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

[Jive Turkey]

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?

 

[corianderstem]

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.

 

[Jive Turkey]

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

 

[corianderstem]

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

 

[AliEnvy]

From the OP article:

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.

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.

 

[corianderstem]

I know, that damn Mel. He crept back in even after I said he didn't belong here.

 

[AliEnvy]

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.

 

[corianderstem]

Sadly, I must agree.

 

[Liesje]

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....

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

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]

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?

 

[nathan1977]

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

 

[corianderstem]

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.

 

[maycocksean]

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.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

http://www.u2interference.com/forums/f290/empowering-the-sexist-pig-163095.html

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

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.

He just got engaged-to a CBS entertainment reporter

But don't expect it to be the usual union between husband and wife (and not just because of Joe's day job).

"We have chosen to have a civil domestic partnership because we don't believe it's appropriate to be married until our gay and lesbian friends are afforded the same rights as us to legally marry in the United States," the 37-year-old Francis told Page Six.

The couple first got together four years ago and have been dating pretty much ever since—with the exception of the porn king's one-year stint in the slammer in 2008 for failing to file tax returns, charges for which he pleaded guilty and eventually paid $250,000 in restitution.

McLarty, who once was an interviewer for E!'s Fashion File, is the niece of President Bill Clinton's former chief of staff, Mack McLarty. She also made headlines a while back for turning up on a Las Vegas stage wearing a racy showgirl outfit for a report on Sin City's steamy nightlife

Francis said the twosome are aiming to invite some 200 guests to the wedding, which will be held at the Girls' guru's luxury beachfront palace in Punta Mita, Mexico, sometime in September. And next door neighbor Quincy Jones has agreed to serve as his best man.

"This will be a nontraditional celebration of love, family and friends," said Francis.

By nontraditional, does he mean boobs, too?

Read more: http://www.eonline.com/uberblog/b188742_girls_guy_joe_francis_engaged.html#ixzz0uuI1ndQr

 

[corianderstem]

"We have chosen to have a civil domestic partnership because we don't believe it's appropriate to be married until our gay and lesbian friends are afforded the same rights as us to legally marry in the United States," the 37-year-old Francis told Page Six.

OH BITCH, PLEASE.

Who does he think he is, Brad Pitt?

Even a lovely sentiment coming from his mouth sounds smarmy. Fuck off, asswipe.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

Even a lovely sentiment coming from his mouth sounds smarmy. Fuck off, asswipe.

Personally I'm suspicious of that whole thing as it relates to marriage-coming from someone like him

 

[maycocksean]

OH BITCH, PLEASE.

Who does he think he is, Brad Pitt?

Even a lovely sentiment coming from his mouth sounds smarmy. Fuck off, asswipe.

Yep. What he really means is--"Since this isn't a real marriage I'll be able to continue rape inebriated young women without consequences."

 

[Chizip]

GGW puts up big signs saying by being present you are giving permission to being filmed.

In the video she pulled her shirt down halfway to expose cleavage, one of her girl friends reached in and pulled it down more, breaking the strap. She covered up quickly and it cut to another scene.

So she gave consent to being filmed, but not to having her top pulled down. GGW did the filming, her girl friend did the exposing. She has a case of sexual battery against her friend, but not for 5 million from GGW, unfortunately.

 

[corianderstem]

The more I read about this whole thing, the more I can see that side of the story from a legal standpoint.

My anger now is toward the people (including the jury, based on what the foreman said) who are still going with the whole "she asked for it" reasoning.

Guess what, world? If I consent to making out with you, that doesn't mean I'm automatically consenting to have sex with you.

If I consent to wriggling my cleavage at a camera, that doesn't mean I'm consenting to bare my breasts on camera.

Consent to one act does not mean consent to all acts.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

It doesn't? (sarcasm)

Maybe for some people it depends upon whether the woman is a "ho" or not-and well they make that determination. Consciously or not that could have existed in the minds of some of the jurors.