liable in her suit. But you can't draw water from a stone and she is obviously electing to pursue the party with the deepest pockets, as is the norm.
__________________
anitram is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2010, 12:07 PM   #22
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Jive Turkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 13,646
Local Time: 06:07 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by anitram View Post
She can name as many people as she feels are liable in her suit. But you can't draw water from a stone and she is obviously electing to pursue the party with the deepest pockets, as is the norm.
I guess what I'm saying then is that the producer's of GGW most certainly have a moral responsibility not to sell the footage, but not a legal one and in that, she was wrong to go after them (wrong in the sense that she couldn't win the case)
__________________
Jive Turkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2010, 12:50 PM   #23
Refugee
 
AliEnvy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 2,320
Local Time: 11:07 PM
__________________
AliEnvy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2010, 01:34 PM   #24
Blue Crack Distributor
 
corianderstem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Seattle
Posts: 63,720
Local Time: 03:07 PM
Oh, ugh. I already have enough disgust for this one topic. Let's not make me explode in a big flaming ball of rage by bringing up fucking Mel, too.
__________________
corianderstem is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2010, 01:46 PM   #25
Refugee
 
AliEnvy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 2,320
Local Time: 11:07 PM
lol sorry, cori. Just pointing out that there's really no difference in the jury's decision and Mel's misogynist rants.
__________________
AliEnvy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2010, 01:48 PM   #26
Blue Crack Distributor
 
corianderstem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Seattle
Posts: 63,720
Local Time: 03:07 PM
Yes, they're all part of the same bag of fun, that's for sure.

Although as far as we know, the St Louis jury didn't threaten to put the victim in the rose garden after she blows them first.

They probably left that out of their official decision to the judge.
__________________
corianderstem is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2010, 02:09 PM   #27
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Jive Turkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 13,646
Local Time: 06:07 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AliEnvy View Post
lol sorry, cori. Just pointing out that there's really no difference in the jury's decision and Mel's misogynist rants.
I'm really not trying to stir anything up here but I have a question. What do you think the GGW producers should've been charged with? What laws did they break? This is an honest question and not meant to be dickish
__________________
Jive Turkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2010, 02:13 PM   #28
Blue Crack Distributor
 
corianderstem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Seattle
Posts: 63,720
Local Time: 03:07 PM
Distributing DVDs showing her naked breasts, that were put on the DVD without her consent.

But there's really nothing they were "charged" with, as this was a civil case, not a criminal case. Right?

I don't understand why you're asking that. Is it honestly not obvious to you?

Is the main point of your questions that she was in the wrong for trying to get money out of this? Because honestly, to me that is secondary here. My main point in posting the article is the attitude/decision of the jury. They could have easily sided with her but then awarded her a small amount.

The point is that the jury more or less said "she was asking for it."
__________________
corianderstem is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2010, 02:21 PM   #29
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Jive Turkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 13,646
Local Time: 06:07 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by corianderstem View Post
Distributing DVDs showing her naked breasts, that were put on the DVD without her consent.

But there's really nothing they were "charged" with, as this was a civil case, not a criminal case. Right?

I don't understand why you're asking that. Is it honestly not obvious to you?
Well, because often at these sorts of parties (or so I assume), people are told before hand that they're being filmed and that the content of the footage is owned, in this case, by GGW. That seems pretty cut and dried to me; They own the footage and are entitled to do whatever they want with it. It's no different than if I'm caught picking my nose and eating it at a baseball game. Now, morally speaking, its pretty reprehensible to put an act of sexual harassment on their DVD, but legally, they have every right to. I just don't see how GGW are to blame in the incident. Somebody is to blame, but I don't think it's the producers in this case.
__________________
Jive Turkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2010, 02:24 PM   #30
Blue Crack Distributor
 
corianderstem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Seattle
Posts: 63,720
Local Time: 03:07 PM
I added something to my post above while you were typing this.

I'm kind of dumbstruck as how to move forward with another comment right now, but the question I added above might still apply to what you just said.
__________________

__________________
corianderstem is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:07 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com