Jive Turkey
ONE love, blood, life
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2005
- Messages
- 13,645
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?