Sexual Assault or Implied Consent? St Louis jury says ...

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

corianderstem

Blue Crack Distributor
Joined
Dec 10, 2002
Messages
64,487
Location
Seattle
Mo. woman loses lawsuit over 'Girls Gone Wild’ video

A jury on Thursday rejected a young woman's claim that the producers of a "Girls Gone Wild" video damaged her reputation by showing her tank top being pulled down by another person in a Laclede's Landing bar.

A St. Louis Circuit Court jury deliberated 90 minutes before ruling against the woman, 26, on the third day of the trial. Lawyers on both sides argued the key issue was consent, with her side saying she absolutely refused to give it and the defense claiming she silently approved by taking part in the party.


Appalling. Appalling, appalling, appalling.

Hey, ladies, guess what? If you're dancing sexily, especially in front of a camera, you're asking to have your breasts exposed against your will! Doesn't matter if you say no. You know you want it, or else you wouldn't have gone there!

I'd say she consented to be on film dancing. She did not consent to have her breasts exposed and immortalized on film for Girls Gone Wild.

I'm disgusted by this jury.
 
So am I, cori.

It seems that our society still believes that if a woman was assaulted or harassed, she was asking for it. It's as if our society still has hang-ups over women's sexuality and women celebrating it. Meaning, "Oh no! She enjoys being sexual. Let's punish her!"
 
Would tend to agree, Cori. It seems to cross the line as regards consent, so it's a troubling decision in that sense.

Technology. Hmmm.
 
It doesn't say in the story (unless I missed it), but I'm assuming there were signs posted at the club that by entering, they consent to be filmed, as it was advertised as a GGW party.

However, I'd put good money on the guess that the signs didn't say you consent to have your breasts exposed against your will and put on film.
 
Perhaps then her case is against the person who pulled her shirt down and not the producers?
 
You mean as a next step? Or that it should have been against him (or her, I think it was another woman who did it, if I read correctly) to begin with?

I think she went after GGW because they were the ones profiting off it.
 
I mean in the beginning, but perhaps now as a next step. I dont think she consented with getting her shirt pulled down so much as 'you will be taped, we own the footage'. Not saying its a morally correct decision to put that footage on a DVD, but it would seem GGW would be in the clear. Why not go after the person that actually performed the assault though?
 
I dunno ... maybe they couldn't/can't identify that person? I do have a problem with that, though. GGW might own the footage, but if they're supposed to be getting actual consent in the guise of signed forms to have their breasts on film (which I believe has led to previous lawsuits and/or accusations against GGW), I'd say she was right to go after them, as she's clearly seen as saying "no" to showing her breasts earlier in the tape.

I'd start with GGW, though, just because Joe Francis is a gigantic asshole douchebag who needs as much shit thrown at him as possible.
 
I dunno ... maybe they couldn't/can't identify that person?

I'd start with GGW, though, just because Joe Francis is a gigantic asshole douchebag who needs as much shit thrown at him as possible.

Well, I'd agree that he's a huge sleazebag, but I think maybe this woman made a mistake in going after them in the first place. I know this is going to come off the wrong way, but I'd assume at least part of her decision had to do with GGW having a shit load of money. Seems like the most sensible approach would be to go after the perpetrator of the crime.

And on a side note, I think the best way to avoid damaging your reputation would be to not take part in a GGW filming at all :wink:
(That in no way is meant to be a 'well, she was there, she deserved it' statement)

I'm heading out to the bar now and hopefully will not have my nipples exposed by a third party :wave: .....possibly first party
 
I'd assume at least part of her decision had to do with GGW having a shit load of money.

Honestly, in this case, I don't really see anything wrong with that. Usually I'm against the notion of the "lawsuit-happy" America, but if someone was making money off of my breasts being exposed on DVD, and I didn't consent to that, you're damned right I'd go after justice in the hopes that I could have monetary compensation for my humiliation.

:shrug:

Oh, also, I don't think it was in this article, but I saw a comment elsewhere (cannot verify it, however) that the woman worked at the club, which would negate your statement about "just don't go." Again, I only saw that as a comment somewhere.
 
Logically, though, I would argue that at some indeterminate point in the future, it is probable that almost everyone will have their bits exposed on the internet sooner or later. That seems to be the way the technology seems to be trending. What was viewed as perverted, decadent, immoral 20 years ago is now just normal. We're just a higher form of animal, basically.
 
What was viewed as perverted, decadent, immoral 20 years ago is now just normal.

Not sure how to address the idea that we're all going to be nekkid on the internet one day, but re the above - I would state emphatically that "normal" still needs to include the person's consent.

The definitions of perverted, decadent and immoral have indeed changed, and I don't necessarily think there's anything wrong with that, but only when those things involve the consent of all parties.

Things occuring without the consent of all parties should remain flat-out wrong.
 
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...
 
Logically, though, I would argue that at some indeterminate point in the future, it is probable that almost everyone will have their bits exposed on the internet sooner or later. That seems to be the way the technology seems to be trending. What was viewed as perverted, decadent, immoral 20 years ago is now just normal. We're just a higher form of animal, basically.
I'd agree generally but I don't think we can justifiably say higher or lower when it comes to life.
 
Not sure how to address the idea that we're all going to be nekkid on the internet one day, but re the above - I would state emphatically that "normal" still needs to include the person's consent.

The definitions of perverted, decadent and immoral have indeed changed, and I don't necessarily think there's anything wrong with that, but only when those things involve the consent of all parties.

Things occuring without the consent of all parties should remain flat-out wrong.

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 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."
 
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
 
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.
 
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)
 
enhanced-buzz-17253-1278972715-22.jpg
 
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.
 
lol sorry, cori. Just pointing out that there's really no difference in the jury's decision and Mel's misogynist rants.
 
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.
 
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
 
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."
 
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.
 
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.
 
Back
Top Bottom