Sexual Assault or Implied Consent? St Louis jury says ... - Page 3 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind
Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 07-25-2010, 02:29 PM   #31
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Jive Turkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 13,646
Local Time: 05:14 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by corianderstem View Post

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."
oh, no no no no no. far from it. My point isnt that she consented to having her shirt pulled down, but rather that she consented to being filmed and that all the footage belongs to GGW. Whatever went on at the party and was caught on tape belongs to GGW. Thats my only point. Not that she was asking for it or anything along those lines.
As far as going after GGW, she was obviously free to go after whoever she wanted. I just meant that it was probably an error in judgment (and to be honest, I probably would've done the same). She consented to be filmed and it belongs to GGW. She didnt consent to having her shirt pulled down and her issue should be with the person who pulled her shirt down.

Does that make sense?
__________________

__________________
Jive Turkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2010, 02:35 PM   #32
Blue Crack Distributor
 
corianderstem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Seattle
Posts: 63,731
Local Time: 02:14 PM
I'm trying to find other articles I've read in the past about GGW playing pretty fast and loose with their definition of "consent," but all I'm finding are articles about this case.

From what I've read, GGW has a track record of this sort of thing. I would argue that yeah, that while I might be consenting to be on film doing my thing by being there, I would have thought there would be a whole other level of consent needed to display my bared breasts - maybe I'm misremembering how that all works.

Your line of reasoning just makes me really uncomfortable, because - and damn it, I'm back to Mel - there are too many people who start putting the victim in an unsympathetic light when money's involved.

As in "Yeah, that sucks, but she was wrong to go after them for money."

As in "Yeah, Mel's a dick, but Oksana's obviously just trying to go after him for money."

Please note, I don't think you're saying this at all - I understand what you're saying from a legal perspective, and obviously I'm very emotional about this. But there are people who think this way, so even going down that path just makes me a little squirmy.

I'd love to hear from anitram or anyone else who knows a bit more about the law when it comes to this case. Whether from a "consent" standpoint or from how the decision is made who to bring the suit against.
__________________

__________________
corianderstem is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2010, 02:48 PM   #33
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Jive Turkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 13,646
Local Time: 05:14 PM
I was probably wrong to bring up the money thing. I was just trying to figure out why she would go after the producers and not the shirt puller. And to be honest, I don't blame her for going that route. Like I said, I'd probably do the same. I feel bad for her.
I think the 'consent' that the jury is referring to is the consent to be filmed, not the consent to be sexually harassed. And in that case, I would have to agree with them (assuming of course that the party goers were, in fact, given prior knowledge of the filming). If the GGW producers are loosey goosey with their methods like you say, then maybe I'll change my tune. But at the heart of it, I'm on your side

That all being said, there are too many nice people in this thread that I dont want to risk offending, so I'm going to gracefully bow out
__________________
Jive Turkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2010, 02:57 PM   #34
Blue Crack Distributor
 
corianderstem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Seattle
Posts: 63,731
Local Time: 02:14 PM
For the record, I do understand what you're saying.

Maybe the jury's reasoning was even the same. But jesus, if that were the case, you'd think they'd have been a little more graceful about it, rather than coming across like a bunch of slut-shaming misogynists.

Here's some more examples of lawsuits. In the past, there've also been discussions/suits regarding consent given when the participants were intoxicated, which always gets to be a squishy area. The first discusses written consent - maybe it's a state-by-state determination, what consent actually entails?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1434324/posts

http://www.wjhg.com/home/headlines/16912976.html
__________________
corianderstem is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2010, 03:51 PM   #35
Refugee
 
AliEnvy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 2,320
Local Time: 10:14 PM
From the OP article:

Quote:
Stephen Evans of St. Louis, her lawyer, argued Thursday that Doe never gave consent — and even could be heard in original footage saying "no" when asked to show her breasts shortly before another woman suddenly pulled Doe's top down. Evans said the company usually gets women to sign consent forms or give verbal consent with cameras rolling.
JiveTurkey, going after the woman who pulled her shirt down for sexual assault and going after the producers for distributing the footage without her consent are completely separate actions.

Quote:
But Patrick O'Brien, the jury foreman, told a reporter later that an 11-member majority decided that Doe had in effect consented by being in the bar and dancing for the photographer. In a trial such as this one, agreement by nine of 12 jurors is enough for a verdict.

"Through her actions, she gave implied consent," O'Brien said. "She was really playing to the camera. She knew what she was doing."
If that's not comparable to Mel's comment, I don't know what is.
__________________
AliEnvy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2010, 03:55 PM   #36
Blue Crack Distributor
 
corianderstem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Seattle
Posts: 63,731
Local Time: 02:14 PM
I know, that damn Mel. He crept back in even after I said he didn't belong here.
__________________
corianderstem is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2010, 03:59 PM   #37
Refugee
 
AliEnvy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 2,320
Local Time: 10:14 PM
Except that he does belong here. His may have been a crazy, drunken rant, but blatant misogyny is more pervasive than we sometimes acknowledge or recognize.
__________________
AliEnvy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2010, 04:04 PM   #38
Blue Crack Distributor
 
corianderstem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Seattle
Posts: 63,731
Local Time: 02:14 PM
Sadly, I must agree.
__________________
corianderstem is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2010, 09:45 PM   #39
Blue Crack Addict
 
Liesje's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In the dog house
Posts: 19,557
Local Time: 05:14 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by corianderstem View Post
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 [...].
I agree, not the same. Just because things are the way Financeguy says they are does not mean someone can sexually harass me and expect me to be OK with it. I don't get why that would EVER be OK....
__________________
Liesje is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2010, 11:15 AM   #40
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,998
Local Time: 05:14 PM
So..if you go to Mardi Gras in NO, where it's a situation that some women will pull up their tops-it's implied consent if someone pulls your top up or down?
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2010, 11:19 AM   #41
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,998
Local Time: 05:14 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AliEnvy View Post
but blatant misogyny is more pervasive than we sometimes acknowledge or recognize.
Have to agree with that. Doesn't mean everyone is a misogynist obviously, but when it's blatant where's the speaking out against it?
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2010, 07:44 PM   #42
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Strong Badia
Posts: 3,430
Local Time: 10:14 PM
Joe Francis is the highest (or lowest) form of douche-bag I can think of.

Anyone would be wise to avoid him at all costs.

Joe Francis: 'Baby, give me a kiss' - latimes.com
__________________
nathan1977 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2010, 09:03 PM   #43
Blue Crack Distributor
 
corianderstem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Seattle
Posts: 63,731
Local Time: 02:14 PM
I was going to link to that article when I was browsing for GGW articles yesterday, but I got scatterbrained and forgot.

He is certainly a douchebag of the highest order.
__________________
corianderstem is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2010, 11:43 PM   #44
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 05:14 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathan1977 View Post
Joe Francis is the highest (or lowest) form of douche-bag I can think of.

Anyone would be wise to avoid him at all costs.

Joe Francis: 'Baby, give me a kiss' - latimes.com
And yet, how many of us would argue that pornography is "okay" and "normal" when this is the kind of asshole that is behind it.

I'm sorry, I don't get it.
__________________
maycocksean is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-27-2010, 12:51 PM   #45
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,998
Local Time: 05:14 PM
Empowering the Sexist Pig
__________________

__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline   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 05:14 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